Tweet
A question came up in the Busted by Feds for selling reloaded tracers?? thread. Since the defendant was arrested and charged for selling armor-piercing ammunition without a license and since the individual who posed the question noted that it was "a side" to the actual thread, I thought I'd start a new thread addressing the question specifically.
The question?
I'm not sure "logic" is the proper descriptor in this case. However, I think the following PDF from a search of ATF's Resource Center was interesting.
It's entitled:
Note that on Page 2 of the 17 page piece, there is a section headed: "LEOPA LEGISLATIVE HISTORY." Parsing portions from that section...
...In a hearing on one of these early bills, Senator Moynihan made clear that the intent of the bill was to ban only ammunition that both met the performance standard and was designed to be used in a handgun
You might note that Senator Moynihan is quoted as stating...
[L]et me make clear what this bill does not do. Our legislation would not limit the availability of standard rifle ammunition with armor-piercing capability. We recognize that soft body armor is not intended to stop high powered rifle cartridges. Time and again 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.
In other words, ATF is stating that while the original intent was only armor-piercing handgun ammunition, during the Legislative process, that definition was expanded into the two criteria we now have, encompassing rifle ammunition. In other words, the 17 page piece is an explanation of how they determine "sporting purposes" under the existing statute. The date of publication is unclear to me. However, there is this line at the end of the piece... ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015... Thus, it appears to be tied to the SS109 and M855 cartridges controversy.
Have fun with that.
The question?
I'm not sure "logic" is the proper descriptor in this case. However, I think the following PDF from a search of ATF's Resource Center was interesting.
It's entitled:
Note that on Page 2 of the 17 page piece, there is a section headed: "LEOPA LEGISLATIVE HISTORY." Parsing portions from that section...
...In a hearing on one of these early bills, Senator Moynihan made clear that the intent of the bill was to ban only ammunition that both met the performance standard and was designed to be used in a handgun
You might note that Senator Moynihan is quoted as stating...
[L]et me make clear what this bill does not do. Our legislation would not limit the availability of standard rifle ammunition with armor-piercing capability. We recognize that soft body armor is not intended to stop high powered rifle cartridges. Time and again 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.
In other words, ATF is stating that while the original intent was only armor-piercing handgun ammunition, during the Legislative process, that definition was expanded into the two criteria we now have, encompassing rifle ammunition. In other words, the 17 page piece is an explanation of how they determine "sporting purposes" under the existing statute. The date of publication is unclear to me. However, there is this line at the end of the piece... ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015... Thus, it appears to be tied to the SS109 and M855 cartridges controversy.
Have fun with that.
Comment