My letter to the ATF regarding the proposed M855/SS109 ban.

Here, in entirety is my letter to the ATF regarding the proposed amendment to the 1968 GCA.  I had enough people ask what I put in mine that I decided to publish it here.

This letter serves to notify all concerned of my deep opposition to the proposed ban on M855 and SS109 ammunition detailed in the BATFE White Paper titled:

“ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHERCERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)”

As a proposed amendment to the 1968 GCA, this ban if implemented will remove M855 and SS109 from the citizen market, the reasoning for this detailed by the ATF 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, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute. The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Having served in law enforcement for nearly 10 years in addition to serving as a firearms instructor and training developer, I find that this proposed amendment to the 1968 GCA both an egregious mistake and a foolish attempt to further tighten already nonsensical firearms laws.  As the ATF believes that removal of the M855 and SS109 will help prevent law enforcement deaths as both rounds can penetrate common law enforcement soft body armor, I can only point out that many other government agencies including the FBI and the National Institute for Justice (specifically the  NIJ Ballistic Resistance Standard, 0101.06) state that any 5.56mm or .223 round, even the most common 55 grain FMJ can penetrate the level II and level IIIA armor so banning what is considered by the ATF to be an “armor piercing” round, the M855/SS109, is misinformed, disingenuous or improperly researched.  As the ATF has extensive existing research and capability for additional research, this move is both curiously timed and disturbingly ill conceived.

Furthermore, when referring to the FBIs Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted annual report,   of the 535 Officers feloniously killed 2003-2012 (the most current statistics) only 92 were killed with rifles and of those killed with rifles, only 5 were killed by a rifle chambered in .223/5.56mm.  It’s also telling that of the 535 officers killed, 21 died as a direct result of a body armor penetration (identified as the round fired exceeding the vests protection rating) and only one of total body armor failure.  Looking strictly at statistics, a ban on M855/SS109 does not equal a common sense approach to officer protection or a wise use of tax payer money.

 If anything, the ATF’s proposal looks more and more like an attempt to remove a threat that doesn’t factually exist from a round that is used overwhelmingly more in sport, hunting and training than in felony attacks on peace officers.  While the round is more dangerous for those facing an assailant armed with a rifle chambered to fire it, specifically the identified and imagined threat from an AR pistol, there simply are no facts to back up a ban on the M855/SS109 for the reasons stated and banning a certain type of bullet based on what may happen is not common sense nor a move meeting even the weakest burden of proof for justification.

To identify the M855/SS109 as “armor piercing” is to label it incorrectly and shows little understanding of modern ballistics in rifle calibers.   These rounds are no more dangerous (in fact, remarkably less so) than the dangers presented by law enforcement vehicle pursuits.   The loss of any life is a tragedy, and being in law enforcement I know the anger and loss felt when an officer is killed in the line of duty, however this proposed ban will not bring back the 5 officers killed by .223/5.56mm rounds and will do exactly nothing to prevent a future crime.  This ban will directly affect the citizen shooting population and ammunition companies (and their employees) by removing one of the most economical and versatile rounds on the market.  The ATF would better serve the shooting public and the Second Amendment by conducting a full review of their regulations and removing those that no longer (or never did) apply to the modern world.

It is also worth noting that the “sporting purpose” clause as cited by the ATF is a government manifested category that is loosely interpreted and boldly draconian as it does not address the very real nature of ammunition being used for self-defense purposes as well, which would not fall into a “sporting” or “hunting” category.  Given the sheer amount of ammunition on the market that is identified by the manufactures as being “self-defense” focused in its design, the ATF is focusing on an imagined threat while circumventing, in my opinion, the constitutionally protected rights of the citizenry.

As a law enforcement officer this proposed amendment will not make me any safer; its lip service only.

I honestly hope that more educated positions will prevail and this proposal will be abandoned in favor of an informed approach to correcting not only this situation, but previously modified, amended or arbitrarily changed regulations so that the American public can enjoy all the freedoms intended to them.  It should not be the ATF’s mission to constantly introduce new and more restrictive laws/regulations; rather it should be their duty to see the rights of the people protected by monitoring wise and fact based changes that reflect both the spirit of the Second Amendment and its specific wording.

Sincerely,

Aaron Cowan

Ammunition Scare? The low-information shooter, letting someone else do the work.

So the ATF is considering an amendment and/or reinterpretation of the 1968 GCA to cover SS109 and M855 as an "armor piercing" round and of course once this news made its way around the internet, Cheaper Than Dirt wasted no time in pricing gouging the ever loving hell out of panic buyers.  Currently on Cheaper than dirt, a 900 round can of 62 Grain green tip is a "bargain" at $840.00, or it would be if it was not already sold out.  Anyone willing to pay that price, well, good for them.  Me, im not willing to give Cheaper Than Dirt any money, especially after their price gouging during the 2013/14 panic buying following Sandy Hook where a USGI mag could be had for the low price of $99.  A quick look at Ammo Seek shows that there are a few people price gouging, but none to the full douchebag level of CTD.

CTD is making a killing off the ammo scare market, supply and demand writ large.  If CTD was a person, he would look like this:

But can we blame them?  Every educated shooter knows that there are many shooters that are of the low-information crowd and are susceptible to easy panic over any little thing.  If the ATF went after the Magpul BAD lever, there would be a run on them (and CTD would sell you one for $200).  If the ATF suddenly decided the sling on a rifle was something that needed to be banned, a CTD sale would run you $400 and grandmothers nationwide would not be able to knit for a lack of yarn (we would also see the birth of a "MOLON LABE" sling market).

The sad truth as it is apparent to me is that the panic buy will always be a thing for the same reason that UTG and Sightmark are in business making cheap accessories that some are willing to put their life behind.  There is a distinct difference between cheap and inexpensive and this difference is lost on the low information crowd.  If the SS109 and M855 is indeed going to be banned from citizen purchase, what does spending $840.00 for 900 rounds of it really do for you?  Sure, it provides you with a much higher resale option down the road, much like "high cap" magazine prices during the AWB but then SS109 and M855 becomes a non-renewable commodity with an ever-increasing price as supply is reduced or removed from the market by ammunition hoarders.  Do you need to sit on a few thousand rounds of ammo?  Absolutely; but why didn't you have it already?  If the SS109 or M855 was the best damn round to have for use on two-legged predators (it isn't), shouldn't you have already built an ammunition throne in front of your DTOM flag?

The low-information shooter would be better served taking an interest in helping to prevent the ban instead of helping the owners of CTD build mattresses out of money to watch Breaking Bad on.  The ATF is still taking comments on the proposed change, its as easy as writing a quick email but I honestly have to wonder how many of those panic buying up the SS109 and M855 are also taking the time to drop a well though out email to the ATF to oppose their latest attempt at a Clinton Era flashback?

If we only depend on organizations like the NRA, GOA or USCCA (among others) to speak for us, we run the risk of getting some of, or none of what we want.  Is it any different than giving a dollar a day to a non-profit promising you letter and pictures from a child in Africa you sponsor? Sure, it will make you feel better the next time you see a commercial with the saddest kid they could find in the village but the amount of direct involvement you have is akin to yelling at the chick in the horror movie to not go upstairs; yell all you want, she wont hear you.  Theres action, and the appearance of action and for some they are one in the same.

Buying up all the green tip you can find may give you an economic edge if such a ban does occur, though what are you actually doing to try and prevent it?  I know, "The ATF wont listen to me."  Perhaps you are right, but the "theres nothing I can do" attitude is not how we are supposed to do shit here in America.  If you are not fired up over the increasingly usurpatious actions of our current administration (and those already passed), then you really aren't on board as a responsible gun owner.  We are not built from men who took the easy road, nor men who huddled in angst under the hopes that someone else would fight their fight for them.  Hope is not an actionable plan, its the same as wishing to win the lottery without so much as buying a ticket.

Did you know:  Abraham Lincoln was an accomplished amateur
rapper who used to dominate Open Pulpit Night at Gadsby's Tavern? 

So send an email; take the time to write out a well composed argument to the ATFs latest bullshit and hit send.  If all we do is share memes and macros with quotes from our forefathers, presidents and Ted Nugent in response to the governments encroachment on our rights, we are yelling our complaints into a well that always says back what we want to hear.

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

UPDATE:  PER Cheaper Than Dirt, the Ammunition pricing on 900 rounds of 62 Grain Green Tip previously linked in this blog has been removed and according to CTD was a pricing error, not an attempt to price gouge the shooting public.

ATF: Doubling Down on Stupid

So today I get pinged by a few people on the BATFE taking steps to ban SS109 and M855 5.56mm ammunition because of its armor piercing properties.  I gave the official position a read and have thus determined that the ATF has hit rock bottom on the potato scale and, finding the bottom not low enough, are requesting a shovel to go deeper. Because the individual writing the ATF white paper now found on the ATF site probably got their start writing dramatic romance thrillers, the paper opens as such.

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, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute.

Never mind that most common ammunition available for rifles in the .223/5.56mm family will burn through IIIA body armor like Eric Holder through incriminating memos, the ATF continues;

 The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck (never actually been on one) so I'm pretty familiar with the text of the Second Amendment and nowhere in it does it say anything about hunting or sporting.  The "Hunting and Sporting" clause was added in the rambling text of the 1968 Gun Control Act, a law prompted by the assassination of JFK, signed in by Lyndon B. Johnson and endorsed by then NRA Executive Vice President, Franklin Orth, who was quoted as saying "the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with."  NRA feelings aside, the hunting or sporting purpose has become a catch-all piece of the legislation that the ATF continues to use to address gun control, ammunition and the war against our rights to own so-called "Assault rifles."  Never mind that such rifles are used in as much as 2% of crimes .

Now, the GCA addresses "armor piercing" ammunition in Section 17:

 (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

So...handguns then?  Well due to the new popularity of AR pistols, they are going after some of the most common (and sometimes most affordable) 5.56mm ammunition because, as they put it;

More specifically the characteristics of the handgun or handguns in which a specific armor piercing projectile may be used will generally determine that projectile’s “likely use” in the general community. When the only readily available handgun that can accept a cartridge containing the projectile is objectively and primarily sporting, it may reasonably be inferred that the likely use of that projectile will also be objectively and primarily sporting. Conversely, when a handgun’s objective design is not limited to primarily sporting purposes, such as handguns designed to be carried and concealed, it may be reasonably inferred that ammunition capable of use in such handguns is unlikely to be used primarily for sporting purposes. 

Meanwhile, at Cheaperthandirt.com

As you can plainly see, the ATF is playing it loose and making clairvoyant assumptions with the "intent" of "pistols" that can chamber the SS109 or M855 round.  By defining "sport" and "hunting" they are effectively pretending that "self-defense" doesn't exist; which is strange considering the number of rounds marketed (and designed) specifically for those purposes.  Since the ATF is going the handgun route with their attempt at an ammunition ban, the irony lies in the fact that there are hundreds of handgun rounds designed to do maximum damage for the purposes of self-defense, though they aren't of rifle caliber so they will not penetrate common LE body armor.  Why there has not been more of a fight against the "hunting and sporting" nonsense is beyond me; though I would actually be fine with the guidelines if they read "hunting, sporting or self-defense purposes."  Perhaps its time to start a petition for amending the 1968 GCA and any other nonsensical federal law or regulation that contains that draconian and ignorant phrase.  I cant say for certain, but it appears the ATF has taken a very focused interest in the AR pistol market and are going after the low hanging fruit first, which is both ammo and the Sig Brace.

The NRA is speaking on this, well, they posted a short informational about the pending amendment but didn't comment on what they would be doing to help prevent it and/or fight its implementation.   If you want to get involved (and you should), you can contact the ATF and make comments.

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

Open Carry; an exercise in common sense, not picking the best seat on the short bus.

So...Kory Watkins is probably one of the more visible open carry advocates, mainly because he can tell you how single pane windows have a different flavor from double pane, oh and because he takes the passion for open carry from reasonable to level-potato.  Of course hes not the only open carry advocate exercising a passion over reasonableness.  My personal opinion right out of the gate is that there is a time and a place for open carry and that time and place really isn't a political stunt on a street corner of a busy suburban street.

Now, we have all heard the now-buzzword-phrase "common sense gun control" and how what it usually means is more restrictive gun laws.  This isn't about that; the 2A community knows BS when they hear it and that phrase is usually attached to lines of thinking like the Second Amendment was written when semi-automatics didn't exist so they certainly didn't have them in mind.  Fair point, assuming men like James Madison and George Mason were not (as far as we know) time travelers and may have not been able to predict advancements in technology when drafting the Second.  To me, that point loses its edge entirely when we look at their intent in the Second which was simply that Madison;  

"did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." -Michael J. Quinlan

And furthermore the Second Amendment originally would have read like this;

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Now debate was had because it was felt that the "religiously scrupulous" text could be used to destroy the standing militia.  The Second went through many drafts and adjustments after that, including careful attention to punctuation and scrutiny over specific words used.  If so much attention went into the structure of what has become the most controversial of amendments, one could safely assume that Madison knew firearms technology would advance and didn't address it because it is way besides the point.  After much debate, our the final draft read as we know it today:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, personally, I always wonder how different the debate would be if "Composed of the body of the people" had been left in, as it identifies every citizen as being supported by the Second and would have gone a long way towards killing the anti-gun crowds tired "They only meant militias" line but that's another conversation.

All this said, we have come a long way since the late 1700s and thanks to the advancements in technology, any one person can have a voice even when they have nothing interesting to say.  Anyone can make a scene and get attention nationwide as opposed to the past when such behavior may have been limited to the local population.  The open carry movement is one such example, as the common sense advocates are drowned out by the ridiculous behavior of the more, well, ridiculous advocates who make much better news copy because of their outlandish and sometimes juvenile behavior because our media is largely driven to report only the spectacle, not the boring actions of responsibility.

Are all open carry advocates irresponsible?  No, I would say not.  I know many people who open carry and they do so very responsibly in environments where open carry makes polite sense.  The mountains of Montana, a ranch in Texas, the back woods of North Carolina and many other situations where ready access to a firearm is prudent and part of a daily routine.  Hunters, hikers, outdoors-men and any number of citizens going about an activity where such behavior is accepted by society.  Open carry as an intelligent and trained decision is wise if the situation calls for it; however open carry strictly for the reasons of a political statement is foolish.  I am not the deciding voice on what does and doesn't make sense, this is merely my opinion but it is an educated opinion.  Society has the right as a collective people to find something offensive, disturbing or scary.  If you want to raise awareness for a right and that right includes the open display of a mechanical device designed to shoot lethal projectiles, one should be prepared for your behavior to offend or scare people.  The way to not offend or scare them is not to act more foolish, more brazen or scream your point more loudly.  I spent some time in Mexico and no matter how loud the tourists spoke English, the Mexicans still didn't understand English because the volume was not the issue, it was the message.  Screaming your point, either vocally or through physical displays of assholery like the Chiplotegate nonsense only serves to scream louder at someone who doesn't speak your language.

When I was in Mexico I wasn't required to know how to speak Spanish, just as the Mexican locals were not required to understand what I was saying.  It was an inability to communicate and it was my responsibility to find a way to get my message across because I needed to.  No volume of voice or pantomime of arms and hands would get them to understand me.  I needed to learn the language.

Is the open carry debate any different?  The general population receives the majority of their firearms education from TV, movies, music, "firearms experts" and journalists who cant remember what helicopter they were on, let alone be bothered to check facts.  In a nation where people usually go with the first Google result as the truth or have such a strong confirmation bias that a reasonable conversation with them is akin to pulling a mattress through a mail slot, we have to try harder to show those on the fence or those against guns that the Second Amendment right is a recognition of a natural right, not a man-manufactured excuse to compensate for the size of ones genitalia.

We live in a low-information society (some people only read these for the memes) and most of that low information is gathered visually, because seeing is the easiest way to observe.  If you don't like, or are afraid of what you see, how much work are you going to put into respecting its message?

Responsible open carry isn't a zero-retention kydex holster; a leg rig at the BBQ joint or two rifles slung.  Can you do it?  Sure; but it may be a bad idea for the same reason that I can stand across from an elementary school with a bullhorn and recite Celly Cell lyrics in between Easy E acapella because society isn't really down with my exercise of Free Speech in that case.

Responsible open carry is hard to define, but easy to practice.  Again, my opinion is that open carry should be for a purpose, not for a statement.  The tired argument of easier access and deterrence goes right out the window when you see how many police officers are killed with their own weapons and how occasionally an open carrier is robbed at gunpoint.  Responsible open carry is having been trained in weapon retention and using a retention holster.  It is a level of awareness commensurate with transporting a lethal device into every environment you go and its presence being obvious.  It is polite difference to those who are bothered by the weapon and a willingness to educate in a reasonable way that goes beyond canned slogans or raised voices.  It is a non-confrontational approach towards a protected right.  Otherwise, you might as well pick up a bullhorn and memorize the lyrics to "Hit the Hooker" before heading out to exercise your First on some 8 year-olds.