ATF: Reclassification of M855/SS109 ammo as armor-piercing - Page 3

Jo6pak · February 18, 2015, 10:45 PM

Very good points Bart.

We can also contact our representatives to pressure the BATFE to reverse this ruling.
When contacting your congressional representative, suggest that this is not only a gun issue but an issue of a bureaucratic agency overstepping the intent of a law passed by congress; which in turn is circumventing the legislative process and basically "making up laws" as they go.
This issue, like the 7N6 ban should be dealt with by our elected representatives, NOT by faceless bureaucrats that have not been elected by the American public.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 19, 2015, 09:27 AM

I should also note that VCDL has accused the BATF of making it more difficult to comment on this and excluding comments. Please note that if you do not include all the information requested (name, address, etc.) and formatted in the way ATF requested (see the last page of the memo), ATF may disregard the comments you make.

Mosin-Marauder · February 19, 2015, 09:41 AM

I worry if this is going to be like the 7N6 fiasco where they just ignored any comments and petitions. Surely this has raised more concern and unrest due to the sheer amount of people that shoot this round and even don't shoot this round, don't you think?

Bartholomew Roberts · February 19, 2015, 12:22 PM

ATF appears to be taking the position that they have already solicited all the commentary they need on what rounds should receive a sporting purposes exemption and are trying to sidestep the issue by framing this as commentary on how to best implement the proposed framework.

Clearly, by declaring that they will remove a 30 year old exemption for M855, they are going to draw a lot more heat than 7n6. ATF as much as says in their memo that they are going to get sued over this. They may even be trying to use M855 as leverage - threaten to withdraw the exemption to get people riled up, "give in" by allowing a continued exemption for M855; but still keep a proposed framework which establishes some disturbing regulatory concepts (such as "Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes.")

Ultimately, Congress has to define "sporting purposes" because as it is now, that definition is left solely to the Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Director of ATF. That opens the process to way too much abuse as you can see.

maestro pistolero · February 19, 2015, 01:51 PM

If the question is "What is the primary and actual type of use for this round in civilian hands", the answer is sporting at a probable rate of very close to 100 percent.

I am aware of no criminal uses of this round, and certainly there can be none that would not have readily been accomplished with nearly any other round.

it is astonishing that the BATF believes it has the luxury of resources to devote to this foolishness, while known criminal uses of firearms in inner city drug and gang activity continues with near impunity.

Once again the government directs firearms enforcement in a manner that primarily targets only the law abiding. Measures like this are the antitheses of narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest.

It instead targets everyone on the slim chance that someone might misuse this ammunition.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 19, 2015, 04:27 PM

Well, translated from idiot aparatchiki, the ATF's reasoning goes like this:

1. "Suitable sporting purpose" only means those firearms sports that existed and were popular in the United States in 1968 to include skeet, trap, hunting and competitive target shooting.

2. "Primarily intended" is an objective test based on the likely use of a product rather than the designer's intent or the intent of a single criminal user.

3. Semi-automatic handguns, revolvers and two-shot derringers have no sporting purpose.

4. You can infer the primary intent of a cartridge by what firearm it can be used in - if even one of those firearms is a semi-automatic handguns, revolver, or two-shot derringer, then the primary intent is clearly non-sporting.

When you start reading the argument on a point-by-point base, the amount of stupidity is almost overwhelming. There is so much wrong with it that it is like eating an elephant to address every backward, confused idea in the memo.

**44 AMP** · February 19, 2015, 09:14 PM

Quote:

while known criminal uses of firearms in inner city drug and gang activity continues with near impunity.

While I HATE to defend the ATF in any way, I must point out that this is generally outside their jurisdiction.

They love to split hairs, and so, in fairness, we must do the same. Criminal possession by inner city drug and gangs might be within their purview, (trafficking illegal sales, etc.), but the actual criminal use of firearms (murder, assault, ) are purely local matters.

Also, I must have missed the memo, could someone catch me up on what the "7N6 fiasco" is/was? (PM is fine)

Mosin-Marauder · February 19, 2015, 09:54 PM

Falsely banning 7N6 for the same reason as this. Except, 7N6 doesn't even have a penetrator core, and XM855 does, both are false rounds to ban. It's like banning 7.62x54R light ball because it has a steel core. Chamber a handgun in a round that is "armor piercing" even if it's not, and the ATF gets all Ban Crazy.

Mild Steel does not = AP.

It's a substitution for Lead in combloc countries.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 19, 2015, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Also, I must have missed the memo, could someone catch me up on what the "7N6 fiasco" is/was? (PM is fine)

7n6 was surplused Russian ammo in 5.45x39. It had a substantial steel component (compared to M855) with some lead filler and jacket material. However, it was dirt cheap for a long time. Then someone decided to offer a pistol in 5.45 and ATF cut off importation of the ammo based on 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(17).

However, while it had a substantially larger steel core than M855, it also did not have a core that was "entirely" made of steel.

One of the common themes with this and other ATF decisions, is that there are many terms in statute that Congress did not define, and as a result, ATF is free to apply a "reasonable" interpretation to those terms. Sadly, the practical result has been that ATF has defined a "core" as being some subset of the actual projectile so that any amount of prohibited metal may or may not constitute a "core" as ATF sees it.

Whereas, most of us, being normal English-speaking types, when we see the words "a core ENTIRELY constructed of..." assume that it means that everything but the jacket must be constructed of the prohibited material.

Ultimately, ATF has a huge stick to beat us with re: sporting purposes, and under this Administration, they will beat us with that stick. Congress can take action to remedy this; but unless they can get the President to sign off on it or muster enough votes to override a veto (and either one of those options probably involves making compromises that make Sophie's choice look mild), then nothing can happen until after 2016 (and even then, we need to hold the House, Senate and put someone in the Presidency who is actually sympathetic to us).

The other option is a court fight, which will take millions of dollars and years if it goes well.

**44 AMP** · February 20, 2015, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Hello,

As some of you may have seen in the recent week, the ATF proposed a ban on the sale and manufacture of XM855 surplus ammunition Claiming ,falsely, that this is an Armor piercing round for handguns.

Over at another forum I am a member of, a fellow member created an easy way of contacting the ATF on this issue. It provides Three different templates of letters and you only have to sign your name and state of residence at the bottom.

Here is the link to the website.

http://www.savem855.com/Default.aspx

A petition has also been started on this, and at 100,000 signatures it will be addressed by the Obama administration. Here is the link to it.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ition/XrvVh1cj

There are also a few videos on YouTube explaining just what is going on here, I suggest those be watched if you need information.

You can also read these articles written about this issue.

NRA-ILA

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...mon-ar-15-ammo

TTAG
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...56-ammunition/

And the ATF's Original Letter about this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...bqRXlWQKprJoUw

I urge you to share this information and contact your state regarding your opinion on this issue.

Thank you.

-Mo.

This post was moved, with permission, from a now closed thread. I felt it worthwhile to have the info about the links here.

Bpcurious · February 21, 2015, 11:26 AM

Here's another group sending physical letters to the ATF:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/f...-atf-ammo-ban/

alan · February 23, 2015, 08:30 PM

1. M855 ammunition has been around for quite a while, nothing new here.
2. As I understand things, there was never any problem with M855 ammunition being "armor piercing", it was recognized as not being armor piercing. That was before Obama-Holder.
3. What has changed? The Obama-Holder axis is bound and determined to create as many problems as possible for gun owners and shooters as they can.
4. Therefore, the BATFE comes up with current foolishness, their proposed banning of M855 ammunition, simply another step toward the Holder-Obama Anti Gun Rights Nirvana, as I see it.
5. The Public Comment Period on this BATFE proposal runs till mid March, I don't recall the exact date. Seems like there is adequate time for "our side" to make their voices heard. By the way, comment opposing this latest anti gun stunt addressed to your U.S. Senators and Congress Person would likely be worth the effort too. Ladies and gentlemen, the rest is in your hands.

alan · February 23, 2015, 11:46 PM

44AMP:

Re your post #60, clicking on the following link, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ition/XrvVh1cj, elicits the following "reply", 404 Page Not Found. Any ideas??

Mosin-Marauder · February 23, 2015, 11:52 PM

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ition/XrvVh1cj

**44 AMP** · February 24, 2015, 03:26 AM

Alan, the link you tried got me to the site, which said page may have been moved.

The link Mosin-Marauder gives in post 64 worked when I tried it.

Kimio · February 24, 2015, 12:23 PM

Out of curiosity from a legal stand point, do we, the gun community, have any real chance of preventing this from going through?

Like the SB15 brace letter, neither are effectively a law if I'm not mistaken.

**Tom Servo** · February 24, 2015, 01:15 PM

The whitehouse.gov petitions are nothing more than bread and circuses. I have never heard about any sort of legislative change coming as a result of one.

Their purpose seems to be to distract people from real action. There's a link in the ATF proposal for submitting comments. That's where we need to be directing our efforts.

Mosin-Marauder · February 25, 2015, 02:12 PM

Does anyone know if they've changed their minds on this? Or any updates? Do you think they are likely to change their minds? With all the comments and everything?

Bartholomew Roberts · February 25, 2015, 06:09 PM

I think there are significant legal aspects of this that ATF has not considered. Having said that, their proposed framework is a joke that is geared towards banning the maximum amount of ammo possible - so given they drafted it that broadly and they are willing to undo a 30 year precedent for no increase in officer safety, I'm feeling skeptical about ATF reconsidering this bad idea.

Mosin-Marauder · February 25, 2015, 06:56 PM

Is it likely for this ban to go through? Could congress not stop this? Surely to goodness someone up there has some plan of stopping it with all the negative comments on this and the petitions and stuff along with thousands of letters?

amd6547 · February 25, 2015, 07:20 PM

30 years ago, a lot of cops didn't even wear body armor...

alan · February 25, 2015, 10:00 PM

In his post #54 Bartholomew Roberts notes:

Ultimately, Congress has to define "sporting purposes" because as it is now, that definition is left solely to the Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Director of ATF. That opens the process to way too much abuse as you can see.

That sounds right on to me, for the present situation just begs for abuse, which it gets, the abuse being ongoing.The question is, how do we get The Congress to do it's job, which is NOT passing it's legislative responsibilities to either a faceless bureaucrat or some political appointee.

In post #59 Bartholomew Roberts, all to correctly notes in part:

Ultimately, ATF has a huge stick to beat us with re: sporting purposes, and under this Administration, they will beat us with that stick.

By the way, is "sporting purposes" or "readily adaptable there to" anywhere in the law actually defined?

Bartholomew Roberts · February 25, 2015, 10:14 PM

Latest NRA-ILA Alert:

NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
Stop ATF's Ammo Ban: Urge Your U.S. Representative to Sign Congressional Letter to ATF on Proposed Ammo Ban

As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples.

In an effort to thwart BATFE's attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers' opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link.

According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for the B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law.

NRA will also be submitting its own detailed comments to BATFE in opposition to the ban and is continuing to work with Members of Congress on legislation that will put a stop to this abuse.

In the meantime, gun owners and other affected members of the public must act now to help ensure BATFE does not get away with this attempt to deprive Americans of ammunition for their favorite rifle and to squeeze ammunition markets between converging bans on both lead and non-lead ammunition. BATFE is accepting comments on their proposed ban and will consider all comments received on or before March 16, 2015.

Please be sure to submit your respectful comments in opposition to the ban. For more detailed information on the proposed ban and how you can submit your comments to BATFE, please click this link.

Finally, please contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to sign Rep. Goodlatte's letter and to oppose BATFE's proposed "armor piercing" ammunition Framework. To contact them by phone, call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or CLICK HERE TO WRITE YOUR LAWMAKERS.

NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
FOLLOW NRA-ILA
FacebookTwitterYouTubeInstagram
© 2014 National Rifle Association of America, Institute For Legislative Action. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 25, 2015, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan

Ultimately, Congress has to define "sporting purposes" because as it is now, that definition is left solely to the Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Director of ATF. That opens the process to way too much abuse as you can see.

All too true. IRRC, the following are NOT considered to be "sporting purposes":

IPSC/USPSA
IDPA
Cowboy Action Shooting
Three Gun
Sporting Clays

There are probably a few others I missed. "Sporting purposes" seems to mean bullseye and benchrest shooting, and not a lot else. So, just as the .gov is doing its best to outlaw the most popular rifle platform in the U.S. (the AR-15), they are also ignoring several of the most popular shooting sports by not classifying them as sports.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 26, 2015, 07:52 AM

According to this memo, ATF takes the position that "sporting purposes" means only those shooting sports that were widely popular in 1968 when the GCA was adopted. Ergo, shooting sports like IPSC are not and can never be "sporting purposes" no matter how popular they become (in ATF's view).

February 18, 2015, 10:45 PM	#51
Jo6pak Senior Member Join Date: August 5, 2010 Location: West Coast...of WI Posts: 1,663	Very good points Bart. We can also contact our representatives to pressure the BATFE to reverse this ruling. When contacting your congressional representative, suggest that this is not only a gun issue but an issue of a bureaucratic agency overstepping the intent of a law passed by congress; which in turn is circumventing the legislative process and basically "making up laws" as they go. This issue, like the 7N6 ban should be dealt with by our elected representatives, NOT by faceless bureaucrats that have not been elected by the American public. __________________ NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.

February 19, 2015, 09:41 AM	#53
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	I worry if this is going to be like the 7N6 fiasco where they just ignored any comments and petitions. Surely this has raised more concern and unrest due to the sheer amount of people that shoot this round and even don't shoot this round, don't you think? __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

February 19, 2015, 09:54 PM	#58
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	Falsely banning 7N6 for the same reason as this. Except, 7N6 doesn't even have a penetrator core, and XM855 does, both are false rounds to ban. It's like banning 7.62x54R light ball because it has a steel core. Chamber a handgun in a round that is "armor piercing" even if it's not, and the ATF gets all Ban Crazy. Mild Steel does not = AP. It's a substitution for Lead in combloc countries. __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

February 23, 2015, 08:30 PM	#62
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Re the latest from BATFE, the banning of M855 ammunition 1. M855 ammunition has been around for quite a while, nothing new here. 2. As I understand things, there was never any problem with M855 ammunition being "armor piercing", it was recognized as not being armor piercing. That was before Obama-Holder. 3. What has changed? The Obama-Holder axis is bound and determined to create as many problems as possible for gun owners and shooters as they can. 4. Therefore, the BATFE comes up with current foolishness, their proposed banning of M855 ammunition, simply another step toward the Holder-Obama Anti Gun Rights Nirvana, as I see it. 5. The Public Comment Period on this BATFE proposal runs till mid March, I don't recall the exact date. Seems like there is adequate time for "our side" to make their voices heard. By the way, comment opposing this latest anti gun stunt addressed to your U.S. Senators and Congress Person would likely be worth the effort too. Ladies and gentlemen, the rest is in your hands.

February 23, 2015, 11:52 PM	#64
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ition/XrvVh1cj __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

February 19, 2015, 09:27 AM	#52
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	I should also note that VCDL has accused the BATF of making it more difficult to comment on this and excluding comments. Please note that if you do not include all the information requested (name, address, etc.) and formatted in the way ATF requested (see the last page of the memo), ATF may disregard the comments you make.

February 19, 2015, 12:22 PM	#54
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	ATF appears to be taking the position that they have already solicited all the commentary they need on what rounds should receive a sporting purposes exemption and are trying to sidestep the issue by framing this as commentary on how to best implement the proposed framework. Clearly, by declaring that they will remove a 30 year old exemption for M855, they are going to draw a lot more heat than 7n6. ATF as much as says in their memo that they are going to get sued over this. They may even be trying to use M855 as leverage - threaten to withdraw the exemption to get people riled up, "give in" by allowing a continued exemption for M855; but still keep a proposed framework which establishes some disturbing regulatory concepts (such as "Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes.") Ultimately, Congress has to define "sporting purposes" because as it is now, that definition is left solely to the Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Director of ATF. That opens the process to way too much abuse as you can see.

February 19, 2015, 01:51 PM	#55
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	If the question is "What is the primary and actual type of use for this round in civilian hands", the answer is sporting at a probable rate of very close to 100 percent. I am aware of no criminal uses of this round, and certainly there can be none that would not have readily been accomplished with nearly any other round. it is astonishing that the BATF believes it has the luxury of resources to devote to this foolishness, while known criminal uses of firearms in inner city drug and gang activity continues with near impunity. Once again the government directs firearms enforcement in a manner that primarily targets only the law abiding. Measures like this are the antitheses of narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest. It instead targets everyone on the slim chance that someone might misuse this ammunition.

February 19, 2015, 04:27 PM	#56
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Well, translated from idiot aparatchiki, the ATF's reasoning goes like this: 1. "Suitable sporting purpose" only means those firearms sports that existed and were popular in the United States in 1968 to include skeet, trap, hunting and competitive target shooting. 2. "Primarily intended" is an objective test based on the likely use of a product rather than the designer's intent or the intent of a single criminal user. 3. Semi-automatic handguns, revolvers and two-shot derringers have no sporting purpose. 4. You can infer the primary intent of a cartridge by what firearm it can be used in - if even one of those firearms is a semi-automatic handguns, revolver, or two-shot derringer, then the primary intent is clearly non-sporting. When you start reading the argument on a point-by-point base, the amount of stupidity is almost overwhelming. There is so much wrong with it that it is like eating an elephant to address every backward, confused idea in the memo.

February 21, 2015, 11:26 AM	#61
Bpcurious Member Join Date: October 4, 2014 Posts: 50	Here's another group sending physical letters to the ATF: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/f...-atf-ammo-ban/

February 23, 2015, 11:46 PM	#63
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	44AMP: Re your post #60, clicking on the following link, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ition/XrvVh1cj, elicits the following "reply", 404 Page Not Found. Any ideas??

February 24, 2015, 03:26 AM	#65
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,817	Alan, the link you tried got me to the site, which said page may have been moved. The link Mosin-Marauder gives in post 64 worked when I tried it. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

February 24, 2015, 12:23 PM	#66
Kimio Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2011 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,171	Out of curiosity from a legal stand point, do we, the gun community, have any real chance of preventing this from going through? Like the SB15 brace letter, neither are effectively a law if I'm not mistaken.

February 24, 2015, 01:15 PM	#67
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	The whitehouse.gov petitions are nothing more than bread and circuses. I have never heard about any sort of legislative change coming as a result of one. Their purpose seems to be to distract people from real action. There's a link in the ATF proposal for submitting comments. That's where we need to be directing our efforts. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

February 25, 2015, 02:12 PM	#68
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	Does anyone know if they've changed their minds on this? Or any updates? Do you think they are likely to change their minds? With all the comments and everything? __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

February 25, 2015, 06:09 PM	#69
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	I think there are significant legal aspects of this that ATF has not considered. Having said that, their proposed framework is a joke that is geared towards banning the maximum amount of ammo possible - so given they drafted it that broadly and they are willing to undo a 30 year precedent for no increase in officer safety, I'm feeling skeptical about ATF reconsidering this bad idea.

February 25, 2015, 06:56 PM	#70
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	Is it likely for this ban to go through? Could congress not stop this? Surely to goodness someone up there has some plan of stopping it with all the negative comments on this and the petitions and stuff along with thousands of letters? __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

February 25, 2015, 07:20 PM	#71
amd6547 Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Posts: 2,313	30 years ago, a lot of cops didn't even wear body armor... __________________ The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now.

February 25, 2015, 10:00 PM	#72
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	In his post #54 Bartholomew Roberts notes: Ultimately, Congress has to define "sporting purposes" because as it is now, that definition is left solely to the Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Director of ATF. That opens the process to way too much abuse as you can see. That sounds right on to me, for the present situation just begs for abuse, which it gets, the abuse being ongoing.The question is, how do we get The Congress to do it's job, which is NOT passing it's legislative responsibilities to either a faceless bureaucrat or some political appointee. In post #59 Bartholomew Roberts, all to correctly notes in part: Ultimately, ATF has a huge stick to beat us with re: sporting purposes, and under this Administration, they will beat us with that stick. By the way, is "sporting purposes" or "readily adaptable there to" anywhere in the law actually defined? Last edited by alan; February 25, 2015 at 10:16 PM.

February 25, 2015, 10:14 PM	#73
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Latest NRA-ILA Alert: NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action Stop ATF's Ammo Ban: Urge Your U.S. Representative to Sign Congressional Letter to ATF on Proposed Ammo Ban As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples. In an effort to thwart BATFE's attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers' opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link. According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for the B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law. NRA will also be submitting its own detailed comments to BATFE in opposition to the ban and is continuing to work with Members of Congress on legislation that will put a stop to this abuse. In the meantime, gun owners and other affected members of the public must act now to help ensure BATFE does not get away with this attempt to deprive Americans of ammunition for their favorite rifle and to squeeze ammunition markets between converging bans on both lead and non-lead ammunition. BATFE is accepting comments on their proposed ban and will consider all comments received on or before March 16, 2015. Please be sure to submit your respectful comments in opposition to the ban. For more detailed information on the proposed ban and how you can submit your comments to BATFE, please click this link. Finally, please contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to sign Rep. Goodlatte's letter and to oppose BATFE's proposed "armor piercing" ammunition Framework. To contact them by phone, call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or CLICK HERE TO WRITE YOUR LAWMAKERS. NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action FOLLOW NRA-ILA FacebookTwitterYouTubeInstagram © 2014 National Rifle Association of America, Institute For Legislative Action. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030.

February 26, 2015, 07:52 AM	#75
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	According to this memo, ATF takes the position that "sporting purposes" means only those shooting sports that were widely popular in 1968 when the GCA was adopted. Ergo, shooting sports like IPSC are not and can never be "sporting purposes" no matter how popular they become (in ATF's view).