BATFE Taking Comments on "Sporting Purposes" Exemption to "Armor Piercing Ammunition" Law Until Dec. 31
http://www.nraila.org/news-iss...aw-until-dec-31.aspx
If I remember from the previous posts on this subject all of this is up to the discretion of the AG which doesn't bode well for a favorable outcome.

The AG can go diddle himself.

Can the AG provide proof that a flat nosed brass solid penetrates body armor? Can the AG provide proof that he is not an unmitigated idiot?

The AG is under no mandate to do either. Woe is us......



.

From the link supplied by Zephyr, NRA linked to BATFE site:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/

Here they are tricky, changing the list of materials from
"... , beryllium copper, ..."
to
"... , beryllium, copper, ..."

That makes the softer pure copper a problem.
And since when was a projectile made from pure beryllium?
"Beryllium copper" is indeed the hardest of copper alloys, used to make nonsparking tools, etc.

Tricky typos by the BATFE:
They even added a comma between tungsten and alloys, stated as "tungsten alloys" by the NRA.
This shows a lack of knowledge by whomever is writing for the BATFE, or a more sinister insinuation from above the typist level:

From BATFE web site:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Questions and Answers of the Month

ATF has received requests to exempt certain projectiles from regulation as “armor piercing ammunition”.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received requests to exempt certain projectiles from regulation as “armor piercing ammunition” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(ii) of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In this regard, ATF is seeking public comments on specific projectiles or projectile cores which may be used in a handgun and which are constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten, alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium, copper, or depleted uranium, and whether these projectiles or projectile cores pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement, or are, “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” and therefore may be exempted from classification as “armor piercing ammunition.”

All interested persons may submit comments to APAComments@atf.gov by December 31, 2012. Comments not received by or before December 31, 2012 will not be considered. All comments must include your name and mailing address. Comments are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


From NRA web site:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is taking public comments on its website until December 31, with regard to how it should determine what types of projectiles meet the "sporting purposes" exception to the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law. At this time, the question centers primarily around rifle-caliber projectiles made of metals harder than lead, such as the Barnes Bullets solid brass hunting bullets.

Under the law, adopted in 1986, "armor piercing ammunition" is defined as "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." A second definition, added in the 1990s, includes "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."

Because handguns have been made in certain rifle calibers, many bullets that were designed originally for rifles also "may be used in a handgun." If such projectiles are made of the metals listed in the law, they are restricted as "armor piercing ammunition" unless they meet one of the law's exemptions. Being considered at this time is the exemption for "a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."

Last week, BATFE met separately with gun control activist groups, firearm industry groups, and groups representing hunters and other gun owners. The latter meeting included the NRA; Safari Club International; representatives of state wildlife agencies; and firearm and ammunition importers.

BATFE has expressed two opinions about the law and exemption that warrant particular scrutiny.

First, BATFE suggested that it believes that the "armor piercing ammunition" law was intended to affect all ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor worn by law enforcement officers. NRA reminded BATFE that the law was intended to protect law enforcement officers against the potential threat posed a very narrowly-defined category of projectiles: those, such as KTW and Arcane, which by virtue of their hard metal construction were designed and intended to be used by law enforcement officers to shoot through hard objects, such as automobile glass and doors, when fired at the velocities typical of handgun-caliber ammunition fired from handguns. Neither before nor since the law's enactment, has an officer been killed due to such a bullet penetrating soft body armor.

NRA further pointed out that the legislative history of the law clearly shows that members of Congress, including the sponsor of the law in the House, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), a decorated former NYPD police officer, expressly did not want the law to restrict rifle-caliber bullets that happen to also be useable in handguns chambered to use rifle cartridges.

Second, BATFE says it considers projectiles to not be exempt under the "sporting purposes" test if they "pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement." BATFE also expressed concern that since the law was adopted, various new rifle-caliber handguns have been invented. On that point, NRA made clear that the sporting purposes exemption is straightforward: it applies to all projectiles that are "primarily intended for sporting purposes"--nothing more, and nothing less. Under the law, a projectile would be exempt if it is primarily intended for sporting purposes, even if it is secondarily intended for self-defense or some other legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the law does not condition its restrictive language or its "sporting purposes" exemption on the design of a particular handgun; the law is concerned only with specific projectiles that can be used in handguns. NRA cautioned the BATFE against interpreting the law in a manner more restrictive than Congress intended.

For more information on ATF's position and information on how to submit comments by the Dec. 31 deadline, go to www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
The AG can go diddle himself.

Bill, +1, 100%

So the anti's don't want you to use steel or tungsten or lead or copper or brass so what does that leave you with? Should we load our cartridges with rainbows and hugs?
This is a stupid and incompetent bunch worthy of defunding and throwing out regulation due to infringement.

When does public safety and sport trump the Constitution?
When a dictator is in power.

Even a WW Silvertip out of a 30-06 is going to put a world of hurt to someone in soft armor. It might not go thru but whoever is inside is going to be out of commission for a very long time.

On the B&M website I am able to see "Site Activity", which includes things like what pages have been viewed, location from views, number of visitors, feature useage, referring traffic, search engine used and things like that.

In the last 30 days, there have been 7 visits from www.atf.gov!

Somewhat disturbing to me personally I suppose.

However, I suspect they are doing a lot of looking at bullets from the site. If they are looking at bullets, then there is little doubt about what these bullets are used for "Sporting Purposes", which may be a good thing in the end, or..................... Not? Who knows? I did notice there is a lot of activity on any of the .500 rifles, and bullets, but that would be hard not to do and not abnormal as .500 is a huge part of what the B&Ms are all about anyway. So its hard to tell what motive might be for ATF looking at the site.

Michael

Also, just a note, I can also note what "Search Phrases" have been used, but not directed to ATF site.

NonCon Bullets

Big bore rifles in 500 S&W

.500 rifle

500 S&W rifle (16 inch Barrel)

.500 caliber rifles

S&W 500 caliber rifle

Most others are more specific like 500 MDM, 50 B&M and lot's of 50 B&M Alaskan search phrases.

Just a curious thing I think, and may have nothing to do with anything, I don't know?

M

Michael, that is rather disturbing to note Web visits by ATF. On the other hand, if it is an effort on their part to be fully informed ... I guess we can dream.

Not downplaying this nor taking up for the goverment/B.A.T.F, however, over and over, the term "handgun" is used.

While some firearms, for the most part, single shot - break-open and bolt action are and have been built in rifle calibers yet built in a manner where they are not fired from the shoulder, such as a rifle is, and considered hand-rifles, they are not considered conventional handguns by most folks.

They are not readily concealable, and being single shots for the most part do not lend themselves to an extended fire fight against anyone with conventional handguns/SWAT team firearms.

We should all be concerned about such legislation and possible effects it could have on how we conduct our activities, but we need to do so thoughtfully using factual information instead of painting things with too broad a brush. Thers is simply too much about the legal use of guns that the average person does not understand. The goverment understands that and that is why they do things like this mess and play to the un-educated individuals lack of knowledge on the subject and on emotions. I seriously doubt that there are any "Bad guys" out there whose weapon of choice is anything chambered in .500 S&W.

Our goal, should be in getting the word out there that instead of creating more laws, the AG and all of the officers of all of the various Law Enforcement Agencies across America need to focus on enforcing existing laws in earnest for a few years instead of creating more unenforceable ones. Just my opinion.