[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Page 3496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    ATF PROPOSAL ON M855 AMMUNITION

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the good work of the Senator 
from Kansas. We have worked on, in the Banking Committee, a number of 
issues together, and I appreciate the work we have been able to do 
across party lines. So I thank the Senator for that.

                          ____________________