View Full Version : "Accepted" Pump shotguns under '08 AWB

December 8, 2008, 09:00 AM
I found this in another thread (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257), but for some reason was unable to post my question there. Thread was not locked??

Anyway, it seems that under appendix 'A' which lists acceptable weapons NOT subject to a new ban (I realize there is no new ban YET, but I can't believe they want to go after pump action shotguns too!!!), the Mossberg 590 did not make the list. I'm assuming it's a magazine capacity issue. Anyone have any other info on this? Just curious.

December 8, 2008, 10:33 AM
No 590, but Some 500s are okay...

Mossberg Model 500 Sporting Pump
Mossberg Model 500 Camo Pump
Mossberg Model 500 Muzzleloader Combo
Mossberg Model 500 Trophy Slugster
Mossberg Turkey Model 500 Pump
Mossberg Model 500 Bantam Pump

Who knows why the government does the things it does. Why is a Ruger Mini-14 (non-folding stock) okay but a Colt Match Sporter not?

Scattergun Bob
December 8, 2008, 12:53 PM
As with the previous AWB, the target seems to be Non-Sporting or evil looking firearms. The 590 is far to close to the military's new mossberg contract gun.

I think the days of laughing at the lack of sophistication concerning types and models of firearms by the gun grabbers is over. They seem to have become educated and have a well thought out game plan.

How long it will take for the vision of those in power to reach their goal is my big question.

Good Luck & Be Safe

December 8, 2008, 01:04 PM
are already-owned 590s grandfathered in? hypothetically speaking, of course. ;)

December 8, 2008, 01:06 PM
I have to agree...I just got my 590 a month ago!!! While I think confiscation is rather unlikely in the short term, if there is another AWB who is to say that I won't find myself getting handcuffed at the range one day 'cause I walk in with a 590...even if there is a gradfather clause, how is the undercover that is working the range that day gonna know when I bought mine? I'm moving to Switzerland.:D

December 8, 2008, 01:07 PM
That's the problem...nobody knows what the final draft is gonna look like.

December 8, 2008, 02:03 PM
OK boys...I'm an idiot. I need to read a bit more carefully. There are several things inthere that answer my original question. There IS a gradfather clause mentioned..."Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

Also, " Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

(B) any firearm that--
(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action[/B];
(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
(iii) is an antique firearm;

Lastly it states that ..."The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect." At least they acknowledge that their list of 'OK' weapons is incomplete.

So while I still don't like it, on closer examination it seems pump action shotguns in general won't be affected. Although, I might very well have an issue with my GSG-5 as it's got 10 round mags (nothing about caliber is mentioned). This new AWB, were it to pass would put a cap at five rounds. Does anyone know how this worked the last time around with the 1994 AWB?...I wasn't a gun owner then and paid no attention. Even with a gradfather clause, how do the powers that be distinguish a 'lawbreaker' (jeez it makes me sick to write that) from someone who owned a pre-ban weapon?

Thanks for letting me rant even though I was mistaken and didn't read carefully enough the first time.

December 8, 2008, 02:33 PM
This bill is dead and has been for 6 months. But as always, be vigilant next session - somebody will try to get one in.


December 8, 2008, 03:32 PM
No bill is ever "dead".. it may be dormant or sleeping, but it is just waitin for the grabbers to resurect it when they think they have the votes...
complancy is our enemy!

December 8, 2008, 06:52 PM
Good luck in Switzerland...getting permits there will be a fun adventure for you-

What's a good price for a 590?

December 9, 2008, 08:46 AM
Sarcasm is always hard to identify in print...I actually have no intention of moving to Switzerland, I was just picking a country with lots of gun owners.:D

As far as a good price for a 590...I have the 590SP, full stock, 8+1. New they seem to be selling for $400-$450. I got mine 'used', in the sense that it was previously owned, but had never been fired. I seriously doubt it had ever been out of the box, it was spotless. I paid $325, and it came with a sling and scope mount, so I got lucky. Same shop had a 'new' one for $439. I'm in NY though, so I bet you could find one for a bit less elsewhere.

December 9, 2008, 01:25 PM
I got mine from Impact Guns for around $405. It was ordered pre-election day, and picked up the Friday after election day. :)

December 9, 2008, 01:51 PM
those gun grabbers are ridiculous. how about instead of new laws for responsible gun owners, stiffer penalties for criminals commiting gun crimes? like instead of 6 months in county how about 15 years mandatory in maximum security? oh wait! i forgot those uber evil pot smokers must be locked up for 30 years becasue pot is the worst drug ever invented! and guns are the devils tools!

December 9, 2008, 02:25 PM
Do you mean "Excepted" or "Accepted"? Excepted means excluded or to make an exception while Accepted means passed or included. I'm going to have to assume that it was Excepted. No offense intended... I just want to make sure that is what you are saying.

December 9, 2008, 02:36 PM
yes, I know what 'accepted' means...when I said 'acceptable', I meant guns that would still be legal to own. Saying that a particular model is 'acceptable' is the same thing as saying that it is on a list of 'exceptions' to any new ban. It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. It just dosen't translate well in print. What I should have written was, "would a Mossberg 590 be 'acceptable' to own under a new ban"?

December 10, 2008, 03:10 AM

You're going to get an argument derived from Heller that the "defensive shotgun" -- e.g. 18" bbl, 6 rd. tube, pump action, is a typically used, commonly found defensive choice for home owners.

Heller affirms that that Article II specifically provides for use of commonly available firearms for self-defense. We have case law now.

December 13, 2008, 02:23 PM
No honest man needs more than a two shot shotgun. Or something like that. Hussein Osama abu Barak and Bill Ruger agree, I'm sure.

December 13, 2008, 09:46 PM
i'm an honest man. i will admit i NEED more than a 2 shot shotgun. if i see 3 birds and i have 3 shots. i'm going to try my darndest to shoot all 3 birds.

December 13, 2008, 10:49 PM
Crap! political discussion about old info in the shotgun section is enuff to make wanna go huntin'...

December 14, 2008, 06:50 PM
Umm...Pump shotguns are specifically not banned by type, in that legislation. By that standard, buying any semi auto shotgun would make more sense than a 590. Why the "acceptable" list includes O/U shotguns is beyond me, unless they are considered 2-shot semi-autos.
Heller affirms that that Article II specifically provides for use of commonly available firearms for self-defense. We have case law now.Sure. However, I do not want the legal expenses to confirm the ruling.