ATF Claims “More Study” on M855 Ammo Ban

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

Buried in between stories on ATF raids, the bureau Tweeted yesterday afternoon its intentions for “more study” on the purposed armor-piercing ammo exemption—M855 ammo ban—before making a final decision.

Thanks to the efforts of gun owners such as you, the ATF has already received a record number of comments—over 80,000—before the comment period has ended. The people have spoken and it seems the ATF heard our voices.

ATF Tweet saying they will not make a final decision on the ammo ban at this time

The ATF Tweeted its intentions for “more study” on the purposed ammo ban.

“Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework

Thank you for your interest in ATF’s proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are “primarily intended for sporting purposes” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable.

Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.”

Leading organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) are fighting for our rights on one level, but we need to support them from a grass roots level. Today, following the ATF’s announcement, the NSSF said, “NSSF continues to strongly urge ATF to grant 32 long-pending petitions to exempt alternative rifle ammunition designed and intended for the hunting market.”

Further, the Firearms Policy Coalition sent out a breaking bulletin. President Brandon Combs writes, “While we’re pleased to see that the Obama Administration and ATF listened to the American people for once, it’s clear to us that this fight isn’t over. Gun owners must continue to be vigilant in their defense of the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. As the M855 ammo ban debacle proved, the federal government will run over Second Amendment rights any chance it gets. We can’t take our eye off the ball for one second.”

There is still the question of whether the ATF will ultimately rule in favor of the Second Amendment, so let us not celebrate any false victories. Instead, let us double or triple the number and really let the ATF hear our voices. Now is the time to ramp up the pressure. There are millions of gun owners and only 80,000 comments. The comment period is open until March 16.

Contact the BATFE via email at APAComments@atf.gov. If you need help with writing your letter, click here.

How have you supported the effort to stop the ATF proposed ban? How will you continue to ensure its defeat in the future? Tell us in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (62)

  • Christopher Sager

    |

    Ok, you win.. But again, I have relatives there and old ones who were in the Hitler Army. Plus, my mother who was born there and got out…
    So, I guess they don’t know anything.

    Reply

    • Roy Thompson

      |

      Your guess is as good as mine on that subject.

      Reply

  • Christopher Sager

    |

    Well, the fact check came from my mother who was born in Berlin Germany in 1930 and my grand parents and she, at 9 years of age, got out just before the Hitler Invasion into Poland.
    She said the German soldiers came and took my grandfathers hand gun..

    Reply

  • Christopher Sager

    |

    They used that ammo for bait.. If that was banned, they could go after anything..
    Obama doesn’t want any of us 2nd. Amendment people having any guns at all, so he can do the “Marshall Law” thing and stop an election.
    Hitler banned and confiscated all civilian weapons so German’s couldn’t fight him.

    Reply

    • Roy R. Thompson

      |

      I studied Nazi Germany extensively. Hitler never did that. You should fact check stuff you hear from others. He did order guns confiscated from Jews. Most of the guns in Germany were owned by farmers and other agricultural producers, and some WWI veterans. Only a tiny handful of Jews owned firearms, and there was never any question they could challenge what was, at that time, the most powerful army in Europe, probably the planet. Your assertion is undeniably false given the facts available to any one that wants to do the research. As a matter of fact, when the allies invaded, he armed old men, teens, and anybody else able to fire a weapon.

      Reply

    • Bob Novak

      |

      I believe Roy, that you are mistaken. While the OP may have overstated his point in saying that “Hitler banned and confiscated all civilian weapons” you are equally incorrect. Hitler absolutely used gun registration records, established during the Weimar republic, in 33 to disarm Jews AND political opponents. Over the next five years the society was ‘cleansed’ with defenseless offenders going to labor camps. The Gestapo also banned independent gun clubs and further restricted Jews by forbidding any issuance of firearm permits to them.

      In 1938 Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act since enemies of the state were now ‘out of society’ that liberalized many rights – but maintained prohibitions aimed at Jews. Shortly after that, all German Jews were ordered to surrender all weapons and invariably turned into the Gestapo. I believe you can look up the event “Krisallnacht” which took place only weeks after disarmament.

      Interestingly enough, in this country, 1941, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and PROHIBITED gun registration. In 68, many proposed bills to register guns were debated – with supporters of the legislation denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. Revisionist history is well established within that ilk it seems.

      So to say that it was ‘only Jews’, and ‘only a tiny handful of Jews owned firearms’ is disingenuous. The facts, as they were, are that many people during that time were disarmed including Jews that had fought in WWI with distinction. Any non-supporter of the Reich was also treated in the manner, including farmers, agricultural producers and WWI non-jew vets.

      While technically not ‘all’, I think stripping the guns from ‘all but your supporters’ essentially achieves the same goal, don’t you?

      Reply

    • Roy Thompson

      |

      Well, my main points were a) It was primarily Jews that were disarmed, and not that many Jews had firearms to begin with. Yes, criminals, the insane, enemies of the state were also disarmed, as they were in many places other than Nazi Germany, so dragging Hitler into the discussion was disingenuous in my opinion. b) Hitler armed all abled bodied, and many not-so-able-bodied males as militias to protect the Reich from invasion, making the statement that he disarmed all Germans even more disingenuous. You can nitpick at my generalization, but the fact of the matter is that Hitler was never afraid that large numbers of the German population would rise against him. He was sure they would follow him into hell and he was almost right. Also, the rate of firearms ownership in Germany was fairly low compared to the U.S., and most of the weapons were obsolete or unfit for military use. The analogy just doesn’t fit and it’s altogether too common for people to try and link Hitler to things they dislike. That diminishes the monstrosity of what he did.

      Reply

    • Christopher Sager

      |

      I guess when you’re “Losing Your Hind-end,” and you can see that Germany was losing badly, I guess “He Would “RE”- Arm” the people.”
      Wouldn’t you??

      Reply

    • Roy R. Thompson

      |

      That’s partly my point. If someone wants to draw analogies to regimes that disarm their people, Fascists are generally a bad example because they draw a lot of support from the people, especially the right wingers who are armed. Communist regimes, on the other hand, generally have very minority support, and not from a demographic that is particularly well armed or trained in military arts. If one wants to draw an analogy to a regime they think is trying to disarm them, Communists are a much better fit. I can’t really think of a Fascist regime that has earned a reputation for widespread civilian disarmament, however, I can think of several Communist regimes that fit the bill. Just dragging Hitler out of your back pocket and tarring everything you don’t like with his name shows an ignorance of recent history.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: