Denise Brown
Mailstop 6N-602
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226
Ms. Brown;
The BATFE recently published and invited public comments to a document entitled “ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C).” Please allow this email to serve as my comments on this document for ATF review and consideration.
I submit these comments as a lifelong shooter, and a avid collector of military and non-military weapons.
I would accordingly offer the following points of rebuttal to what I consider to be the most significant of a multitude of factual and legal inaccuracies contained in the referenced document.
1. Contrary to the BATFE designation of SS109/M855 ball ammunition as “Armor Piercing," no United States military branch that I am aware of has ever classified the round in such a way. Rather, the United States Military and NATO designate the rounds as either: (a) Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855 (US military designation) or (b) Cartridge, Ball, SS109 (NATO designation). Moreover, we do have a separately designated armor piercing cartridge: "Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Armor Piercing, M995."
2. The BATFE has no statutory or other authority to regulate m855/ss109 under LEOPA as neither the projectile or the projectile core is composed "entirely" of a prohibited substance. M855/ss109 has a two part core with a steel portion in the front 1/3 of the projectile and lead composing approximately 2/3 of the “core.” More specifically, SS109/M855 bullet composition is a copper alloy jacket (which does not exceed 25% bullet weight), with a projectile core composed of BOTH mild steel (approx. 33%) and common lead alloy (approx. 66%). Therefore, SS109/M855 does not qualify under the Federal Statutes as Armor Piercing ammunition; the core is not entirely composed of a prohibited material. This is in stark contrast to the m995 armor piercing round which contains a solid tungsten core without any lead portion.
3. SS109/M855 projectiles have a widespread use in sporting events and should therefore be exempt under the sporting purposes exception to the law regardless of classification. At High Power multi gun and numerous other competitive shooting tournaments, participants shoot thousands upon thousands of rounds of this ammo each year. Many shooters choose to use SS109/M855 ammunition as many of their Service Rifles prefer the 62 grain projectiles over the 55gr M193 projectiles. Clearly there is a sporting purpose for this ammunition.
However, on the basis of facts provided by the BATFE, and after examining the Federal Statute under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B), it is abundantly clear that the BATFE has erred grievously in determining that the "sporting purpose" factor is for all intents and purposes irrelevant.
4. As a final point, the justification for removing the sporting purposes exemption for this ammunition -- purported officer safety -- has no factual basis. This ammunition is actually less lethal than other rounds beyond the scope of this agencies regulatory authority such as it's predecessor M193. Extensive and undisputed testing has shown that the M193 projectile significantly out penetrates the M855 projectile at distances in which virtually all officer involved shootings have historically occurred. In fact, the armor worn by virtually all domestic law enforcement agencies is incapable of stopping ANY rifle projectile. Thus, regardless of the fact that the subject projectile is outside of the scope of this agency's regulatory authority and further despite the fact that, to the extent covered, the round remains due to be exempted under the sporting purposes exemption, the fact remains that there is no factual basis for this arbitrary and capricious, non-democratic fiat.
I believe that the only legally justified actions in light of these facts are:
1. Immediately vacate the Proposed Framework referenced at the start of this response.
2. Immediately vacate the Armor Piercing classification on SS109/M855, as this classification was not made in accordance with the defined Federal Statutes in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B).
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
city,state
*(proper credit for letter: ronnl001 on arfcom)
Mailstop 6N-602
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226
Ms. Brown;
The BATFE recently published and invited public comments to a document entitled “ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C).” Please allow this email to serve as my comments on this document for ATF review and consideration.
I submit these comments as a lifelong shooter, and a avid collector of military and non-military weapons.
I would accordingly offer the following points of rebuttal to what I consider to be the most significant of a multitude of factual and legal inaccuracies contained in the referenced document.
1. Contrary to the BATFE designation of SS109/M855 ball ammunition as “Armor Piercing," no United States military branch that I am aware of has ever classified the round in such a way. Rather, the United States Military and NATO designate the rounds as either: (a) Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855 (US military designation) or (b) Cartridge, Ball, SS109 (NATO designation). Moreover, we do have a separately designated armor piercing cartridge: "Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Armor Piercing, M995."
2. The BATFE has no statutory or other authority to regulate m855/ss109 under LEOPA as neither the projectile or the projectile core is composed "entirely" of a prohibited substance. M855/ss109 has a two part core with a steel portion in the front 1/3 of the projectile and lead composing approximately 2/3 of the “core.” More specifically, SS109/M855 bullet composition is a copper alloy jacket (which does not exceed 25% bullet weight), with a projectile core composed of BOTH mild steel (approx. 33%) and common lead alloy (approx. 66%). Therefore, SS109/M855 does not qualify under the Federal Statutes as Armor Piercing ammunition; the core is not entirely composed of a prohibited material. This is in stark contrast to the m995 armor piercing round which contains a solid tungsten core without any lead portion.
3. SS109/M855 projectiles have a widespread use in sporting events and should therefore be exempt under the sporting purposes exception to the law regardless of classification. At High Power multi gun and numerous other competitive shooting tournaments, participants shoot thousands upon thousands of rounds of this ammo each year. Many shooters choose to use SS109/M855 ammunition as many of their Service Rifles prefer the 62 grain projectiles over the 55gr M193 projectiles. Clearly there is a sporting purpose for this ammunition.
However, on the basis of facts provided by the BATFE, and after examining the Federal Statute under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B), it is abundantly clear that the BATFE has erred grievously in determining that the "sporting purpose" factor is for all intents and purposes irrelevant.
4. As a final point, the justification for removing the sporting purposes exemption for this ammunition -- purported officer safety -- has no factual basis. This ammunition is actually less lethal than other rounds beyond the scope of this agencies regulatory authority such as it's predecessor M193. Extensive and undisputed testing has shown that the M193 projectile significantly out penetrates the M855 projectile at distances in which virtually all officer involved shootings have historically occurred. In fact, the armor worn by virtually all domestic law enforcement agencies is incapable of stopping ANY rifle projectile. Thus, regardless of the fact that the subject projectile is outside of the scope of this agency's regulatory authority and further despite the fact that, to the extent covered, the round remains due to be exempted under the sporting purposes exemption, the fact remains that there is no factual basis for this arbitrary and capricious, non-democratic fiat.
I believe that the only legally justified actions in light of these facts are:
1. Immediately vacate the Proposed Framework referenced at the start of this response.
2. Immediately vacate the Armor Piercing classification on SS109/M855, as this classification was not made in accordance with the defined Federal Statutes in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B).
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
city,state
*(proper credit for letter: ronnl001 on arfcom)