Given that I put the "pro" in procrastinate, waiting to submit my comment on the ATF Framework (and M855 ban) until the last day is par for the course. While I have submitted other comments using some of the comment generators, I really wanted to submit a fairly comprehensive comment as to why the ATF Framework was flawed. My comment is a mixture of original research along with some good research done by others.
The BATFE is accepting comments through the close of business today. While they have decided to punt a final decision until a later date and have suspended the ban on the M855 bullet for now, I thought it was important to get this on record. Below is my comment which I submitted by fax just a few minutes ago.
I do plan to send copies of this comment to Senators Burr and Tillis and to Rep. McHenry. I am pleased to note that all three signed the Congressional letters to the BATFE demanding an end to a potential ban on the M855 bullet and cartridge.
15 March 2015Denise BrownEnforcement Programs and ServicesOffice of Regulatory AffairsBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives99 New York Ave. NEWashington, DC 20226By fax: 202-648-9741Dear Ms. Brown:I am writing in response to your solicitation of comments regarding the proposed ATF Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles Are “Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes” Within the Meaning of 18 USC 921(a)(17)(C). Specifically, your agency requested comments regarding how it best can implement the withdrawal of the exemption for M855/SS109 ammunition while minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety.While I am pleased that your agency has decided to back down from this proposal to ban M855/SS109 ammunition for now, I would still like to make my opinion known in the event that your agency revives this proposal and framework.The ATF Framework states that M855/SS109 ammunition was previously “not classified as ‘armor piercing’ under the statute because there no handguns that could ‘use’ it.” (p. 6) This statement by ATF is erroneous. Prior to the passage of the LEOPA and the granting in 1986 of an exemption from classification as armor piercing to M855/SS109 projectiles, there was in fact a semi-automatic handgun that did fire the 5.56x45 cartridge. This was the Bushmaster Armpistol introduced by Gwinn Firearms Company in 1977. After the purchase of Gwinn Firearms Company by Bushmaster, it was continually made up through 1990. This pistol used standard M16/AR-15 magazines much like the more modern AR-15 pistols do today. Photos of the Bushmaster Armpistol may be seen on the Internet at http://www.biggerhammer.net/armpistol/variants.html.Furthermore, BATFE does not have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of M855 cartridges under 18 USC 921(a)(17)(B) regardless of any “sporting purpose” determination made by the Attorney General under 18 USC 921(a)(17)(C). Nor does the BATFE have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution of NATO STANAG 4172 specification cartridges (SS109) under under 18 USC 921(a)(17)(B). The statutory language of under 18 USC 921(a)(17)(B) defines armor piercing projectiles as follows:(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.The projectile specified in M855 specification ammunition, US Army TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9342869, has a combined steel and lead core. 18 USC 921(a)(17(B)i specifies that the core must be constructed entirely of one of the specified substances. M855/SS109 projectiles fail this test.Continuing, 18 USC 921(a)(17)(B)ii states that the projectile must be “larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun”. Again, the M855/SS109 specification ammunition fails this test as a) the projectile is not larger than .22 caliber; b) MIL-C-63989C (AR), the US Army specification covering M855 cartridges does not mention handguns as a use for which the cartridge was intended; and c) the gas port pressures requirements established in Section 3.10.3 of MIL-C-63989C (AR) constructively exclude the “AR Type handguns” cited in the ATF Framework as an application for M855 cartridges.
The sporting purposes exemption given to M855/SS109 based cartridges in 1986 was made in error. They were not then nor are they now what can be classified as “armor piercing”. As such, no exemption for sporting purposes was even needed. I will leave it to the BATFE to determine the historical rationale for this superfluous action.
BATFE Director Jones in his recent Congressional testimony has expressed concern about the ability of any 5.56x45 bullet to penetrate soft body armor. Virtually all center-fire rifle cartridges used in hunting and target shooting will penetrate soft body armor which was only designed to stop pistol caliber bullets. 5.56 bullets and especially M855/SS109 bullets are no more amenable to misuse by criminals than any other rifle cartridge. I would ask that BATFE permanently retract their proposal to ban M855/SS109 based ammunition.
Finally, your intended framework for future determinations of “sporting use” regarding ammunition that can be used in handguns is flawed. Under Category II, the BATFE states that the presumption that a cartridge is “primarily intended for sporting uses” only applies to those cartridges for which the only handgun readily available is a single shot handgun (bolt or break-open). There currently exist revolvers readily available that chamber such cartridges as the .30 Carbine, the .30-30 Winchester, and the .45-70. These revolvers are large, heavy, can mount scopes, and are intended primarily for the sporting purpose of hunting and target shooting. To presume that a revolver weighing five pounds has anything other than a sporting purpose is, to be blunt, ridiculous.Thank you for consideration of my comments.Sincerely,
John P. Richardson