House Democrats revive armor piercing bullet ban

m855ammoAR15WASHINGTON — The Bloomers are at it again. After the failed attempt by the BATFE to unconstitutionally outlaw ammunition, the Representative of New York have taken up the gauntlet. Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-NY-16) submitted H.R.1358—the Armor-Piercing Bullets Act of 2015.

This bill would actually increase the types of ammunition considered “armor-piercing” and include shotgun “slugs.” The kicker in the bill is that it would change 921(a)(17) of title 18 to allow:

“…the Attorney General may treat a projectile as not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes if substantial evidence exists that the projectile is not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes”

Who determines what is intended for “sporting purposes” is the Attorney General.

H.R. 1358 was submitted on March 13, but the Republicans have not remained silent. On March 16, Representative Patrick McHenry [R-NC-10] has submitted the Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act, H.R.1365. The Republican bill would change Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, to read:

“(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the term ‘armor piercing ammunition’ does not include—
“(i) any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type ammunition; or
“(ii) any ammunition designed, intended, and marketed for use in a rifle.”.

H.R. 1358 is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary while the Republican bill has moved to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. If co-sponsors are any indication, the ammo ban bill has nine while the Republican bill sports 41.

Representative Michael Honda [D-CA-17] submitted H.R.378 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act in January. This bill with five co-sponsors has been in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations since February. This euphemistically titled bill actually states that private citizens are not responsible enough to possess body armor.

The problem is that the Second Amendment does not protect hunters and sport shooting. The amendment does not read “A well-regulated hunters, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Hunting and hunters are protected by the Ninth Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not protect “firearms” and ammunition specifically. The Second Amendment provides that,

…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The ban on any arms is technically unconstitutional. According to Federalist Paper No. 29. This was so that local militias could protect the rights of themselves and their communities.