I emailed this...
APAComments@atf.gov
Comment - Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition pursuant to 18 USC 921(a)(17)
From:
Marc Spazxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Woodbridge, VA. 2219x
xxx-xxx-xxxx
To:
Denise Brown
Enforcement Programs and Services
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
U.S. Department of Justice
99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226
(202) 648-7070.
Today, I am writing you to comment on the document and proposed rule change titled “Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition pursuant to 18 USC 921(a)(17)” I have spent some time reviewing the documentation and have developed an opinion. I hope to share that with you today. However, before I present my opinion, I would like to preface this with several facts.
Though I am writing this as an individual citizen and my message today has nothing to do with my work, nor am I attempting to use my position to my own advantage, I do want to share some personal information. I have many people in my life whom I love who are police officers. Uncles, cousins, etc. I personally am not a law enforcement officer, nor have I ever been. I do, however, work as a government contractor (in IT) for Federal Law Enforcement and have for the last 16 years. I have many friends and co-workers who are law enforcement officers at the local, state and federal level.
I share this information with you, solely for the purpose to let you know that the safety of the brave men and women who keep our streets safe is of the utmost importance to me. Not just because they are people who have a right to live, but because these people are people I love.
With that said, I have some concerns about the revocation of exemptions M855 ball ammunition. M855 is very common .223 / 5.56mm ammunition. There are a significant amount of firearms that use this particular ammunition. With the proposed changes put in place, M855 ball ammunition would no longer be a viable option for sporting or personal defense. My goal in writing today it to continue to have this ammunition (and ammunition like it) to continue to be available to the general public for sporting and defense purposes.
First and foremost you acknowledge in your documentation, repeatedly during the creation and publicizing of the LEOPA, Congress specified that only bullets capable of penetrating body armor and designed to be fired from a handgun would be banned, meaning rifle ammunition would not be covered. Soft body armor is not intended to stop high powered rifle cartridges. M855 ammunition is high powered rifle ammunition. If you review the definitions in LEOPA 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(ii), you will see that the intent of the projectile is relevant, which contributed to the need for alternate definition.
Supporting the fact that this code was not intended to restrict law abiding citizens from having access to this ammunition and the intended purpose of the ammunition is relevant, we look to 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). It says The GCA allows for the exemption of ammunition “if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is ‘primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes’”. The phases “primarily intended” or “sporting purposes.” Were not defined. Nor does the statue say the Attorney General or anyone else can assign a definition. The lack of definition does not empower anyone to make up a definition, but rather apply the commonly accepted definition.
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Primarily - for the most part; used to indicate the main purpose of something, reason for something, etc.
Intended - expected to be such in the future; in your mind as a purpose or goal
Sporting - of, relating to, used, or suitable for sport
Purposes - a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution; the reason why something is done or used : the aim or intention of something
Using the aforementioned currently accepted definitions, the law would read…
“if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is ‘of having the main purpose expected to be to be used for actions relating to, used, or suitable for sport purposes’…”.
Based on the widespread use in the civilian market (which is the subject of the LEOPA, the rule, and debate of proposed changes), the number one purposes for M855 ammunition is for sporting purposes. Reviewing the definition of the words, it is not possible for the Attorney General or anyone else delegated, to make a determination other than the main purpose is for sporting use.
To further the support for maintaining the exemption of M855, we need to look at the spirit of the law, which is too save the lives of law enforcement officers. I would have to ask that the BATFE present proof that this is actually an issues. I have not been able to find any statistics with the BATFE, FBI or any other federal agency that shows how often, if at all, police are killed with armor piecing rounds. The last known shooting I found was the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997. I have not found any examples before or after this time.
Also, even with the steel core, the .223 (5.56x45mm) 62 grain M855 ammunition has been proven time and time again that it does not have the penetration power of the 7.62 x39 or .308 Winchester (7.62×51mm) cartridges. Both of those rounds are designed to be used in high power rifles (as is the M855), can both penetrate soft body armor when fired from a pistol, but neither of them meet the requirements of being considered “armor piercing”. (reference NATO EPVAT testing and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) class of procedures.)
The bottom line is the LEOPA, like many other statutory gun laws, does absolutely nothing to save lives. The further ruling to revoke exemptions will do nothing to save lives. The truth is, the Second Amendment protects our God given natural right to protect ourselves when it says “shall not be infringed”. The proposed framework, like every other statutory firearms law, violates the Constitution, infringes on our rights, disarms honest citizens, and does absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop criminals.
I hope that you will find that it is unnecessary to revoke any exemptions, but rather, find a true means to save lives.
Thank you for your time and considerations.
Marc Spazxxxx
