ATF just ruled your "tactical" shotgun illegal - Page 2

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

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

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.

oneounceload · January 31, 2011, 09:02 AM

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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= .

February 1, 2011, 04:56 AM	#32
Brit Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2005 Location: Orlando FL Posts: 1,934	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?

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"?

February 1, 2011, 11:36 AM	#34
kozak6 Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2005 Location: AZ Posts: 3,113	Secret Service?

February 1, 2011, 03:11 PM	#35
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	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.

February 1, 2011, 03:35 PM	#36
Poodleshooter Senior Member Join Date: August 7, 2000 Location: Floating down the James River in VA Posts: 2,599	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.

February 1, 2011, 09:53 PM	#37
Pezo Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2005 Location: Vernors and orange barrels. Posts: 661	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.

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.

February 1, 2011, 10:17 PM	#40
Pezo Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2005 Location: Vernors and orange barrels. Posts: 661	(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

February 2, 2011, 10:18 AM	#50
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	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.