I missed seeing this 2005 post about the drum issue

[expeditionx 1]

[kresk 10,063]

SWEEEEET! (If it holds true.)

Edited April 13, 2006 by tritium

[beerslurpy 1]

That conversation isnt legally binding.

 

The ATF has successfully argued in court that mossberg pistol grip shotguns are essentially destructive devices because they have pistol grips. (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_tomlinson.txt)

 

Parts count and sportingness are inherently connected. If the shotgun was considered sporting it wouldnt need to worry about parts count. Destructive devices are [all shotguns] except sporting shotguns, but obviously this isnt intepreted in an even halfway consistent manner. There isnt even a definition of "sporting purposes" available.

Edited April 13, 2006 by beerslurpy

[kresk 10,063]

That conversation isnt legally binding.

 

The ATF has successfully argued in court that mossberg pistol grip shotguns are essentially destructive devices because they have pistol grips. (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_tomlinson.txt)

 

Parts count and sportingness are inherently connected. If the shotgun was considered sporting it wouldnt need to worry about parts count. Destructive devices are [all shotguns] except sporting shotguns, but obviously this isnt intepreted in an even halfway consistent manner. There isnt even a definition of "sporting purposes" available.

Just for the sake of argument--if the gun is imported in the sporter configuration there is no parts count to be concerned with. If you do nothing but swap out the mag for a hi-cap one then it's no longer sporter and 922® is invoked, i.e. the parts count. If the mag is US made and hi-cap then you've complied with the parts count and the gun is legal as a semiauto. Or am I missing something because it specifically is a shotgun and not a rifle?

[stokstad 4]

[expeditionx 1]

[stokstad 4]

[headshot 52]

As history has shown, the ATF doesn't even define their terms on paper, and often times makes them up as they go along.

I wouldn't trust SHIT that an ATF guy might have said.

[dinzag 31]

Actually you can write the tech branch and they will reply. Might take some time. That should be the protocol used - then you have written proof that would stand up in court...

[kresk 10,063]

[Wakal 10]

I posted Sterling's phone number in that thread; call him up and ask

 

I've had very good luck recently in dealing with the ATF, particularly the NFA branch. Since they moved their office from DC to VA (consequentially dumping all the 'affirmative action' hires (their phrase, not mine)), they have been quite easy to talk to.

 

I just got a letter...yes, in writing...stating that I could change the caliber and barrel length of my SBR AR15 pattern to whateverthedamnhellIwant, wheneverthehellIwant, without telling anyone anything. Or words to that effect

 

Quite a change from even early last year.

 

 

 

 

 

Alex

[PvtPyle 0]

Yes, get it in writing. That said, they have given different opinions to different people on the same issue contradicting themselves. And just because Joe got a letter does not mean Bob can use it as a defense in court. They have successfully beaten that one as well.

[beerslurpy 1]

According to an admin law professor at FSU I spoke with, judges generally frown upon agencies giving people written opinions and then prosecuting them for following that opinion in good faith.

 

So getting it in writing and holding on to it is pretty much the golden rule about anything out of the norm.

[expeditionx 1]

I posted Sterling's phone number in that thread; call him up and ask

 

Wakal,

I looked for Nixon's phone number on the thread and cant find it.

You mentioned to email you for it.

Its a federal agency. It should be alright to post it.

My tax dollars helps pay the bills at the ATF.

I would love that number it you can post it.

I want to ask him how exactly is Benelli legally telling dealers and customers that they can legally buy U.S. made aftermarket magazine extensions to increase their Nova or other Benelli shotgun's capacity beyond 5 shots.

 

Benelli is either doing this without concern for 922 legalities or they have the ATF's blessing somehow.

Either way its total bullshit and it needs to stop because its contrary to legal consistency.

With the right lawyers, this could bring down 922 r for good.

Yes, I called Benelli and heard it myself from a customer service supervisor that has been telling dealers and customers that its ok to install aftermarket extensions. If this was ok, then technically I understand how EAA got the same kind of blessing to sell 30 round saiga factory magazines and tell people it is legal to use on a stock gun. Something is rotten in Denmark. I sure could use Nixon's personal number to ask about this fiasco. A letter is too formal and unlikely to state how they are screwing up on this one.

Edited April 14, 2006 by expeditionx

[beerslurpy 1]

The problem is that sporting purposes is utterly meaningless because it is open to a number of interpretations, all of which raise even more prickly questions:

-if "sporting purpose" includes self defense, all weapons are allowed, so it literally isnt a restriction

-if sporting purpose includes any weapon is used for at least one competition, this will include an enormous array of weapons due to the fact that there is an enormous range of combat related competition in this country like 3-gun, knob creek etc

-if sporting purpose only includes certain sports and then only guns that "are suitable" for those sports but "not suitable" for other things, it raises the question of how suitable those guns have to be and how suitable they have to be for other uses. What if the other uses are legal? What if the other uses are sports? The legal justification for protecting some sports and not others without any guidance from congress clearly violates equal protection. If hunting is a sport, which state's hunting restrictions do you follow? Many states allow hunting certain species with military type weapons, while others are forbidden to even be hunted with fixed-ammunition firearms.

 

Nearly every feasible interpretation raises serious constitutional and logical issues.

Edited April 15, 2006 by beerslurpy

[panaceabeachbum 0]

[Wakal 10]

Sporting Purpose:

 

Read here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/...ist/gilbert.txt

 

The short version:

 

The bureau determined that the USAS-12 weighed 12.4 pounds

unloaded, and this weight makes the gun extremely awkward to carry

for extended periods, as used in hunting, and cumbersome to lift

repeatedly to fire at multiple small moving targets, as used in

skeet and trap shooting (Owen declar. p. 13). The bureau also

determined that the USAS-12 contains detachable magazines which

permit more rapid reloading. A large magazine capacity and rapid

reloading are military features, according to the bureau. The

bureau also opined that the overall appearance of the weapon was

radically different from traditional sporting shotguns, and

strikingly similar to shotguns designed specifically for or

modified for combat/law enforcement/anti-personnel use (Owen

declar. p. 14). Further, the bureau determined that the activities

that the USAS-12 was designed for, various police combat

competitions, have not attained "general recognition" as shotgun

sports. These reasons provide a rational basis for the bureau's

decision. The magistrate correctly noted that it is of no moment

that the administrative record might also support the opposite

conclusion, as the court needs only determine that a rational basis

exists for the agency's decision.

 

----------

 

The bureau determined that bullseye or animal-like

targets and shooting ball-shot or slugs are of a kind of "police

combat" game and is not a "sport."

 

----------

 

Unfortunately, I left Nixon's business card in my safe when I fled the country a few months ago. NFA's current chief (Kenneth E. Houchens) gave me (304) 616-4500 as a contact number; that is the general NFA office and they should be able to help you. I have found the NEW NFA office to be quite friendly and easy to deal with.

 

 

 

Alex

[Bvamp 604]

there should be NO nfa office. extend my sincere middle finger to them for me will you please?

 

gun control and ESPECIALLY THE SPORTING CLAUSE is illegal. it is a plain and obvious violation of my rights.

 

I guess those "ham shoots" that you show up to shoot a bullseye with a shotgun slug are actually combat shoots.

 

all the gun laws are friggin illegal. plain and fuckin simple.

[Wakal 10]

No disagreement here.

 

Of course, the NRA backed the '68 GCA that gave us that "sporting purpose" crap. And the NRA backed the '86 FOPA that took away new machine guns, and the NRA backed the '35 NFA that started all this crap in the first place.

 

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

 

 

 

 

 

Alex

[Ronswin 26]

No disagreement here.

 

Of course, the NRA backed the '68 GCA that gave us that "sporting purpose" crap. And the NRA backed the '86 FOPA that took away new machine guns, and the NRA backed the '35 NFA that started all this crap in the first place.

 

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

 

 

 

 

 

Alex

 

"We are, sometimes, our own worst enemies."

Unknown-

[headshot 52]

[Gummerfan 0]

Yep.

It doesn't take an act of Congress, judicial review, or a vote.

Just the stroke of a pen.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Gummerfan