ATF looking to reclassify projectiles

[AssMan]

At this point, I'd forget about buying the M855 and get some BA ASAP. For the price of a case, you can get a carrier and a couple of plates.

 

[Publius]

I agree with a few others who have brought up the issue of how the ATF could remove the M855 exemption it granted in 1986. I can see it being difficult to sue with an exemption in place because the party suing needs to show harm. But if the BATF removes the M855 exemption, banning it, I see grounds to sue.

My emphasis below:

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

To me the key word above is "entirely". The M855 (I will get to the M855A1 later) absolutely is not entirely made of one or a combination of the metals listed above. It has a steel tip but it also has a lead core. Lead is not listed above.

One may think I am stretching the imagination here by focusing on "entirely". But the BATF in its framework spends pages on "may be used". On the other hand the BATF does not spend a single paragraph on "entirely". If you search for "entirely" in the framework document, it shows up only once--where the document quotes 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i). Did the BATF just overlook the word or omit any analysis of it on purpose? My bet it is the latter. The BATF focused on what supported its initial intent and ignored that which went against it.

To me we do not even have to dwell on the sporting purposes exemption that the AG may provide under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The M855 does not fit 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i) to begin with.

M855A1 does not have a lead core. It uses copper instead of lead. But does anyone know whether that "copper" is beryllium copper or just copper? If it is just copper, it also would not fit 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i) because it is not entirely made of one or more of the metals listed there. I went through a Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition Systems ("PM MAS") presentation on the M855A1 but did not find the word beryllium at all.

PM MAS presentation on the M855A1 "Enhanced Performance Round": link

 

[Jimbob2.0]

At this point, I'd forget about buying the M855 and get some BA ASAP. For the price of a case, you can get a carrier and a couple of plates.

BA?

 

[YFallston]

Body armor

 

[Cyclone]

Is this still available to buy?

 

[toolness1]

When they say "open for comments", these are the comments they are asking for:

"ATF is specifically soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety."

HOW to ban it, not whether they should implement it or not.

But, I still wrote them...

 

[johnnyb2]

Its all a bunch of BS to me. I have read that it is about AR pistols, and velocities...well...how about .204 ruger, .243, .17 , .22-250 and a bunch of others. You can now make a AR in just about any of these, not sure about .22-250 as to its length, but, just a load of crap so they can F # #K with millions of shooters. IMHO anyways...CRAP!

 

[sonicnofadz]

I wonder if they will also ban reloading (manufacturing) new ammo with m855 projectiles as well?

 

[dbledoc]

Just stopped by Dick's glen burnie. They have plenty of AE M855. Limit 2 boxes at $74.99 for 150. If you have the coupon it is $49.98.

 

[Tyeraxus]

With the Koch brothers kicking in $900 million in this next campaign, if one of their favorites (e.g. Scott Walker) gets in, you bet that gov't overreach and overregulation will be on the chopping blocks through rifs.

I'd argue that RIFs aren't the way to scale back overreach, but repealing/re-writing regulation. From my perspective, what I do and don't do when dealing with the regs isn't driven by how many people work at <Agency>, but by what GC says is within the letter of the reg itself. For example, if I didn't have an SBAPCR assigned to my shop, I'd still have to do all the small business stuff, because the regs say so.

 

[tomandjerry00]

If this is banned, can I still reload it legally for my personal use? Sorry for my ignorance...

And, take the time to submit a comment!! I work for a trade association (I'm not a lobbyist though) and when the government gets flooded with negative comments, it catches their attention. So take the 5 minutes and do it. NOW!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyeraxus]

If this is banned, can I still reload it legally for my personal use? Sorry for my ignorance...

IIRC, the law bans "manufacture" of AP ammo by any "person." So if M855 is classified as AP, then no, you wouldn't be able to legally "roll your own."

EDIT to avoid a double-post: Does anybody have a link or source to an official cutaway for M855 showing the lead/steel difference? I'd like to submit a comment that refers to actual official DoD spec if possible.

 

[danb]

I have only seen unofficial cutaways. I'd like to see the ATF 1986 exemption text as well. Does it rely entirely on the sporting use exemption, or does it speak to the actual bullet design?

Actually, steel "core" is a misnomer; the steel in M855 isn't at the core so much as at the front.

 

[trailman]

A successful M855 ban will set a precedent for future similar bans, and they don't have to be logical - and they don't have to make sense. Most of these regulations are written by people who know nothing about firearms, let alone have ever actually seen, held, or fired one in person. They also believe they have nothing to fear from the "system", because they are the system.

I think you underestimate what goes on. These people know full well what they are doing. The Lois Lerners know what the deal is and they do what they do because they can.

Thats the problem with fighting a defensive action against all this shit from day to say. FSA2013, HA! take us a week to pass it and the victims years to unravel it in courts. People like this know full well that what they are doing is BS but they don't care. How many people has the ATF killed? Businesses and lives destroyed? THere are credible reports that the actions taken by Lerner and her team at the IRS may have thrown the Election by cracking down on rigth leaning advocacy groups.

The ATF? Disrupt the Ammunition market again now that most of the election furor has died down and manufacturers are catching up. Pave the way for more widespread bans on ammunition.

I'm waiting on the EPA ban on importing lead containing ammo.

 

[Shoobedoo]

IIRC, the law bans "manufacture" of AP ammo by any "person." So if M855 is classified as AP, then no, you wouldn't be able to legally "roll your own."
EDIT to avoid a double-post: Does anybody have a link or source to an official cutaway for M855 showing the lead/steel difference? I'd like to submit a comment that refers to actual official DoD spec if possible.

Are you sure about that..?? "Manufacturing" by the ATF's definition is a very specific concept, it means you are in the "Business" (this is a very important distinction) of producing something for commercial sale to the public, and I don't believe that handloading ammunition at home for your own personal use was ever, or is currently considered "manufacturing" by BATF.

The other thing to consider is that if this "ban" goes thru and handloading a "prohibited" projectile is in fact illegal, does it apply retroactively..?? That is to say any ammo you reloaded with said banned projectile before the law went in to effect is now illegal to possess or shoot.??

This could be kind of "iffy" if you are a handloader who has cranked out a bunch of ammo with M855 bullets prior to this law going in to effect, or if you've got several thousand bulk M855 bullets you planned to reload for personal use in the future.

It also raises the question of the legality of "post ban" possession of commercially manufactured M855/or SS109 type ammo.

 

[fidelity]

Not yet. If you read the ATF memo, they say that they want to avoid making criminals of those already in possession of M855, but ban further sales. Obviously, they could revise this opinion in the future too, but it's much easier for them to move forward with current rules reinterpretation without creating millions of new law breakers in the US.

 

[danb]

It also raises the question of the legality of "post ban" possession of commercially manufactured M855/or SS109 type ammo.

I believe that the memo specifically addresses that: post-ban possession is not illegal.

Seems to me the ban applies to the bullets not loaded cartridges. It only applies to loaded cartridges to the extent they contain the banned bullets. "armor piercing ammunition" in the statute refers to the projectile. Seems to me, if you possess the bullets, you can reload them. You could not manufacture AP bullets themselves.

 

[fidelity]

I'd argue that RIFs aren't the way to scale back overreach, but repealing/re-writing regulation. From my perspective, what I do and don't do when dealing with the regs isn't driven by how many people work at , but by what GC says is within the letter of the reg itself. For example, if I didn't have an SBAPCR assigned to my shop, I'd still have to do all the small business stuff, because the regs say so.

Repeal is best, but RIFs are a start and send a message to those who engage in adventuresome pursuits to re-interpret regs to curtail liberties. Fire those involved in this process; fire those involved in enforcing it.

New leadership at ATF, if under a future Republican administration, would also presumably be able to fix this M855 silliness as it has to be political in origin as there are no data to support any argument that these rounds are more AP than other 5.56 bullets and no evidence that these rounds have been used to specifically target law enforcement to defeat armor.

I really wonder if this is Obama's back door method to get an indirect AR-15 weapons ban by banning the ammo used by it, starting with M855. Then he can tell the SH parents that he did something. Also wonder if the SH elementary school killer (who doesn't deserve to be named) used M855 so there is symbolism in the ban once it is effected.

 

[BenL]

This seems like a very win-able lawsuit in the making. They cannot manufacture law.

 

[trailman]

This seems like a very win-able lawsuit in the making. They cannot manufacture law.

But they can. This is adminstrative law. Same as the affordable health care act, the EPA, IRS etc etc.

Like in the ACA, the Secretary of Health and Human services will develop regulations to enable or stop or whatever X. Boom, a bunch of bureaucrats are in the lawmaking business, defered to by Congress.