PDA

View Full Version : Fresh: 5.56 M855 Ammo Ban Was a "Publishing Error"



Stinkbait
03-06-2015, 08:30 PM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/robert-farago/breaking-atf-claims-guide-with-m855-ban-was-a-publishing-error/

Hurray, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and really Big Fires should be dissolved......

"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 . . .


Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for Armor Piercing Ammunition, and concluding that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded.

Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any Armor Piercing Ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations, was an error, which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.

The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.

The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error."

DEVOREFLYER
03-06-2015, 08:52 PM
So how convenient "A publishing error". Is the AFT putting the horse before the cart???

Page 166 of 2005 has the 5.56mm (.223) exemption.

[B]Exemptions:
The following articles
are exempted from the definition of armor piercing ammunition.
5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 Ammunition, identified by a green coating on the projectile tip.
U.S. .30-06 M2AP, identified by a black coating on the projectile tip. [/B
http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...f-p-5300-4.pdf

Page 190 of 2014 has the 5.56mm (.223) exemption eliminated.
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi...14-edition.pdf

It also doesn't bode well that when asked about the ATF decision, White House spokesman Josh Earnest referred to it as a "common sense" solution. Note that when Obama announced his executive actions on gun control after the failed 2013 legislation, he promised "common sense" solutions.

Lady Quagga
03-07-2015, 12:13 AM
So how convenient "A publishing error". Is the AFT putting the horse before the cart?

Great, now you're dragging the American Federation of Teachers into this.


Page 166 of 2005 has the 5.56mm (.223) exemption.

[B]Exemptions:
The following articles
are exempted from the definition of armor piercing ammunition.
5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 Ammunition, identified by a green coating on the projectile tip.
U.S. .30-06 M2AP, identified by a black coating on the projectile tip. [/B
http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...f-p-5300-4.pdf

Page 190 of 2014 has the 5.56mm (.223) exemption eliminated.
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi...14-edition.pdf

All which was pointed out in that harebrained opinion piece (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/03/06/exclusive-atf-has-already-banned-common-at15-green-tip-ammunition-n1966761) you linked in the other thread (http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/showthread.php?83283-Bullet-Ban&p=758948#post758948).


It also doesn't bode well that when asked about the ATF decision, White House spokesman Josh Earnest referred to it as a "common sense" solution. Note that when Obama announced his executive actions on gun control after the failed 2013 legislation, he promised "common sense" solutions.

Which begs the question - is the BATFE acting in bad faith? A rational, considered view would suggest that yes, the ATF didn't intend to seriously consider opposing views, or at least expected minimal resistance to the proposed framework. The "publishing error", whether intended or not, has certainly opened the door for such future litigation, should the ban go into effect.

Stinkbait
03-07-2015, 11:36 AM
Something is up here. WH press has response to an error by the ATF. Very strange. Maybe the WH has given the ATF carte blanche to see what they can pull off.
So,
1) the right doesn't know what the left is doing, or
2) this whole thing was a "feeler" to see the public response for a potential larger centerfire ban, or
3) a SNAFU

Tin foil hat analyses - the ATF is getting back at the 2A community for getting their face muddied in the whole SIG AR pistol brace ruling.