Way back in 1986 a great deal of your gun rights were legislated away. That year’s modifications to the Gun Control Act of 1968 along with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act affected not only firearms but ammunition as well.

Last week, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published a notice entitled, “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”. Specifically, they propose to eliminate M855 (SS109) ammunition’s exemption to the armor piercing cartridge prohibition.

That LEO Protection Act prohibited the manufacture and importation of 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, M855 does not meet this definition, but that’s not stopping them.

By now you’re asking yourself, “Wait a sec, where does the handgun come in if it’s 5.56? ” There has been a recent rash of AR pistols hitting the market. That’s enough for them to reclassify M855 as a restricted armor piercing round.

I look at this as payback from the ATF to the black rifle community for the attempt by many to circumvent SBR regulations by purchasing pistols and outfitting them with stabilizing braces. In case you have a short memory (and technocrats love it when you have one of those), the ATF just last month redefined the concept of manufacturing when it issued an “Open Letter to the Redesign of Stabilizing Braces“. They reversed a previous decision regarding use of the brace on a pistol.

Granted, the underlying legislation was passed back in the 80s based on the threat of evil “cop killer” bullets. That’s why it focuses on handguns even though patrol officers now carry rifles to prevent overmatch. Additionally, not only are almost all LEOs wearing armor almost 30 years on, the armor business itself has come a long way since then, developing new materials to protect.

But, the real danger here is that they may attempt to deny an entire range of .223 projectiles from civilians. If it’s being done in the name of LE, it’s a self-defeating move. To be honest, this will most likely also deny their availability from LE agencies if the market shifts away from their manufacture primarily for civilians. The vast majority of ammunition is consumed by civilians and the LE community does not collectively purchase ammo except at the federal level meaning they don’t hold much purchasing power. If it becomes a restricted, specialty product, it will be too costly for the vast majority of agencies. Once again, such actions not only impact the industrial base but the government customer as well.

But, this isn’t a done deal. At this point it is still only a proposed rule change. You can comment to the ATF regarding this proposal. If you choose to do so we suggest that you stay on topic, use proper English, refrain from cursing or communicating threats and be succinct and as factual as possible.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Fax: (202) 648-9741.

Mail: 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

It’s our job to be heard. This story is a good place for readers to suggest comments. In addition to the misidentification of the round based on the legislation, there is this whole “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” nonsense that we’ve got to acknowledge as well.

Read the entire notice here.