May 28, 2001, 06:03 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2000
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,945
|
How come the Franchi SPAS-12 shotgun isn't imported? As far as I know, it's NOT a fully automatic shotgun, despite popular belief. It's a selectable pump/semi, like the Benlli M3. How come it isn't imported? Is it because it has a folding stock? There's a fixed stock version, too, I think. Just curious.
|
May 29, 2001, 12:04 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 4,000
|
BATF "reclassified" it, along with a few other shotguns, as a "Destructive Device". I believe that's the same category as Dynamite. Makes a lot of sense, eh?
|
May 29, 2001, 12:11 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2000
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,945
|
I see a pattern
Tec-9
MAC-10 SPAS-12 Striker-12 See a pattern here? All of these names are cool-sounding and easy for stupid gun-illiterate politicans to remember. That's how the SPAS-12 made the list, undoubtedly. |
May 29, 2001, 04:57 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2000
Posts: 823
|
I believe the SPAS 12 could not be imported after the 1989 EO from George Bush Sr. as it had a folding stock. Yes there are fixed stock versions but importation of those would have been halted in 1994 with the Crime Bill, as the fixed stock SPAS 12 has a pistol grip and extended magazine (>5 rounds).
The SPAS 12 is not a destructive device; it is the SPAS 15 (along with the Stryker 12) that was reclassified as a DD by Senator Bentsen. Not a legal opinion, etc. Justin |
May 29, 2001, 11:34 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: February 26, 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 30
|
Interesting story...
Here's the deal: Any weapon which has a bore diameter
larger than 0.5" is called a "destructive device", and so is subject to the NFA. "Well hold on a minute there, Zoosh, does that mean any shotgun other than a 410 is a NFA-regulated Destructive Device?" Yes! Unless it is found by the Treasury to be "particularly suitable to a sporting use" (or words to that effect). It just so happens that the Treasury has "found" pretty much all ordinary 12ga shotguns to be "suitable to a sporting use". If I look at my Rem. 870 sitting there in the corner, with its Surefire fore end, its Trijicon GR sites, extended magazine, Vang Comp 18" barrel, and side saddle full of slugs, hmm, it doesn't look like it has much sporting use to me, but fortunately for me, the Treasury thinks it is a sporting arm. Anyway, getting back to the story... this particular shotgun (I think it had a name like "Streetsweeper" or something) didn't have any extraordinary features, but it looked dangerous and ugly, so the Treasury reclassified it as non-sporting, and therefore a Destructive Device. Here's where it gets interesting: The ones that had already been imported or manufacturered were grandfathered. They were not classified as DDs. People could continue to own them. Do you see the legal problem here? The design itself was classified as a DD. There's no provision for saying that some DDs are NFA and some DDs are exempt from NFA. All DDs are NFA. 100%, unless they're owned by the military, basically. The only legal way to "grandfather" these DDs would be to open up a 90-day amnesty period. Unfortunately that was not done. If it had been done, well, amnesty isn't selective. The Secretary of Treasury can't declare amnesty only for a certain model. It's for everything. If that had happened, we would have been able to enter new machineguns into the registry, under amnesty. On that topic, we should all be pressuring Bush and the new Treasury secretary to declare an amnesty period. The registry has been closed to new machineguns since '86, and that's 15 years too long for me. I'm editing this post. I forgot to include some information: To write to the President: President Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 To write to the Secretary of the Treasury: PAUL H. O'NEILL Secretary of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20500 |
May 29, 2001, 11:41 PM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: May 13, 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 22
|
I got to shoot a SPAS-12. Not impressed. To big, to heavy.
|
May 30, 2001, 01:49 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 22, 2000
Posts: 133
|
I'm almost positive the SPAS-12 is not classified as a DD.
I have a C&R license and get all the ATF updates that they send to all FFL holdes (C&R or otherwise, you get alll their legal updates). They recently sent out the reminder notice about the deadline for registering the newly classified DD's and specifically listed only the USAS-12 and Striker/Streetsweeper shotguns, nothing else. I suspect the main reason the SPAS fell by the wayside was lack of sales. Post-ban they did import the fixed stock version of the SPAS for a while as well as the semi-only and pump only LAW and SAS-12 from Franchi. None of them are imported any longer that I'm aware of, but it isn't due to any reclassification or import ban. I used to own a SPAS-12 and to be honest, it pretty much sucked . Very cool looking shotgun but that was about as far as it went. In semi it was only relaible with heavy loads, in pump it was rather awkward. It was a big, cumbersome gun, even with the folding stock and I found that I could do just as well with a lighter, handier conventional riot gun like a Winchester 1300 or Remington 870. The SPAS has a lot of neato value to it and I sometimes wish I'd have kept it but it's value is more as a curio than a serious shotgun IMO. Other's milegae may vary . |
May 30, 2001, 01:59 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 1999
Posts: 3,147
|
I held one once at a gunshop. Its pointability was something akin to a railroad tie.
Thanks, no. Mike
__________________
The axe bites into the door, ripping a hole in one panel. The maniac puts his face into the hole, cackling gleefully, "Here's Johnny...erk." "And here's Smith and Wesson," murmurs Coronach, Mozambiquing six rounds of .357 into the critter at a range of three feet. -Lawdog "True pacifism is the finest form of manliness. But if a man comes up to you and cuts your hand off, you don't just offer him the other one. Not if you want to go on playing the piano, you don't." -Sam Peckinpah "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein |
May 30, 2001, 07:00 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
|
I went out on a limb on this subject months back and got my limb cut out from under me. What I subsequently learned was that the Spas-12 does not require a tax stamp, but importation of the folding stock models was blocked by the whim of some faceless bureaucrat. All of the parts to make a folding-stock version are available, but doing so on a post-94 model is of course illegal.
I had one that I bought new for $450, which seemed like a good price for the intimidation factor. It was painful to shoot, though, and the manual of arms was too complex for a middle-of-the-night wakeup call. I only wish I'd waited until they were over a grand before selling. They do look cool, though. Dick |
May 31, 2001, 07:42 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2000
Posts: 823
|
The "faceless bureaucrat" was George Bush, Sr.
Justin |
May 31, 2001, 10:13 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 22, 2000
Posts: 133
|
Monkeyleg is right about the manual of arms on the SPAS. I sorta forgot about that but it was sorta a PITA. It's not rocket science but by the same token it's a lot less complicated to stuff 12 gauge shells in an 870, pump and fire.
|
May 31, 2001, 04:48 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
|
jthuang, I don't think it was. IIRC, I bought that Spas-12 in the early or mid 1990's, before prices took off. If I could remember which gun I bought to replace it with it would be easier to pin down the date. Dang, this is a question that's going to drive me nuts now.
Dick |
May 31, 2001, 05:55 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2000
Posts: 823
|
Actually, it was. I'll have to find the cite for you, but Bush's 1989 EO was the cutoff date for the "pre-ban" AK-47 rifles with pistol grips and folding stocks (and similar imported guns). Those guns were deemed unsuitable for "sportings purpose" under the GCA68 at that time.
The foreign gunmakers compensated by creating the thumbhole stock which we see on MAK90s and similar guns. The "90" in MAK90 is no coincidence -- it is because of the 1989 EO by Bush that the MAK90 (i.e., for Modified AK 1990) was created . The SPAS 12, being an imported semi-auto weapon with a folding stock, thus was banned from further import -- although you could buy a "pre-ban" SPAS 12. Then Clinton's EO in 1998 did away with the MAK90 with by banning import of "modified assault weapons". Same mechanism -- deemed not suitable for sporting purposes. Justin |
May 31, 2001, 07:13 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: The 'burbs of chicago
Posts: 167
|
They got rid of it because it was cool-looking. Plain and simple, all the cool guns got banned and now you have to pay an arm and a leg to get them. I mean, think, if it wasn't for all this assault weapons BS, you could buy a full auto MP5. Now how cool would that be.
|
June 1, 2001, 05:16 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
|
Thanks, jthuang. Of course, that means that I bought it more than 10 years ago. You're making me feel even older .
Dick |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|