This letter was written in response to President Obama’s attempt to use the State Department to block speech about firearms online. In 2015, using the internet to speak is as natural as penning a letter to the local newspaper once was. The internet gives everyone a chance to speak and let their voice be heard. To gag firearm owners like hickok45, FPSRussia, Iraqveteran888, Jerry Miculek and even myself with Core Concept is a violation of our first amendment rights.

In this letter, I make the case that technical documents related to firearms should be protected much like technical documents about the brewing of alcohol is protected, even though I prove that alcohol is more dangerous then a firearm.

The people of America have no need to contact the State Department to disseminate information about firearms via the internet. To say that they do is a violation of our 1st Amendment rights. President Obama has continually made the case for a “free and open internet.” To regulate speech about firearms via the internet is an egregious violation of that pledge. This means that a sub 140 character tweet pointing out that .223 casings and 5.56 NATO casings are virtually identical could result in a $10,000 fine.

The internet is part of American speech in 2015 and talking about firearms is protected as talking about alcohol on the internet by the First Amendment of the United State’s Constitution.

I will make my case below. Free speech about firearms should be protected as much as free speech about the brewing of alcohol is on the internet. It is widely known that President Obama enjoys the responsible consumption of alcohol. In fact, the President’s brew recipes are available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/09/01/ale-chief-white-house-beer-recipe.

What if alcohol was regulated like President Obama wished to regulate firearm usage? After all, according to the CDC, 88,000 deaths are the result of alcohol each year. Quantifying the number of death from firearm accidents however, is impossible according The Washington Post. I will reference this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/04/how-often-do-children-in-the-u-s-unintentionally-shoot-and-kill-people-we-dont-know/. The Washington Posts cites the CDC statistic that there were 32,351 deaths as a result of a firearm in the United States. However, despite this “alarming” number, only 591 where accidental.

At worst, using a firearm is half as dangerous as imbibing alcohol. At best? Remarkable safer then riding a bicycle (Close to 800 deaths, the CDC does not provide exact figures.)

Yet, posting the recipe for the President’s brews is considered free speech and protected by the first amendment while the administration wants to restrict gun owners as much as possible through his Unified Agenda.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Spokesman Tom Hogue stated that, “Potential for abuse isn’t grounds for us to deny a label.” He made this statement in regards to the approval of Palcohol – a powdered form of alcohol intended for those that desire the ability to transport alcohol but need to save as much weight as possible. Alcoholic beverages cannot be sold in the United States without this label.

As Mr. Hogue stated, potential for abuse is not grounds to deny a label. In the case of talking online about firearms, the potential for abuse is not grounds to deny a label. When you involve the 1st Amendment (which Cornell points out that “The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government.”), there is never any need for an American citizen to receive permission from the government to talk about firearms.

This is a letter that I sent to my Senator, Representatives, and BAFTE.  It’s an opinion on the current decision to ban the import\production of the M855 ammunition as “armor piercing.”

The dead line for comments regarding the proposed ban in March 16th.  There is still time for commentary. NRA-ILA has a tool for finding out who to direct your commentary at.

I am writing in concern regarding BAFTE’s decision to reclassify M855 “green tip” ammunition as “armor piercing.” I personally believe that this movement has been directed by the Obama Administration to constrict American’s ability to exercise our right to “keep and bear arms,” as promised us by the Bill of Rights. This is a document that you, a member of our government would have use believe our soldiers are dying over seas in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect. Please understand that my criteria during the recent elections was whomever would protect my freedom to keep and bear arms.

The ATF currently defines “armor piercing” as:

“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 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.”

The difference in thickness of the diameter of the M855 and a .22 caliber round is less then the thickness of a human hair. The M855 round was developed by the US Military not as a hand gun round, but as a rifle cartridge. The steel “core” of the M855 is not the entirety of the bullet. Nor is the jacket weight more then 25% of the cartridge. While the 44 magnum is currently used in lever action rifles, it is still considered a “pistol cartridge.” It is not fitting that we should define a cartridge by what it is used in but what it was developed for.

Redefining the M855 as armor piercing as a result of the development of AR-Pistols is foolish. It is a slippery slope that could lead to defining all cartridges as armor piercing. What a clever way to allow for the freedom to keep and bear arms while rendering that freedom useless. And US citizens have benefited from military innovation – from M&M’s to nylons, to more. It is only fit that we benefit from military research which has been funded by our tax-dollars.

In a town not 20 minutes from me, the police force feels it justified to shop for dog food while wearing body armor and a firearm. Is this the world we live in today? That shopping for dog food could end your life at any moment? Why is an officer of the law being given this freedom while I am told, nay, it is demanded that I should be defenseless?

Further, I practice target shooting as a means of self-discipline, exercise and self-development. President Obama has recently received recognition from the Washington Time as being on course to play more rounds of gold then Tiger Woods. In a sense, he and I do the same thing. We both seek to align a small projectile with a slightly larger hole in practice of self-discipline, exercise, and self-development.

I stand as a US Citizen, a member of the Gun Owners of American and the National Rifle association in demanding that the reclassification be canceled. I have contacted my senators and representatives to voice my opinion. This decision by BAFTE is not about protecting our law enforcement officials, it about constricting the rights of US Citizens to keep and bear arms. It is also usurping the authority of the Representatives and Senators of the Citizens of the United States.

Thank you for your time.