I'm glad Portman is on board with this, I didn't expect it since he supported the 7N6 import ban.

52 senators warn of sweeping ammo bans, say Second Amendment 'at risk'

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/52-senators-warn-of-sweeping-ammo-bans-say-2nd-amendment-at-risk/article/2561295

The content of the letter is at the link and reproduced here:

--

March 9, 2015

The Honorable B. Todd Jones

Director

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

99 New York Avenue, N.E.

Washington, DC 20226

Dear Director Jones:

We take issue with the "ATF Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are 'Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes' Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)," to which ATF sought comment on February 13, 2015.

Congress in 1986 passed the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (LEOPA). It did so to protect law enforcement officers from a particular category of bullets – those that could be fired from handguns and pierce police officers' body armor. Because rifle ammunition could also pass through police body armor, and some rifle ammunition could be fired from handguns, LEOPA protected common rifle ammunition by exempting from its scope projectiles "which the Attorney General finds [are] primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."

The "Framework" does not follow LEOPA. Without any support, it purports to create an "objective" test never before applied for delineating which projectiles are "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes." ATF will exempt a ".22 caliber projectile … if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge," and will exempt other forms of ammunition if they are "loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun." But even if a particular projectile satisfies these novel tests, ATF proposes to "retain[] the discretion to deny any application for a 'sporting purposes' exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes."

ATF would determine what amounts to "substantial evidence" and whether the "ammunition is not primarily intended for [sporting] purposes." The statute was not enacted to give authority to ATF to do either. In 1986, the sponsors of the legislation were emphatic in stating that ammunition commonly used in rifles for TARGET practice or hunting was not of the type of ammunition that the bill would ban. ATF seems to have decided to ban ammunition types that the law did not ban, then developed from whole cloth an "objective" test to supposedly provide it with the ability to ban the ammunition types it already had selected for prohibition.

Earlier, ATF recognized the proper scope of LEOPA. ATF has always granted an exemption to the M855 5.56 x 45mm cartridge from the LEOPA ban because it recognized that this ammunition fell squarely within the "sporting purposes" test. It did so because factually, as well as legally under the legislative language, such cartridges were and are widely used by millions of law-abiding gun owners for "sporting purposes." These cartridges are prevalent for one of the most commonly possessed rifles, the AR-15. Congress did not, and did not intend to, ban this form of ammunition.

ATF's proposed restriction of the M855 cartridge is particularly serious in light of efforts to ban other forms of ammunition. The standards in the "Framework" would make use of ammunition containing materials other than lead more difficult. At the same time, various efforts to ban lead ammunition are proceeding apace. Second Amendment rights require not only access to firearms but to bullets. If law-abiding gun owners cannot obtain rifle ammunition, or face substantial difficulty in finding ammunition available and at reasonable prices because government entities are banning such ammunition, then the Second Amendment is at risk. An outright ban is an even more serious threat to the Second Amendment than the threat to the First Amendment's protection of free press created by a TAX imposed only on voluminous purchases of paper and ink. See Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983).

It is not clear where ATF believes it has obtained the authority to issue general standards interpreting the meaning of "sporting purposes" under LEOPA as opposed to exempting or not exempting particular cartridges. Nevertheless, no federal statute, including LEOPA, interferes with the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain ammunition commonly used for such legitimate purposes as TARGET shooting, hunting, and shooting competitions. Nor could any such statute do so consistent with the Second Amendment. The "Framework" should not be adopted, and ATF should not propose in the future to ban any widely used form of ammunition used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Sincerely,

Senators joining Grassley on the letter include Mike Rounds (R-S.D.); John Thune (R-S.D.); Cory Gardner (R-Colo.); Tom Cotton (R-Ark.); John Hoeven (R-N.D.); Joni Ernst (R-Iowa); David Vitter (R-La); Michael Crapo (R-Idaho); Jerry Moran (R-Kan.); David Perdue (R-Ga.); James Risch (R-Idaho); John Isakson (R-Ga.); Steve Daines (R-Mont.); Dean Heller (R-Nev.); Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.); Richard Burr (R-N.C.); Roy Blunt (R-Mo.); Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); Bill Cassidy (R-La.); John Boozman (R-Ark.); Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.); Ted Cruz (R-Texas); Thom Tillis (R-N.C.); Orrin Hatch (R-Utah); Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.); James Lankford (R-Okla.); Richard Shelby (R-Ala.); Deb Fischer (R-Neb.); Thad Cochran (R-Miss.); Shelley Capito (R-W. Va.); Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); Pat Toomey (R-Pa.); Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska); John Cornyn (R-Texas); Ron Johnson (R-Wis.); Michael Lee (R-Utah); John Barrasso (R-Wyo.); Marco Rubio (R- Fla.); Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.); Dan Coats (R-Ind.); Bob Corker (R-Tenn.); Tim Scott (R-S.C.); Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.); Ben Sasse (R-Neb.); Roger Wicker (R-Miss.); Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.); Rand Paul (R-Ky.); John McCain (R-Ariz.); Rob Portman (R-Ohio); Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska); and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Good.  I wasn't real confident in the form letter email reply reply I got from him.

'bout time Portman did something for the Constituion...could it be that he's up for election in 2016?

“When I feel the heat, I see the light.” - former US Senator Everett Dirksen

Former Governor Ted Strickland is going to run for US Senate against Rob Portman, so yeah, maybe the coming election has something to do with this.  If that's what it takes then that's what it takes.  We're stuck with the system we have (at least in the short run); this isn't utopia where we get everything handed to us

What, not a single Democrat to stand up to the ATF to sign the letter?  I am SHOCKED I tell ya, shocked.  NOT!

Rob Portman to my knowledge has never done anything anti gun.   Not that I can remember anyway.  Maybe others know of something.

...portman's done pretty good supporting gun rights thus far...  

Portman gets my vote again!

Until he changes his mind again.

What exactly are you concerned about?  Ohio is a purple state, so he's subject to political pressure from the entire political spectrum.  Portman is not going to do what we want unless enough of us speak up about some issue.  The 7N6 ban didn't get much push back from gun owners and Portman wasn't willing to take it on.  Even the NRA didn't get as involved in that as the M855 action.  Taking big political risks is not how you stay in office.  At least Portman is not someone like Obama who knows whats best for you.

I am thinking it was due to it causing problems with 7N6 coming ammo from overseas. The M855 hits the ammo manufacturers in the US.

It seems as though a lot of people believe that the Second Amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms as citizens and that without it, we will be disarmed.

Exactly the problem.  When you elect a representative you expect "political pressure from the entire political spectrum" but hope they will uphold the ideals they extolled when you elected them.  Not to be wishy washy and that the whim of such pressures.   Staying in office should not be their goal, representing us should be the goal.    I hope you take solace in your "purple state" theory when he changes his mind about your 2A rights.

He didn't change his mind after Sandy Hook. If ever there was a convenient time to do so it would have been then. A lot of folks with "R's" after their names were getting squirrely about the Second Ammendment then. In fact he went so far as to post a letter stating his pro-2A stance on the home page of his website. It seems to me that if he had our backs then he will continue to in the future.
 

Double tap...

I agree. He took a lot of shit from the anit crowd then too.  I called his office and thanked him for doing the right thing.





 

Yup, he got a thank you email from me.  He's good in my book...





 

I don't remember Portman going against the 2nd.  He's taken a lot of flak as I think the left saw him as squishy, but he always ended up on the right side, AFAIK.

Brown on the other hand:

I believe OK is referring to finding out that his daughter was gay when he had been against it.

I'll take my guns.

Btw, has anyone noticed who Strickand appointed to their office.

Enough said.

http://www.gunowners.org/alert4232015.htm

I sent a letter to McConnell and plan to do the same to Portman.  Once again the GOP wants to play nice and not use their majority to push back.