Contacting the BATFE regarding M855 reclassification

[Tommyh]

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.

[Tommyh]

Ttt

[huntinfool]

Guess I have some reading to do, I'm way behind the times.

[Tommyh]

This sample letter provided By Mac from the Military arms channel. It's also being said that the ATF will only be counting any responses sent to the APA email address shown below. I have personally chosen to send one via e-mail and another via snail to the ATF and will so the same with our Representatives in WDC.

GET ACTIVE. Here are the links you need to arm yourself to defend our rights and the availability of M855 surplus ammo. Proposed change:

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...g_purposes.pdf

CONTACT THE BATF: 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
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.

SAMPLE LETTER:

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed change to current law that would make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell on the open market M855 / SS109 ammunition.

The claimed purpose of this change is to “protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun”.

As the Technical Branch well knows, all rifle ammunition of a common caliber such as .223 / 5.56 is capable of penetrating threat level IIA and IIIA body armor regardless of the firearm that is used to fire it. M855 / SS109 is no more of a threat to law enforcement than M193 or Horandy VMAX loads are.

It’s also worth noting that rifle caliber pistols are rarely used in violent crime, their usage is a statistical zero for all practical purposes, which further begs the question as to why this proposed rule change is being considered.

Banning the availability of affordable surplus ammunition under the false pretense that it’s in the name of officer safety is a clear violation of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

FULL NAME CITY / STATE

[Drycreek3189]

Might want to check spelling. HORNADY

[Thumper]

First I'd like to thank the ATF for their service.

I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed change that would make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell M855 / SS109 5.56 ammunition to the law abiding public.

All rifle .223 / 5.56 ammunition is capable of penetrating body armor regardless of the type firearm that is used to fire it. Rifle caliber pistols are rarely if ever used in violent crime, a statistical zero for all practical purposes, which further begs the question as to why this proposed rule change is being considered for any reasons other than political agenda. Banning the availability of affordable surplus ammunition under false pretense is a clear violation of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Chris Flinn
Magnolia TX