Hope this is ok admin I posted it here instead of the ammo section to get more views.

Take a little time and sign this petition so we get to keep our ammo freedom! It says M855 but the law is so vague they might be able to squeeze FMJ in there with it. Pass this on to your friends we still need 40k votes!! Thanks guys!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-batfe-banning-xm855-ammunition/XrvVh1cj

Signed.

But please don't forget to write your comments to the ATF regarding the ammo ban due to the "sporting purposes" argument which this all stems from. It's not just the 855--that's just the round at the forefront.

See this well thought-out letter/comment posted by a member on ar15.com--copy and paste if you have to, and send to APAComments@atf.gov

Sorry it's so long, but it is the best letter/comment(s) I've seen yet.
"Please find following comments on the February 13, 2015, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) notice soliciting public comment the document “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”.

BACKGROUND

On February 13, 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) issued a notice soliciting public comment the document “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)” (hereafter “proposed framework”) [EN i].

The stated objective of the proposed framework is establishment of non-codified agency guidance for determining whether certain types of ammunition are classified as “armor piercing ammunition” and thus are prohibited from import, manufacture, and distribution pursuant to 18 USC § 921(a)(17) [EN ii] and 27 CFR § 478.148 [EN iii]. This proposed framework states:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless 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 term “single shot handgun” means a break-open or bolt action handgun that can accept only a single cartridge manually, and does not accept or use a magazine or other ammunition feeding device. The term does not include a pocket pistol or derringer-type firearm.


COMMENTS

Comment 1.

On page 11 the proposed framework states:

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.


With this statement, BATFE begins a tortured redefinition of the construct “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” as it applies to all pistols, revolvers, and other non-single-shot handguns (hereafter PRN).

This redefinition is achieved in the last paragraph on page 13 of the proposed framework, where this statement lies:

Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes. [EN iv]


Thus, via this innocuous publication for which “… ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015… [EN v]” BATFE does away with more than 45 years of legal understanding of the phrase “sporting purposes” as it applies to PRN, a construct first enacted via provisions in the Public Law 90-618 [EN vi], known today as the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. [EN vii]

Previous Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congresses narrowed the scope of the “sporting purposes” construct; however, the proposed framework is an unambiguous attempt by the Obama Administration to circumvent the entire legislative and regulatory process, and by Executive decree make single shot handguns the ONLY kind of handgun to have a primarily “sporting purpose.”

Because a federal agency cannot apply wholly different definitions to phrases used by the agency (unless done via legislation), this BATFE action means either of two alternative outcomes:

BATFE has two entirely different tests for what constitutes “sporting purposes,” one for whether a particular cartridge is “armor piercing ammunition” (the stated objective of the proposed framework) and another for determining the importability of a PRN, or


BATFE is obligated to refuse importation permits for dozens makes and models of PRN used for sporting purposes (e.g., competitive marksmanship), for example, the Glock (an import from Austria), HK Sidearms (imported from Germany), Springfield Armory pistols (imported from Croatia), Taurus (imported from Brazil), and Walther (another import from Germany).


Under the first alternative outcome, there is no single, codified objective standard for what constitutes “sporting purposes” as that construct applies to PRN. This means BATFE is free to arbitrarily and capriciously use whichever definition they choose or to develop an entirely new definition without enabling legislation or regulations established via the Administrative Procedures Act. Thus, U.S. businesses and citizens have no way to understand what the laws and regulations mean in a given situation other than by guessing the “correct” answer.

If the first alternative does not occur, then second alternative outcome occurs because of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d) (3), and actions since 1969 to set specific requirements for importing PRNs. The section Import Requirements for Firearms & Ammunition [EN viii] in the BATFE Guidebook Importation & Verification of Firearms, Ammunition, and Implements of War [EN ix] states that under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3), importability is a three-pronged test [EN x]:

(1) The firearm cannot be an “any other weapon,” a destructive device, a machine gun, shortbarreled rifle, a short-barreled shotgun, or a silencer [EN xi], and

(2) the firearm must be suitable for or adaptable to a sporting purpose, and

(3) If a pistol or revolver, it must meet the size and safety requirements and accrue a qualifying point value specified on ATF Form 4590 (5330.5), Factoring Criteria for Weapons. [EN xii]

If, as stated in the proposed framework, the BATFE determines only single-shot handguns are “suitable for or adaptable to a sporting purpose,” then any other type of handgun cannot be importable, even if it is not an “any other weapon,” a destructive device, a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, a short-barreled shotgun, or a silencer and it accrues the necessary points on ATF Form 4590.

BATFE must revisit the narrow construction of what defines the “sporting purposes” for which all firearms are used, and absolutely reject the construct of that “… it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are ‘primarily intended’ for use in sporting purposes.”

Comment 2.

Under the proposed framework, BATFE dramatically narrows the scope of the construct of “sporting purposes” as applied to PRNs without enabling legislation or regulations established pursuant to the APA. This does not appear to be a legitimate exercise of Executive Branch authority under the GCA. BATFE has consistently stated the universe of “sporting purposes” was extraordinarily narrow at the time the GCA was enacted to apply only to apply only to hunting, trap and skeet shooting, and
competitive marksmanship (i.e., target shooting):

The first narrowing of the “sporting purposes” construct occurred in 1969 when BATFE (then just ATF, an arm of the Internal Revenue Service) first issued the Factoring Criteria for Weapons, now memorialized in ATF Form 4590 (5330.5), Revised March 2008. [EN xiii] This system provided by this provision was intended to “curb the flow of surplus military weapons and other firearms being brought into the United States which are not particularly suitable for target shooting or hunting.” [EN xiv]


BATFE further narrowed the “sporting purposes” construct in 1989 with the publication of Report and Recommendation of the ATF Working Group on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles. [EN xv] In that report, BATFE concluded:

As discussed earlier, the legislative history suggests a narrow meaning and indicates that the term “sporting purposes” refers to the traditional sports of target shooting, skeet and trap shooting, and hunting. [EN xvi]


In 1998, BATFE again narrowed the “sporting purposes” construct by publication of Department of the Treasury Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles [EN xvii]. In that study, BATFE concluded:

… sporting purposes should be given a narrow reading, incorporating only the traditional sports of hunting and organized competitive target shooting (rather than a broader interpretation that could include virtually any lawful activity or competition.) …


Moreover, BATFE stated:

We received some comments urging us to find "practical shooting" is a sport for the purposes of section 925(d)(3). Further, we received information showing that practical shooting is gaining in popularity in the United States and is governed by an organization that has sponsored national events since 1989. It also has an international organization.

While some may consider practical shooting a sport, by its very nature it is closer to police/combat-style competition and is not comparable to the more traditional types of
sports, such as hunting and organized competitive target shooting. Therefore, we are not convinced that practical shooting does, in fact, constitute a sporting purpose under section 925(d)(3).


In July 2012, there was another narrowing of the “sporting purposes” construct by BATFE publishing the Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns [EN xviii]. Here too, BATFE determined that many types of shotguns imported into the United States do not meet the “… generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes…” construct because of features such as folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks or magazines capable of holding more than five shotshells. In this study, BATFE once again ruled that practical shooting disciplines are not a legitimate sporting use of firearms.



Yet the proposed framework now states only single shot handguns are “primarily intended for sporting purposes.” This is directly contrary to the BATFE logic in establishing the 1969 Factoring Criteria for Weapons in ATF Form 4590 (5330.5), where BATFE must have concluded that PRNs had a legitimate sporting use, since any other conclusion would prevent importation. Further, there is no supporting evidence indicating that PRN are not useful in hunting, or that these firearms are not used in competitive marksmanship.

As an example of the former case, the Commonwealth of Virginia General Hunting Regulations [EN xix] does not prohibit the use of PRN in hunting. In fact, the regulations state:

Pistols, revolvers, and muzzleloading pistols may be used for small game, except where prohibited by local ordinances.

Pistols and revolvers are lawful for deer and bear hunting only in those counties where hunting deer and bear with rifles is lawful. Cartridges used must be .23 caliber or larger and have a manufacturer's rating of 350 foot-pounds muzzle energy or more.


These regulations make no restriction on the operable mechanism of a PRN used for hunting (i.e., only revolvers, only single shot handguns) or the number of cartridges contained in the PRN; in fact, the only restriction is the caliber of the firearm and the manufacturer’s rating of muzzle energy. Many common domestic and imported handguns that are not single-shot handguns meet these requirements, for example, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and HWMxx revolvers chambered in .357 magnum and the Desert Eagle and Glock pistols (e.g., chambered in .44 magnum and 10mm automatic respectively).

In support of the other option, that PRNs have no use in competitive shooting, even discounting BATFE’s refusal to recognize practical shooting as a legitimate form of marksmanship competition, there are standard “bullseye” competitions where the competitor is required to use either a revolver or a semiautomatic pistol. For example, there are various National Rifle Association (NRA) competitive revolver and pistol shooting programs [EN xxi] including the “Distinguished Revolver Program” which requires use of a centerfire revolver or the “2700 Program” which requires the use of pistols in .22 rimfire, another centerfire handgun, and a .45 caliber pistol.

There are also the National Matches, first held in 1903, and moved to Camp Perry, Ohio, in 1907. These National Matches are a huge, national shooting sports festival with well over 6,000 annual participants, ncluding representatives of various military services and federal law enforcement agencies. The National Matches include Small Arms Firing Schools that are mandated by law and a series of CMP National Trophy Rifle and Pistol Matches that are traditional static bullseye competitions and not
“practical shooting” events. The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) fulfills its responsibility to conduct the National Matches through a working partnership that includes the Ohio National Guard and the NRA.

The BATFE conclusion that only single-shot handguns are “primarily intended for sporting purposes” is incorrect on its face, inconsistent with previous actions by BATFE, and will undoubtedly result in litigation to overturn this nullification of the Second Amendment and the GCA.

Comment 3.

Neither Category I nor II in the proposed framework for the sporting purposes exemption (see above) account for the first provision of 18 USC § 921(a)(17)(B)(i). Specifically, the framework must clearly state as a predicate condition that any:

“…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…”


is by statutory definition “armor piercing ammunition” and is ineligible for the “sporting purposes” exemption as a function of law.

Moreover, the proposed framework must contain specific, objective criteria:


Defining the terms “projectile,” “projectile core,” and “jacket” which are undefined in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.


For determining if a “projectile or projectile core … is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.”



Setting objective criteria defining “projectile,” “projectile core,” and “jacket” and for determining the content of projectile is particularly important given the statements in the proposed framework on the status of the SS109/M855 cartridge [EN xxii]. In the proposed framework, BATFE states:

To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm “green tip” ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges. [FN 7]

[FN 7]Projectiles of this caliber loaded into these cartridges made from other metals, e.g., lead or copper, is not armor piercing to begin with, and will not be effected by the withdrawal of this exemption.


Nowhere in the proposed framework does BATFE discuss having performed any analysis of the design and composition of the SS109/M855 projectile, or how that design or composition results in this cartridge being reclassified as "armor piercing ammunition."

Such an analysis would show the SS109/M855 projectile consists of a thin copper jacket covering a small steel insert placed above a lead core. This design does not meet the standard of (B)(i). Specifically, a cross section of the 62-grain bullet being discussed [EN xxiii] shows a copper jacket, a steel insert, and a lead core. The copper jacket and steel insert and weigh about 11 grains each, while the remaining weight (about 40 grains) is lead. Clearly, the entire projectile and projectile core is not comprised of …one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium…” as there is a majority presence (about 65%) of lead, which the majority of bullets use as the core material.

The composition of the SS109/M855 projectile also does not meet section the requirements of 18 USC § 921(a)(17)(B)(ii), which states:

(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.


Again, the NATO and U.S. design specification states the jacket weight of the 62-grain projectile is approximately 10.8 grains (17% of the total 62-grain weight), well below the 25% composition defined by the statute.

The fact the SS109/M855 was granted an exemption in 1986 under the "sporting purpose" construct of the day does not change these facts. This cartridge and projectile never meet any of the statutory definition of "armor piercing ammunition"; thus, BATFE’s granting of the exemption was improper from the outset, and should have never been approved.

Comment 4.

In the proposed framework, BATFE cited the decision in Posters ‘N’ Things v. U.S [EN xxiv] that an objective analysis must focus on the "likely use" of the item in the general community.

The "likely use" of SS109/M855 ammunition in the general community is overwhelmingly in competitive marksmanship and the associated target practice needed by competitors. BATFE does not show that the “likely use” of SS109/M855 ammunition is for other forms of sport shooting, nor does BATFE provide evidence showing that the SS109/M855 cartridge was regularly, occasionally, or ever used by criminals in shooting crimes involving law enforcement officers.

If the proposed framework is to rely on the “likely use” as grounds to reclassify the SS109/M855 cartridge and projectile as “armor piercing ammunition” there should be clear evidence to support that conclusion.

Comment 5.

On page 6 of the proposed framework BATFE states:

… one of the primary factors is the increased pressure on the ammunition industry to produce suitable hunting alternatives to lead ammunition. The widespread use of lead ammunition for hunting has been linked to lead contamination in certain species that consume carrion and “gut piles” containing remnants of lead projectiles. The endangered California Condor, which scavenges on carrion, has proven particularly vulnerable to this type of lead poisoning. The impact of lead poisoning on the Condor and other species has resulted in at least one State banning the use of lead ammunition in certain environmentally sensitive areas, and has generated substantial advocacy for broader availability of non-lead ammunition.


This statement is not supported by the findings of federal agencies involved in the California ban on lead ammunition. According to the Washington Times article Obama’s feds hid key data to get Calif. lead ammo ban passed in backdoor gun control move: Gun control advocates used plight of iconic California condor to push legislation, from December 2, 2014 [EN xxv] email obtained via the Freedom of Information Act:

… indicate that a federal official withheld critical data on lead blood levels in the California condor until after gun control advocates in the California state legislature used the iconic bird’s plight to help push through a law last year to ban lead ammunition…

... John McCamman, California condor recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, did not make the report public until the bill was on its way to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown. Mr. Brown signed the measure in October 2013.

The annual update, which had been previously issued in June, found little change in the condor’s blood lead levels despite a 2007 ban on lead ammunition in the “condor zone,” a lengthy swath of habitat along the coast from Ventura County to Santa Clara County.

“The email thread shows that they withheld that [information] from the public; they withheld it from the legislature purposely,” Mr. Keane [National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel] said. “And why? Because the results show that despite the existing law and regulations that ban the use of traditional ammunition by hunters, it was not having an impact on condor blood-lead levels in California.”

Mr. Keane added, “Which suggests, as we have said all along, that condors in California are accessing lead from other sources, not ammunition.”

… The Fish and Wildlife Service report released in October 2013xxvi concluded that California condors continue to be exposed to lead despite California’s ban on lead ammunition in the “condor zone,” and offered explanations that included alternative sources to hunters’ bullets.

…“[T]here are other sources of lead in the environment that condors may be accessing, including five individual condors apparently ingesting chips of lead-based paint in a fire tower (since remediated),” said the report.

The update also cited a 2012 peer-reviewed scientific paper that found nine condors “had lead detected in their blood that did not match the isotopic signature of ammunition, background levels, or paint, indicating an unidentified source of lead in the environment.”


Additional science-based evidence, stated on pages 17 and 18 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) report Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex California Condor Recovery Program Annual Report 2012 [EN xxvii], concluded:

There were no condor mortalities associated with lead toxicosis in Southern California in 2012. Using this criterion of = 10 ug/dL for exposure, 42 condors in the Southern California population had blood lead levels above background levels in 2012. The results for blood lead levels in 2012 were similar to values for the previous several years (Figure 3.2.1). There is no indication of a clear trend towards an overall increase or decrease in exposure.


Moreover, the proposed framework states:

Generally, rifles are the type of firearm predominately used for hunting purposes, particularly the type of hunting conducted in sensitive environmental areas such as the California Condor range. It thus appears that rifle-based hunting is the primary driving force behind the market demand for lead-alternative ammunition made with the metals listed in section 921(a)(17)(C).


There is no evidence presented showing that “… rifles are the type of firearm predominately used for hunting purposes, particularly the type of hunting conducted in sensitive environmental areas such as the California Condor range.”

In any revised framework, BATFE needs to present clear evidence supporting such statements or delete such statements as unsupported by facts.
CONCLUSION

With the issuance of the proposed framework, BATFE oversteps the bounds of its legitimate exercise of regulatory authority under the GCA via the conclusion that:

Only single-shot handguns are “primarily used for sporting purposes”;

Only certainly narrowly defined types of target shooting and competitive marksmanship activities are included in Congress’ intent in passing the GCA;

The criteria proposed for determining if ammunition can be exempted from regulation under the “sporting purposes” exemption are a valid exercise of regulatory authority

These criteria reflect the specific statutory requirements well enough for citizens and businesses to understand what is and is not legal vis-à-vis “armor piercing ammunition”;

By declaring the SS109/M855 cartridge and projectile to be “armor piercing ammunition” without a factual analysis of the design and composition of the cartridge;

The criteria for determining what is “armor piercing ammunition” does not create a regulatory conundrum of having multiple definitions for the same term, or, alternatively do not ban importation of all PRN;

The “likely use” of the SS109/M855 cartridge is not for “sporting purposes” and that banning this ammunition serves the intent of Congress in passing the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act (LEOSA) when there is no evidence that this ammunition has ever been used by criminals in firearms-related assault on law enforcement personnel.

[*]The California Condor is actually threatened by lead toxicosis related to the use of ammunition in hunting and other sport shooting activities, when there are reports from the USFWS stating that other lead sources must be a significant contributor to Condor illness and mortality.


There is no nice way to phrase this: This proposed framework is so flawed BATFE needs to start over again, seeking input from a much wider swath of the affected public, before developing another proposal.

------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES

i See http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/a...hether_certain_
projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

ii 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17) provides:

(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

(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.

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.


iii 27 CFR § 478.148 provides:

The Director may exempt certain armor piercing ammunition from the requirements of this part. A person who desires to obtain an exemption under this section for any such ammunition which is primarily intended for sporting purposes or intended for industrial purposes, including charges used in oil and gas well perforating devices, shall submit a written request to the Director. Each request shall be executed under the penalties of perjury and contain a complete and accurate description of the ammunition, the name and address of the manufacturer or importer, the purpose of and use for which it is designed and intended, and any photographs, diagrams, or drawings as may be necessary to enable the Director to make a determination. The Director may require that a sample of the ammunition be submitted for examination and evaluation.


iv The entire statement where this statement is buried provides:

While the design of most single shot handguns shows that they are primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, this is not necessarily the case of handguns with larger ammunition capacities. Revolvers and semi-automatic handguns, which are designed to be loaded with multiple rounds of ammunition that can be fired and reloaded quickly, differ substantially in design and function from single shot handguns. The likely use of revolvers and semi-automatic handguns in the community varies, and the
projectiles they use are, in many cases, interchangeable among models designed to use the same or similar calibers. Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes. Similarly, most handguns designed to be loaded with two-rounds of ammunition are small-frame, easily concealable, derringer-type firearms. While two-shot derringers may share certain design characteristics with single-shot firearms (for example, a break-open loading function), they are not useful as sporting firearms. Consequently, ammunition for two-shot and semi-automatic handguns cannot be characterized as “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes.


v See proposed framework, page 17, Section VI, Public Participation, paragraph 1.

vi See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

vii See first codified in the P.L. 90-618 definition of “destructive device” now found in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4). The “sporting purpose” construct is used elsewhere in the federal gun control scheme, for example, 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) which provides:

The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition—

(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled…


viii http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/guides...quirements.html

ix http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/guides...k--complete.pdf

x On page 2 of the section General Overview the Guidebook states:

Handguns being imported into the United States must also be recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3). An ATF Form 4590, Factoring Criteria for Weapons, is used in evaluating handguns for these purposes.

Handguns evaluated on the Form 4590 must obtain a certain numeric value before they are approved for importation. The factoring criteria are based upon certain considerations such as dimensions, material used in construction, weight, caliber, safety features, and miscellaneous equipment.


On page 4 of the subsection Import Requirements for Firearms & Ammunition of the section Policies and Procedures, the Guidebook states:

To qualify for importation under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3), a firearm or ammunition must not fall under the definition of
firearm as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) , and must be of a type generally recognized as particularly suitable for or
readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

Handguns – Pistols & revolvers must meet size & safety requirements and accrue a qualifying point value specified on ATF Form 4590, Factoring Criteria for Weapons.

Rifles and Shotguns –Firearms such as single shot, lever action, bolt action and certain semiautomatic long guns with generally recognized sporting features.


xi The actual provision is the firearm cannot fall within 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a).

xii http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5330-5.pdf

xiii See http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5330-5.pdf

xiv See S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong. 2d and Sess. 80, 1968 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 2112, 2167.

xv See https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/indus...atic-rifles.pdf

xvi In the last paragraph on page 8 of the 1989 study report.

xvii See https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/indus...ult-rifles.pdf.

xviii See https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/july-2012-importability-of-certain-shotguns.pdf.

xix See http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/general.asp#legal-use

xx Specifically, the Windicator revolver made in Germany by HVM and imported into the United States by EAA, Cocoa, FL USA).

xxi See http://issuu.com/compshoot/docs/pistol_brochure_issuu_may_2011?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin
.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&showFlipBtn=true

xxii The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and U.S. military designation of same projectile specification, respectively.

xxiii See http://www.ghporter.com/PubPics/SS109.jpg

xxiv See 511 U.S. 513, 521-522 (1994)

xxv See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheldkey/

xxvi Interestingly this report is not available on the world wide web. In fact, the USFWS California Condor Informational Resources website lists but does not have a link to a document titled Five Year Review of the California condor – 2013.

xxvii See
http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/Zone_1/Hopper_Mountain_Complex/Hopper_ "

signed.

signed

signed