BATFE Taking Comments on "Sporting Purposes" Exemption to "Armor Piercing Ammunition" Law Until Dec. 31

[JohnC]

BATFE Taking Comments on "Sporting Purposes" Exemption to "Armor Piercing Ammunition" Law Until Dec. 31

[quote]
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is taking public comments on its website until December 31, with regard to how it should determine what types of projectiles meet the "sporting purposes" exception to the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law. At this time, the question centers primarily around rifle-caliber projectiles made of metals harder than lead, such as the Barnes Bullets solid brass hunting bullets.

Under the law, adopted in 1986, "armor piercing ammunition" is defined as "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." A second definition, added in the 1990s, includes "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."

Because handguns have been made in certain rifle calibers, many bullets that were designed originally for rifles also "may be used in a handgun." If such projectiles are made of the metals listed in the law, they are restricted as "armor piercing ammunition" unless they meet one of the law's exemptions. Being considered at this time is the exemption for "a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."

Last week, BATFE met separately with gun control activist groups, firearm industry groups, and groups representing hunters and other gun owners. The latter meeting included the NRA; Safari Club International; representatives of state wildlife agencies; and firearm and ammunition importers.

BATFE has expressed two opinions about the law and exemption that warrant particular scrutiny.

First, BATFE suggested that it believes that the "armor piercing ammunition" law was intended to affect all ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor worn by law enforcement officers. NRA reminded BATFE that the law was intended to protect law enforcement officers against the potential threat posed a very narrowly-defined category of projectiles: those, such as KTW and Arcane, which by virtue of their hard metal construction were designed and intended to be used by law enforcement officers to shoot through hard objects, such as automobile glass and doors, when fired at the velocities typical of handgun-caliber ammunition fired from handguns. Neither before nor since the law's enactment, has an officer been killed due to such a bullet penetrating soft body armor.

NRA further pointed out that the legislative history of the law clearly shows that members of Congress, including the sponsor of the law in the House, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), a decorated former NYPD police officer, expressly did not want the law to restrict rifle-caliber bullets that happen to also be useable in handguns chambered to use rifle cartridges.

Second, BATFE says it considers projectiles to not be exempt under the "sporting purposes" test if they "pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement." BATFE also expressed concern that since the law was adopted, various new rifle-caliber handguns have been invented. On that point, NRA made clear that the sporting purposes exemption is straightforward: it applies to all projectiles that are "primarily intended for sporting purposes"--nothing more, and nothing less. Under the law, a projectile would be exempt if it is primarily intended for sporting purposes, even if it is secondarily intended for self-defense or some other legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the law does not condition its restrictive language or its "sporting purposes" exemption on the design of a particular handgun; the law is concerned only with specific projectiles that can be used in handguns. NRA cautioned the BATFE against interpreting the law in a manner more restrictive than Congress intended.

For more information on ATF's position and information on how to submit comments by the Dec. 31 deadline, go to www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/.

[/quote]

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/batfe-taking-comments-on-sporting-purposes-exemption-to-armor-piercing-ammunition-law-until-dec-31.aspx Edited December 9, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The ATF, or whatever you wish to call it, should not be meeting with any groups outside of what a law passed in the
Congress and signed by the President directs their regulations to be. I don't care if it is the NRA or the Brady bunch.
It also shouldn't be coming up with its own interpretations on what a law says, other than what a law actually says.

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about their damned interpretations. They make them up as they go. That is just
flat wrong.

[JohnC]

I agree. I'm flaming pissed right now.

This would for instance, screw over FCSA guys who use brass bullets in competition shoots.

It would also screw us out of having cheap military surplus reloaded ammunition such as AP, API, APIT, Incendiary, etc., for the 50 BMG as it says they want to move the interpretation of the AP ban to all pistol and rifle ammunition.

According to that read above, they would probably go after green tip (steel tip) 5.56 NATO as well because it has steel in it.

:livid: Edited December 9, 2012 by JohnC

[DaveTN]

I’d be curious to see the statistics on this. Is “armor piercing” an issue that needs to be dealt with? Have there been Police Officers shot though their vests with armor piercing rounds?

[Mike]

Not one single documented case.

[Clod Stomper]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1355041943' post='857142']
I’d be curious to see the statistics on this. Is “armor piercing” an issue that needs to be dealt with? Have there been Police Officers shot though their vests with armor piercing rounds?
[/quote]

It sounds to me from reading the article that the Bat-feys are angling to control ANY round capable of penetrating body armor. This would include most centerfire rifle rounds, some of which have been used to penetrate officers' vests.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All this issue is pure fear mongering. To what degree does a bullet have to be to kill you more? They.'ve had the
cyclic rate of fire edge over a citizen for a long time. And they are worrying over a damned bullet material? It's all
about control.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1355041943' post='857142']
I’d be curious to see the statistics on this. Is “armor piercing” an issue that needs to be dealt with? Have there been Police Officers shot though their vests with armor piercing rounds?
[/quote]

It's in the OP. The answer is none.

[JohnC]

Have you guys written comments to the BATFE yet? Are you going to if you haven't already?

[Clod Stomper]

I would. If I thought it would actually make a difference.

However, I believe that these "Taking Comments" periods are purely for show. They're going to do whatever they think that they can get away with regardless of what we say.

Will

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='JohnC' timestamp='1355091650' post='857404']
Have you guys written comments to the BATFE yet? Are you going to if you haven't already?
[/quote]You would only be joining the groups they're talking to. Write a congressman, instead.
It's their job, anyway. The ATF has no business doing what they are doing without a law to back it up.