Against all odds, the ATF has announced that they’re pulling the proposed ban on 5.56 M855 green tip ammunition. After a barrage of comments from the public as well as bipartisan criticism from Congress, our friends at the bureau issued a press release announcing that, “ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework.” Make the jump for their full statement . . .
Federal dropped something of a bombshell on the .380 ACP world recently releasing their HST in .380(!) For a long, long time, the only personal defense offering Federal made was the venerable, but (relatively) ancient Hydra Shoks. Now, about a dozen years after HST was first put on the market, it’s finally available for the .380 chambering. And not only that, it claims to be particularly optimized for micro guns . . .
Reader Don Barnes writes:
The M855 ban debate has been most frustrating, as most media outlets, even those opposing the ban, are just regurgitating the same things over and over, intermittently injecting new technical or other inaccuracies. Most commentators appear to not have read the ATF framework document, and as a result fail to be on-point. I don’t believe this is a time for standard, blanket defense of the Second Amendment, generalized gun technology/terminal ballistics, nor political grandstanding by the Republican party. The ATF framework is extremely targeted and precise in its claims, and comments not on-point will certainly be set aside . . .
The New York Times is quite possibly the least gun friendly publication in the United States. They’ve previously shown an utter contempt and disregard for fact checking and proper use of statistics when their “conclusions” paint gun owners and gun ownership in a bad light, and today’s editorial is no different. Titled “Protect the Police From Armor-Piercing Bullets,” the article is a re-hash of all the major Obama administration talking points in an effort to portray M855 as a menace to society that needs to be stopped. Shockingly, however, the Times fails to use any actual logic, statistics, or facts to make their case. Instead they build their case for a ban solely on the emotional appeal of loaded phrases to trick their readers into falling in line with their agenda. Let’s take this apart piece by piece.
Joe Nocera is the New York Times’ in-house anti-gunner and he’s is at it again, this time defending the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ (ATF) proposed ban on M855 “green tip” ammunition. “Seven or eight years ago, makers of assault rifles like the popular AR-15 began making handgun versions of these powerful weapons [AR-15s]. These handguns use the same bullets as the assault rifles, including some that are armor-piercing…. Quite sensibly, the A.T.F. realized it needed to take another look at the issue of whether certain armor-piercing bullets that had long been associated with rifles were now more problematic because they could be used in these new, more lethal handguns.” Oh dear . . .
ATF Press Release on the recently revealed Regulation Guide Announcing M855 Ammo Ban. Note: this does NOT mean the AFT have given-up on their proposed ban. It simply means that they announced its adoption and implementation prematurely. We can assume that they assumed it would go through, prepared their Guide accordingly and released it inadvertently.
On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework, including legal and technical analysis, to guide its determination on what ammunition is “primarily intended for sporting purposes” for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on Armor Piecing Ammunition. This proposed framework is posted for public comment only; no final decisions have been made as to its adoption . . .
When our friends at the ATF announced their intention to ban green tip M855 5.56 ammunition last month, lots of knowledgeable people figured that the fix was in. That the ban was a fait accompli and despite the window dressing of a 30-day public comment period, the administration had already made up its mind to end civilian availability of the “armor piercing” rounds. Now, Town Hall’s Katie Pavlich is reporting that those suspicions were well founded . . .
The NRA-ILA’s Chris Cox wants our friends at the ATF to know that the House isn’t happy with the proposed M855 ban. Here’s their press release:
Fairfax, Va. – In an overwhelming show of bipartisan opposition, 238 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter to the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, opposing the Obama Administration’s attempt to ban commonly used ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. The National Rifle Association worked closely with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to gather signatures on this critical effort.
The White House has said recently that banning “armor piercing” ammunition like the wildly popular M855 round is “common sense” and would make our police officers safer, which is a bold claim. Given the quality of journalism on display among the major networks these days, its no surprise that the facts of the matter have been muddled and obfuscated to the point where the details being presented bear little to no resemblance to the actual facts. Some hyperbole is expected, but in an age when the talking heads on TV start claiming that common rifles can shoot down airplanes and blow up railroads you know that fact checking isn’t high on the priority list. I wanted to take a minute and discuss the truth about the M855 round, what it is, what it does, and why it is being targeted.
According to Mark Glaze, the ATF’s proposed ban on M855 ball ammunition is designed to protect police from armor-piercing rounds. The former Everytown for Gun Safety mouthpiece reckons the fact that many common rifle bullets can do the same thing – and how – is neither here nor there. Nor is the doyen of civilian disarmament concerned that gun owners will be deprived of cartridges that they use the ammo for target shooting and hunting (a.k.a., “sporting purposes”). Gun owners should “use other target shooting ammunition that can’t pierce through the Kevlar vests that police officers wear on the streets.” Which is a problem . . .
Reader SAS 2008 writes:
While I agree that M855 should not be classified as armor piercing because its core is not “entirely” composed of the restricted materials, I am concerned that everyone is focusing on M855 and missing the point of the ATF proposal. The title of the document is: 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), So while it may be useful to comment on M855 and U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i) we had better also comment on the problems with the proposal’s definition of what is primarily intended for sporting purposes . . .
By Daniel O’Kelly, Director of the International Firearm Specialist Academy (reprinted here with permission)
Everyone is surprised that ATF has announced plans to ban M855 ammunition (steel-core 5.56 NATO). The issue has been raised as to whether the cartridge has sufficient “sporting purposes” as a means to fight the ban. Make no mistake, the “sportability” of the cartridge is not the real issue. We at IFSA agree that M855 ammunition should NOT be banned. However we would like to offer some explanation as to the methodology being used by the Government in this situation. The definition of Armor Piercing (AP) Ammunition is . . .