| Liveleak.com Rss Feed - Items in channel 'News' |
| Items in channel 'News' |
A letter to the ATF (ref St Valentines Day Massacre 'ban' on M855 ammunition)
2/15/2015 1:41:01 PM
APAComments@atf.gov 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. Dear Ms. Brown, I am emailing this as a comment for the proposed changes to the SS109/M855 exemption to the armor piercing rules. Your proposal states the change will have no impact on people already in possession of this ammunition. This is simply incorrect. Several states including my own, have laws prohibiting possession and/or use of armor piercing ("AP") ammunition. Some states, in fact, consider a person in possession of AP ammunition a felon. Considering how widespread and common this ammunition is, I believe implementing this proposal would be an extreme burden on the unsuspecting public. This ammunition is sold at Walmart. Making felons out of consumers overnight seems to be a terrible decision. The ruling would make persons in possession of this ammo potentially felons and do so by applying ex post facto - which is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. I am also confused about how SS109/M855 was considered armor piercing to begin with. Most believe it is because part of the core material is the steel penetrator. But the definition in the code specifies the core be constructed entirely of (one of the prohibited materials). The majority of the core of the SS109/M855 is lead. The word "entirely" exempts SS109/M855 from the definition of armor piercing. The steel "penetrator" inside the bullet makes up less than 50% of the weight/volume. No rational person would say that the core is made entirely of steel. In my opinion, the special exemption given to SS109/M855 was unnecessary as it never met the definition to begin with. Moreover, Senator Moynihan made clear that the intent of the bill was to ban only ammunition that both met the performance standard and was designed to be used in a handgun: " et me make clear what this bill does not do. Our legislation would not limit the availability of standard rifle ammunition with armor-piercing capability. We recognize that soft body armor is not intended to stop high powered rifle cartridges. Time and again Congressman Biaggi and I have stressed that only bullets capable of penetrating body armor and designed to be fired from a handgun would be banned; rifle ammunition would not be covered." Given the foregoing, I believe the proposed ATF ammo ruling as worded is unlawful; fails to meet the test and/or standard definition of "Armor Piercing" ammunition to begin with, and is wholly unconstitutional. Thank you for consideration of this comment. Sincerely Yours.....
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at feedmyinbox.com
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق