PDA

View Full Version : ATF just ruled your "tactical" shotgun illegal


Ridge_Runner_5
January 29, 2011, 04:08 PM
Following this review, the working
group determined that certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable
for sporting purposes. These features include:
(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the
shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.
Although the features listed above do not represent an exhaustive list of possible shotgun
features, designs or characteristics, the working group determined that shotguns with any one of
these features are most appropriate for military or law enforcement use. Therefore, shotguns
containing any of these features are not particularly suitable for nor readily adaptable to
generally recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap, sporting clay, and skeet shooting.
Each of these features and an analysis of each of the determinations are included within the main
body of the report..

Enjoy (http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf)

rantingredneck
January 29, 2011, 04:14 PM
No, the working group determined that shotguns with those features do not meet the "sporting purposes" requirement of GCA '68. Meaning that if they are foreign made they cannot be imported. Those already in country or that are made in the USA aren't covered by this regulation.

Of course this is just the determination of the working group at this point and not final regulation.

KChen986
January 29, 2011, 04:15 PM
Is this the publication of the proposed rule? Or the rule itself?

rantingredneck
January 29, 2011, 04:16 PM
This is the publication of their study, which is open for comment until May 1.

hogdogs
January 29, 2011, 04:16 PM
My Tactical shotgun has none of those items. It is made in America so it wouldn't matter if it did.

My standard Mossberg 500, as tactical as it is, just doesn't have a single item mentioned.

I am sure many of our Tactical shotguns are forever safe as they masquerade as innocent huntin' guns...

As tactical as any gun in my hands could be...
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b81/caughthog/P1010020.jpg

Brent

KChen986
January 29, 2011, 04:18 PM
Okay. Just read it again. It is the study to influence a proposed rule. I strongly urge everyone who's interested to send comments to the ATF. This is not law, and looks like a first step in a long agency procedure to change the 'sporting purpose' interpretation.

What I find disturbing is the extremely narrow construction of "sporting purpose" by the ATF, which basically dismisses IPSC, 3 Gun and other shooting sports as "non sporting" and instead adopts a position the only (legitimate) sporting purpose is duck hunting and clay shooting.

Mike Irwin
January 29, 2011, 04:26 PM
Since discussion has opened on up this thread, I won't close it as a Cut & Paste shoot & scoot, which is clearly against TFL's rules of operation.

If you don't know what a Cut & Paste post is, click the forum rules link.

Ridge_Runner_5
January 29, 2011, 06:54 PM
Sorry Mike, had just realized that and was coming back to start one...

p99guy
January 29, 2011, 07:03 PM
they need to get rid of that sporting purpose BS, as it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment...and is only used as incremental gun control.:mad:

RoscoeC
January 29, 2011, 07:05 PM
Off topic, but Man I have GOT to get me one of those Home Simpson "holsters".

Back on topic:

Recent events will make perfect grist for the anti gun mill. Expect all kinds of attacks on the Second Amendment.

Ridge_Runner_5
January 29, 2011, 07:19 PM
they need to get rid of that sporting purpose BS, as it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment

Agreed. 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting...well, except red coats.

Christchild
January 29, 2011, 08:25 PM
I have a Mossberg 500 with Double Pistol Grip and holds a total of 8 rounds, so they'll be after mine, as I'd imagine that this "proposed" law will probably go thru, since they'll "give it to us" a little at a time, not all at once, and this issue falls into just that, I believe.

Maybe I should take heed, go ahead and convert it to either a slug gun or muzzleloader so I'll be legal when this hammer falls.

rantingredneck
January 29, 2011, 08:40 PM
Your Mossberg is a domestically produced shotgun that you already own. How could it be affected by a proposed import ban?

hogdogs
January 29, 2011, 08:42 PM
Christchild, the above is regarding an import ban. Basically it is similar to import rules that required a certain number of parts be replaced with american made items to circumvent these rule breaker items...

Brent

oneounceload
January 29, 2011, 08:59 PM
Can we merge all of these threads from all of the sections into one and suppress the BS scare mongering?

NOTHING has been banned...nada, zip, zilch...........they are doing a STUDY.......and basically so far agreeing with the intent of the previous studies from years past

Technosavant
January 29, 2011, 09:35 PM
Can we merge all of these threads from all of the sections into one and suppress the BS scare mongering?

This. This marks thread #4 on this topic, and the second in the "shotgun" section in the forum (which, by the way, already spelled out what this ATF document was, has a link to it, and pretty well laid out where we currently stand).

Folks need to read and think and not post whatever rumor they heard at the gun shop this morning.

TheKlawMan
January 29, 2011, 09:43 PM
Like rantingredneck said, this is neither a rule nor a proposed rule. It is a study done by a working group and the study conludes with the recommendation of the working group that conducted the study that
shotguns with any of the characteristics or features listed above not be authorized for importation.

Hawk45
January 30, 2011, 12:43 AM
Well, it caused a bit of a stir with folks that are fond of the Saiga 12. Bumped PSL/FPK rifle & Marlin SBL down a notch on the purchase queue and got a second Saiga 12 a little early.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb258/Hawk451/IMG_1170-1.jpg

MTT TL
January 30, 2011, 07:12 AM
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

the working group determined that shotguns with any one of
these features are most appropriate for military or law enforcement use.

http://www.inspirational-short-stories.com/images/laughter.jpg

http://www.inspirational-short-stories.com/images/child-laughter.jpg

And that is all I am going to say about that.

Technosavant
January 30, 2011, 08:43 AM
Well, it caused a bit of a stir with folks that are fond of the Saiga 12.

That's amusing, because if you actually read the ATF paper, it is evident that the Saiga 12 won't be affected by the new rules. It has none of the evil features the ATF calls out.

Christchild
January 30, 2011, 11:28 AM
Thank You, Mr. Brent! I didn't click the link. I could have and read further, but the topic wasn't a surprise. I was WRONG about the details but it was not a surprise, considering all things.

ThreadJack is over! Carry On!

mycrobyte
January 30, 2011, 12:16 PM
The Saiga 12 as imported then wouldn't be affected, but as modified would be?

I'm already planning on getting one - they are amazing weapons, and the drum mag makes them really fun to shoot.

Do you think those drum mags will be gone soon then? Probably should get one now I suppose.

gyvel
January 30, 2011, 12:31 PM
Presumably, Norinco 97 Winchester trench gun copies will fall under such a ruling because they have bayonet lugs???:mad:

Technosavant
January 30, 2011, 03:48 PM
The Saiga 12 as imported then wouldn't be affected, but as modified would be?

Not likely.

I've been doing more reading on this, and my guess is 922r and its parts count will apply to the S12; it's discussed a bit here and there.

Thing is, as it is imported, the S12 is perfectly legal, since it is "sporting." If you make it nonsporting through a conversion, you need to have 10 or less imported parts. The S12 has about 13, maybe 14 (if threaded for chokes), parts as-is (according to the usual ATF count). Most conversions would mean swapping out no less than 5 parts (trigger group is 3 parts, plus the buttstock and pistol grip). Use US made mags, that's 3 more.

Basically, use a US made trigger group and stock/pistol grip, and you're fine. Mine currently has 7 US parts swapped out (the 5 I mentioned, plus the handguard and muzzle device), so either way I'm fine.

Here's a bit of a discussion on this (http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=18530), and from what I can tell, this will be nothing new for us.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 30, 2011, 03:59 PM
Actually, look at the definition of "Destructive Device" in 921(b):

"(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;"

If it isn't a sporting purpose for importation purposes and the Attorney General is the sole person to make the determination, what stops it from being applied to domestic shotguns and making them NFA weapons.

AKsRul.e
January 30, 2011, 09:34 PM
I have read the NRA analysis and the study itself.

I have NO Confidence in the BATF being fair or Sporting :rolleyes:

I believe they will attempt to ban any imported shotguns which can ACCEPT detachable magazines or drums.

FYI K-VAR is showing NEW Saiga shotguns that have
railed handguards on their website. :(

http://www.k-var.com/shop/home.php?cat=
.

Technosavant
January 30, 2011, 09:59 PM
I believe they will attempt to ban any imported shotguns which can ACCEPT detachable magazines or drums.

Didn't read the document, did you?

The ATF sees no difference between tube magazines and detachable magazines when it comes to "sporting purposes." Fact is, the S12 mag doesn't change out as quickly as some think, and tube mags can be loaded more quickly than some think. I don't blame you for not trusting them, but seeing as how they've gone on record, I'd expect them to be consistent within their own line of thinking.

As for K-Var, they're probably doing like others who sell converted Saigas (like Tromix)- depending on the parts count to keep them legit. As Bart says, there's a potential opening for them to declare ANY nonsporting shotgun (be it domestic or imported) a Destructive Device, but I'm not sure they'd go that far- that's a big step.

oneounceload
January 31, 2011, 09:02 AM
If it isn't a sporting purpose for importation purposes and the Attorney General is the sole person to make the determination, what stops it from being applied to domestic shotguns and making them NFA weapons.

What stops it is YOU supporting the NRA, writing your Congressperson and Senator so they know to tell the AG NOT to do it.

TheKlawMan
January 31, 2011, 11:27 AM
What is the rational for banning imported weapons but not domesticly manufactured weapons with the same characterisitics. All I can think is allowing domestics protects US jobs. As for international trade law, I assume there is an exception in treaties to allow a country to regulate the import of weapons.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 31, 2011, 11:33 AM
What stops it is YOU supporting the NRA, writing your Congressperson and Senator so they know to tell the AG NOT to do it.

I agree that this needs to be done; but in planning terms, we should realize that the Attorney General has a great deal of broad discretion over what constitutes "sporting purposes" and that the courts have consistently upheld that discretion.

As I see it, this means that the decision is solely up to the executive branch on how to apply "sporting purposes." Neither Eric Holder nor his boss care much for firearms as a rule. In addition, his boss is in a position to veto any attempt by Congress to rescind such authority or narrow the discretion regarding what consitutes "sporting purposes."

If the Obama Administration wants this, they are going to get it. My main hope is that instead of creating a surefire winner for the NRA come 2012, the ATF will instead take a look at IPSC and USPSA and apply a more realistic definition of "sporting purposes." Unfortunately, I think we can all agree that is optimistic at best.

Rufus T Firefly
February 1, 2011, 02:40 AM
It just starts off with things we don't need until it gradually grows bigger and we all have to eat salads and not buy meat per the current administration.

Brit
February 1, 2011, 04:56 AM
Some Country's have rules that preclude IPSC all ready, movement with Gun in hand loaded (Military and Police only) but they do not have a Second Amendment, only the USA does.

The one thing that these anti gun people, Obama/Holden flabbergast me with, the big young Americans that carry, to protect them! They have guns, all kinds of guns.

Who will step in front of a bullet for them, bit of a biased view yes?

TheKlawMan
February 1, 2011, 10:57 AM
Brit. What "big young Americans" are carrying guns to protect "Obama/Holden"?

kozak6
February 1, 2011, 11:36 AM
Secret Service?

Bartholomew Roberts
February 1, 2011, 03:11 PM
The problem is, I don't see how you apply this sporting purposes test to only imports. The language of 921(b) makes it clear that any device expelling a projectile with a bore greater than 0.50" is a DD unless the AG determines it has a sporting purpose.

I don't see how the AG isn't going to ultimately apply the same criteria to domestic shotguns at some point. The gun banners will demand it and it may be necessary from a trade perspective.

I think we need to start writing Congressmen and Senators to bring what pressure we can now. It seems clear the Administration isn't quite done tilting at windmills.

Poodleshooter
February 1, 2011, 03:35 PM
Keep preaching the word. The sporting purpose clause of the destructive device definition in 921(b) is far more perfidious than the sporting purpose clauses in 922(r) and the various import sections.
Every shotgun owner should know that even their little single shot 20ga can be taken away on the whim of the Secretary of the Treasury with absolutely no legislative or judicial action being involved.

Pezo
February 1, 2011, 09:53 PM
Guns with these features are designed for and are used for self-home defense. I could care less about my shotguns "sporting purpose". The 2nd amendment is about defense. These batfe people are way behind the times or are voicing their opinions from England. Sporting purpose had nothing to do with anything. :confused:

TheKlawMan
February 1, 2011, 09:58 PM
Poodleshooter; Could you explain why you feel as you posted about 921. You referenced 921(b), but I believe you mant 921(a)(4)(B). I may be wrong as these nymbering of these long code sections can confuse.

TheKlawMan
February 1, 2011, 10:00 PM
Pezo; Should I be permitted a fully functioning M60 to defend my home?

Pezo
February 1, 2011, 10:17 PM
(m60?)imo yes. At least open up the machine gun registry per nfa. Shotguns are common means of self defense and have been for years. Those listed accessories can and do aid in that goal. The 2nd amendment is not about sporting and does not mention "over 50 caliber" rules.

TheKlawMan
February 1, 2011, 10:41 PM
Pezo. I appreciate your opinion and mine is no better than yours, but I find it difficult to understand why anyone would need an M-60 machine gun for home defense and I don't want the guy across the street having one. That is not to say the right to possess an M-60, in my opinion, is not Constitutionally protected as part of the right to have a militia, but I think the two are quite different (militia and home defense). I know we won't agree but can agree to respectfully disagree.

DonR101395
February 1, 2011, 10:59 PM
but I find it difficult to understand why anyone would need an M-60 machine gun for home defense and I don't want the guy across the street having one.

It's not about need; it's about want.

Volucris
February 1, 2011, 11:04 PM
Please re-title the thread as it is a complete falsification of the truth. They have banned nothing. This was just a study (one of many they do on a normal basis).

TheKlawMan
February 1, 2011, 11:19 PM
DonR101395;

You made a valid point; some want what is not needed and they claim they have a right to have it. Some others beleive that there is no such thing as ann absolute right, but if there are they are few, and one has to consider the rights of others. An example being freedom of speech, but one doesn't have a right to yell fire when ther is none in a crowded theatre and put others at risk of being trampled. I don't want my neighbor having an M-60 machine gun, because I don't think he needs one for home defense and I am not convinced he could use it without putting my family at risk. However, I think we have a collective right to utilize machine guns as part of a well regulated state militia.

DonR101395
February 1, 2011, 11:30 PM
You made a valid point; some want what is not needed and they claim they have a right to have it. Some others beleive that there is no such thing as ann absolute right, but if there are they are few, and one has to consider the rights of others. An example being freedom of speech, but one doesn't have a right to yell fire when ther is none in a crowded theatre and put others at risk of being trampled. I don't want my neighbor having an M-60 machine gun, because I don't think he needs one for home defense and I am not convinced he could use it without putting my family at risk. However, I think we have a collective right to utilize machine guns as part of a well regulated state militia.


The big problem I see with your argument is that you don't have a right or the authority to decide what your neighbor needs.
On yelling fire; sure you have a right to yell it. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have freedom from consequences. If you yell fire you may have to face some consequences and if your neighbor shoots your house up he'll have consequences to face as well. In other words until he infringes upon you; you have no right to tell him how to exercise his freedom or rights.


ETA: You also may want to look at the Militia Act of 1903 and re-read the second amendment. One creates the "Unorganized Militia" and the other has nothing to do with a state militia.

TheKlawMan
February 1, 2011, 11:58 PM
DonR:

You are flat wrong if you don't think I have the right to decide what I think my neighbor need for home defense. Whether or not I can do anything about it is a different thing and that is done through the body politic.

You are flat wrong when you say that one has the right to yell fire, whenn there is none, and cause a panic that could lead to death. Should that happen, you could be charged with homicide. The law could also prevent you from yelling fire under such circumstances, the problem being that it will not act unless a risk of serious bodily injury is imminent.

If you feel that something creates an "unorganized militia" you are free to cite the document and where it says the same.

DonR101395
February 2, 2011, 12:26 AM
You are flat wrong if you don't think I have the right to decide what I think my neighbor need for home defense. Whether or not I can do anything about it is a different thing and that is done through the body politic.

If you can't enforce it i.e. do anything about it. You have no right to do it.


You are flat wrong when you say that one has the right to yell fire, whenn there is none, and cause a panic that could lead to death. Should that happen, you could be charged with homicide. The law could also prevent you from yelling fire under such circumstances, the problem being that it will not act unless a risk of serious bodily injury is imminent.

Sorry man, but you're wrong. You absolutely have the right to do it; the homicide charge that may follow is a consequence. Remember I said you weren't free from the consequences of your actions?

If you feel that something creates an "unorganized militia" you are free to cite the document and where it says the same.

It's in the 1903 Militia act I asked you to research. It states that every able bodied male between the age of 17 and 45 is a member of the Unorganized Militia. The state militia wasn't created until 1903; 112 years after the Second Amendment was added to the constitution. So your argument about state militia obviously couldn't have been in the minds of those who drafted the amendment.


Mine in bold.

If you're going to argue something at least be educated about what you're arguing and don't just go on feeling and emotion.

TheKlawMan
February 2, 2011, 02:01 AM
This is the last word I have to say on this, Don. You think that a person has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire; you thing a person has right to have a machine gun for home defense, and you think the right to bear arms doesn't refer to the collective right of the people, but to each individual. You completely overlook that the right is ancillary to a free State's need for a well regulated militia.

MTT TL
February 2, 2011, 04:24 AM
This was just a study (one of many they do on a normal basis).

Calling it a "study" is an insult to academia everywhere.

Dave McC
February 2, 2011, 10:18 AM
The Second Amendment is there to ensure we,the people, can resist aggression from without the country and tyranny from within.

"Sporting Purposes" has nothing to do with it. The Second is there so when the next Hitler tries to send anyone to the death camps, WE have the means of ensuring that does not happen.

Not the Government.

Us.

I do not see much good coming from leaving this open, so it's closed.