Dirks: Interpretation of law could result in tighter gun control

Sometimes you have to watch between the lines to understand how much authority governmental agencies really have. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is a case in point. The issue is what ammunition the ATF considers to be "armor piercing ammunition" and not ammunition used for "sporting purposes."

In early December meetings, the ATF met with gun control activist groups, the NRA, firearms industry groups and others. The ATF expressed opinions that "warrant particular scrutiny," NRA representatives, who attended those meetings, noted on the group's website.

Under a law adopted in 1986, the definition of "armor piercing ammunition" is "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, beryllium copper or depleted uranium."

The intent of the law, which is good, is to protect law enforcement officers from ammunition that could penetrate soft body armor.

The challenge is that there are handguns designed to fire certain rifle calibers and that rifle ammunition wasn't designed for anything other than sporting purposes. That means you could have a rifle caliber ammunition type outlawed on the basis that it can be fired in a handgun and pierce armor. That covers a wide range of rifle ammunition that could be outlawed under a stricter interpretation of this law.

According to the NRA representatives who attended the meetings, the ATF "suggested that it believes that the armor piercing ammunition law was intended to affect all ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor worn by law enforcement officers."

Secondly, they noted the ATF "considers projectiles to not be exempt under the sporting purposes test if they 'pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement.' "

Either ATF opinion would give it latitude to make almost any rifle caliber that can be fired with a handgun illegal. Is this a backdoor approach to tighter handgun control and, by default, gun control at large? It could be if the ATF is able to interpret the current law in a much more restrictive manner than Congress provided.

Federal agencies have been calibrating their interpretations of laws enacted by Congress forever. With each passing administration, federal agencies expand or contract their enforcement of laws based on the orientation of the executive branch.

Federal agencies, such as the ATF, can provide a backdoor opportunity for further gun controls without additional legislation being passed or amended. Between that and the power of the executive order, we'll have to watch carefully what transpires the next four years.

Suddenly, the Second Amendment doesn't feel so secure.

David Dirks' outdoors column appears weekly. Contact him through his website, www.dirksoutdoors.com, or write P.O. Box 87, Westtown, NY 10998.

Reader Reaction