By Michael W. Zarlenga*

As I follow this story, I read the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Facebook page.  I was shocked at what appears to be the ATF attempting to rewrite the plain language of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).  The following is posted on the ATF Facebook page:

It is important to note that the limitation on ‘armor piercing ammunition’ in the GCA does not apply to projectiles manufactured exclusively from non-restricted materials such as copper and lead; it only applies to projectiles that include the specifically restricted materials, and can be used in a handgun. The framework will not apply to projectiles manufactured exclusively from non-restricted materials; licensed manufacturers will continue to be free to manufacture such projectiles without seeking an exemption.

So why was I shocked?  Below is the definition of “armor piercing” contained in the GCA, Section 18 USC 921(a)(17)(B) of the U.S. Code:

            (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 ... "

Note how the ATF explained the GCA on its Facebook page.  The ATF states that the “GCA does not apply to projectiles manufactured exclusively from non-restricted materials.”  This is technically correct as projectiles not constructed of restricted material are not subject to the GCA.  However, it completely misses the point of the GCA.  The GCA only applies to projectiles “constructed entirely from one or a combination of” restricted material.  Contrary to the apparent position of the ATF, a plain reading of the GCA makes clear that if a projectile contains a core made of non-restricted material (other than a trace amount) and a restricted material, the projectile does not meet the definition of armor piercing.