Proposed ban on XM855 ammunition

runawaygun762

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
954
Location
Ft Leonard Wood, MO
A petition to get nameless bureaucrats to reverse a decision they have undoubtedly already made. "Sure, we'll accept comments and let your opinions be posted. It may change our minds. Tee Hee Hee".
 

Fleche

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
346
Location
Greenville, SC - Formerly Edmond, OK
.223 and 5.56 have doubled in price in 2 days. If these retailers were truly worried it was going to be banned, would they raise the price? Although, it's a great opportunity to sell your $,25 ammo at $.50 and look like you are doing people a favor (while truly being another CTD).
 

charger arms

Ask Me About My Cocker Spaniels
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,388
Location
Osage City, Kansas
David Marlow said:
A petition to get nameless bureaucrats to reverse a decision they have undoubtedly already made. "Sure, we'll accept comments and let your opinions be posted. It may change our minds. Tee Hee Hee".
While I agree with you that the decision is most likely already made, if you don't take the time to voice your concern, you can guarantee it won't be changed.
I have seen 2 issues in the last few years get overturned or seriously delayed because the 2A community took the time to call, write and file comments. The first one was in 2007 and OSHA was wanting to add so many restrictions on storing ammunition and gun powder that it would force most places to stop carrying any of it at all. The second was the elimination of NFA Trust. The comments were so numerous, they have yet to finish reading or answering them all.

Here is where you can email, fax or USPS your voice:

[SIZE=10pt]ATF will accept comments on this proposal until March 16, 2015. Email or write ATF today and tell them you oppose this unnecessary, misguided and damaging ban on commonly used ammunition for America's most popular sporting rifles. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Email:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [email protected] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Fax:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] (202) 648-9741.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Mail:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] 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.[/SIZE]
 

Scott Hearn

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
2,614
Location
Moore, OK
Adam don't forget the DOD mutilating brass and selling as scrap at 1/3 the price of selling it to reloaders. That got reversed rather quickly, but this is ATF...
 

dennishoddy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,728
Location
Ponca City, Ok
I have permission from the author to spread this around, and use it as you may to notify the BATF for public comment, and the second is for notification of your public representatives.

Email, fax, or call. Do not send snail mail as snail mail has to go through a screening process for dangerous products before being forwarded to the legislator. It can take weeks.

How to find your legislator no matter where you live: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/






  1. http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...m.cfm?State=OK






This is the comments for the BATF:








  1. To Whom It May Concern,

    The current proposal to ban M855 ammo by BATFE for civilian sale raises several troubling points. To wit:

    First, M855 has been unregulated on the civilian market since its introduction in the late 70’s. There are literally millions and millions of rounds in the hands of the public. Regulating it now is merely creating a black market with artificially inflated prices for the consumer and would do little to reduce its availability to those who would ignore the rules and laws of the United States in pursuit of criminal activities.

    Second, it is designed for and intended to be fired in rifle barrels of 20 inches or longer. It is documented to be a poor performer in shorter barrels, such as the 14.5” barrel of the M4 carbine. Firing it in a pistol length barrel is counterintuitive, as there are many rounds exhibiting superior performance in shorter barrels. As such, the intent of this proposed rule is also counter-intuitive and does not accomplish any quantifiable objective.

    Third, M855 ammunition does not even meet the definition of “armor piercing” ammunition as defined by BATFE’s own definitions, per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(), which read:

    (B)The term “armor piercing ammunition” means-
    (i) 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
    (ii) 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.
    This does not describe M855 ammunition, therefore it is excluded from the definition. M855 does not have a steel core, nor is it a steel projectile. It has a steel “tip”, over a base lead core, jacketed in copper. At velocities above 2,450 fps, it exhibits fragmentation, which is the opposite of a round intended for steel or body armor penetration. The round was designed to penetrate light intermediate barriers and still perform, not steel plate or body armor.
    Fourth, this ammunition is routinely used for sporting purposes all across the country, from varmint and small game hunting to popular sporting competitions of various types. It is readily obtainable and inexpensive (currently) when compared to other available ammunition in this caliber of comparable performance. Removing it from the market places an unnecessary financial burden on the public for virtually no explainable benefit to public safety.

    Fifth, and most disturbing is the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the federal government, when viewed in light of the recent court decision against The United States in Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. United States, which the U.S. Dept. of Justice argued as the defendant. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...11cv0084-112-0
    While this court order specifically covers M855A1 ammunition, one cannot help but question the timing and appearance of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to include whether this will financially impact Liberty Ammunition, LLC in any way.


    If the BATFE intends to continue pursuing this NPRM in light of all the valid reasons not to, please address each of these concerns in a reply, and in the Federal Register. I appreciate your time and consideration regarding this most important issue.


    This a a reply you can use for your Representative or Senator.








    Honorable (insert name)

    I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding a recent NPRM from the BATFE, which seeks to ban M855, 5.56X45mm ammunition for citizen use. Please help us in combating this capricious and overzealous "power of the pen" backdoor gun control scheme. These are my concerns:

    First, M855 has been unregulated on the civilian market since its introduction in the late 70’s. There are literally millions and millions of rounds in the hands of the public. Regulating it now is merely creating a black market with artificially inflated prices for the consumer and would do little to reduce its availability to those who would ignore the rules and laws of the United States in pursuit of criminal activities.

    Second, it is designed for and intended to be fired in rifle barrels of 20 inches or longer. It is documented to be a poor performer in shorter barrels, such as the 14.5” barrel of the M4 carbine. Firing it in a pistol length barrel is counterintuitive, as there are many rounds exhibiting superior performance in shorter barrels. As such, the intent of this proposed rule is also counter-intuitive and does not accomplish any quantifiable objective.

    Third, M855 ammunition does not even meet the definition of “armor piercing” ammunition as defined by BATFE’s own definitions, per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)( B), which read:

    ( B)The term “armor piercing ammunition” means-
    (i) 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
    (ii) 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.
    This does not describe M855 ammunition, therefore it is excluded from the definition. M855 does not have a steel core, nor is it a steel projectile. It has a steel “tip”, over a base lead core, jacketed in copper. At velocities above 2,450 fps, it exhibits fragmentation, which is the opposite of a round intended for steel or body armor penetration. The round was designed to penetrate light intermediate barriers and still perform, not steel plate or body armor.

    Fourth, this ammunition is routinely used for sporting purposes all across the country, from varmint and small game hunting to popular sporting competitions of various types. It is readily obtainable and inexpensive (currently) when compared to other available ammunition in this caliber of comparable performance. Removing it from the market places an unnecessary financial burden on the public for virtually no explainable benefit to public safety.

    Fifth, and most disturbing is the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the federal government, when viewed in light of the recent court decision against The United States in Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. United States, which the U.S. Dept. of Justice argued as the defendant. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...11cv0084-112-0
    While this court order specifically covers M855A1 ammunition, one cannot help but question the timing and appearance of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to include whether this will financially impact Liberty Ammunition, LLC in any way.

    If the BATFE intends to continue pursuing this NPRM in light of all the valid reasons not to, please address these concerns in a reply. I appreciate your time and consideration regarding this most important issue.

    Respectfully, (insert your name)













 

dennishoddy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,728
Location
Ponca City, Ok
Here is probably the driving reason for this legislation, and it should be stopped.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/21/-liberty-ammunition-m855a1-m80a1/22103351/

The U.S. government will pay a Florida ammunition-maker more than $15.6 million after losing a patent-infringement lawsuit regarding the design of M855A1 and M80A1 rounds.
Liberty Ammunition also will receive royalties of 1.4 cents per round on that ammunition until the patent expires in 2027, according to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruling, issued in late December and first reported in the Bradenton (Fla.) Herald. That could mean several millions more in payout: The government, primarily the Army, ordered more than 158 million of the M855A1 rounds in fiscal 2013, the lawsuit states, and Army budget documents show plans to purchase at least 65 million M855A1 rounds of various types in fiscal 2015.
The government is "considering its options on appeal," Justice Department spokeswoman Nicole Navas said in an email. Army public affairs personnel would not comment, citing pending litigation.
"We're very satisfied with the judgment," George Phillips, Liberty's chief executive officer, said Wednesday. "The [court] upheld our contention that the government had violated our patent ... and PJ Marx, our inventor and founder, is now acknowledged as the inventor of enhanced-performance-round technology.
Marx, an established inventor in the music industry who began pursuing a better bullet after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, first spoke with Army officials about his Enhanced Performance Incapacitative Composite round in 2004, the ruling states. Marx filed a patent application on the EPIC round in 2005 which five years later became Patent No. 7,748,325, the patent at the heart of the lawsuit.
Judge Charles Lettow found the government's ammunition design infringed on the patent, the rights of which Marx assigned to Liberty, a company he founded in 2005. Lettow did not side with Liberty on allegations that the government violated three nondisclosure agreements made between Marx and various military officials during the ammunition-development process. The NDAs weren't ratified by the Army or U.S. Special Operations Command, Lettow ruled, and thus did not constitute enforceable contracts.
Phillips would not put a figure on the possible total compensation through 2027 but said he expected government ammunition purchases to remain fairly constant over that time period.
The lead-free 5.56mm EPRs "improve hard and soft target performance" while containing "an environmentally friendly projectile," according to an online fact sheet from Army Acquisition Support Center. The Army began shipping the so-called "green bullet" to Afghanistan in 2010, replacing M855 ammunition that had been developed after the Vietnam War and entered into wide use in the early 1980s.
Liberty filed its suit in 2011. The case reached trial last June, with closing arguments in October.
 

runawaygun762

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
954
Location
Ft Leonard Wood, MO
I may be wrong as two boys banging on the White House lawn, but it also occurred to me that since our objections will be completely ignored by F-Troop, I might try to contact the MO State Attorney General's office and ask them to consider filing an injunction. The round clearly doesn't meet the legal definition of armor-piercing, so they have no authority under US Code to ban it. I'm also contacting my legislators to ask them to take a hard look at batfee's funding if this **** goes through.
 

dennishoddy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,728
Location
Ponca City, Ok
David Marlow said:
I may be wrong as two boys banging on the White House lawn, but it also occurred to me that since our objections will be completely ignored by F-Troop, I might try to contact the MO State Attorney General's office and ask them to consider filing an injunction. The round clearly doesn't meet the legal definition of armor-piercing, so they have no authority under US Code to ban it. I'm also contacting my legislators to ask them to take a hard look at batfee's funding if this **** goes through.
The administration has no authority to issue amnesty to illegal aliens either but the idiot in office sure did. Thank God for the Judge in Tx putting brakes on this issue.
Hopefully your avenue will produce the same results.
The supreme court has shown sympathy for states rights.
 

runawaygun762

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
954
Location
Ft Leonard Wood, MO
I've sent an email to my state's AG office and have started urging others to do the same. The chance of the MO AG doing it is pretty slim. I bet the AG in OK, TX, or AZ would be more easily convinced.
 

LuckyDucky

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
1,696
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2015-03-021015-advisory-notice-those-commenting-armor-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework.html

NOTICE TO THOSE COMMENTING ON THE ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION EXEMPTION FRAMEWORK

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

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

Latest posts

Top