when it inevitable turns into a destructive device

[polik6887 0]

so what hapens to my saiga 12 when it inevitably gets declared a DD.

Do I have to get a class three in order to keep it?

Will the ATF go through form 4473's and confiscate ones that arn't turned over?

how exactly would the law work in regards to shotguns that are already owned, would they be grandafathered like pre-bans in the 94-04 awb?

would my saiga-12 be worth more or less after its declared a DD?

[GTwannabe 1]

There is already a "ruling" on the Saiga; the ATF has ruled it (in the configuration imported into the US) a sporting shotgun.

 

Now, if the ATF were to revoke the Saiga's sporting shotgun exemption, the DD classification would only apply to weapons imported or assembled after the exemption was revoked.

 

Some people will point to the Striker/Streetsweeper DD ruling as evidence that the ATF can reclassify existing Saigas and make them all DD's overnight. Not so... the Striker/Streetsweeper never received a sporting shotgun exemption from the ATF, so it was always a DD since the bore was over 0.5". Some were sold the the public before the ATF stepped in to stop it, which is why they were grandfathered.

Edited December 7, 2006 by GTwannabe

[JONNYROCKO 37]

good thing i already got mine. anyway lets just all keep our tin foil hats on real tight

[shaneman153a 39]

good thing i already got mine. anyway lets just all keep our tin foil hats on real tight

 

McUzi in disguise

[762minigun 1]

so what hapens to my saiga 12 when it inevitably gets declared a DD.

Do I have to get a class three in order to keep it?

Will the ATF go through form 4473's and confiscate ones that arn't turned over?

how exactly would the law work in regards to shotguns that are already owned, would they be grandafathered like pre-bans in the 94-04 awb?

would my saiga-12 be worth more or less after its declared a DD?

 

 

#1 you fill out the proper paperwork

#2 no just DD paperwork

#3 probably not. they did'nt before. there are a few USAS-12's and SS out there with contraband status

#4 grandfathered

#5 more

[beerslurpy 1]

They accepted DD registrations on the 1994 shotguns for over 10 years. And they will still accept them if you have a good excuse for not having been contacted about their change in status. Possession of NFA contraband has a "knowingly" element, so a Title 1 firearm that gets reclassified doesnt automatically put you in jail- you have to have been informed that it is now a Title 2 weapon so you decide not to register it and commit the crime.

 

They arent going to reclassify the saiga unless we get an antigun administration.

 

And even then, it will be difficult to prove that we knew we possessed a weapon with the characteristics that made it illegal. What would happen is that they would go to each of the 3-4 importers that imported the shotguns and then follow the guns out to the FFLs and then start contacting private parties who got the shotguns. The problem is that lots of people bought them from private parties, or people bought them and then died (bequeathing an ostensibly legal shotgun to their heirs) or bought them and changed address without telling anyone. In short, the ATF wont be able to find most of the saigas to inform people "send us the serial number of your shotgun so we can add you to the NFA registry." There wouldnt be a 200 dollar transfer tax (no transfer involved), only registration.

Edited December 7, 2006 by beerslurpy

[AegisDei 2]

They accepted DD registrations on the 1994 shotguns for over 10 years. And they will still accept them if you have a good excuse for not having been contacted about their change in status. Possession of NFA contraband has a "knowingly" element, so a Title 1 firearm that gets reclassified doesnt automatically put you in jail- you have to have been informed that it is now a Title 2 weapon so you decide not to register it and commit the crime.

I'd not stake my freedom on that..."knowingly" can be actual knowledge or constructive knowledge, ie: "should have known."

 

The constructive standard might give a little wiggle-room because it's an omission to act instead of a positive action (omit to register vs. buying an illegal firearm), but you'd have to prove that you had no reason to know that it was illegal.

 

Chances are, if you have access to the internet or newspapers or TV, after a few months of the new DD-delaration you will be deemed to have constructive knowledge and the new law will impose a positive duty to act, the omission of which will be criminal.

 

The BATF will declare that anything less than actual knowledge was "willful ignorance" and that you had "reason to know" so it will become virtually a strict liability crime. If you can prove you had no reason to know, which nobody on this forum can do because by the very nature of the forum, there may be some hope. But even if you stop visiting the forum to be sure you never realize any potential DD-declarations, it will be considered willful ignorance and you'll be guilty just the same.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, and even if I'm right, there may be enough political pressure to discourage jailing innocent gun-owners for an omission to register their shotgun, but I'd be careful and not count on the "knowing" element to keep me out of jail. About the only thing I'd count on is jumping through the hoops we must jump through.

 

Just my $0.02.

[shaneman153a 39]

Anyone active on THIS website would not be able to play the "I didn't know" card.

[dangerman 0]

Is there a specific reason you ask, i.e. is someone sponsoring a bill somehwere? Or is this theoretical jibba-jabba?

 

If my Saiga is unconverted, (which it is now), could it be a DD, or is it still a "Sporter"?

 

 

"The problem is that lots of people bought them from private parties, or people bought them and then died (bequeathing an ostensibly legal shotgun to their heirs) or bought them and changed address without telling anyone. In short, the ATF wont be able to find most of the saigas to inform people "send us the serial number of your shotgun so we can add you to the NFA registry."

 

I live in New Hampshire, no state registration for any gun up to a Class 3, and I'm pretty sure the State doesn't really care about that, just the Fed's. Which means, I "could" have bought a Saiga-20 from a friend with no bill of sale, after he bought it from another person previously, with no bill of sale or record. In theory of course. NH doesn't even have state requirements for dealers to keep records of Serial #'s, again, just the Feds. So if Big Uncle wants to find out who had the guns last, there isn't a legally required paper trail after a certain point. "You can't prove I own/bought that gun..."

[G O B 3,516]

When you surrender you'r guns, do it "bullets first"!

 

Seriously- the only way to loose our rights is to give them away. Ignorant ranting on public websights will just encourage those who want to rescind them. CHOOSE YOUR WORDS WISELY.

[beerslurpy 1]

Youre confusing "willfully" with "knowingly"- willfully requires knowledge of the illegality, knowingly requires knowledge of the characteristics which set it outisde the law.

 

For example-

Willfully: evading the 10k cash deposit reporting requirement is only illegal if you do so with the intent of breaking the law. You have to know about the law, know what you are doing violates the law and do so anyway.

 

Knowingly: possession of a short barreled shotgun only requires that you be aware that the shotgun be below 18 inches, not that you know the legal requirement is 18. Having a 17 inch shotgun might well be ok if you never bothered to measure it. But if it was 12 inches long, that is so far below 18 that it becomes prima facie evidence of knowledge.

 

NFA possession requires that the weapon be unregistered and that you know you possess it. For example, if you have a machine gun that is a machine gun only under ATF rules (an open bolt semiauto pistol you made yourself) but doesnt actually function as a machine gun, proving that you knowingly possessed a machine gun will be more difficult than if the machine gun actually functioned as a machine gun. See US v Staples 511 U.S. 600 (1994) for a great illustration of a conviction being overturned because the ATF didnt show he KNEW he possessed a machine gun. *sorry, screwed up my cite for staples, I cited to the lower court decision which got overturned by the SCOTUS, creating the knowingly rule

 

Unsporting shotgun DDs are even harder to prove knowingness because they are a subclass of weapons that are otherwise entirely lawful to possess. They only become unlawful after a special finding of the ATF which no ordinary person would be expected to be privy to. So prosecuting someone for possessing such a previously legal weapon would be very tricky. I suspect that the ATF would be hesitant to prosecute someone and have the entire subsection overturned on vagueness and notice Due Process grounds. It is very difficult for someone who is not extremely saavy of firearms law to be aware of these things. The effect of the statute is mostly in killing the supply side of teh market rather than actually eliminating weapons already possessed.

Edited December 7, 2006 by beerslurpy

[6500rpm 670]

Shaneman, pull the damn trigger, that cat's freakin me out. As for the thread, I'm not into politics or well versed on gun laws but I do know a lot of board members are, lots of other gun boards too. What I have yet to see is anyone do something pro-active to protect our gun rights. By pro-active I mean compile a list of state by state House and Senate members and addresses and a well written form letter stating that we put them there (who cares if you didn't, they don't know that) and that we want ALL of our Second Ammendment Rights intact and unaltered. After the last elections everyone posted about rolling over and counting the days until we're asked to hand over our guns. Bullshit, we should be putting things in place NOW to try to prevent it. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to put it together but I'd be willing to help. Another thing that gripes my ass is the fact that I've seen nothing at the gun shows or gun shops (other than Join the NRA stands), what better places to petition our local government.

Rants over, but the point is, The Best Defense is a Good Offense (sp?), and the best way to keep the Saiga's from being declared D.D. is to put counter measures in place before it happens. Right now, more than ever, the people in charge seem to have their heads up their asses and will turn on each other at a drop of a dime.

What better time to plant seeds from the public that they sooo want to please. clocks ticking...................

[beerslurpy 1]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

 

The National Firearms Act makes it unlawful for any person to

possess a machinegun that is not properly registered with the

Federal Government. Petitioner contends that, to convict him under

the Act, the Government should have been required to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt that he knew the weapon he possessed had the

characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of

a machinegun. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment of the

Court of Appeals.

Since 1994, the government has to prove that you knew that your weapon has the characteristics that make it regulated.

 

Here is the reasoning:

Notwithstanding these distinctions, the Government urges that

Freed's logic applies because guns, no less than grenades, are

highly dangerous devices that should alert their owners to the

probability of regulation. But the gap between Freed and this case

is too wide to bridge. In glossing over the distinction between

grenades and guns, the Government ignores the particular care we

have taken to avoid construing a statute to dispense with mens rea

where doing so would "criminal-

 

ize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct." Liparota, 471

U. S., at 426. In Liparota, we considered a statute that made

unlawful the unauthorized acquisition or possession of food stamps.

We determined that the statute required proof that the defendant

knew his possession of food stamps was unauthorized, largely

because dispensing with such a mens rea requirement would have

resulted in reading the statute to outlaw a number of apparently

innocent acts. Ibid. Our conclusion that the statute should not

be treated as defining a public welfare offense rested on the

common sense distinction that a "food stamp can hardly be compared

to a hand grenade." Id., at 433.

 

Neither, in our view, can all guns be compared to hand

grenades. Although the contrast is certainly not as stark as that

presented in Liparota, the fact remains that there is a long

tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals

in this country. Such a tradition did not apply to the possession

of hand grenades in Freed or to the selling of dangerous drugs that

we considered in Balint. See also International Minerals, 402 U.

S., at 563-565; Balint, 258 U. S., at 254. In fact, in Freed we

construed sec. 5861(d) under the assumption that "one would hardly

be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades is not an

innocent act." Freed, supra, at 609. Here, the Government

essentially suggests that we should interpret the section under the

altogether different assumption that "one would hardly be surprised

to learn that owning a gun is not an innocent act." That

proposition is simply not supported by common experience. Guns in

general are not "deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste

materials," International Minerals, supra, at 565, that put their

owners on notice that they stand "in responsible relation to a

public danger."

Edited December 7, 2006 by beerslurpy

[polik6887 0]

someone mentioned new laws, check out the congressonal search engine, called THOMAS. there are already several new assault weapons bans in the works, since 2005. most of them make any shotgun that takes a detachable magazine illegal (I assume a class 3), not just semis, but also pumps. they also all have a ton of co-sponsers, but not quite enough to pass. who knows when it will pass, but I dont think it will be for a year or two.

 

either way, I thought the DD classification was different than the AWB bullshit.

 

but the bottom line is that if they decide to rescind the sporter classification and classify saigas as DD's, I will have to fill out the DD paperwork and fee to keep mine legally, right?

 

what if i decide to sell it after it has been DD classified, do i have to follow regulations related to selling a DD, or would I only have to follow the laws regarding the sporterized version I purchased?

 

I guess its a moot point, I bet the AWB will hit before it gets re-classified, and that should sate the ATF hunger for civil liberties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.s. apparently I cant spell inevitably

Edited December 8, 2006 by polik6887

[Bravo 26 2]

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING will sate thier hunger for your guns, not one of them ,not ever, not even your chipmunk .22, ever, ever, ever. It is the same with thier lust to give YOUR money to OTHER people to buy votes from those who hate you. To think otherwise is folly. prepare yourself, and govern yourself accordingly.

[MikeD 541]

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING will sate thier hunger for your guns, not one of them ,not ever, not even your chipmunk .22, ever, ever, ever. It is the same with thier lust to give YOUR money to OTHER people to buy votes from those who hate you. To think otherwise is folly. prepare yourself, and govern yourself accordingly.

+1 and well said. I think that people that can't buy their own food shouldn't be allowed to chose what food they buy. Let petition to go back to the food lines. The ones with gov cheese and everything in black & white packaging. I'm sorry to say that I know more than one low life family that can't make it on $600 to $800 for food a month. They have it blown in 3 weeks on steaks and shit. And by doing their shopping at gas stations. I am also sorry to say that my home town is just north ( about 1 mile) of the low income apartments where that lowlife lady microwaved her baby. Peice of shit. They should skin her face alive and let her drowl intill she starves or dies from infection. The complex is going to be torn down in a year or 2 when they redue I-75. So long, get the fuck out of here. They won't be missed.

[beerslurpy 1]

Calm down. How the hell will they get such laws passed? 94 ban was crippled from the outset and half of congress lost their jobs after that one. No way they pass an even harsher ban with a far more pro-gun congress than we had in 94.

[KySoldier 2]

when it inevitable turns into a destructive device

 

Oh God, we're on this topic again. This topics been dicussed several times at great length if you look around. Probably find alot of good legality info.

[AegisDei 2]

Since 1994, the government has to prove that you knew that your weapon has the characteristics that make it regulated.

Notice how narrowly the SCOTUS ruled on the issue though. They merely held that a firearm is not itself a dangerous device and that the intent behind the statute did not suggest it could be strict liability because it wasn't a public welfare offense.

 

But the case's history is dubious at best. Many jurisdictions go to great lengths to distinguish Staples so that they can use a stricter judgment. See US v. Imes, 80 F.3d 1309, where the possession of a sawed-off was "quasi-suspect" so that the knowledge of possession was enough to satisfy the mens rea requirement. Without setting off a bunch of rants, a court in a liberal jurisdiction may be able to rule that a detachable magazine 12ga could be "quasi-suspect." See also People v. James, not yet published, where constructive knowledge replaced actual knowledge. Finally, see State v. Anderson, 94 Wash.App. 151, where the state court decided that a felon's possession of a firearm was a public regulatory offense and allowed for a 5 year conviction absent any mens rea.

 

Granted, two of these are state decisions, but my bet is that the reasoning could be applied to federal offenses. Additionally, federal statutes may do away with mens rea if that's how they're drafted. Though, all of this is a worse case scenario. I think that politics and policy considerations would still be on gunowners' side.

 

All courts, especially the SCOTUS will forever be leery of treading too harshly on our constitutional rights. Especially with the current composition of justices, now is the best time for firearm cases to be heard. But, even if the SCOTUS favor the gunowners' side, some poor saps would rot in jail for years while waiting for a grant of cert which they may never even receive.

 

I just don't think the courts would have that hard a time finding a "knowing" element, either from constructive knowledge or from "quasi-suspect" knowledge. Regardless, I don't want to end up in jail and waiting for certiari that I may not ever see.

[beerslurpy 1]

Yeah I didnt bother to shepardize staples. I'm not really surprised. Lack of SCOTUS attention to 2nd amedment issues has let the lower courts run wild. Constant hammering by prosecutors and a steady supply of unsympathetic criminal defendants is like the tide eating away at a shoreline. If you dont reinforce it eventually it all washes out to sea.

 

It's very frustrating how things like firearms laws, tax laws and drug laws have just become a prosecutor's toolbox for "getting bad people" in place of doing good work gathering evidence of real crimes.

Edited December 8, 2006 by beerslurpy

[inparidel 4]

so what hapens to my saiga 12 when it inevitably gets declared a DD.

Do I have to get a class three in order to keep it?

Will the ATF go through form 4473's and confiscate ones that arn't turned over?

how exactly would the law work in regards to shotguns that are already owned, would they be grandafathered like pre-bans in the 94-04 awb?

would my saiga-12 be worth more or less after its declared a DD?

 

From what I understand, the BATF has already stated tat it has no problem with the S-12, WITH 5, 8, or even 10 rd mags. When the A-hole with the drums, which is stupid considering the weight and unwieldliness of the thing, goes public, then he will have fucked it up for all of us. I hope that does not happen. They have said as much. If they say it, BELIEVE IT!!!

Edited December 8, 2006 by inparidel

[AegisDei 2]

From what I understand, the BATF has already stated tat it has no problem with the S-12, WITH 5, 8, or even 10 rd mags. When the A-hole with the drums, which is stupid considering the weight and unwieldliness of the thing, goes public, then he will have fucked it up for all of us. I hope that does not happen. They have said as much. If they say it, BELIEVE IT!!!

I guess that means we ought keep our Frankenmags for the S12 low-key? I don't want to get the S12 into any trouble.

[Conju 2]

Shaneman, pull the damn trigger, that cat's freakin me out. As for the thread, I'm not into politics or well versed on gun laws but I do know a lot of board members are, lots of other gun boards too. What I have yet to see is anyone do something pro-active to protect our gun rights. By pro-active I mean compile a list of state by state House and Senate members and addresses and a well written form letter stating that we put them there (who cares if you didn't, they don't know that) and that we want ALL of our Second Ammendment Rights intact and unaltered. After the last elections everyone posted about rolling over and counting the days until we're asked to hand over our guns. Bullshit, we should be putting things in place NOW to try to prevent it. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to put it together but I'd be willing to help. Another thing that gripes my ass is the fact that I've seen nothing at the gun shows or gun shops (other than Join the NRA stands), what better places to petition our local government.

Rants over, but the point is, The Best Defense is a Good Offense (sp?), and the best way to keep the Saiga's from being declared D.D. is to put counter measures in place before it happens. Right now, more than ever, the people in charge seem to have their heads up their asses and will turn on each other at a drop of a dime.

What better time to plant seeds from the public that they sooo want to please. clocks ticking...................

 

+1 I think the most important thing we can do as gun owners is to stop bickering and arguing about where when and why (It doesn't freaking matter), and agreeing that its very important for all of us to get active to protect our rights, america is turning on itself, slowly but surely. A little preventative maintenance can really help a situation from becoming disastrous.

[Vermiform 26]

[polik6887 0]

yeh this thread has really gone all over the place. I guess I shouldn't have said it was inevitable. thats where I fucked up. thanks for the Info.

[MikeD 541]

yeh this thread has really gone all over the place. I guess I shouldn't have said it was inevitable. thats where I fucked up. thanks for the Info.

You didn't fuck up by saying "inevitable". In fact you hit the nail on the head. Regardless of a drum or not the saiga will be banned. Anyone that says it won't either just don't know or are blinded by their own hope and dreams. It will suck but it will happen. Does any one hear want to argue that a saiga-12 with 10rd detachable mags (or 8rd for that matter) isn't as capable as a 12rd streetsweeper. A streetsweeper isn't even true semi, it's a shitty revolver that isn't half as easy to reload, it can't shoot 3inch mags either. Maybe it has been discussed over and over, but regardless it is "inevitable". And it isn't the peoples fault that know it either. I don't think one person here would vote for it to be banned if it was a voting matter. It is they know better, they have seen the past and therefore can see the future of our beloved Saiga-12. Only thing I can say is if you aren't in a NFA or DD friendly state, better pack your bags, dig a hole, sell it, or hand it over.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Mike Davidson

[KySoldier 2]

yeh this thread has really gone all over the place. I guess I shouldn't have said it was inevitable.

 

Happens everytime