ATF Proposal on M855 Ammunition

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in my home State of Kansas, we enjoy a
special way of life. I have talked about it many times on the Senate
floor. That special way of life includes a rich tradition of hunting,
target shooting, and other law-abiding activities covered by our Second
Amendment rights. Our State welcomes nearly 300,000 hunters each year,
and in turn those individuals create jobs and economic opportunity for
many Kansans.

I was disturbed to learn of a recent proposal by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. On Friday, February 13, the
ATF proposed--without any instruction from Congress, on its own
volition--a framework to determine whether M855 ammunition, which is
popular for hunting and target shooting, is primarily intended to be
used for sporting or if it is more likely to be used in handguns by
criminals. ATF indicated it wants to ban the ammunition, which has been
used by law-abiding citizens, including Kansans, for decades because it
is ``armor piercing'' and, therefore, poses a risk to the safety of law
enforcement officials.

The fact is that almost all rifle ammunition is armor-piercing. The
Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1986, which ATF cites as a statutory
authority to ban this ammunition, specifically exempts armor-piercing
ammunition ``which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to
be used for sporting purposes.'' Congress's intent for providing this
exemption was clear: Law-abiding citizens should not be deprived of
their right to use this ammo for legitimate purposes, such as target
shooting, hunting, and shooting competitions. In fact, Kansans, who
expressed their concern to me about this issue in recent weeks, have
consistently indicated that the proposed ban would directly interfere
with their sporting uses and, more broadly, their Second Amendment
rights.

Most troubling about the ATF proposal was how it intended to judge
``likely use'' of this ammunition. ATF planned to judge that M855
ammunition is more likely to be used in a handgun for criminal purposes
rather than for sporting purposes simply based upon the bullet's weight
and type of firearm in which it could be loaded. What was missing was
any interest by ATF in the law-abiding ammunition consumers across the
county. How might they use the ammunition? How could ATF determine
primary intended use without conducting a study on how that ammunition
actually would be used by the public?

The ATF framework failed to make any objective conclusions and would
have served as nothing more than a tool for increased gun
restrictions--and I would say increased gun restrictions that weren't
passed by Congress.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Grassley,
circulated a letter among my colleagues and to me directed at ATF
Director B. Todd Jones outlining these and many other concerns related
to the proposed framework to ban this ammunition. I join Senator
Grassley in signing this letter, and I am thankful it appears that our
message was received because on Tuesday of this week the ATF announced
that it will ``formally delay'' the implementation of the proposed
ammunition ban. I thank the thousands--in fact, tens of thousands of
Americans who voiced their concerns both to Congress and to ATF. ATF
received an incredible 80,000 public comments on the proposed
framework.

Congress has never banned this ammunition and has never intended to
ban it. In the future, the ATF should not propose to ban any widely
used form of ammunition favored by law-abiding civilians for lawful
purposes.

Again, I am thankful that the proposed framework has now been
rescinded, and I will continue my efforts in the Senate to support the
Second Amendment freedoms of all Americans.

I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source