M855 Plot Thickens: One Congressman Proposes Center-Fire Ammo Ban | Another Proposes Preventing Obama Admin From Banning Ammo

NRA-ILA: You didn’t need a crystal ball to see this one coming. On Monday, a week after the BATFE withdrew its plan to ban M855 as “armor-piercing ammunition,” U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) announced that he intends to introduce legislation to “extend the definition of armor-piercing ammunition to include all bullets that can pierce body armor and be used in handguns.”

On March 13, 2015, three days after the BATFE rescinded its proposed ammo ban framework regulation, anti-gun U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) introduced H.R. 1358, a bill designed to ban civilian use and possession of M855 ammunition. This is the same round that the BATFE, after meeting fierce bipartisan opposition from Capitol Hill and from NRA members and supporters across the country, decided to rescind its framework to ban M855 ammunition.

The reason you didn’t need a crystal ball is that gun control supporters have been pushing this idea for years. In the 1980s, after NBC-TV did an attack piece on bullets invented for law enforcement officers to shoot through walls and doors, disingenuously calling them “Cop Killer Bullets,” gun control supporters seized upon the term and proposed legislation to ban any bullet that could penetrate a soft protective vest.

Fortunately, the Departments of Justice and Treasury, along with the NRA, opposed the “performance-based” approach to defining “armor-piercing ammunition,” because it would have banned virtually all center-fire rifle ammunition and some center-fire handgun ammunition. Therefore, in 1986, Congress instead adopted a “construction-based” approach, defining bullets as “armor-piercing ammunition” based upon the metals from which they are made.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton and then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) pushed for a performance-based bullet ban within terrorism legislation. A study released by the BATFE in April 1997, however, concluded “existing laws are working, no additional legislation regarding such laws is necessary.”

Now, the BATFE’s recent attempt to ban M855 has inspired gun control supporters to take another shot at a near-total center-fire bullet ban, and in the case of Rep. Israel, to do so without knowing the first thing about the subject. Israel says his bill is necessary “[b]ecause of significant developments in bullet propellants, coatings and materials, such as Teflon.”

To which we have to ask: Seriously, Teflon? The substance used to coat skillets and 1970s-era all-steel handgun bullets invented for law enforcement officers, so the bullets wouldn’t scratch the rifling of the officers’ handgun barrels? Teflon, which has nothing to do with whether a bullet can penetrate a protective vest? Teflon (speaking of Clinton), the substance said to cover dishonest, misbehaving public officials who nevertheless skirt scrutiny and accountability again and again?

As we have previously noted, in the 38 years that the FBI has reported the caliber of handguns used to kill law enforcement officers, no such crime has been committed with a handgun capable of firing M855 or any other .223 or 5.56mm cartridge.

Rep. Israel is right about one thing, however. He says that the 1986 law that the BATFE tried to twist in order to ban M855 “is outdated.” Indeed, it is, but not in the way that Israel imagines. The law should be amended to narrow BATFE’s discretion to ban ammunition. It should be understood to cover only such bullets as are designed for the express purpose of penetrating protective vests when loaded into pistol-caliber cartridges and fired from handguns. It should further exempt all bullets that are primarily intended for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense.

Rest assured we'll keep readers apprised of any new developments.

---

Update:  Gun owners' ally U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)  introduced the “Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act”, H.R. 1365, to prevent BATFE from acting on its plans.

Besides expressly protecting M855 and SS109 type ammunition, the bill would also reassert in unmistakable terms Congressional intent that the “armor piercing ammunition” law not be used to ban “ammunition designed, intended, and marketed for use in a rifle.” As NRA noted in its recent comments on BATFE’s Framework, the law at issue “focuses narrowly on the specific concern of projectiles that are purposely designed to penetrate bullet resistant armor when fired from a handgun, rather than those that are incidentally capable of doing so because of their design for some other legitimate purpose.” This is a key point in correctly understanding the intended scope of the law, as its original authors emphasized their intention not to ban ordinary rifle ammunition overwhelmingly used for law-abiding purposes.

Of course, anti-gun members of Congress are incensed that BATFE has been forced into retreat, and they have introduced their own bill (see related stories) to codify and expand upon BATFE’s distorted reading of the law. The overwhelming response by NRA members and other gun owners stopped BATFE’s proposed ban in its tracks. Now, those who hold dear their Second Amendment rights must ensure that any Congressional response to BATFE’s actions protects liberty, rather than infringes it.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to SUPPORT H.R. 1365 and oppose any attempts to further restrict the availability of ammunition as a direct assault on your Second Amendment rights. The NRA thanks Rep. McHenry for his leadership in this important effort.

You can contact your U.S. Representative about this legislation by using our "Write Your Lawmakers" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or by phone at (202) 224-3121.

---

Tags: gun ammo, M855, Representative, anti-gun, Eliot Engel, D-NY, ammo ban, H.R. 1358, pro-gun, Patrick McHenry, R-NC, “Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act”, H.R. 1365, NRA, NRA-ILA To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!