Gun-rights groups are in an uproar over an ammunition ban proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF says it wants to ban M855 ball ammunition, a .223 (or 5.56 mm) rifle bullet that has been used by American citizens for decades. The ATF says it wants to ban this popular bullet because it is “armor piercing.”
The law at the basis of this debate is the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As amended, the GCA prohibits the import, manufacture and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by a few terms Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to broaden.
The definition for what constitutes “armor piercing” reads: “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely ... from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.”
Now, to be as nitpicky as the law, the M855 ball ammunition the ATF wants to ban as “armor piercing” doesn’t have a core made of the metals listed in what legally makes a bullet “armor piercing.” The M855 actually has a lead core with a steel tip. Also, the M855 is traditionally a rifle cartridge and the ban only covers handgun ammunition. The DOJ argues this doesn’t stop them because the law stipulates they can ban a bullet that “may be used in a handgun.” And, after all, any cartridge may be used in a handgun.
Still, the definition has another condition. According to law, when ammo is made for “sporting purposes” (hunting, recreation shooting and so on) it is exempt from this ban. According to the DOJ the “GCA exempts ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is ‘primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.’” So, according to the DOJ, they simply get to decide on this condition.
The “sporting purposes” caveat is an important exemption, as every bullet designed to ethically kill a deer or other big-game animal (whether from a pistol, rifle or shotgun) will also shoot through a bulletproof vest. If all bullets that could potentially shoot through a cop’s bulletproof vest were banned, then hunting—at least ethical hunting with firearms—would cease. Also, shooting competitions and more would effectively be terminated. (For a behind-the-scenes expose of where gun rights and gun design is headed see my book The Future of the Gun.)
Now, the ATF isn’t saying they want to do all that, but this regulatory move would certainly take us in that direction. Also, you can’t blame people for questioning the politics behind this move when the attorney general behind this proposed ban has said his failure to further restrict Second Amendment rights is his greatest failure.
This approval process, of course, isn’t new. In 1986, the ATF actually exempted the .223 ammo it now wants to ban. Also, in 1992, the ATF exempted .30-06 M2AP cartridges (the .30-06 is a widely used and highly regarded big-game hunting round and has also long been used by the U.S. military).
So okay, if only bullets made out of a specific list of materials, used in handguns not for sporting purposes are subject to the ban, why are we talking about rifle ammo? The ATF says the reason rifles chambered in .223 are being lumped with handguns is that some manufacturers have introduced AR-type rifles (also known as “modern sporting rifles” in the firearms community and as “assault weapons” to much of the media) with short barrels and sometimes folding (or even nonexistent) butt stocks. As these guns are too short to be classified as rifles (or “long guns”), according to ATF regulations, they are regulated as “pistols.”
So the definition of what was once a pistol has become even blurrier; also, the calibers a pistol can be chambered in have grown to include many cartridges that have been traditionally considered to be rifle cartridges. This is hardly a new development. Handguns (see the G2 Contender) have long used cartridges considered to be rifle calibers. (As an historical aside: When gun makers in the 19th century developed lever-action Spencers, Winchesters and more, they started by chambering them in pistol cartridges.)
Meanwhile, bullet development has sped up as manufacturers use new materials and technologies to design bullets that reliably penetrate and kill deer, elk, bears…. Also, ammo makers have been designing specific bullets for home defense, for long-range accuracy and for many other categories.
Ammo makers have also been responding to lead-ammo bans in California and on lands in other states. Since guns were invented lead has been the go-to material for bullet design. This has been changing as some states and land agencies are being pressured to force hunters and recreational shooters to use “nontoxic” bullets. The science behind the “nontoxic” debate is dubious and very political; nevertheless, manufacturers have to respond to trends whether they are from government mandates or consumer choice.
As lead has become political, ammo makers have increased research and development into other materials. The ATF has noticed this. The ATF reports that since 2011 it has “received approximately 30 exemption requests for armor piercing ammunition.” (Most of these are simply lead-free bullet designs made for many different consumer and law-enforcement applications.)
So here we have ammunition manufacturers and America’s 100-million-plus gun owners driving innovation as a regulatory agency (in this case the ATF) is trying to keep up. That’s to be expected—laws have to be applied and, when outdated, rewritten. However, this takes a hard turn toward politics when you read the reasoning within this latest ATF move.
Well, let’s step back a second. Before getting into that, it’s important to note that though the GCA’s ban on “armor piercing” handgun ammo is certainly outdated, the reasoning behind it is not. This ban was designed to save the lives of police officers. If commonly sold handgun ammo designed for the self-defense and target market can shoot through a bulletproof vest then our police officers will have lost a potentially critical protection. But this begs the question: Is .223 M855 ball ammunition currently a problem for law enforcement? Or, more precisely, is M855 ball ammunition when shot from handguns killing law-enforcement officers? According to the FBI’s “uniform crime reports” about 2.5 percent of all murders are committed with rifles of any caliber. The FBI does not break out its statistics by caliber. I was also not able to uncover a single murder of a police officer in a shooting where someone used a handgun chambered in .223—much less one using M855 ball ammunition. (The spokesperson for the ATF has thus far failed to respond to questions.)
Given that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem, it doesn’t seem conspiratorial to wonder if this is a political move orchestrated to make it more expensive to shoot AR-15s, which are traditionally chambered in .223. In its argument for this rule change, the ATF is clearly justifying expanding the ammo ban to traditional rifle calibers. So then, might the ATF’s next move be to ban ammo for other popular military/civilian calibers like the .308 and .30-06? How about the bullets used for the .500 S&W or other large handgun calibers? If this goes forward the ATF would be assuming this regulatory authority.
In fact, while arguing that definitions of what bullets are banned shouldn’t be decided by the ammunition’s intended use, but instead should be solely determined at ATF’s discretion, the ATF says, “the intent of one group of potential consumers (criminals) is no more determinative than the intent of manufacturers.” The ATF’s lumping of law-abiding gun owners as a group of “potential consumers” with “criminals” rankled many in the gun-rights community. This and other language in the proposal is leading many to argue this is all about an end-run around Congress to implement gun control.
Whatever the motivation for this change might be, as the ATF attempts to define its way to a larger regulatory role over a constitutional right, it’s clearly time for Congress to clarify its legislation or risk being left meaningless. (The ATF has opened a public-comment period until March 16. Email APAComments@atf.gov to give your opinion.)
