B. Todd Jones, Director
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226
Dear Director Jones:
We are writing to express our serious concern with the “ATF Framework for Determining Whether
Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(17)(C),” issued on February 13, 2015.
The proposed “Framework” purports to establish an “objective” test for determining whether certain
projectiles otherwise considered “armor piercing” under federal law qualify for an exemption allowing
them to be lawfully manufactured, imported, and sold on the civilian market in the United States. The
“Framework,” however, establishes an unduly restrictive standard, does not comport with the letter or
spirit of the law, and will interfere with Second Amendment rights by disrupting the market for
ammunition that law abiding Americans use for sporting and other legitimate purposes.
As you know, the ban on “armor piercing” ammunition was created by the Law Enforcement Officers
Protection Act (LEOPA) of 1986. The Act was conceived to protect police officers from the hazards
presented by so-called "armor piercing" projectiles–originally designed for law enforcement and military
use—that can be fired from handguns and penetrate the sort of soft body armor typically worn by police
officers.
To do this, LEOPA bans various sorts of non-lead projectiles or projectile “cores” that “may be” used in
handguns. As LEOPA’s authors realized, however, bullets fired from most common rifle cartridges can
penetrate soft body armor, and some rifle bullets can be loaded into ammunition for handguns.
Congress therefore incorporated an exemption into LEOPA for projectiles “which the Attorney General
finds [are] primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” to protect ordinary rifle ammunition
from being swept up in the ban.
The “Framework” is intended to answer the question of how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives (ATF) will make “sporting purposes” determinations. It creates a two-prong test. First,
ATF will exempt a “.22 caliber projectile … if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a
rimfire cartridge.” Second, ATF will exempt other projectiles if they are “loaded into a cartridge for
which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single

 2
shot handgun.” Even then, ATF –under this supposedly “objective” test – “retains the discretion to deny
any application for a ‘sporting purposes’ exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is
not primarily intended for such purposes.”
The effects of these restrictive interpretations are untenable. For example, since 1986 ATF has
considered the M855 5.56 x 45mm cartridge to be “exempt” under the sporting purposes test (although
its core contains a substantial amount of lead, raising questions about its classification as “armor
piercing” in the first place). ATF has now rescinded that exemption because repeating handguns that fire
the M855 round are commercially available. Yet this round is amongst the most commonly used in the
most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold
and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged – much less offered evidence – that even one such
round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer. The idea that Congress intended LEOPA to
ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.
While the banning of these popular cartridges is the most visible and immediate effect of ATF’s shifting
policy, the “Framework” has other serious implications. It will, for example, inhibit the development and
use of rifle ammunition containing non-lead materials, even as efforts are afoot both at the federal and
state levels to impose bans or restrictions on lead ammunition. The eventual collision of these trends
could result in drastically reduced options for lawful ammunition users.
Neither LEOPA nor any other provision of federal law is intended to restrict the development of
ammunition or handguns that were designed and intended to be used by private citizens for legitimate
purposes. Instead, LEOPA should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful
firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment. The term “primarily intended to be used
for sporting purposes” should be broadly understood to incorporate the many legitimate uses
Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition,
training and skills development, and instructional activities.
The “Framework” does not comport with LEOPA’s meaning and intent and should be abandoned. ATF
should refocus its efforts on serious threats to law enforcement officers from specially designed armor
piercing projectiles that are intended for use in the sort of handguns commonly carried and concealed
by criminals. Under no circumstances should ATF adopt a standard that will ban ammunition that is
overwhelmingly used by law-abiding Americans for legitimate purposes.
Of additional concern is the manner in which ATF issued the proposed “Framework.” The Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 533) requires that “general notice of proposed rulemaking shall be
published in the Federal Register…” To date, the “Framework” has not been published in the Federal
Register.
In order for Congress to more fully understand the rationale behind the “Framework” please respond to
the following questions by March 13, 2015:
1)

How does ATF determine what constitutes the “core” of a projectile that has more than one
discrete component or section beneath an outer jacket and upon what provision of law or other
principle is that determination based?

2)

Why did the ATF not publish the proposed “Framework” in the Federal Register as required by
the APA?

 3
3)

Under the “Framework,” what other rounds is the ATF considering regulating as armor piercing
ammunition?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. If you have any questions, please contact Jason
Cervenak, Senior Counsel, of the House Judiciary Committee at 202-225-3951.
Sincerely,