The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 28, 2011, 10:25 AM   #26
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,322
I think it's interesting that the manufacturers smelled this on the wind a few years back when they introduced all those tactical turkey shotguns.

How long have turkey shotguns with AR-15 style telestocks been available? It might be possible to argue that those are "sporting".
kozak6 is offline  
Old March 31, 2011, 10:21 PM   #27
USAR-VET
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Does it really matter if my 12 gauge shotty is a tactical or sporting model?? I mean, a 12 gauge is still a 12 gauge no matter what you "package" it in!! Guess they have nothing better to do like stop the flow of arms into Mexico............
USAR-VET is offline  
Old April 2, 2011, 02:15 AM   #28
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,462
All the way back in the mid 1990s the ATF reclassified the "Street Sweeper" and "Striker 12" shotguns as class 3 weapons as I recall. There was some period in which owners had to register same with AFT.

This would just be the "next good step" as Mr. Schumer would say.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old April 6, 2011, 04:11 PM   #29
Bowdog
Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Location: Wurtsboro,N.Y.
Posts: 57
Importing Shotguns

I just found out that a suppler will no longer import the Norinco / Winchester 1897 pump shotgun. Very popular with cowboy action shooting. ATFE said no sporting purpose. I have been trying to get one for awhile now.
Bowdog is offline  
Old April 6, 2011, 04:42 PM   #30
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,669
Well, that was a close one. I for one am glad that the menace of a 110yr old shotgun design has finally been ended.

The ironic thing is if you had an actual Winchester 1897 instead of a Norinco replica, it could be explicitly exempt from being declared a destructive device by 18 USC 921 (a)(3)(D) and (a)(16)(A). With luck, ATF will get to defend that one in court.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 6, 2011, 05:12 PM   #31
Bowdog
Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Location: Wurtsboro,N.Y.
Posts: 57
What a dumb reply. The gun works just fine. We use it in reenactments. Live fire on steel knockdowns as fast as you can hit them. Its a tool like any other. If a USA manufacture made one I would buy it. The point is they are restricting a useful tool. FIREARM What is next?
Bowdog is offline  
Old April 6, 2011, 05:14 PM   #32
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowdog
What a dumb reply.
It works better if you take the time to comprehend the post before you reply.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 6, 2011, 05:34 PM   #33
Bowdog
Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Location: Wurtsboro,N.Y.
Posts: 57
Sorry, after rereading I get it. I just jumped to fast
Bowdog is offline  
Old April 11, 2011, 09:10 AM   #34
jasonleevandyke
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2011
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 11
Because of NFA requirements, this study is far more sinister than people might like to think. I also think that in the post-Heller era, the NFA and GCA's "sporting purpose" requirement is unconstitutional with respect to shotguns. I think the BATF is opening a can of worms here that they don't have the manpower to deal with and which is likely to get them a shellacking from Congress given all the outcry this is likely to produce. Perhaps we should defund the portion of the BATF that makes determinations such as this.
jasonleevandyke is offline  
Old April 23, 2011, 08:16 AM   #35
randyha
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2011
Posts: 1
in case anyone doubts the intentions of ATF going forward, and that this is just a step in a broader effort, this is from page 2 of the ATF report:
"A change in ATF’s position on practical shooting has potential implications for rifle and handgun classifications as well.
randyha is offline  
Old April 23, 2011, 08:50 PM   #36
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
in case anyone doubts the intentions of ATF going forward, and that this is just a step in a broader effort, this is from page 2 of the ATF report:
"A change in ATF’s position on practical shooting has potential implications for rifle and handgun classifications as well.
That's not so much hinting at sinister intentions but recognizing that if practical shooting competitions are deemed "sporting," then there's a whole bunch of foreign firearms that are suddenly going to become importable. Making that determination would open the floodgates, so to speak.
Technosavant is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 03:19 PM   #37
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,669
It appears the ATF has published a 516-page PDF containing all of the commentary it received regarding the shotgun study - inclduing the names, email addresses, telephone numbers, physical addresses, etc. of those who sent comments in.

http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/shotgu...-responses.pdf
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:11 PM   #38
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,320
Quote:
Very hard to understand this logic in the shot importability it looks like this is done by someone who has totally no clue about weapons.
If it had to do with safety it would make sense but there is NO difference between a shotgun with a retractable stock or a no retractable. Keep the 922 law about the 9 US parts no American would complain about that, but loose the dumb black rifle statements.
Lord help us all. Some folks just don't get it when their electronic devices put little red squiggles under the words they're typing.

Others simply don't understand why they're writing to the ATF, so they simply plug stuff in, as one might do with Mad Libs:

Quote:
You guys have got to be kidding me. You are taking advise from Sen. Feinstein one of the most anti‐gun Socialists in Congress. You want to stop violence in Mexico? Invade. Me and millions of gun owners will not stand for any ban sanctioned by Sen.Feinstein or any Socialist member of Congress.
Yarddawg88 also takes the opportunity to vent on a veritable smörgåsbord of issues:

Quote:
This is total B.S.! I and others know your Puppet master (Obama) is pulling your strings as usual because the Socialist S.O.B. is trying to rid the Law abiding Citizens of having guns and this is just one more step to do that and you Blind Sheep are either too blind and or too Dumb to se it coming! Tell ya what, Just leave us the hell alone because we don't need you or him! Send his sorry butt back to his home country Kenya where he belongs and take his aunt with him
Some days I weep for the republic.

There are a few cogent rebuttals, including the one by a Richard Todd, who goes into statistics, and a more detailed one by rawilliams273@aol.com (just cut and past the names into the "find" box to skip through the document).
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 08:24 AM   #39
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
Some days I weep for the republic.
Just browsed the comments on that BATFE website. It's enough to make a literate man cry.
thallub is online now  
Old May 14, 2011, 10:27 AM   #40
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
It appears the ATF has published a 516-page PDF containing all of the commentary it received regarding the shotgun study - inclduing the names, email addresses, telephone numbers, physical addresses, etc. of those who sent comments in.
I never did comment, and now I'm glad that I didn't. I was very leery of sending my physical address to an agency that is busy trying to take my 2A rights. Yes, I know that may seem tin-foil-hattish, but there you have it. I don't remember seeing anywhere that they were going to publish all the comments that they got, along with their home addresses and contact information.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 11:32 AM   #41
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Interestingly enough, I could not find my reply in that PDF; this makes me wonder how much they may have cherry-picked.
MLeake is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 12:48 PM   #42
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,072
The other interesting thing is that I didn't see a single response in support of banning. In 516 pages of responses, I have a hard time that not a single person supports BATFE's study/ban. It seems more likely that they don't see any need to publish the information on those that support them.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 04:46 PM   #43
rjrivero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 1,349
They even included SPAM emails in this release. That's funny right there.
rjrivero is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 06:06 PM   #44
rshanneck2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2008
Posts: 195
Its not just the ATF gentlemen., its the power who sits on the throne right now pushing very hard while not appearing to be in the background with the 2012 elections coming up., its not really that far off. Ever heard of appeasing your base?
rshanneck2002 is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 06:15 PM   #45
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,089
All federal regulatory agencies post comments to proposed rule changes on line. They have done this for at least ten years.
thallub is online now  
Old May 14, 2011, 07:33 PM   #46
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
thallub, while I've never heard of this, I'll take your word for it.

Even so, it would have been nice if they'd mentioned that in their request for emails on the topic. And they should definitely not publish contact information without express consent. (It would be a violation of Federal policy for them to publish similar information about their own employees; Privacy Act stuff.)

Of course, I don't recommend submitting anything to a public forum (or government agency) that I wouldn't wish to admit to at a later time, so if they were to publish my response, it wouldn't bother me.
MLeake is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 11:00 PM   #47
sonick808
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 396
why do they even bother soliciting comments. They're just going to do whatever the hell they want anyway. They could receive 100,000,000 of the most eloquent comments ever penned, and it wouldn't matter a damn bit. Good grief.
sonick808 is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 08:34 AM   #48
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
It appears the ATF has published a 516-page PDF containing all of the commentary it received regarding the shotgun study - inclduing the names, email addresses, telephone numbers, physical addresses, etc. of those who sent comments in.
Oddly it does not contain either of the two emails I sent in regards to this matter... or maybe I have confused this matter with another one but I still think this holds true.

I guess they didnt like me questioning their motives (political vs constitutional) and they didnt like me impeaching them for not living to the oaths many government employess are required to make.


Here is a very slightly modified version (full name removed at signature) of the shorter one.

Dear ATF:

I am a retired military member and as a part of duty to my country I swore to protect and uphold the constitution and to protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I suspect being officers of your governmental agency that you were also required to swear a similar oath. So as a courtesy reminder I am including the Second Amendment below which I would like to ask you to read aloud to every member present, verbatim.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I would like to ask all of you to define what "shall not be infringed" means to you in plain english.... To many Americans your proposed regulations concerning banning the importation of shotguns is a clear transgression and infringes on our constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Further your proposed regulations will not stop one single unlawful entity from performing any unlawful actions as by definition criminals do not obey laws. The end result of your proposed regulation will only affect law abiding citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms and your proposed shotgun importation ban is contrary to the long standing traditional values of this nation.

So I ask each of you, where does your proposed taking away of freedoms stop? How much will be enough to satisfy your agency and how do you weight that against the very oath you personally took to defend this countries constitution? Are you not betraying the very ideals that give purpose to your agency?

You have a moral obligation to stop this regulation and to re-evaluate the values of your institution and see if they still serve this nations constitution or if they serve a political purpose that is contrary to the good, and the will of the people of this nation, and clearly against the intent of the founders of our country as clearly expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Firearms are some of the most highly regulated possessions in our land and yet are the only personal possession specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights so what does that tell you about the importance of firearms to our nations founders? Please explain to me how your proposed regulation protects the one personal possession mentioned in the Bill of Rights? It is repugnant to the very ideals of the founding fathers that your Agency and its officers would even have considered such regulation.

Stop this proposed regulation now and put some serious thought into the oath you swore... Are you upholding the oath or your political beliefs? The regulation will change nothing for criminals, only for good and honest people who will be yet further limited in what firearms they can possess.

Thank you

BGutzman
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; May 15, 2011 at 08:54 AM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 08:56 AM   #49
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,669
To clarify, these are only the ATF responses received as of March 6, 2021. If you submitted after that date, your response is not there; but will eventually appear here:

http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/atf-su...c-comment.html
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 10:23 AM   #50
anthony6727
Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2011
Posts: 58
Quote:
Dear ATF:

I am a retired military member and as a part of duty to my country I swore to protect and uphold the constitution and to protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I suspect being officers of your governmental agency that you were also required to swear a similar oath. So as a courtesy reminder I am including the Second Amendment below which I would like to ask you to read aloud to every member present, verbatim.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I would like to ask all of you to define what "shall not be infringed" means to you in plain english.... To many Americans your proposed regulations concerning banning the importation of shotguns is a clear transgression and infringes on our constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Further your proposed regulations will not stop one single unlawful entity from performing any unlawful actions as by definition criminals do not obey laws. The end result of your proposed regulation will only affect law abiding citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms and your proposed shotgun importation ban is contrary to the long standing traditional values of this nation.

So I ask each of you, where does your proposed taking away of freedoms stop? How much will be enough to satisfy your agency and how do you weight that against the very oath you personally took to defend this countries constitution? Are you not betraying the very ideals that give purpose to your agency?

You have a moral obligation to stop this regulation and to re-evaluate the values of your institution and see if they still serve this nations constitution or if they serve a political purpose that is contrary to the good, and the will of the people of this nation, and clearly against the intent of the founders of our country as clearly expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Firearms are some of the most highly regulated possessions in our land and yet are the only personal possession specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights so what does that tell you about the importance of firearms to our nations founders? Please explain to me how your proposed regulation protects the one personal possession mentioned in the Bill of Rights? It is repugnant to the very ideals of the founding fathers that your Agency and its officers would even have considered such regulation.

Stop this proposed regulation now and put some serious thought into the oath you swore... Are you upholding the oath or your political beliefs? The regulation will change nothing for criminals, only for good and honest people who will be yet further limited in what firearms they can possess.

Thank you

BGutzman

Amen. Thanks for posting that. It's logical, and passionate responses like these that I think will make a difference.
anthony6727 is offline  
Reply

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 12:59 PM.


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 0.13624 seconds with 7 queries