March 16, 2015 Via Email & Facsimile Denise Brown Office of

March 16, 2015
Via Email & Facsimile
Denise Brown
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
U.S. Department of Justice
99 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20226
RE:
AP Ammo Comments – 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).
Dear Ms. Brown:
As the trade association for America’s firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports
industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (“NSSF”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the 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) (the “Framework”) on behalf of our almost
13,000 members.
Safety is of paramount concern to the firearms and ammunition industry. As an industry, our
concern is not only the safety of those who enjoy the use of our firearms and ammunition products, but
also the safety of law enforcement officers who use the products our members make to protect our
communities. To encourage firearms safety, NSSF developed the Project ChildSafe® campaign to
promote firearms safety among all firearms owners through the distribution of safety education messages
and free firearm safety kits, which include a free gun-locking device. Law enforcement, as our
distribution partner, plays a significant role in advancing Project ChildSafe’s goal to promote the message
of Own It? Respect It. Secure It.℠ Additionally, for over a decade, NSSF has partnered with the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) in “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy,” a national
campaign to help law enforcement prevent illegal “straw purchases” of firearms and educated firearms
retailers to be better able to spot and avoid such illegal purchases. NSSF is also proud to match ATF
reward offers in cases where firearms are stolen from federally licensed firearms retailers. Through these
efforts and others, NSSF and our industry members aid law enforcement and work tirelessly to promote
safety.
NSSF shares the ATF’s concern for law officer safety and appreciates that the Framework is
motivated by that concern. However, we must strongly oppose the Framework as presented because the
criteria proposed for applying the “sporting purpose” test is inconsistent with law and at odds with clearly
stated Congressional intent. In broad strokes, the Framework eliminates not only the exemption
previously granted to 5.56 mm (.223) SS109 and M855 “green tip” ammunition, which has extensively
been relied on by the firearms industry for nearly 30 years, but also will deny a “sporting purpose
exemption” for any alternative rifle ammunition that may be used or chambered in a “multi-shot”
handgun or derringer.1 The test Congress established in 1986 is that if a projectile or projectile core is
made entirely of an enumerated metal, e.g., brass, and it “may be used in a handgun” it is classified as
armor piercing ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B)(i). Recently, and to our knowledge for the first
time, ATF has taken the view that a single handgun – no matter how obscure and not readily available to
consumers to purchase at retail – is all that is necessary to trigger the law. Nevertheless, and necessarily
knowing that a handgun capable for firing the projectile exists, Congress provided for an exemption to be
granted if the projectile “is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” The existence of a
handgun capable of firing the projectile is not and cannot be a factor in deciding whether the projectile is
or is not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes like hunting and target shooting. Moreover,
nothing in the law provides for or allows ATF to consider the intent of one who misuses a product to
commit a crime as a factor in determining whether a projectile primarily is intended for a sporting
purpose.
For ATF, in applying the “sporting purpose test,” to put the focus on or consider the intention of
users (or a misuser) of the product, or to focus on the existence of “multi-shot” handguns and derringers,
is to, in effect, rewrite the law and largely gut the exemption Congress created. The law places the focus
in applying the sporting purpose test exclusively on the projectile and the manufacturer’s intent that it is
primarily intended for a sporting purpose. If a projectile is determined to be primarily intended to be used
for a sporting purpose, neither the subsequent introduction into the market of a handgun capable of
chambering the projectile, nor the subsequent misuse of the projectile by criminals, changes the
projectile’s primary sporting purpose.
For these reasons, we urge ATF to (1) reject the Framework’s proposed criteria for determining
whether a projectile may be classified as “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes;” (2) to
apply the straight forward test Congress enacted that focuses exclusively on the manufacturer’s intention
that the projectile be primarily used as a sporting purpose which ATF can objectively evaluate; (3) to
leave in place the existing exemptions for M855 and SS109 ammunition; and (4) decide the 32 or so longpending “sporting purpose” exemption petitions that ATF has acknowledged to NSSF are all, or almost
all, for projectiles for the hunting market – which ATF has long recognized as a “traditional sport.”2
I.
The Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition Defies and Abandons
Legislative Intent.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Ch. 44, as amended, restricts the possession and
sale of certain ammunition under the designation of armor piercing. At the center of the Framework is the
provision in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(C), which exempts from the definition of armor piercing “a projectile
which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” This provision
was added by the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1968 (P.L. 99-408) (“LEOPA”), which
sought to protect law enforcement officers by outlawing ammunition fired from handguns that was
1
Serious questions have been raised as to whether M855 ammunition even meets the definition of armor piercing
ammunition in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B). This letter will not address these concerns in any length as we anticipate
that other comment letters, such as the letter submitted by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’
Institute, Inc., will provide more in depth analysis of this issue. However, we note that when the exemption for
M855 ammunition was granted in 1986, ATF merely concluded that the ammunition was armor piercing without
providing information as to how or why this conclusion was reached. This conclusion has, until now, gone largely
unchallenged. And, in granting an M855/SS109 exemption, ATF noted the existence of a handgun in which the
ammunition could be filed.
2
Because ATF has elected to voluntarily withdraw the Framework we will not address our Administrative
Procedure Act concerns or the due process violations and economic harm that would result from withdrawing a 30
year old exemption in this comment letter.
capable of penetrating soft body armor. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17). Because this type of body armor
worn daily by many police officers is not designed to stop rifle cartridges, Congress specifically provided
a specific exemption for projectiles “which the Attorney General finds [are] primarily intended to be used
for sporting purposes.” In furtherance of this provision, in 1986 ATF exempted 5.56 mm ammunition in
SS109 and M855 cartridges from the definition of armor piercing ammunition, which was followed by an
exemption for .30-06M2AP cartridges in 1992. For the past nearly 30 years, ammunition manufacturers
have relied on this exemption to produce products in response to consumer demand, build businesses,
create jobs, and pay state and federal taxes.
A.
Congress Never Intended for Rifle Ammunition, Even Ammunition that Could be
Fired from a Handgun, to Fall Outside the “Sporting Purpose” Exemption.
As currently proposed, the Framework seeks to rewrite the process by which the ATF Director
determines “whether a type of ammunition is primarily intended for sporting purposes.” Framework at 8.
The legislative history clearly demonstrates that Congress intended to categorize as armor piercing only
projectiles that are designed and intended for use in a handgun. During a Senate subcommittee hearing
on LEOPA, the bill sponsor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) stated:
Let me make clear what this bill does not do. Our legislation would not limit the
availability of rifle ammunition with armor-piercing capability. We recognize that soft
body armor is not intended to stop high-powered rifle cartridges. Time and again, [House
sponsor] 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.
Armor-Piercing Ammunition: Hearing on S. 555 Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Law of the S. Comm.
on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. 8 (1984) (“Senate Hearing”). Further, at a separate hearing, Congressman
Mario Biaggi rebutted a popular misconception to clarify that “our legislation does not seek to affect in
any way ammunition made originally or primarily for rifle use. It is another spurious argument.” Armor
Piercing Ammunition and the Criminal Misuse and Availability of Machineguns and Silencers: Hearings
on H.R. 641 and Related Bills Before the Subcomm. On Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th
Cong. 50 (1984) (“Criminal Misuse Hearing”).
The “spurious argument” Congressman Biaggi denied was at issue in 1984 has now been realized
in the current Framework. In a clear affront to Congressional intent, the Framework seeks to withdraw an
exemption for 5.56 M855 and SS109 rifle ammunition from the definition of armor piercing – an
exemption that has been in place for nearly 30 years. As the Framework acknowledges, “this ammunition
is widely available to the public.” Framework at 15. Today, manufacturers legally produce several
hundred million rounds of this popular rifle target shooting ammunition each year. The Framework
claims withdrawal of the exemption “will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing
ammunition. Id. Shockingly, ATF ignores the fact that at least six states have statutes that criminalize
possession of so-called armor piercing ammunition and rely on the federal definition, including any
applicable exemptions, to determine what ammunition may be classified as armor piercing under state
law.3 Despite the Framework’s assurances to the contrary, if the Framework is enacted, persons in any of
these six states may suddenly find themselves subject to their home state’s criminal laws for possession of
otherwise lawfully purchased ammunition.
An amendment was introduced by Senator Steven Symms to define armor piercing as a solid
projectile made of the specified metals and “intended for use in a handgun.” Framework at 4. This
amendment was solidly rejected by a vote of 88 to 10. See 132 Cong. Rec. 3895 (1986) (two
abstentions). What the Framework fails to account for is the fact that the purpose of Amendment 1644
was to exempt metal projectiles that have industrial purposes and account for the fact, as even Senator
3
See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202l(a)(1); Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-2.1(a); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 237.060; Me Rev. Stat.
Ann. 17-A 1056(3); Mich. Penal Code 750.224c(1); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-37-31.
Strom Thurmond acknowledged, that “a great many bullets are interchangeable between rifles and
handguns.” 132 Cong. Rec. 3892-3893 (1986). As ATF is aware, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(C) now
provides exemptions from the definition of armor piercing for both projectiles “primarily intended to be
used for industrial purposes” and those “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” as
envisioned by Senator Symms’ amendments. In determining whether a projectile primarily was intended
to be used for an industrial purpose, surely ATF would not look beyond the manufacturer’s intention as to
the primary purpose for which the industrial product was designed, manufactured, and marketed to how it
might be (mis)used in the workplace or elsewhere. Yet, under the Framework in the context of evaluating
whether a projectile is primarily intended to be used for a sporting purpose, that is exactly what ATF is
doing. But the test Congress created does not say “how it may be primarily used” or “misused.”
Even while acknowledging that there is “increased pressure on the ammunition industry to
produce suitable hunting alternatives to lead ammunition,” the Framework confusingly suggests that brass
is a non-restricted metal despite it being listed in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B)(i). Framework at 14. If the
Framework were implemented, the industry would be unable to bring to market alternative rifle hunting
ammunition loaded with projectiles made of one of the restricted metals, i.e., brass, in over 25% of the
most common hunting calibers4 because “multi shot” handguns currently exist in those calibers.5 And,
the number of rifle hunting ammunition calibers that would become ineligible could grow whenever some
manufacturer6 – over whom an ammunition manufacturer has no control, but who would have a Type 07
license from ATF – decided to make a multi-shot handgun or derringer in which a projectile could be
used.
For the countless law-abiding sportsmen who everyday choose 5.56 “green tip” ammunition as
their rifle ammunition of choice, the Framework will undoubtedly undermine their ability to engage in
legitimate shooting sports. See, e.g., Criminal Misuse Hrg. at 172 (statement of Rep. Joseph G. Minish)
(“this bill has no intention of having any adverse effect on the legitimate hunter or gun collector”).7
Manufacturers are eager to comply with both the armor piercing laws and applicable local regulations
restricting the use of traditional ammunition. Therefore, withdrawal of this exemption and the
Framework as proposed cannot, in the best of circumstances, be accomplished with a “minim[al]
disruption to the ammunition and firearm[s] industry.” Framework at 15.
Although the Framework anticipates disruption in the firearms and ammunition industry,
disruption will also be felt by state wildlife agencies that receive Pittman-Robertson Act funds. The
Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax is collected on the sale of ammunition, as well as long guns and handguns,
and contributes significant funds to further conservation programs across the country. This 11% tax on
the sale of ammunition is turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which then makes the funds
available to the states to fund conservation efforts, hunter’s education and shooting programs. Because at
least 12 calibers of some of the most popular alternative rifle hunting ammunition made with any of the
4
We estimate that at least 12 popular hunting rifle calibers will be affected if the Framework is implemented: .22
Hornet; 220 Swift; 17 HMR; 223 Remington; 30-30 Winchester; 308 Winchester; 45-70 Government; 30 carbine;
7.62 x 39 Soviet; 5.56mm NATO; .500 Wyoming Express; and .22 TCM. A complete list of the 44 hunting calibers
and available multi-shot handgun models is attached as an exhibit to this comment letter.
5
For example, the PTR 91 Inc 915300P PTR-91 PDW Pistol is a semi-automatic handgun chambered for a .308
Win 7.62x51 caliber round. See Tombstone Tactical, available at https://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/ptr91inc/915300p-ptr-91-pdw-pistol-308win-85in-20rd-black/.
6
Arguably, a multi-shot handgun or derringer lawfully manufactured by a non-licensee for personal use could
trigger the law under the Framework. ATF has taken the view in the Framework that a single handgun, no matter
how obscure, triggers, the law.
7
We are also concerned that the Framework seeks to discount legitimate hunting and shooting sports and to narrow
the scope by which an activity may be considered “sporting.” All target shooting, whether for fun or in a
competitive setting, is a sporting activity. There is no requirement that sporting activities be limited to “traditional”
activities such as hunting, trap, and skeet shooting. There is no requirement in any other pastime, such as baseball,
that precludes that activity from being a “sport.” Just as time in a batting cage practicing one’s swing is a “sporting
activity,” so too is any target practice to improve one’s aim (perhaps to one day compete) a “sporting activity.”
enumerated metals, e.g. brass, would be made illegal under the Framework, the implications for
conservation efforts would certainly be felt by state wildlife agencies.8
Industry members have submitted at least 32 petitions pursuant to ATF’s long standing regulation
(27 CFR § 478.148) requesting the agency exempt their products as “primarily intended to be used for a
sporting purposes” as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(C). Most of these exemption petitions have
been pending before ATF for over 3½ years. Manufacturers of projectiles and ammunition designed for
use in rifles have stopped production and sales as a result of guidance from the ATF that their products
may be considered armor-piercing and they could be in violation of the law. These companies continue to
suffer economically, e.g. lost sales, loss of market share, etc. while ATF delays ruling on these petitions.
ATF has acknowledged to NSSF that most, if not all, of these long-pending petitions are for projectiles
and rifle ammunition cartridges intended for the hunting market, which ATF has long recognized as a
“traditional sport.” We are very disappointed by testimony last Thursday before the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, by ATF Director B. Todd Jones who
said ATF would refuse to act on these petitions without a new regulatory framework in place. Yet, in
1986 and at other times since, ATF was able to decide petitions and at no point in the last 30 years has it
indicated to industry that it needed a Framework to apply the very simple and straight forward “sporting
purpose” test created by Congress – which has gone unchanged since it was enacted in 1986.9
The test Congress established is that if a projectile or projectile core is made entirely of an
enumerated metal, e.g., brass, and it “may be used in a handgun” it is classified as armor piercing
ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B)(i). Nevertheless, and necessarily knowing that a handgun
capable for firing the projectile exists, Congress provided for an exemption to be granted if the projectile
“is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” The existence of a handgun capable of firing the
projectile is not and cannot be a factor in deciding whether the projectile is or is not primarily intended to
be used for sporting purposes like hunting and target shooting. For ATF to put the focus on the existence
of “multi-shot” handguns and derringers is to rewrite the law and largely gut the exemption Congress
created.
B.
Criminals Are Not a Consumer Group for Purposes of Determining Primary Intent.
As ATF is aware, NSSF strongly is of the opinion that manufacturer intent that a projectile “is
primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” should be dispositive when analyzing sporting
purpose. If a manufacturer designs and intends ammunition to be used primarily in rifles for hunting or
target shooting and an end user of their product utilizes it in a manner not envisioned this should not alter
the ammunition’s primary purpose.10 The Framework’s analysis instead will impose the subjective intent
of a small number of criminals, who have inexplicably been categorized along with responsible law-
8
Since the inception of the Pittman-Robertson Act, over $8 billion has been collected from manufacturers and
distributed to the states and has helped to rebuild the population of numerous species and extend their ranges far
beyond what they were in the 1930’s. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Federal Aid Division -- The PittmanRobertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,”
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html.
9
This issue first surfaced in 2011 after ATF raided Elite Ammunition, a small ammunition manufacturer, and seized
its inventory and records for manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition.”
10
We note the confusion that such a (mis)interpretation can lead to. As ATF has opined in the context of stabilizing
braces, an end user may “redesign” a pistol into a short barrel rifle by placing the brace which the manufacturer
intends to be use as an arm brace, to their shoulder as if it were a stock. That a misuse of a product can amount to a
physical “redesign” of a product when the item has not physically changed in any way is a truly mystifying legal
proposition. This action necessitates the filing of an ATF Form 1 and payment of applicable taxes as the
“redesigned” firearm will subject to the National Firearms Act. See ATF, Open Letter on the Redesign of
“Stabilizing Braces,” available at
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing
_braces.pdf.
abiding consumers11, on the millions of individuals across this country who engage in lawful hunting and
shooting sports. Framework at 8. To allow criminal intent to control the analysis and resign
manufacturer intent as merely another factor to consider defies not only reason, but also Congressional
intent.
No one can, in good faith, discount law enforcement concern that an officer will one day be
confronted by a criminal in illegal possession of a firearm who seeks to do them harm. However, there is
no evidence that criminals obtain and use armor piercing products when committing their crimes.
Further, criminals fall beyond a reasonable interpretation of what it means to be a consumer. Framework
at 9. The implication behind categorizing criminals as “one class of potential consumer group” can only
be that the firearms industry illegally sells firearms and ammunition to criminals. Id.
Criminal misuse of AP handgun ammunition is at the heart of both LEOPA and the Framework.
However, instead of relying on the intent of the ammunition manufacture, the Framework improperly
defers to the intent of criminals who seek “to use ammunition capable of penetrating body armor when
fired from a handgun.” Id. It is from the intent of a small number of criminals who misuse ammunition
that an entire category of some of the most popular types of rifle calibers would now be categorized as
armor piercing by the Framework.
C.
Even if Effect is to be Given to a Generalized Intent, the Intent of a Small Number
of Criminals Cannot Trump the General Intent of the Population at Large.
As we previously have conveyed, it is the intent of the manufacturer that should control whether a
type of ammunition primarily is intended for a sporting purpose. To suggest, as this Framework does,
that regulation instead should defer to the intent of the criminal element is wholly inconsistent with any
possible fair or considered judgment.
The Framework cites to Posters ‘N’ Things v. United States, for the proposition that “an objective
analysis of whether an item is ‘primarily intended’ for a specific use must focus on the ‘likely use’ of that
item in the general community. 511 U.S. 513 (1994); Framework at 10. The focus of the Court was on
30 U.S.C. § 857(f), which established an exemption from the category of drug paraphernalia for items
“traditionally intended for use with tobacco products.” The Court determined “primarily intended” to
refers to “a product’s likely use,” but it also noted that “it is a relatively particularized definition, reaching
beyond the category of items that are likely to be used with drugs by virtue of their objective features. . . .
Thus, while scales or razor blades as a general class may not be designed specifically for use with drugs, a
subset of those items in a particular store may be ‘primarily intended’ for use with drugs by virtue of the
circumstances of their display and sale.” Posters ‘N’ Things, 511 U.S. at 521 n.11. The Court
specifically took issue with a characterization by Justice Scalia that “a box of paper clips is converted into
drug paraphernalia by the mere fact that a customer mentions to the seller that the paper clips will make
excellent roach clips.” Id.
As the Framework points out, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) is cited in Posters ‘N’ Things to support
the Court’s “natural reading” of “primarily intended” in other federal criminal statutes. Posters ‘N’
Things at 521. What the Framework fails to take into account in its analysis is that the Court specifically
addressed the fact that it is the likely use of customers generally, not any particular customer, that can
render a multiple-use item drug paraphernalia in certain circumstances. Id. at 522 n.11. In essence, what
the Framework seeks to apply is Justice Scalia’s interpretation in his concurrence, which would turn each
customer who legally purchases 5.56mm rifle ammunition into a criminal, despite the objective likelihood
that the ammunition will be used in a rifle for sporting purposes.12 Id. at 528. Even using this
Black’s Law Dictionary 335 (8th ed. 2004) (“consumer” means “[a] person who buys goods or services for
personal, family, or household use, with no intention of resale; a natural person who uses products for personal than
business purposes”).
12
5.56mm ammunition in SS109 and M855 “green tip” is and is sold as “rifle ammunition.” See, e.g., Lucky
Gunner (selling 5.56x45 – 62 gr FMJ M855 Winchester rounds categorized as “rifle ammo”), available at
11
unpersuasive interpretation, the Framework exclusively focuses on the use of armor piercing ammunition
in handguns and disregards the fact that this is rifle ammunition that is used several hundred million times
a year almost entirely in rifles and which has never once been used to fatally wound a police over when
fired from a handgun that penetrated a soft body vest. In so doing, the Framework disregards the
objective likelihood that 5.56 “green tip” ammunition, or any of the at least 12 common hunting calibers
now called into question, or other projectiles – including the 32 or so petitions pending before ATF – that
may be developed in the future, will be used primarily as it was designed and intended: as rifle
ammunition for use in rifles for hunting and target shooting.
II.
ATF Has Failed to Demonstrate a Threat to Law Enforcement Officer Safety.
Very little has changed since 1984 and Congressman Biaggi’s statement that “it is a rare occasion
when a sportsman will take a rifle cartridge and put it in a handgun” largely holds true today. Senate Hrg.
at 19. While the vast majority of pistols and revolvers are not chambered to accept 5.56mm and other
popular hunting calibers, there are at least 49 “handguns” capable of chambering these calibers.
However, LEOPA was enacted to “deal[] with the rule, not the exception.” Id. There are simply too
many variables that go unaddressed by the Framework relative to projectile shape, projectile construction,
muzzle and impact velocity to be able to categorize body armor effectiveness by cartridge type as the
Framework attempts. Under the Framework, all that is necessary to determine a caliber is not “primarily
intended to be used for sporting purposes” is the existence of a single handgun capable of chambering that
caliber. It is worth repeating here, in creating the exemption Congress already knew and appreciated that
there would be handguns in which the projectile could be used and despite that they still created the
exemption.
There is little question that law enforcement officers’ soft body armor is not designed to protect
against any rifle ammunition. Soft body armor, of the type typically worn every day by officers is not
truly “bullet proof.” Rather, the three types of armor worn on a daily basis by law enforcement officers
are resistant against some, but not all ballistic threats and will not protect against rifle rounds fired from a
rifle.13 Certain types of body armor are resistant against rifle rounds, but these types of armor are not
generally worn throughout an officer’s shift and are not of the concealable type as found with the less
ballistic resistant body armor.14
A thorough review of the annual FBI reports “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”
and other crime data for the years 1986-2013 shows that there is no evidence that an officer has ever been
killed by “armor piercing” ammunition penetrating a bullet-proof vest that was shot from a handgun. 15
And while soft body armors are not designed to block ammunition shot from higher-powered rifles, FBI
crime data show these firearms are rarely used to commit crimes.16
A stated goal of the Framework is to continue to address concerns of law enforcement officers
based on “[t]he mere availability of handguns capable of using the ammunition made from the
http://www.luckygunner.com/rifle/5.56x45-ammo; USA Midway (offering Prvi Partizan Ammunition 5.56x45mm
NATO 62 Grain M855 SS109 Penetrator Full Metal Jacket ammunition for sale under the category of “rifle
ammunition”), available at http://www.midwayusa.com/find?newcategorydimensionid=15636.
13
Body armor types IIA, II, and IIIA are typically soft armors and will not protect against rifle rounds. According
to the National Institute of Justice’s Standard 0101.06, these types of body armor are suitable for full-time wear
throughout an entire shift, and provide increasing levels of protection from handgun threats. Type IIA provides
minimal protection against smaller caliber handguns, Type II provides protection against many handguns, and Type
IIIA generally protects against most pistol calibers (including many higher powered revolvers). See Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Guide Body Armor 13 (Dec. 2014) ,
available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247281.pdf (“Body Armor Guide”).
14
Body armor types III and IV “are typically hard armor designed to protect officers against rifle threats.” Body
Armor Guide at 13. These types of body armor are inflexible and generally used only in tactical situations or when
the threat warrants such protection. Id. at 5-6.
15
FBI, Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka
16
FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1986-2012 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
enumerated metals” and which are “easily concealable.” Framework at 8. LEOPA was enacted to
address these concerns, especially with regard to “relatively small, concealable firearms.” Id. at 7. The
vast majority of the handguns produced in traditional rifle calibers are so large as to not be readily
concealable. Most of the handguns produced in traditional rifle calibers (including those chambered for
M855) are fairly large handguns and are not easily concealable. Despite the relatively new addition of
“AR-type” handguns to the market, very few of these firearms could fairly be categorized as “relatively
small, concealable firearms.”17 To focus, as the Framework does, on whether the projectile is “capable of
use” in a multi-shot handgun ignores that the projectile may also be “primarily intended to be used for
sporting purposes.” See Framework at 11. Certainly law enforcement officers must fear criminal misuse
of firearms, but there has been no evidence presented by the Framework that a threat currently exists in
the form of “small, concealable” handguns chambered to accept armor piercing. As such, the Framework
attempts to address an area of concern that is not actually of concern to law enforcement.18
We all share the goal of protecting law enforcement officers from harm, but the consequences of
the Framework are steep, particularly considering the fortunate lack of instances of officers killed by
armor piercing ammunition shot from a handgun through the officer’s body armor. It is an unfortunate
truth that officers may be wounded or killed in the line of duty. However, the myth of deaths due to
armor piercing ammunition penetrating body armor is not supported by the data and the Framework fails
to comport with Congressional intent and amounts to little more than regulatory overreach by ATF. On
behalf of the firearms and ammunition industry and the millions of law-abiding hunters and sportsmen,
we respectfully urge ATF to further evaluate the Framework in light of this and other comments, leave in
place the sporting purpose exemption that has been relied on for nearly 30 years, and, moving forward,
apply the exemption according to Congressional intent.
Sincerely,
Lawrence G. Keane
See, e.g., Sig Sauer P516 7.5” Pistol (overall length of firearm is 23 inches),
http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p516-7-5-pistol-with-sb15-pistol-stabilizing-brace.aspx;
Bushmaster Firearms 7” Enhanced Patrolman’s AR Pistol (chambered in 5.56, the barrel alone is 7 inches),
http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/pistols.asp.
18
See, Paul Bedard, Police say Obama bullet ban isn’t needed, AR-15 round isn’t a threat, Washington Examiner,
Mar. 3, 2015 (James Pasco, the executive director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police is
quoted as saying: “Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round [the M855]
has historically not posed a law enforcement problem.”), available at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policesay-obama-bullet-ban-isnt-needed-ar-15-round-isnt-a-threat/article/2560964.
17
Sample Hunting Calibers/Cartridges with Multi-shot Handguns Available
Caliber
22 Hornet
220 Swift
17 HMR
223 Rem
30-30 Win.
308 Win.
45-70 Govt
30 Carbine
7.62 x 39 Soviet
5.56mm NATO
.500 Wyo. Exp.
.22 TCM
Example Company
Taurus
Ruger
Ruger
Heizer Defense
Magnum Research
AtlanticFirearms.com
Super Six Classic
Ruger
Century Arms
Sig Sauer
Freedom Arms
Armscor/Rock Island Armory
Example Model
Raging Hornet
New Model Single-Six Hunter
New Model Single Six Series
PAR1 “Pocket AR Pistol”
BFR Single Action
DSA SA58 FAL TAC Pistol
Bison Bull
New Model Blackhawk
Mini Draco Ak47
P556® Pistol
Model 83 Premier Grade
1911A2-.22 TCM
204 Ruger
17 WSM
222 Rem
22-250 Rem
243 Win
6MM Rem
257 Roberts
25-06 Rem
260 Rem
270 Win
270 WSM
Hunting Calibers without Handguns Available
7mm-08 Rem.
338 Federal
280 Rem.
338 Lapua
7mm Rem. Mag
375 HH
7mm WSM
416 Rigby
30-06 Spring.
416 Rem
300 H&H
458 Win
300 Win. Mag
458 Lott
300 WSM
470 Nitro
300 Wthby. Mag
500 Nitro
338 Win. Mag
303 British
300 RUM