The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Dave McCracken Memorial Shotgun Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 30, 2011, 09:34 PM   #26
AKsRul.e
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 234
I have read the NRA analysis and the study itself.

I have NO Confidence in the BATF being fair or Sporting

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=
.
AKsRul.e is offline  
Old January 30, 2011, 09:59 PM   #27
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
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.
Technosavant is offline  
Old January 31, 2011, 09:02 AM   #28
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
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.
oneounceload is offline  
Old January 31, 2011, 11:27 AM   #29
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
Domestic vs Import Ban

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.
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old January 31, 2011, 11:33 AM   #30
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,650
Quote:
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 02:40 AM   #31
Rufus T Firefly
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 174
Any study or proposal bugs me.

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.
Rufus T Firefly is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 04:56 AM   #32
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 850
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?
Brit is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 10:57 AM   #33
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
Brit. What "big young Americans" are carrying guns to protect "Obama/Holden"?
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 11:36 AM   #34
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,322
Secret Service?
kozak6 is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 03:11 PM   #35
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,650
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 03:35 PM   #36
Poodleshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2000
Location: Floating down the James River in VA
Posts: 2,537
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.
Poodleshooter is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 09:53 PM   #37
Pezo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Location: Macomb, Mich
Posts: 629
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.
Pezo is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 09:58 PM   #38
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
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 is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 10:00 PM   #39
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
Pezo; Should I be permitted a fully functioning M60 to defend my home?

Last edited by TheKlawMan; February 1, 2011 at 11:21 PM. Reason: correct spelling
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 10:17 PM   #40
Pezo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Location: Macomb, Mich
Posts: 629
(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.
Pezo is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 10:41 PM   #41
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
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.
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 10:59 PM   #42
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
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.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 11:04 PM   #43
Volucris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Posts: 293
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).
__________________
"From my cold, dead hands!" - Charlton Heston
Volucris is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 11:19 PM   #44
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
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.
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 11:30 PM   #45
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
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.

Last edited by DonR101395; February 1, 2011 at 11:42 PM.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old February 1, 2011, 11:58 PM   #46
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
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.
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old February 2, 2011, 12:26 AM   #47
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
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.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old February 2, 2011, 02:01 AM   #48
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
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.
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old February 2, 2011, 04:24 AM   #49
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
This was just a study (one of many they do on a normal basis).
Calling it a "study" is an insult to academia everywhere.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old February 2, 2011, 10:18 AM   #50
Dave McC
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 13, 1999
Location: Columbia, Md, USA
Posts: 8,812
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.
Dave McC is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13123 seconds with 9 queries