FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are “Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes”

As many of our viewers are aware, Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., has been following ATF’s proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are “primarily intended for sporting purposes” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). Today, we filed our formal Comment in opposition to ATF’s proposed framework. With exhibits, it is over 330 pages. You can download a copy here.


While gun owners and groups rejoiced after ATF announced it was no longer moving forward with the proposed reclassification on SS109/M855, many seemed to overlook a key phrase. ATF stated, “Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework.” Furthermore, there are still many inherent dangers in ATF’s proposed framework which are addressed in detail in FICG’s comment.

ATF’s Director Todd B. Jones appeared in front of a Senate Appropriations Committee this morning and was quoted as saying that all types of the 5.56 military-style ammo used by shooters pose a threat to police as more people buy the AR-15-style pistols.

The firearms community needs to remain vigilant about future action ATF may take with regards to .223/5.56 ammunition.

As always, if you liked the material please share with your friends and family using the buttons below. If you haven’t already, be sure to like FICG and Prince Law Offices on Facebook!


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

6 responses to “FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are “Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes”

  1. George Losoncy

    What a coincidence with the Perez V MBA decision coming down 9 March. 15. One would hope in this case only, not affecting the cases cited in Perez; since the ATF voluntarily asked for comments it would be held as setting a precedent and made to allow further comments after the “further study”. I wouldn`t hold my breath though.



    So, writing and submitting comments letters to the ATF is no longer needed? Dan



  3. George Losoncy

    I agree, I still left a comment with the ATF. All rifle ammo will penetrate most vests so why ban one type. It`s just an end around gun control since the most popular rifle is the AR15.


  4. Muntz

    “To characterize the steel penetrator as a “core” is as humorous of a notion as declaring that the shouldering of an item causes it to be redesigned, even though no physical changes were made.”



  5. Pingback: Pennsylvania Second Amendment Action Day – May 12, 2015! | Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s