How Do You Ban Guns, You Go After Ammunition. Without Ammunition A Gun Is A Hammer And Not Much More!

ATF seeks to reclassify commonly used round as ‘armor piercing’ ammo in order to ban it

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Ben Bullard

From the guns-don’t-kill-people; ammunition-kills-people files: The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is seeking the authority to reinterpret the Gun Control Act of 1968 so that a specific loading of 5.56 ammunition is deemed illegal, except for “sporting” uses determined by the bureau.

To accomplish this, ATF is proposing to remove the “armor piercing” exemption that has applied to SS109/M855 5.56 NATO ammunition. The proposal ostensibly would apply to handgun ammunition; here’s how Bearing Arms’ Bob Owens explains it:

SS109/M855 is one of the two most common loadings for 5.56 NATO chambered AR-15 rifles, featuring a 62-grain bullet with a mild steel penetrator core. The cartridge was adopted by NATO in the late 1970s to give soldiers better long range performance, and reduce the possibility of fragmentation seen in the prior 55-grain M193 round cartridge that some viewed as “inhuman” and “devastating.” Civilian shooters like it because it is accurate, plentiful, and relatively economical to shoot.

… The “logic” behind the ATF reclassification attempt is that recent prevalence of AR-15 pistols means that the SS109/M855 cartridge is now an armor-piercing pistol bullet according to the absurd definitions crafted by politicians and bureaucrats who can’t tell a bolt-face from a “shoulder thing that goes up.”

ATF has written up its proposal, which you can read in full here. There’s a public comment period that ends on March 16 of this year (the proposal gives instructions for commenting at the end of the document.)

Owens also argues that effectively banning — or, in ATF’s parlance, “reclassifying” — the SS109/M855 cartridge would be counterproductive to the bureau’s stated purpose of achieving “safer” ammunition:

The ban on “armor-piercing pistol ammunition” is a great idea in theory, but is utterly absurd as a practical matter. Rifle caliber bullets are much more powerful than true pistol calibers. And all will easily penetrate Level IIa, Level II and Level IIIa “soft” body armor worn by police, even fired from rifle-class “pistols.” The key difference is velocity, not the metals used in bullet construction.

Both lead-core M193 and steel core SS109/M855 easily penetrate all police soft body armor, but the tendency of lead bullets to mushroom and fragment means that a ban on the steel core bullets that holds their shape better would mean that people shot by rifle-caliber pistols (both armored and unarmored) are more likely to suffer “devastating” wounds once the bullet penetrates the body.

By banning a less damaging bullet, the ATF would create the potential for more grievous wounds.

If approved, the reclassification would make it illegal to manufacture, import, exchange or sell the ammunition. Here’s how the proposal attempts to reassure the arms-bearing public:

ATF recognizes that this ammunition is widely available to the public. Because it is legally permissible to possess armor piercing ammunition under current law, withdrawing the exemption will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition. However, with few exceptions, manufacturers will be unable to produce such armor piercing ammunition, importers will be unable to import such ammunition, and manufacturers and importers will be prohibited from selling or distributing the ammunition. 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.

Well, abandoning the plan entirely would be a good start. But, barring massive public backlash, the chances of that happening are slim.

Shaming whatever conservative lawmakers you may have into demonstrating their much-touted pro-2nd Amendment stance might be a good place to start, though.