News

3 Ways to Stop the .223/5.56 (M855) Ammunition Ban

.223 NATO Lake City M855 FMJ 62 Grain Steel Penetrator Ammo

BATFE is only considering comments received by March 16, 2015. Act now and help spread the word!

Last week, the Internet was abuzz after the announcement by the BATFE of its plan to ban M855 ammunition—one of the most popular low cost options for AR-15s. The Shooter’s Log reported on the action and promised further details on how to contact the BATFE expressing your opposition to the ban. Let’s get to business at the beginning and for those who missed the news, you can read the rest of the story.

American flag with bald eagle overlay
The 2016 elections may prove a tipping point—for or against the Second Amendment.

Show the Administration that we have pens and phones as well!

Contact the BATFE via email at APAComments@atf.gov and express your opposition to the BATFE proposal to ban common rifle ammunition used by millions of gun owners. Remember to proofread your comment and ensure it is concise. Alternatively, you can use the suggested text I used or some of the bullet points from the NRA-ILA. Simply, copy and paste the following letter into the email address provided.

Re:  Ammunition Ban, M855 AP—Oppose To Whom it may Concern: I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed ammunition reclassification of the popular M855 ammunition.

Commonly accepted and used for 30 years, no significant abuses of M855 .223/5.56mm ammunition has been documented that warrants such action. There is no evidence of an increased risk today than there was nearly 30 years ago when the “Sporting Purposes Exemption” was enacted.

Recently, competing special interests have been attempting to prohibit or reduce lawful citizens access to firearms and ammunition through a series of legislation and actions that have all soundly been defeated through the legislative process, courts and the will of the majority.

Based upon my personal experience, the elimination of the “Sporting Purposes” exemption will not enhance public safety and does not serve the interests of the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (LEOPA).

If you have any questions or require anything additional, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

You can also print out a copy, add your John Hancock (signature) and deliver it via fax to (202) 648-9741. Many computer programs will allow you to scan the document and fax it electronically if you do not have a dedicated fax machine. Of course if you want to go old school, you can send your opposition via the U.S. Mail to:

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 ATTN: AP Ammo Comments

Pressure needs to be applied from all directions and elections are just around the corner. Don’t forget to contact your U.S. Senators and Members of Congress. Encourage them to oppose the BATFE’s proposed action to ban M855 ammunition and other rifle cartridges that are overwhelmingly used by law-abiding Americans for self-defense, sport shooting and other legitimate purposes. Use the “Write Your Lawmakers” feature on the NRA-ILA’s website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.

A few more points you may wish to include offered by the NRA-ILA:

  • M855 ammunition should not be categorized as “armor piercing” in the first place, given that lead is the primary material beneath its copper jacket.
  • BATFE’s framework does not clarify the “sporting purposes” exemption; it simply interprets it into irrelevance.
  • The framework overturns nearly 30 years of settled law and the good faith expectations of gun owners and industry members.
  • The framework is totally at odds with the intent of the law to ensure that restrictions on armor piercing handgun ammunition do not unduly restrict common rifle ammunition, most of which is capable of penetrating police body armor when used in a rifle as intended.
  • BATFE incorrectly insists that it is required to establish an “objective” standard based on handgun design, yet it fails even to do that with the very broad “discretion” it retains to deny the exemption to projectiles that meet its “objective” test.
  • The framework will suppress the development of non-lead rifle projectiles that offer increased performance for hunters, decreased lead exposure, and solutions for hunters in states that restrict the use of lead in hunting.
  • The framework will likewise deter handgun development, as new designs could trigger bans.
  • Coupled with increasing attempts to ban lead projectiles, the framework could drastically reduce the availability of lawful ammunition for sporting and other legitimate purposes.
  • M855 ammunition in AR pistols is not a common threat faced by law enforcement officers.

What have you done to stop the ban? Any other suggestions? Share them in the comment section.

[dave]

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 (143)

  1. You guys are a bunch of simpletons. Call your congressman? Write your congressman? How stupid can you get?? We live in a one party dictatoship! For about 50 years the elected gangsters have ignored all the petitions, calls and letters.
    Yet, that is the best you can come up. You loosers. Just like the Conservatives. All your brain pans together are equal to one rat turd sized gbrain1

  2. While I am in total agreement that the M855 ban is an egregious over-reach by the BATFE, to call it “Obama’s ban” is a misnomer, unless you are willing to call the even more insidious 922(r) restrictions on foreign made components of rifles “George H.W. Bush’s” over-reach is hypocritical. I love showing gun haters two photographs of an AK I have. The photos are to all appearances identical, except that the magazine in one photo is made from Russian parts and the other made with USA parts. Same gun. Same functionality. One will land you in Federal prison and the other is perfectly legal. How does that make any sense?

    The fact is that these two decisions were made by Federal bureaucrats without ANY specific directions from the Presidents who were serving at the time.

    However, the Gun Owners’ Protection Act (GOPA) which was passed by a Democrat legislature and was signed into law by St. Ronald Reagan, was far more damaging to the 2nd Amendment. For those who don’t know, GOPA enshrined into law the date of May 19th, 1986, after which no machine guns (truly automatic weapons) not registered by that date could not longer be owned, transferred, or otherwise sold by ANY non-military or “law enforcement” entity without tortuous penalties. I am against ANY law which un-Constitutionally deprives U.S. citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. But you can’t honestly say that the Obama administration is any more culpable than the Reagan (or Bush 41) administration for the abrogation of our rights. I know that many posters are going be be pissed off with me for mentioning this. To those I say, “Sack up, study, and find the truth”.

    1. @ Ross Kahn:

      How could we be pissed at you for not knowing what a truth is? You have blurred your personal opinion with fact and are wholesaling it as if it were God’s honest truth.

      The simple truth is Reagan signed a law, nothing more and nothing less. The truthful portion of that fact ends right there; and anything thereafter is merely your personal perception and opinion as to whether it was actually “far more damaging to the 2nd Amendment” than what this Obama administration has done.

      Last I checked I could still buy a fully automatic weapon, which is a far cry from Obama’s attempt at an outright ammo ban. But I’ll leave you to opine as to which is more damning to the Second Amendment.

      In the mean time I must ask, to what end should the “truth be found” if it serves no real purpose? While you bring up the past to weave partial truths into antiquated statements, did you present a resolution to the current problem? I submit you did not. So what was your real point other than to give Obama a free pass?

      Whatever happened to “The Buck Stops Here”? Obama is the head of his administration but has made a pastime of constantly passing the buck. So now those under his administration know full well they can continue to exploit his feebleness without any fear of repercussions. Such is directly Obama’s own doing.

      A principled man sits at the head of his table and willingly takes responsibility for all activities under their charge regardless of knowledge; whereas a despicably weak man instead passes the buck and claims no knowledge or control, and worse, considers this an acceptable excuse for his failures.

      That is a disgusting trait in any man, but is even more devastating when that man has been entrusted with executive power as the head of a nation. Such actions are a disgrace and should turn anyone’s stomach.

      As previously stated, I see no other purpose behind your comment other than some innate desire to defend Obama, especially at the expense of a truly great President. So with that in mind, I must point out that your opinions always culminate into a representation of who you truly are.

      So you must now own the fact that you just chose to defend the most despicable president in U.S. history. To you I say, “You are a sad-sack who needs to examine yourself and what a truth really is”.

  3. I read, where this guy predicted, that the New World (USA), would see 2 civil wars, and both would be bloody, but would prevail. Just hate, I’m not as young as I use to be, but still pretty active. I have a Nephew, in the Air Force, and he said that it has been cut to the bone, and forcing good people out everywhere. Before Obama’s through, we want have a military strong enough to defend this country. Hard to believe, that our Gov. has aloud this to happen. At one time, they would not let this happen, things would happen!

  4. I served from 1962 to 1966 to preserve our liberties. Now a bunch of nut cases want to take away the rights that my brothers and I fought to protect. When will our government begin to protect our rights instead of attempting to take them away.

    1. @Ray Nickles,

      It is not and never has been the government’s role to protect our rights from those nut cases. Those rights are so important, that We the people reserved to ourselves the role of protecting our rights. Our Constitution and laws (like 42 USC 1983) empower We the People to use the judicial system to protect our rights.

      Those nut cases are why the oaths we took were to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both “foreign AND domestic.” That’s a life-long oath, as applicable today as it was when we were in uniform. We can never expect the government to do that job for us.

    2. I too took the LIFE long Oath. Didn’t the BATFE have to take the same Oath. Does this mean that if they go against there Oath, and the Constitution, that it is not legal, if they ban the ammo, if ordered by the Prez. I don’t think they should have to obey anyone, that goes against the Constitution, that they sworn to protect, and defend. What would U do. I know what I’d do.

    3. @Rod,

      I think Lt. Calley learned the answer to your question the hard way — “just following orders” is not a defense when the orders are clearly illegal.

    4. Thank U Sir, that answered my question. Did U ever think, we would have a Prez, that wanted to destroy us, instead of taking care of what most countries would give anything to have. I think this Common Core education has been going on a lot longer than we thought. I’ve never seen so many young people, so anti- American. I guess this is why this generation has a name, Millennials. This is just a nice word for, a lost generation.

    5. @Rod,

      You are welcome, and thank you for your service.

      No, I never expected that we would see this.

      Obama is the enemy. Period. He hates America. That’s why he wants to change America into something else. Not “improve” but fundamentally “change.”

      Anti-American education is not limited to “common core” — it is the NEA and other organizations being controlled by totalitarian Leftists who hate America to the core.

  5. There is no reason, for banning this ammo. It is just the first step, for gun control. If this ammo goes, all ammo will go, Rifle, Hand Gun, all. This is nothing more than socialism, and what Holder is doing in Ferguson, letting the feds take the place of the law, is called MARTIAL LAW. Every country, that has lost there guns, a very well armed muslim army, has infested, and caused death. The muslims are already here, and U know, they are, and always will be ARMED. Obama has made the statement, that the Constitution was just an old piece of paper. This President hates this country, and every American in it, and this is the reason for his goal, of the destruction of America. How’s this for change.

  6. This is a great country we live in today. So many freedoms and the things we hold so dear. We are able to all have theye things because of the U.S. Constitution and the men and women who gave an oath and some their lives to see that it will always be respected and followed to the letter. We as “good respectable god fearing citizens” work hard and we do that to take care of family and home and never forget or work at all without the tax man! Which is just fine, What would we all do without law enforcement, or health care system and courts. But we also pay those taxes to be blessed to enjoy ALL that being a U.S. citizen comes with, not just what the people In the big government what to let me do. We don’t pick what freedoms We have, that was done long ago, or job now is to uphold those laws and rights that we fight for as a country as a whole. Will you take away certain foods because they cause high blood pressure or take away atvs because sometimes people crash.Where will it end and who will say where to say that end is.

  7. This in not armor piercing ammo now nor has it ever been. Just another attempt to violate the 2A and disarm America, and to think why our government would want to do that is frightening. What’s next after the law abiding American citizen can no longer legally procure a firearm or ammo for it? What’s in store for us after that? Are we to expect the government is going to take care of us…..Ha! They can’t even pass a budget!

  8. The truth of this is they ( the government patronize terrorists and criminals their the ones they need to go after. Law means nothing to them that is why their criminals. Law abiding people are easy targets so their scare tactics work. We the People need to stand up and protect our rights and privleges that were given to us by those who gave the ultimate price fo.r

  9. I feel that as a nation of freedom we must protect our rights to protect ourselves. Ammo, that is 5,.56, 223,m855 is standard ammo around the world. It is used often by deer hunters. People feel that the police etc. cannot protect our properties and lives, point in fact look at Ferguson missouri, the fed. govt. allowed unpeaceful protest of looting, and burning of buildings, law enforcement stood by and let Ferguson be destroyed. people have lost faith in our govt. to protect us from robbers, looters. arsonist, terrorist etc . The criminal is the problem, illegal hand guns are the problem. The honest citizen needs protection, America is protecting and fighting around the globe. Their is not enough money for more police, but we have money for the middle east. Iam a model citizen. Please stop attacking the rights of the honest citizen and keep the criminal in jail. To often a crime is committed by a convicted felon that a parole board let of prison. Thank You ,God Bless All.

  10. due to the Constitution, take you place as an American organization; and stand-up against any tyranny too the American people. Thank you..

  11. This is clearly a violation of our constitution! I and every other vet gave an oath to defend our constitution from all forms of tyranny foreign and domestic. That has not changed. Stop this most un-American person in the white house from these violations! DO IT NOW!!

    1. Our oath is for life, no expiration date, this is just another attempt by this lawless administration to infringe our constitutional rights.

  12. M855 NATO ball!! This is a standard round produced in many countries. It is not classified by NATO as armor piercing, or it would have a silver tip not a green one! If it is classified as armor piercing it then becomes illegal under several international laws for anti personnel use, and may only be used on vehicles and equipment. How would all the NATO militaries including our own deal with that???

  13. There is no reason to ban this ammo at all. all this is is a step towards getting guns out of respectful law abiding citizens hands and anybody in the agency (ATF) should be ashamed of themselves for fallowing an order that you and i both know is wrong .

  14. @John, I think you’re proposal is nuts, and that you dont know what the hell you are talking about. That’s what I think.

  15. I know that all of the government regulations, BATFE, etc. But, as much as we don’t like it we are under these laws.

    Therefore, there is an alternative to banning the M855 ammunition and that is to make AR “pistols” Class 3 weapons. Then there would be no reason to ban the M855 round. This way the offending “pistols” would become a very restricted type of weapon that wouldn’t be generally available to the criminal element.

    The case for this is that the AR-15 pistols is that really they are just short barreled rifles with the stocks removed. Short barreled rifles have been Class 3 for a long time now. By removing the stocks the manufactures are just exploiting a loophole in the law. In really it if there is any reason for a SBR to be class 3 there is as much reason for these pistols to be treated the same.

    What do you think for this as an alternative?

    1. @John,

      I think that would be a bad alternative. There no reason that the SBR OR rifle-caliber pistol should be taxed under the NFA , and there is no evidence that doing so ever has or ever would solve any actual problem.

      Everyone involved already knows that this whole thing of going after M855 is a “solution in search of a problem.” It has nothing to do with protecting cops, it is about taking away our basic human right of armed self-defense by depriving us of common ammo.

      Telling the thugs to start going after law-abiding citizens’ guns instead of law-abiding citizens’ ammo would solve nothing.

      The thugs in DC need to stop thinking that armed law-abiding citizens are a problem, period, no matter WHAT weapons we have. And that is the only discussion we should ever have with them.

      This is a good example of how people like Bill Ruger actually did gun rights a disservice by trying to appease these thugs in DC — thugs always want MORE because, well, that’s the way thugs are. This fight belongs in the courts where we have the upper hand, not in Congress where insanity and thuggery rule.

    2. I see your point. I’m not saying that I’m for the current structure of gun control law. But, why should a SBR rifle be a Class 3 weapon but an AR pistol isn’t?

    3. @John

      I now see your point, and I think it is valid: If either an SBR or rifle-round “pistol” should be Class 3, both should be.

      There is no logical difference, except that the SBR may be fired from the shoulder — which only impacts accuracy. If firearms are to be regulated or not based solely on how accurate they are, then the whole NFA becomes even more ridiculous than it already is.

      I think Sig Sauer made a strategic mistake, from the perspective of gun rights, in pushing the envelope with their brace for the AR “pistol.”

      There are plenty of fairly reasonable people who will buy an argument like yours (that there is no real difference between an SBR and rifle-round “pistol” so they should be treated the same under the NFA). The Sig brace just makes your point even stronger, by making a “pistol” look AND ACT more like an SBR than a real handgun.

      There are far fewer people who are willing to look at the bigger picture that the entire NFA is wrong-headed and almost certainly unconstitutional under today’s “strict scrutiny” standard (which did not exist when Miller upheld the NFA tax on sawed-off shotguns).

      So, I think Sig Sauer screwed up on this one. In fact, I just had that very conversation with a cop friend who usually agrees with me on gun rights, and neither one of us was very impressed with what Sig Saur has done with the brace (even though we both agree that the brace does not make a pistol an SBR even if it could be used as a stock in practice).

      It is possible to lose ground in the bigger fight (right to keep and bear arms) by winning the wrong small fight (the Sig brace does not create an SBR), and I think that is happening here because of Sig.

    1. This is getting crazy, what is next, BB guns. Our second amendment right s are just that. It is specific. It doesnt provide elimination of calibers or calibers of ammunition. We taxpayers, especially those who love to target shoot all have registered their guns. If those calibers fall into the hands of those who should not possess those weapons it is of no fault of the registered users of those guns. How many actual cases have there been when the .223/5.56 caliber gun was used ? It is kind of hard to carry those weapons and try to conceal them. Why is it it seems like it is what they want to enforce, due to their opinion. The constitution wasn’t written based on their opinion. It is our legal and constitutional right to posses and bear arms. That was written for a reason and a very long time ago. Executive orders are beginning to become the new way of life. I served my country in the military and am a legal citizen who abides by the constitution, not someone’s personal opinion. Thank god for the NRA.

  16. we cannot give in on the ban! even if this round isn’t one you shoot YOU still have to stand against the ban on any ammo or the next ban will be on the rounds you shoot or mabe the next ban will be on all ammo!

  17. Please I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed ammunition reclassification of the popular M855 ammunition..Commonly accepted and used for 30 years, no significant abuses of M855 .223/5.56mm ammunition has been documented that warrants such action. There is no evidence of an increased risk today than there was nearly 30 years ago when the “Sporting Purposes Exemption” was enacted.

    Recently, competing special interests have been attempting to prohibit or reduce lawful citizens access to firearms and ammunition through a series of legislation and actions that have all soundly been defeated through the legislative process, courts and the will of the majority.

    Based upon my personal experience, the elimination of the “Sporting Purposes” exemption will not enhance public safety and does not serve the interests of the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (LEOPA).
    M855 ammunition should not be categorized as “armor piercing” in the first place, given that lead is the primary material beneath its copper jacket.
    BATFE’s framework does not clarify the “sporting purposes” exemption; it simply interprets it into irrelevance.
    The framework overturns nearly 30 years of settled law and the good faith expectations of gun owners and industry members.
    The framework is totally at odds with the intent of the law to ensure that restrictions on armor piercing handgun ammunition do not unduly restrict common rifle ammunition, most of which is capable of penetrating police body armor when used in a rifle as intended.
    BATFE incorrectly insists that it is required to establish an “objective” standard based on handgun design, yet it fails even to do that with the very broad “discretion” it retains to deny the exemption to projectiles that meet its “objective” test.
    The framework will suppress the development of non-lead rifle projectiles that offer increased performance for hunters, decreased lead exposure, and solutions for hunters in states that restrict the use of lead in hunting.
    The framework will likewise deter handgun development, as new designs could trigger bans.
    Coupled with increasing attempts to ban lead projectiles, the framework could drastically reduce the availability of lawful ammunition for sporting and other legitimate purposes.
    M855 ammunition in AR pistols is not a common threat faced by law enforcement officers. Prosecute the criminals & Stop infringing on My 2nd Amendment Rights!!!!! This is why You lost control in Congress! People voted Republican, because They are fed up with Democrats infringing upon Their 2nd & 1st Amendment rights!!!
    Sincerely,
    Mr. & Mrs. Ricky Weber

  18. I think a lot of you have some great philosophical arguments about the right to bear arms. However, that isn’t the issue dealing with the BATFE right now. The type of arguments that the NRA and Cheaper Than Dirt are making are the type that are important in this grass roots pressure operation. It isn’t really saving M855 that is the real goal (that is probably lost) but rather the strength of the reaction that might limit future even worse actions by the BATFE.

    The only way to win this one is in court. Perhaps Cheaper Than Dirt will file a lawsuit. But, it is important to raise a ruckus of this!

  19. @ PeteDub

    As PeteDub said;

    Believe it or not, the basic human right to keep and bear arms would not disappear even if the 2nd Amendment were wiped from history or had never existed.

    As the US Supreme Court held in Heller, the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment existed before the 2nd Amendment and still exist independently of the 2nd Amendment. As the court held, these are “fundamental” rights belonging to every human being — not just those of use who live under the US Constitution. The only thing the 2nd Amendment really does is to “remind” us and the government of those fundamental rights.
    *****

    This is all very true, yet way too many Americans keep repeating their adopted belief that they have a Right to their guns because of the 2nd Amendment as if it was the 2nd Amendment that granted that Right. However, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grants any Rights to anybody, for if this were true than that would mean that our rights come from government… And remember, whatever government gives it can also take away. The purpose of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments known collectively as The Bill of Rights was to restrict the actions of government and to prohibit the government from interfering with these recognized Rights.

    In truth, it is a well established principle and belief in our American system of government that our Rights come not from government but from our humanity. That we are born with our Rights. Government does not grant us any Rights, government can only grant privileges. And furthermore, our Rights can not be taken from us nor can we surrender our Rights, except that we can contract our Rights away and which is what we are in fact doing when we choose to accept a “license”. The definition of a “License” from Black’s Law Dictionary is; “Permission to act or to do something that would otherwise be illegal or prohibited”. And so just think about how many different things in our daily lives we are told we must have a license for. We have a Right to earn a living, yet most occupations require a license. Hell, we can not even any longer take part in the Holy Sacrament of marriage without first obtaining the required government permission via a “marriage license”. Marriage used to be a private contract between man, woman and God but today it requires first obtaining the government’s permission, and which in turn makes them a party to the contract and thereby giving government a superior right and authority over the product of that union, namely your children. And yes, if government so deems it that in “the best interest of the children” your parental Rights should be terminated, so it shall be.

    We have been made to accept more and more government intrusion into our lives and slowly but surely we will all find ourselves under the complete control of government one day unless we very soon finally decide to begin to take some decisive action to put an end to this over reach of government. We have to stop accepting this notion that our so called elected officials are “law makers” and that their principal job is to make new laws otherwise they might have to bear the stain of being called (by the main stream media) a “Do Nothing Congress”. We must not lose sight of the fact that Laws by their very nature are restrictive, and with the passage of every new law, statute or regulation we the American people lose more and more of our freedom.

    I often wonder just how many of the laws already on the books could be scraped and set aside if upon review they had to meet the burden of being in harmony and in agreement with our U.S. Constitution.

    AC

  20. In reply to AMP;

    Anna Maria, you are absolutely correct, no allegiance is owed to this unconstitutional agency, and they are in fact usurping power not granted to them. But understand that real power is not given; real power is what you take. And when no one raises an objection it just becomes that much easier to take that power. An axiom in law is that, If you do not raise an objection, then you do not have one.

    The truth is (and as I alluded to in my earlier comment I posted) that neither this unconstitutional agency, nor the President, nor the Congress, not even the US Supreme Court, have the “lawful authority” to alter or change any part of the “Right to keep and bear arms”. And why is that? Simply because absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary, the Second Amendment stands as written and as written, “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” remains as part of the “Supreme Law of the Land”.

    Look, if it took a constitutional amendment (the 18th Amendment) for them to be able to “lawfully” ban alcohol and give us Prohibition, and then later another constitutional amendment (the 21st Amendment) to undo that mistake, then it stands to reason that it should take nothing less than a constitutional amendment to change or alter the Right to keep and bear arms guaranteed and protected in the Second Amendment. But in fact no such change has ever been made to our US Constitution and a simple word search on the text of our Constitution and all amendments will easily confirm this. Neither the Congress passing legislation, nor the President passing any executive order, nor any law, statute or regulation passed at the local, state or federal level can have any “lawful” affect on a citizen if the action taken does not conform to and is in harmony with the U.S. Constitution. And please understand that this is not just my belief, but rather court rulings including those of our United States Supreme Court… see below:

    “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

    Additionally, “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. ShelbyCounty, 118 U.S. 42

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

    Constitutional Right – A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith. – Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, 567, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685. – Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition

    The Constitution is a legal binding contract between the government and its employer (the American people). The U. S. Supreme Court was right when it said, “The Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it meant when it was adopted, it means now!” U.S. vs. South Carolina (1905)

    The correct and proper procedure to institute a “lawful” change in what has already been established as the supreme law of the land is for a constitutional amendment to first be passed in order to make possible any such change. Hell, even a simple change as to when we swear in a newly elected President required a constitutional amendment. All presidents up until Roosevelt in 1933 were sworn in on March 4th as this had been the established date since the founding and start of our federal government, and so it took the 20th Amendment to allow the change to now have newly elected presidents be sworn in and assume office in the month of January.

    We have a Rule of Law in this country (or at least we are led to believe we do) and that rule of law requires that certain procedures be followed. If they require that of us, should we require any less of them? They are not our kings or our lords, they are public servants and they work for us, and so it stands to reason that any rules that apply at all should apply more strictly to them and that with the position granted them, that they should be held to an even higher standard in obedience to the rule of law.

    We need to put an end to falling into the trap of arguing over what are in effect the little things and to take a step back and look at the big picture. The American people have a protected Right in the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for the paramount purpose of defending freedom and liberty. It was in fact the intent of the founding fathers that ‘we the people’ should always have the means to defend ourselves against a government that may get out of control and become abusive and tyrannical… And to that end, the Second Amendment was written into our Constitution to guarantee and insure that we the America people would always have complete access to any and all arms that modern technology could make available to insure that true and ultimate power would always rest with the American people.

    Please read my earlier posted comment for the solution and action to be taken that I recommend.

    Respectfully yours in Liberty,
    AC

    1. @AC

      Believe it or not, the basic human right to keep and bear arms would not disappear even if the 2nd Amendment were wiped from history or had never existed.

      As the US Supreme Court held in Heller, the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment existed before the 2nd Amendment and still exist independently of the 2nd Amendment. As the court held, these are “fundamental” rights belonging to every human being — not just those of use who live under the US Constitution. The only thing the 2nd Amendment really does is to “remind” us and the government of those fundamental rights.

  21. I haven’t read all the comments but I think all the original arguements listed above by “Cheaper than Dirt” are valuable but I believe this issue can be boiled down to one general arguement and it is as follows: The second amendment reads thusly, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is impossible to fulfill the purpose of the second amendment without ammunition which is an integral and obvious part of “bearing arms”, hence this regulation is infringing upon our rights and shall not stand.

    1. @Ned,

      You are 100% correct. That is pretty much what the US Supreme Court said in the Miller case.

      The Miller court reasoned that the Peoples’ right / obligation under the 2nd Amendment to provide for the defense of “the security of the state” allows us to have arms “in common use at the time” for that MILITARY purpose. Miller specifically recognizes arms “in common use at the time” for MILITARY purposes as being constitutionally protected.

      The entire “armor piercing ammunition” effort is an unlawful infringement of the Peoples’ right / obligation to provide for the defense of “the security of the state” as provided in the 2nd Amendment.

  22. Why? They won’t listen. Besides the “BATFE” or whatever it’s called, is unconstitutional. They do not have the delegated power to exist by the powers the States delegated to the FedGov. The ONLY real answer to such unconstitutional demands, is flat out nullification. Either by manufacturers ignoring it and continuing production OR the States protecting the businesses setting themselves between the business and the FedGov. Those are the ONLY answers that will work against such a runaway unconstitutional FedGov.

  23. This is insane! I don’t owe allegiance to an unconstitutional agency. Why on God’s green earth must I appeal to them as if they are the King? They have ZERO Constitutional authority to infringe on my rights. Article 1 Section 8 doesn’t even give CONGRESS the authority to ban anything, let alone ammunition. It certainly doesn’t grant any authority for an unelected agency to legislate & execute on their behalf.

    The only reason they get away with this is because the vast majority of the American people have been dumbed down so much that they’re able to usurp power where authority doesn’t exist without anyone standing up and saying, “NO!”

  24. Just about any round fired from an AR-15 (even an AR pistol in many cases) will go straight through soft body armor. The reason the totalitarians want to ban M855 in particular is probably because M855 is the only commonly available ammo that can penetrate hard polyethylene armor and helmets. That little bit of hardened steel in the core makes all the difference. M855 will go through lightweight polyethylene armor that can stop .308 and .30-06 ball rounds. If you have a stockpile of M855, use a little to zero your rifle and then save the rest!

    As with other gun control measures, the point of this latest move is to ensure that the ruling oligarchs and their mercenary enforcers maintain dominance over you and your loved ones.

    And you thought the US military “defended our freedoms.” What are “our” troops going to do about this latest outrage? Maybe some of you will finally understand that it isn’t the Taliban, the Iraqis, ISIS, or any other neocon-designated foreign enemy du jour who threatens your freedoms.

    Above all, know that regardless of what any constitution or written law might say, we have NO rights that we aren’t personally willing to personally defend, even to the death, with whatever force might be necessary. The defense of our rights cannot be “farmed out” to mercenaries, especially not those employed by the oligarchs who wish to subjugate us.

  25. What do you say, I emailfax phone calls.To Whom it may concern Via Other Web Sites ,and every year it is the same CONGRESS DO YOUR JOB !! I elong to the NRA,GOA,SAF,NAGR .

    All I can say any more is.I hope we have real Patriots in the ATF.. This is Ground ZERO if we do not get involved. TYRANNY ! I will NOT lay Down my Arms to be KIA on my Home Soil ! I will keep trying Until we have Peace with our 2nd Amendment ,Ammo and AR Firearms rights.

  26. My take on all of this gun ban talk is this.

    I for one don’t give a hoot about their darn laws regarding my possession of firearms, no matter what type I own. I think this would be the same attitude our founding fathers had regarding many different situations.

    I am ( and I’m sure y’all are as well) a law abiding citizen of the United States of America with all of the rights and responsibilities of the constitution. I will never give up my guns and if need be I will reload what they ban, if I own a gun that uses it.

    It is aggravating that this topic never goes away. It would be nice the see the Supreme Court put an end to this.

    my first post.

    mw

  27. It was my understanding that “armor piercing ammunition” is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. So if the standard NATO round is classified as such, then where do we stand?

    1. @M. Call

      Yes, you are correct and make an excellent point — an “armour-piercing” projectile is defined in the protocol as an “incendiary weapon.” This leaves the US in the position of the Obama administration having officially admitted to the US having violated the protocol in every military action beginning in Vietnam.

      But how much do you want to bet that these dishonest a-holes use that as an excuse to ban M855 not only from civilian use, but military use as well. These people want nothing more than they want to disarm law-abiding citizens AND US service members.

  28. sign petition contact your congressman and senators we must stand together as one we other people. Please sign the petition also sign the petition on the NRA website and gun owners of America website and the Second Amendment Foundation website and Gun Owners of America website

  29. Hate to be that guy, but to be taken seriously we should remove the grammatical error in the letter above…

    “…no significant abuses of M855 .223/5.56mm ammunition has been…”
    Should read HAVE been.

  30. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR THIS ARTICLE AND INFORMATION.

    I am writing three versions of this letter an emailing it to my friends list. I suggest EVERYONE reading this do the same instead of spending your life reading blogs, whining about things, but doing nothing substantial to change things.

  31. I don’t know what the “grand plan” is, but it is starting to scare me what is happening to America. I see real things around me, like the Georgia Guide Stones, and wonder WHY these things are kept under wraps?….I read news articles on how the government is trying to control the internet, specially sites like U-Tube. I am in real fear for my grand children, trying to imagine their future. their future of a complete propaganda fed “sheeple” society. a society where the only thing that matters is your bank account.. or whom you are related to………… PS. I live CTD but I live in communist NY, so……..but I tried, even through 3rd party.

    1. Its not just the Democrats wanting to take our weapons….this comes from the New World Order, and our lates Republican president was also part of that. People…Obama is the Puppet for these NWO who wants to dis-arm our country. once dis-armed we are at their mercy and the mercy of those bad people who do have guns. Very simple LOOK AT MEXICO. Thousands of people killed every year for the last 4 or 5 years. Mexican Govt does nothing to fix the problem. US govt is in Arab countries with a major problem in our own back yard.

    2. Republicans are EVERY BIT as bad as Democrats with regard to destroying our liberty. On the gun issue the GOP may be somewhat better than Democrats, but they’re worse on other matters of civil liberties and human rights. How many Republican politicians are demanding the dismantling of the NSA, DHS, FBI, DEA, ATF, etc? How many are demanding an end to the “War on Drugs” or the “War on Terror,” both of which have resulted in a true American police state?

      With rare exceptions, such as Ron Paul — whom US “conservatives” idiotically failed to support, thanks to the hijacking of the GOP by the neocons — politicians from BOTH major parties are intent on destroying your freedoms. Whether it’s spying on your emails, recording your phone calls, funding new surveillance cameras and license-plate readers, or outlawing your guns, they all want to reduce you to a SLAVE.

  32. This is just stepping stone as there are many rounds out there that will violate a police officers vest, right down to the common 12 gauge slug. If they win with this round they will eliminate all of the rest and then I guess we just take our BB guns to the range.

    1. Actually, a 12 gauge slug generally will not penetrate a soft armor vest. It’s too fat, blunt, and soft. But it would likely break ribs and possibly do even worse damage, leaving the wearer vulnerable to a head shot.

      A sabot slug generally WILL go through a soft-armor vest. Nearly all rifle rounds, especially FMJ, will go through while barely even slowing down. Heck, even a bolt shot from a crossbow can penetrate a Level IIIA soft armor vest — there’s a video of this on YouTube.

  33. This country was founded on By The People, For The People by our God fearing forefathers not from people with a personal agenda to destroy this great nation. A country founded on God had better get back to God.

  34. I feel that this ban on m855 ammo is a way for the President and other gun grabbers to try and take our freedom to keep and bear arms . I have used this ammo in competitions and it don’t do any damage to the targets we use and is preferred because of how it preforms .

  35. So I just recently acquired a mini14 a month ago and now seeing this about possible ammo ban. Is it just the M855 green tip ammo being banned or all .223? I was reading something about it being anything that is full metal jacket. Does this include the “cheaper” ammo like the Silver Bear, Wolf, and Tulammo full metal jacket ammo sold on cheaperthandirt here?

  36. In response to Joe Podolsky;

    Joe said, “Their laws do not apply except on Federal Property.”

    Absolutely correct and true Joe. And this is just another case that needs to be investigated and argued in the high courts… And here is one way that might be done or at least started:

    Sometime back in Wisconsin a group of 5 men who were anti abortion decided to take the action of blocking access to a clinic that was at that time performing these abortion procedures. Local police were called in but because the new federal law had just been passed and enacted making it a federal crime to do what these 5 men had done, it was decided to let the feds handle the matter and these 5 men were arrested by the feds and as a result charged under this new federal law. Four of the five men tried to defend themselves in one way or another by claiming certain rights such as a 1st amendment Right. But the fifth man chose to fight the charge by challenging jurisdiction, claiming that federal law only applies on federal land and that this clinic was certainly not on any federal land. The case was lost at the local level but was appealed and at the appellant level he prevailed and all 5 cases were dismissed. This information was passed on to me by someone indirectly involved in this case but also very knowledgeable about the circumstances surrounding this case. In addition, and as a good side note, there was recently a posting I came across showing photos of the stone boundary markers for the ten mile area that is Washington DC with writing on the stones that in some of the photos can clearly be seen to read, “Jurisdiction of the United States”. It is in fact very telling that the word used here was “Jurisdiction”. The founding fathers and early Americans were intelligent wordsmiths and this was not done without forethought. You can view the map and photos of these numerous stone markers here: http://www.boundarystones.org/

    The above story of the 5 men is again another example of the notion I mentioned earlier to “Never argue the amount”. If the law does not apply to you (because as in this case the lack of jurisdiction) do you really care what they choose to charge you with?

    And as the ones who know say, “If you don’t raise an objection, then you don’t have one!”

    Maybe we need to start voicing our objections and making them Loud & Clear.

    AC

  37. Gentlemen –

    BATFE does not have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of U.S. M855 specification cartridges under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B), regardless of any ‘sporting purpose’ determination. Nor does BATFE have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of NATO STANAG 4172 specification cartridges under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B), again regardless of any ‘sporting purpose’ determination. The statutory language supposedly authorizing such a prohibition, cited by Denise Brown on Page 3 of the BATFE text titled “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)”, reads:

    (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means –

    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
    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.
    I have highlighted the words ‘constructed entirely’ for a reason which will become clear.

    The projectile specified in M855 specification ammunition, U.S. Army TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9342869, has a combined steel and lead metal core. 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (i) applies only to projectile cores:

    ….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….

    The core of the M855 projectile is not constructed entirely of steel, nor is the steel in the core of the M855 projectile combined with “tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium”. Rather, the steel in the projectile core of TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9342869 bullet is at the front of a lead metal component. These two components together, both within the projectile jacket, constitute the M855 projectile core. You can confirm this combination by reviewing U.S. Army TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9349656, which establishes the engineering requirements for the M855 projectile core.

    Please note the English language definition of the adverb ‘entirely’, as taken from Merriam-Webster:

    Definition of ENTIRELY

    1 : to the full or entire extent : completely

    2 : to the exclusion of others : solely

    By any correct reading of the English language, the core of the M855 projectile is not composed entirely of steel, or a combination of steel with any of the other metals specified in 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (i).

    18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (ii) applies only to projectiles larger than .22 caliber, designed and intended for a handgun, so the jacket weight percentage of the .22 caliber M855 projectile is not legally relevant to a determination of the M855 cartridge’s status as ‘armor piercing ammunition’. Also MIL-C-63989C (AR), the U.S. Army specification covering M855 cartridges, does not mention handguns. Further, the gas port pressure requirements established in Section 3.10.3 of MIL-C-63989C (AR) constructively exclude the ‘AR Type handguns’ cited in Denise Brown’s text as an application for M855 cartridges.

    Before an 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C) ‘sporting purposes’ exemption can be considered, BATFE must establish that the projectiles in M855 cartridges are indeed subject to ‘armored piercing ammunition’ regulation under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B). BATFE has not made this case, nor can BATFE make this case without abusing the clear statutory language.

    Please withdraw Denise Brown’s “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)” and terminate any further efforts to prohibit civilian possession or distribution of M855 projectiles and/or cartridges. Please extend all of these comments to cover any and all cartridges conforming to NATO STANAG 4172, which are functionally and constructively identical to U.S. Army M855 cartridges.

  38. This is what I sent on Feb. 2, 2015:

    ATF
    Public Comment on banning existing ammunition
    The vast majority of 855 and Ss109 ammunition is used for rifles. Comparatively, the number of rifles I have seen in the stores that use the ammunition in question far exceeds the number of pistols that I have ever seen in stores. I do not remember seeing an AR 15 pistol. Banning the ammunition because a few AR 15 pistols exist is nonsense. Please Do not do it.

  39. We don’t need this now or anytime in the future> The Feds are trying to show their highers powers again. Please help stop. this garbage. Everyone in Washington ain’t on the same page or the left hand don’t know what the left is doing.

  40. You know the other day I overheard a Spanish-Portugal ex citizen that is a legal resident of the US. She was telling about all the things going on in this political circus happened 20 years ago in their old home country. Now they are planning to move again….she said she is not going to try and live through another govt ruined/ruled country. Some real food for thought …..the stupidity has to end somehow and get this country back onto a right track. Seems nobody remembers the basis our founding fathers came here in the first place. And what happened to “In God we trust”? That is the first derailment……My .02
    Petition signed

  41. the government needs to stay out of our business…… Obama is not looking for all of us …. he hates americans…. he needs to go back to his country and us americans alone….. he is making this country weak and tearing it a part………..

  42. Here’s my thought. A ban on .223 ammo will only hurt the good guys. The ar owners who just love to target shoot for fun, and like me, customize and show off their ar’s at the range. The bad guys will still have ammo, and if not, they will simply use other caliber weapons, such as ak47, .308, and so on and so on. Any firearm is deadly in the wrong hands. So let’s say .223 ammo is banned, the bad guys start using other caliber weapons, then what? You can’t ban all ammo… We have to stand up America!!!! Stand up and fight for our constitutional rights. I’m sick and tired of our government bullying us. Besides, if this screwed up government had done their jobs properly over the last 20 years, we wouldn’t have these type of issues today. Shame on you Washington! And especially you Mr. Obama.

  43. @PeteDub,

    Thank you for responding to my comment. And yes, the use of firearms or any weapon for individual self defense and sporting use and/or for hunting was a given and was an accepted and understood Right well before anything was ever written into a Constitution or Bill of Rights. But what I meant by what I wrote in my comment is that the true reason for the Second Amendment was in fact to provide the means for the citizenry (via a citizens militia) to defend themselves against an oppressive government. And so any tool that technology made available that could be used as a weapon in a time of war was, and still is, what is meant by “arms” in referring to the Right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    The point that I tried to make in my original comment and that I think many are missing is one that is best summarized by the phrase, “Never argue over the amount”. The meaning of this little piece of advice that I was given long ago has to do with not making the mistake of arguing over any amount you may be asked to pay when in fact you have no liability to any of the debt being presented and therefore have no obligation to pay any sum being demanded from you. The correct thing to do in such a case is to ignore the amount and to reject the entire presentment without dishonor as the debt is simply not your responsibility. However, if you begin to argue over the amount being demanded from you, then in essence you are admitting to some degree of liability and admitting that you owe something, and now it becomes a simple matter of negotiation to get you to agree to pay some part of what is being demanded from you. The IRS uses this technique very successfully in hitting you with a very large amount of tax they claim you owe them in order to get you to agree to pay some fraction of the amount in order to settle the matter and to put an end to the problem that they fraudulently created. The point being is that we the American citizens do not owe any concessions on our Right to keep and bear arms!!! However, we have been tricked into “arguing over the amount” and fooled into thinking that we had to surrender some portions of our Right to keep and bear arms so that now what we have today is in fact a very “watered down version” of our Right protected under the Second Amendment and have been made to put up with a host of ridiculous and insane gun control laws which make no sense, are totally ineffective at curtailing crime, and only serve to further the agenda “they” have of abolishing all individual gun Rights… And furthermore, that this has happened and continues to be accomplished with the help of what I refer to as “controlled opposition” groups masquerading as gun rights advocates that are supposedly helping and serving the interest of gun owners like you and me, but in reality are doing what they have to do to insure that the conflict continues in order to continue their existence and to be able to continue their solicitations for new dues paying members and continued solicitations for more money contributions.

    And forget about politics. There is no politician that you could boot out of office or one that you could help get elected that would in the end solve this problem for you and me. These politicians (as they always do) find a way to get us to accept a negotiated settlement in order to lessen and to continue to erode our Rights until we wake up one day and find that we no longer have any Rights. I strongly believe that the better way of dealing with this problem is that, while we still have some semblance of a “Rule of Law” and while we can still say that our U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that a legal battle in the high courts would be the proper action to take. Let us use our legal system and call them out on what are blatant violations of constitutional principles and the rule of law. We do this until we can determine that the system is no longer working and is no longer respecting the rule of law and in which case it would therefore be time for the people to get rid of it and to institute a new system that answers to and respects the authority of the people. In other words, it would then be time to exercise the true intended purpose of the Right called for in the Second Amendment.

    AC

    1. Re: Ammunition Ban, M855 AP—Oppose
      To Whom it may Concern:
      I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed ammunition reclassification of the popular M855 ammunition.
      Commonly accepted and used for 30 years, no significant abuses of M855 .223/5.56mm ammunition has been documented that warrants such action. There is no evidence of an increased risk today than there was nearly 30 years ago when the “Sporting Purposes Exemption” was enacted.
      Recently, competing special interests have been attempting to prohibit or reduce lawful citizens access to firearms and ammunition through a series of legislation and actions that have all soundly been defeated through the legislative process, courts and the will of the majority.
      Based upon my personal experience, the elimination of the “Sporting Purposes” exemption will not enhance public safety and does not serve the interests of the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (LEOPA).
      If you have any questions or require anything additional, please do not hesitate to contact me.
      Sincerely,
      Joe Podolsky
      P.S. Is the Government going to trash all of their M855 AP that they bought for all of their Corporations? The laws you make are only good on Federal Property. http://youtu.be/HZY7LLySHE0
      • M855 ammunition should not be categorized as “armor piercing” in the first place, given that lead is the primary material beneath its copper jacket.
      • BATFE’s framework does not clarify the “sporting purposes” exemption; it simply interprets it into irrelevance.
      • The framework overturns nearly 30 years of settled law and the good faith expectations of gun owners and industry members.
      • The framework is totally at odds with the intent of the law to ensure that restrictions on armor piercing handgun ammunition do not unduly restrict common rifle ammunition, most of which is capable of penetrating police body armor when used in a rifle as intended.
      • BATFE incorrectly insists that it is required to establish an “objective” standard based on handgun design, yet it fails even to do that with the very broad “discretion” it retains to deny the exemption to projectiles that meet its “objective” test.
      • The framework will suppress the development of non-lead rifle projectiles that offer increased performance for hunters, decreased lead exposure, and solutions for hunters in states that restrict the use of lead in hunting.
      • The framework will likewise deter handgun development, as new designs could trigger bans.
      • Coupled with increasing attempts to ban lead projectiles, the framework could drastically reduce the availability of lawful ammunition for sporting and other legitimate purposes.
      • M855 ammunition in AR pistols is not a common threat faced by law enforcement officers.

      FAX : (202) 648-9741
      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
      ATTN: AP Ammo Comments

  44. It seems to me that people are getting away from the practical task at hand and getting into political philosophy. We need letter to the BATFE and to Congress opposing these creeping ammo bans.

    Much of what the author below has said about the Second Amendment is true. However, the reality is that the Constitution isn’t what a reasonable person reads but rather what five or more members of the Supreme Court want it to be. The can ignore the written text of the Constitution or the can will things into it that aren’t there. I don’t like this but it is real.

    Also, Congress may not be powerless in this. If a bill the Administration wants to sign is passed with some restriction on the BATFEs ability to regulate ammo in it, it could well be law. If it contained a major attack on say their healthcare law that would get a veto.

    So send the emails which mostly what we can do.

  45. Sent an email opposing the ban, appreciate the email template. Pretty sure, however, that the bullet is steel core …

    “lead is the primary material beneath its copper jacket.”

    1. That’s not correct. The core is *primarily* lead… with a small amount of steel in the tip of the core.

  46. “Commonly accepted and used for 30 years, no significant abuses of M855 .223/5.56mm ammunition HAVE been documented that WARRANT such action. ”

    Might want to correct the form letter…..They will just make fun of us.

  47. Gentlemen please,

    Arguing over whether or not a new gun control regulation that further restricts the Right to keep and bear arms is, in my opinion, a misdirected effort, and I believe is also falling into the trap of being led by what I believe to be “controlled opposition”. We have today the 1934 NFA and the Gun Control Act of 1968 as a direct result of the help and support given by the NRA to help pass this restrictive legislation and as a result, now have a very watered down version of our Right to keep and bear arms. We need to stop supporting these so called “gun rights” organizations that are more interested in continuing the conflict in order to justify their existence and in order to be able to solicit for more members and more dues and money contributions. There is in fact I believe a better way to put an end to gun restrictions laws once and for all if we can all unite and make the right argument in court.

    We have established that the U.S. Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land”, and in the past such as when they wanted to ban alcohol they first had to pass the 18th Amendment in order to “lawfully” give us Prohibition. And when they realized the mistake of Prohibition and wanted to reverse it, this could not be done by simple executive order or new congressional legislation because Prohibition was now the “law of the land” and so it required passing the 21st Amendment in order to end Prohibition. And even when they wanted to change the date of the inauguration for newly elected presidents from what had been the established date of March 4th for all presidents up until 1933, this also required a constitutional amendment and it was the 20th Amendment that now gives us a January date for swearing in a new president. So what is my point here?

    Well, if you do a word search on the complete text of the US Constitution and all of its amendments and search for any and all words related to arms such as gun, weapon, pistol, rifle, cannon, and anything else you can think of, what you will find is that the only word that appears anywhere in these documents is the word “arms” and it appears in only one place, in the Second Amendment. And so what does this tell us? It tells us that there has never been any change or alteration to the US Constitution affecting or in relationship to “the Right to keep and bear arms”. And so therefore, absent a constitutional amendment, the Second Amendment stands as written, and as written, and with the effect of it being the Supreme Law of the Land, it says simply that “the Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed”. This Right to keep and bear arms remains to this day a Right and has never been converted to a privilege that can be regulated by government. And so in truth, all gun control laws, statutes and regulations are unlawful and are null and void from their inception… and this is not my opinion but rather the ruling from the United States Supreme Court… see below.

    “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

    Additionally, “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. ShelbyCounty, 118 U.S. 42

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

    Constitutional Right – A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith. – Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, 567, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685. – Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition

    The Constitution is a legal binding contract between the government and its employer (the American people). The U. S. Supreme Court was right when it said, “The Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it meant when it was adopted, it means now!” U.S. vs. South Carolina (1905)

    People please wake up!!! We have been and are continuing to fight the wrong battle. We the People do not owe any concessions to government where the Right to keep and bear arms is concerned as this is a protected Right (not a privilege) and can not be regulated or infringed upon. If gun rights organizations were less interested in continuing to increase their membership rolls and to solicit for more of our money and instead were truly interested in protecting our Right to keep and bear arms, then they would all ban together and with the help of a team of patriotic constitutional attorneys would fight the correct battle in the high courts and put a final end to this madness.

    Gun Rights were never about any “sporting use” or even individual self defense. We all know what the intent of the founding fathers was in including the all important Right to keep and bear arms in our founding documents. The founding fathers knew all too well that a free people enjoying freedom and liberty could only remain a free people if they had the means to defend that freedom and liberty from a government intending to become oppressive and tyrannical.

    Yours in Freedom & Liberty,
    AC

    1. AC,

      You have stated the ESSENCE of the problem and the Truth of the solution beautifully !!

      And by so doing , have hinted at the general problem with the Obama administration and the whole can of worms that our Non-elected gov’t agencies represent !

    2. This is without a doubt, the “perfect” definition of the 2nd amendment, as well as ANY laws written into the Constitution. As it says “The Supreme Law of the Land” Any law written, local, state, or federal having to do with firearms legality other than Constitutional law SHOULD be NULL, and VOID!

    3. This is all true; but as we have seen Barack and his merry band of liberals do not care about law or what is right, as we have seen with his “phone and pen”. And that is what scares me the most.instead of fighting his unjust executive orders, we should be working the get him out of our office as soon as possible by any means possible.

    4. @AC

      You said “Gun Rights were never about any ‘sporting use’ or even individual self defense.” Assuming that you mean that gun rights are not LIMITED to sporting use or self-defense, you are absolutely correct and the US Supreme Court agreed with you in the Miller case.

      The “in common use at the time” standard in the Miller case was not about self defense or sporting use, it was about MILITARY use. In Miller, the Supreme Court reasoned that arms are constitutionally protected if they are of types “in common use at the time” for MILITARY purposes.

      The basis of the court’s reasoning was that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to have MILITARY weapons available for defense of “the security of the state” in our role as the “militia.” The phrase “in common use at the time” actually came from the Militia Acts, which REQUIRED all able-bodied adult males to have military weapons of the type “in common use at the time” in order to be prepared to defend the security of the state if and when needed.

      Under that reasoning, the court upheld the NFA’s tax on sawed-off shotguns, given that sawed-off shotguns were not “in common use at the time” for MILITARY purposes. [Under the same Miller rationale, though, the NFA tax on automatic weapons cannot survive constitutional challenge under the Miller standard because automatic weapons are in fact “in common use” at this time (M4/16) for MILITARY purposes.]

      Under the 2nd Amendment and the Miller standard, M855 green tip ammo is constitutionally protected because it is in common use for MILITARY purposes. M855 is further protected under the Heller application of the Miller standard, because We the People have decided for ourselves that it is a suitable round for the lawful purposes WE choose without the nanny-state telling us how to live our lives — sporting, self-defense and preparing to defend the “security of the state” in our role as the militia.

  48. It’s all about forced control. The establishment is unable to take forced control with a well armed public. We are a considerable force and not to be messed with. They would not win and they know it. Make sure you are able to arm others as well as yourself if the establishment feels the need to draw force upon US. Now go out and celebrate our freedom by buying a high capacity AR or AK magazine and support local gun shows. Love and practice your freedom everyday. God bless all of US.

  49. Every supporter of the 2nd Amendment should be sending emails to the BATFE, calling or writing their Senators and Reps and basically being proactive on this over reach. The BATFE and the real culprit behind this, obama, are using this to make it more difficult for AR15 owners by banning a common use ammunition that has been almost no threat to law enforcement. It has been used for sport purposes which is why it has held that exemption status for so long and further more does not actually qualify as “armor piercing” based on the bullets content. If allowed to let this go by the wayside we 2nd Amendment supporters will have other ammo restrictions further shoved down our throats by this out of control president and his administration.

  50. Be careful about what rights you give up. Not long ago the government attacked cigarettes, now slowly they are taking our rights to bare guns. Peace by peace and little by little they are taking our right to bare guns
    By taking away ammo will cause the black market to to sell to criminals. If that happens, only then will the liberals and anti gun activist be right with what they claim. When the law abiding citizen become unable to get what the criminals get from the black market, the crime rate will multiply. Stand up for what is right. Hopefully our senators and congressmen will stand up for our rights.

  51. Re: Ammunition Ban, M855 AP—Oppose

    To Whom it may Concern:

    I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed ammunition reclassification of the popular M855 ammunition.

    Commonly accepted and used for 30 years, no significant abuses of M855 .223/5.56mm ammunition has been documented that warrants such action. There is no evidence of an increased risk today than there was nearly 30 years ago when the “Sporting Purposes Exemption” was enacted.

    Recently, competing special interests have been attempting to prohibit or reduce lawful citizens access to firearms and ammunition through a series of legislation and actions that have all soundly been defeated through the legislative process, courts and the will of the majority.

    Based upon my personal experience, the elimination of the “Sporting Purposes” exemption will not enhance public safety and does not serve the interests of the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (LEOPA).

    If you have any questions or require anything additional, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    Sincerely,

    John K. Tobin

    Pressure needs to be applied from all directions and elections are just around the corner. Don’t forget to contact your U.S. Senators and Members of Congress. Encourage them to oppose the BATFE’s proposed action to ban M855 ammunition and other rifle cartridges that are overwhelmingly used by law-abiding Americans for self-defense, sport shooting and other legitimate purposes. Use the “Write Your Lawmakers” feature on the NRA-ILA’s website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.

    A few more points you may wish to include offered by the NRA-ILA:
    •M855 ammunition should not be categorized as “armor piercing” in the first place, given that lead is the primary material beneath its copper jacket.
    •BATFE’s framework does not clarify the “sporting purposes” exemption; it simply interprets it into irrelevance.
    •The framework overturns nearly 30 years of settled law and the good faith expectations of gun owners and industry members.
    •The framework is totally at odds with the intent of the law to ensure that restrictions on armor piercing handgun ammunition do not unduly restrict common rifle ammunition, most of which is capable of penetrating police body armor when used in a rifle as intended.
    •BATFE incorrectly insists that it is required to establish an “objective” standard based on handgun design, yet it fails even to do that with the very broad “discretion” it retains to deny the exemption to projectiles that meet its “objective” test.
    •The framework will suppress the development of non-lead rifle projectiles that offer increased performance for hunters, decreased lead exposure, and solutions for hunters in states that restrict the use of lead in hunting.
    •The framework will likewise deter handgun development, as new designs could trigger bans.
    •Coupled with increasing attempts to ban lead projectiles, the framework could drastically reduce the availability of lawful ammunition for sporting and other legitimate purposes.
    •M855 ammunition in AR pistols is not a common threat faced by law enforcement officers.

  52. Fear Politicians of any type. I am totally against gun control and the violation of our 2nd amendment constitutional rights. We have the right to own guns of all types in this nation and I am sick of people like our President and others who want to take away this right to hunt, shoot as a sport and the vital need of self defense. I an also a Vietnam Vet who knows to shoot, hunt and do all of these things and enjoy my rights legally and responsibly. I also vote and will vote against anyone who attempts to take these rights away from me by devious means as our present administration seems to desire. Get the balance of power in this nation back to the people who with God’s help and the Constitution created it.

    1. Here in CA its agains the law for a civilian to even own or purchase a bullet proof vest.How in any way is this not for safety.Point being is that its not about our personal safety it is for the person safety of those that are in process of taking away American rights and first major tactic is disarming America.There is a reason the second amendment was created.Government is not there to rule over us or make up there own laws the way they see fit going against what the majority of the American people.The government does not own the united states nor do they own the people in which this country is built on.To them we are second class citizens we are the slaves that build this country while they find ways to rob us for there own gain.There greed is money and money equals power.Something they have enouph of to last 10 life times.They don’t do charity we do not exist only as poor white Hispanic blck and so on TRASH that work in the fields.They want control and in order to take more they need to disarm citizens.There is no longer dimplomacy its more like imperialism and to keep them in check is why there is a second amendment.They do not own us and if America had the right to vote a lot of these laws would never pass.There still trying to pass that pipe line even after every one said no.Its all about power and greed for more.

  53. Good lord here we go again! Ammo scalping- rediculous price gouging- good thing i stocked up on 5.56 when everybody else was buying 22lr at $1 a round…

  54. It is obvious that the Government is using the AR Pistol which is using the .223 as an excuse to broaden the ban to rifles that use this caliber. If the Government was sincere it would just ban the AR Pistol saying that pistols cannot use armor piercing ammunition. The main focal point should be that the Second Amendment,s right to bear arms and the history surrounding it had NOTHING to do with sportsman or hunting or “sportsman purposes”, but self defense. If you followed the government,s logic, they want to lead you down the prim rose path that the only long barreled rifle you could possess would be Vice President Joe Biden,s weapon of choice, the “shotgun” because it is for sportsman purposes. This is the argument that has to be made in a federal court.

  55. I’m outrage at the thought that they are going to try to ban the. 223 or 5.56 whats next 22lr or 9mm 12 Guage ammo.why don’t ban something that might really make a difference

  56. David; The strategy is of course to get rid of the AR in all its forms. Arguments against the irrelevance of BATFE proposals fall on deaf ears. Our elected officials and the courts are a good hope (if they have any grit!), especially if aided with the legal accumen of gun and ammunition manufacturers. But … they have to have the stones to do it! I know that owners are up for a fight! I’ll take your advice about letters, e-mails, and phonecalls regardless. Sincerely , Nick Such

  57. I suggest caution in providing some of those NRA provided ‘reasons’ against the ban to BATFE. Some of them may in fact be the reasons they want to do this – complain about those loudly enough and we will harden their resolve on the matter. I think the more appropriate emphasis is on reasons for why the ban is stupid, or will be ineffective. Just my opinion guys. Go with it if it makes sense to you, don’t if you disagree.

    I also suggest buying a few cases right now.

    1. It is the “AR pistols” that let them do this in the first place. There a lot of people on our side waving a “red flag at the bull” if you will. The key thing is that they are not staying with in the law in what they are doing. M855 is not steel core.

  58. I don’t think there’s a complicated strategy or conspiracy by the ATF. This ban follows a recent ban on 7N6 (“armor piercing” 5.45×39) which met with little resistance. They got away with that pretty easy and figured they would move on to 5.56. I expect these tyrannical BANS will continue until the ATF gets a good punch in the nose. This ATF is not about to back down from comments, emails, or millions of emails. They have tasted power and it is sweet. I thinks the courts are our only solution to this, though with the barrage of liberal appellate judges installed over recent years, it’s no sure thing. The NRA and GOA supposedly have pockets deep enough (our dues and donations) for this fight. Should we prevail in court, perhaps previous ammo bans (AP 7.62×39 and 5.45×39) will be crushed.

  59. Actually the “ban” is not in effect at this time. You can still by M855 if you can find it. I do agree that the Obama Administration may well have its mind made up as to what will happen after the March 16 comment period is over. However, it is possible that a if the protest is wide enough it could result in the Administration backing off this plan.

    In addition to contacting the BATFE it is important to contact your senators and representatives to get them in on the effort. It is most important to contact you Democrat senator and representatives if you have them. The reason for this is that the Administration will be far more responsive to them than the Republicans.

    Big point is that if they get by with this they may go further next time.

  60. This comment is not in relation to the legality of this ban. The only reason this ammo is so cheap is because the majority of ranges do not allow steel core ammunition. Demand is lower. If they did, sellers would charge just as much for it.

  61. FMJ, copper over lead is not armor penetrating and is the most popular form of Ammo in use. This seems like the ultimate slippery slope.

    1. Your comment makes it seem like they’re banning all 5.56/.223. This is steel tipped ammunition they’re talking about. If you don’t speak with absolute accuracy, it gives the anti-gun people that much more leeway to make their argument.

    2. It really does not matter …. the ‘federals’ have NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY to do or say anything concerning the weapons of ammunition held or used by WE THE PEOPLE ….. Read the Second Amendment.

    3. One could argue that this is exactly what could not be banned under the Second Amendment. The “well regulated militia” phrase should be understood to me that the arms protected should definitely include those that would be useful to be integrated into a national defense plan. Certainly the standard military ammunition should be available to the public for marksmanship training and use to protect the country.

    4. This is true but it is part of a general pan to make ammunition less available by restricting the type of materials used and to requirements to drive up costs.

      Also, the 1986 law speaks of bullet cores not tips. So it seem this is an attempt to extend the law beyond what was intended. Also, there is the 30 year precedent for allowing M855 ammo. What has happened that has changed the policy after all of this time? I think that there is a good legal case against what the BATFE is doing if someone has the standing and resources to take it to court.

  62. I sent the letter,, copyed and pasted, if I put it in my own words it would not have been as nice or professional. Damm dirt bags. See what I mean.

  63. If anyone has access to the HIGHER UPS at NRA, we need to use some funds to make some TV/internet ads using emotion like anti-gun people do. Most anti-2nd Amendment folks are ignorant to its most fundamental function to protect us from tyrants like the ones that we’re dealing with now.

  64. I have been studying lately the potential use of the basic AR15 platform for the breadth of existing and Wildcat loads. I would like to remind everyone that a custom sabot projectile can do horrible things. If M855 goes out, more lethal armor penetrators will be in. I’ve seen how easy it is to make a tungsten core penetrator with a precision drill press and hard inserts. I’ll put a 45 grain .125 dia. x 4.50+ tugnsten penetrator moving at 3850+ fps up against an XM855 anytime.

    I always train head shots.

  65. MUST READ – TO THE END:

    After news broke of the 5.56 855 ammo ban, I spent this past week suspiciously pondering exactly why this issue is suddenly an ATF priority.

    Even field agents I’ve talked to haven’t a clue and claim it’s an arbitrary maneuver hatched deep from within the bowels of their parent’s legal department – the DOJ, and in collaboration with the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (FTB).

    Let’s keep in mind that even the ATF’s recent formal opinion which announced the ban explicitly states the determination was based on information solicited and closed way back in 2012. So again I asked myself why all of a sudden ban this specific ammo now?

    Interestingly enough the ban comes immediately on the heels of a highly humiliating moment for the ATF in which SIG poked the ATF in the eye and created controversy by acquiring and marketing their one armed SIG Brace.

    Anyone that knows a thing about the delicate balance which turns a legal firearm into a felony with a simple hacksaw also knows that such a brace would be seen as highly controversial to the ATF.

    As such, the SIG Brace’s mere push to the masses by SIG was seen by the ATF as a public legal slam which challenged their authority in an interesting way. It was so well thought out by SIG’s legal staff that the ATF couldn’t lawfully stop it. SIG’s actions were viewed as defiant by Obama’s ATF.

    Subsequent to this, the ATF was forced to contend with individual responses to supposed inquiries about the legality of the brace which eventually culminated in a formal open opinion released in January 2015.

    To the ATF’s embarrassment, their open ruling seemed to contradict statements made in those individual opinions released earlier, yet the ATF still had to concede the SIG Brace to be legal, but with one stipulation… If you place the SIG Brace against your shoulder to fire the gun, this is considered a “redesign” of the firearm and without an NFA tax stamp will be grounds for prosecution.

    At the ATF’s own expense, their decision became the laughing stock of the gun community; especially given the ATF’s new found power to create, regulate, and prosecute illegal shooting stances. Aside from a plethora of humiliating public feedback on their overreaching decision, SIG openly announced they’d again legally take the ATF to the woodshed for a spanking on the issue.

    All of this erupted in January 2015 and only a month later the ATF suddenly bans ammo that could be fired from the same weapon the SIG Brace was designed to support. What a nasty-nasty world we live in when our government plays such games just because some egos were bruised.

    Now for worse news: Despite Cheaper Than Dirt’s noble efforts to rally the troops, the banning of this ammo has already been decided and is in effect. The ATF’s solicitation deadline is only asking for comment on how best to implement the ban, not revoke it. Quote:

    “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.”

    It still would not hurt to continue the barrage of complaints and contact Congress to ensure the “Will of the People” is known for future legislative reversal efforts.

  66. I probably have less than 1000 rounds of M855. I do own however a bunch more conventional ball, soft, hollow, and red tipped controlled expansion rounds. At 200 yards or less these are especially lethal.

    The XM855 advantage is penetration. I keep my loaded magazines organized. Virtually any 5.56 round will penetrate a towel foldedto three thicknesses and totally FU what is underneath.

  67. If you think that the Muslim Rizoli, and Manchurian Candidate Obama, care about what you think or do, you must be living under-a-rock.
    His mission, from the Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, is to destroy America, by whatever means are available.
    And he is getting his mission accomplished everyday!

    1. You make the rest of us look bad. No wonder the anti-gun movement has so much support when crazy people like you are part of our ranks. People legitimately don’t understand what the arguments are, so they do what they’re told. When they see comments like yours, they feel justified.

    2. DC, I dont understand your viewpoint. You can bash Charlie but I can support his statements with actions (and inactions) by obama & his minions. Can you support your statement in any way?

  68. They already ban ak47 russian ammo when i bought 4-5 ak47s but i didnt say or do anything.then they ban ak 74 ammo right after i just bought a russian ak 74 ..still didnt say nothing or do anything…now ive been collecting and shooting ar 15s after few m4s and ar pistols now they wanna ban our nations black rifles 5.56×45 m855 ammo….!!!!!!!!!!! This is bs its non 2nd ammendment.. now i understand what people mean how something little like this could start a civil war………

    1. Those bans were enacted likely because of the escalating situation with Russia right now. It really sucks, but it likely contributed to why you didn’t say anything. This ban is happening because people aren’t educated enough to understand the issue. If each of us educated just one person on the real facts, it would go a long way to improving the situation.

  69. I did my part; I signed then passed along the petition e-mail I received from the NSSF regarding this. Now I realize I need to renew my NRA membership.

  70. 1. The relevant message to oppose the ATF’s proposal outside the ATF is that is that the “green tip” ammo the ATF proposes to ban is constitutionally protected under the Miller “in common use at the time” standard as applied in Heller. Any other discussion outside the ATF is irrelevant and just weakens the basic and controlling point that “green tip” is constitutionally protected.

    Under the Miller standard, as applied in Heller, the use of any type of arm is constitutionally protected if it that arm “in common use at the time” for ANY lawful purpose, not just “sporting use” as provided in 18 U.S.C. sec, 921(a)(17(C).

    The statutory “sporting use” standard on which the ATF proposes to rely is facially unconstitutional because there are constitutionally protected uses of arms beyond mere “sporting use.” Those constitutionally protected uses of arms include self-defense under Heller, and the Peoples’ defense of “the security of the state” (in our constitutional role as the “militia”) under Miller.

    So, to avoid being facially constitutional, 18 U.S.C. sec, 921(a)(17(C) would have to provide a broad exemption for any “lawful use” (including, as a minimum, self-defense and defense of the security of the state). The bottom line is that the only use of a firearm that may ever be made illegal is actual criminal use — any limitation broader than that is facially unconstitutional.

    2. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the patent unconstitutionality of the narrow “sporting use” standard in 18 U.S.C. sec, 921(a)(17(C), the ATF simply is not in a position to give any consideration to the unconstitutionality of a federal statute, no matter how clear. Only the courts may make those determinations under the “separation of powers” doctrine. So, unless and until a federal judge declares that “sporting use” standard unconstitutionally narrow — which it unquestionably is — the ATF has the DUTY to apply the law as Congress wrote it.

    3. Sadly, though, we all know that the ATF is NOT really applying the statute as Congress wrote it, because green tip does not even arguably fall within the legal definition of “armor piercing” in 18 U.S.C. sec, 921(a)(17)(A or (B).

    Green tip is a predominantly lead round with a steel core. Any material amount of lead in a projectile excludes that projectile from the statutory definition of “armor piercing,” because lead — being a very soft material compared to other metals — is not among the list of materials that make up the definition of “armor piercing.”

    Green tip clearly does not fall into the “fully jacketed” alternative definition because (a) it is not larger in diameter than .22 caliber (green tip and .22 caliber rimfire both being the same .224″ in diameter), and (b) it is not “intended for use in a handgun” but instead was specifically designed for use in long arms. The ATF cannot claim that green tip is “larger” than .22 caliber on a mass basis, because at 55 grains the green tip projectile is lighter/smaller than, for example, Aquila’s 60 grain subsonic .22LR round.

    4. So, the relevant message to ATF is this:

    “The M855 “green tip” ammo ATF proposes to ban does not even arguably fall within the legal definition of “armor piercing” under 18 U.S.C. sec. 921(a)(17)(A) or (B). The M855 projectile itself is substantially made of lead and its core is substantial made of elements not listed in subsection (A). Furthermore, the projectile obviously is not larger than .22 caliber as contemplated in subsection (B), given that both .22 caliber rimfire and M855 projectiles have the identical diameter of .224″.

    But even if M855 did fall within the legal definition of “armor piercing,” it is exempted under 18 U.S.C. sec, 921(a)(17(C) because it is a frangible projectile designed for use for target shooting. M855 is further exempted because the Attorney General cannot lawfully disregard the fact that M855’s overwhelming actual and intended use by the People is for the lawful “sporting uses” of target shooting for training and competition (including 3-gun and similar competitions), and hunting (M855 is well known and commonly used as a particularly effective varmint round and some hunters even use it for deer and wild hogs).

    There are no known cases of civilians using M855 as an armor-piercing round, as it actually does not pierce armor; indeed, M855 doesn’t even pierce body armor designated as minimally effective for law-enforcement use. In fact, ATF has formally and expressly admitted that M855 is NOT armor-piercing, by knowingly excluding M855 from published lists of armor-piercing arms.

    If ATF dares to disregard the facts and the law in cowardly bending to pressure to ban the most common long-arm center-fire cartridge in civilian use in the US today, then you can be sure that in the lawsuits that follow every ATF employee who uses that cartridge for sporting uses will be forced to admit to that sporting use under oath, along with the admission that ATF had previously excluded that cartridge from the list of armor-piercing arms and the admission that there are no known cases of M855 being used to pierce armor.

    No matter what kind of political pressure you may be receiving from the White House and anti-freedom fanatics to try to disarm law-abiding citizens with a blanket ban of the most common long-arm center-fire cartridge We the People choose for lawful purposes, you really don’t want to harm the credibility of federal law enforcement in the United States by exposing the gross dishonesty within the ATF the sworn testimony of ATF’s own employees will necessarily reveal.”

    1. Thank you, that was very in site full. Could you maybe send that to your congressman. And may I have permission to send it to mine?

    2. @William d. shumate

      Feel free to use it as you see fit. I write what I post as a public service, not for personal gain.

      With all due respect to Dolbee, who certainly has good intentions, please do not use what he writes, as it is so badly written that it risks discredit to advocates of gun rights.

    3. Dave,

      You are on the right track here. I recommend we also write and pressure the NRA to back a Constitutional challenge to the M855 ban and the former BATF bans (Barnes Solids bullets and 5.45×39) and the underlying Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986, because the bans do not meet the Miller standard or meet other Constitutional tests. Tell the NRA that its opposition and support of this legal effort is imperative!

      I’m not saying that members of Congress should not be contacted too, but Obama will surely veto any action that Congress takes and M855 supplies will be dead by the next election. Even a lawsuit will take too long, unless a judge were to issue a stay of execution on the BATF ban.

  71. Maybe the ammo manufacturers and retailers won’t turn over lists of customers, but is there any fear that BATFE will use the names & addresses of those who voluntarily send comments to create an M855 registry to provide DHS if the law in fact passes?

  72. i use this ammo but i have found that 5.56/223 62gr. psp is a good replacement if this bill go into law.
    this Administration has done more to damage this country.i can not wait for he to leave office.

  73. thanks for getting this important message out, Dave. Many people are unaware that the vast majority of sporty ammunition qualifies as “armor piercing” simply via the velocity that it travels at. Every modern sporting caliber can penetrate common bullet proof vests.
    This newest tactic, and for many other reasons, is why 2AO was formed.

    Today, we have launched IPA – The Institute for political action – to help fight this and other deceitful and purposely unconstitutional methods of going after our firearms and ammunition, as well as our Second Amendment rights.

    Have your readers go to http://www.toamendment.org, register, and become involved. We have chapters and activities in almost every state in the nation.

  74. Hope it’s OK. I have been posting links to last weeks M855 ban story on other blogs I follow.I am just one old man buts so far there have been 800-900 views by people who might not have known about it. The only place I saw it was on Shooters Log.

    Don’t just call your Reps. Use social media to pass the word. That’s how the left gets things done. We are behind the times.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

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.