inparidel 4 Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 First, for those surfing and reading this thread whom are untrained in either the law, or firearms, such as anyone who actually believes a single word that Sen. Feinstein says (the hypocrite has a permit for, and carries a .38 revolver), this firearm DOES have a legitimate sporting use; I use it in sanctioned, official, International IDPA tactical competition along with many thousands of similar people from all walks of life from blue collar to lawyers (me), judges and local elected assemblypersons. Secondly, . . .my 2 cents: There is some talk of guys wanting to build 20 or more round drums. . .I would stay away from the 20 round drums. I like my Saiga shotty. It's a great IDPA tactcal or personal defense tool. I would hate to see it declared a DD and banned like the Striker or USAS shotguns because some guys would slap ultra high-caps o them. I trust the BATFE to do that if nothing else. WE more than likely can keep enjoying these fine guns if we show some restraint and common sense. The USAS is a fine gun and came with smaller cap box mags at first. It wasn't until the drum came out that it got banned as a DD. It made no difference to the BATFE that many people wanted to use it with the box mags. Once the drum became availible for it, it became banned as a DD. 5 -8 round mags are ample for any tactical competition or personal defense. I don't believe the BATFE will get to itchy about them. Lets not pee in our own oatmeal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rowdy1124 0 Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 amen brother, preach it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
USMC_LB 4 Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 I agree Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AKATTACK 5 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 I couldn't agree more! Let's not give them any reasons. AKATTACK Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Integratedj 1 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 As much as a drum would be alot of fun, I do agree that it is just the kind of attention we don't need right now. All I want is more 5 and at least 2-3 eight round mags and I am good. Drums are heavy anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ForGreatJustice 1 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 I agree. I recall when Olympic arms went ahead, despite warnings and produced a 7.62x39 pistol upper for their AR-15 receivers. The result? 7.62x39 steel core was banned as "armor piercing pistol ammunition". A lot of bull-headed wannabe gun makers don't think about what's good for all us citizens, but rather how much they want to be that "first kid on the block". No peeing in the oatmeal! It took me ten years to get this damn oatmeal! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PvtPyle 0 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Be watching for them to rule that a psitol gripped 12ga is a DD, just like the USAS and street sweeper. I have gotten 2 calls from the ATF guy here locally asking questions about the weapon and number sold (both LEO and regular). I told them to come do a compliance inspection and bring a photo copier. But their interest is already there and they are asking questions about them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Control3 3 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 But their interest is already there and they are asking questions about them. Oh man. Although the DD classification would actually benefit me in a particular way, I REALLY hope it doesn't happen and I hope they aren't sniffing around for that purpose. And if someone out there is thinking about making a drum, please DON'T! And if you do it anyway, don't tell anyone, don't show it to anyone, and for God's sake don't come here and post pictures of it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inparidel 4 Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Although the DD classification would actually benefit me in a particular way, ??????????????????????? ANd for the guy who said that the BATFE has asked him for purchase info: Are you a gunshop or gun dealer? And, if they have, PLEASE inform them that this gun has a very letigitimate sporting puropse in IDPA and other international sporting applications. I would be happy to provide them with a list of the members of IDPA and IPSC nationally. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Control3 3 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Although the DD classification would actually benefit me in a particular way, ??????????????????????? Basically I would love to get a short barrel shotgun but here in Washington State, they are illegal. Destructive devices are legal here, and the barrel length isn't restricted to 18"+. So, I could get a short barrel shotgun in this State if it's classified as a DD. But it's slim pickings for existing DD's. I don't particularly like the USAS and SPAS, and they are too expensive anyway. I would love an SBS Saiga and if they are made DD that's the only way I'm getting one without moving. As an added benefit, if I already have it before they make that declaration, I don't have to pay the transfer tax like I would for existing DD's. Now, that being said, I REALLY don't want the Saiga to become DD for all the very obvious negative effects!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inparidel 4 Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Control: Let me clarify a few things. Federal law supersedes state law. State law CAN be MORE STRINGENT / restrictive than state law on various issues, but never more lenient. The law regarding DDs or even SBSs or SBRs is federal, period. Your state law would be stricken down in a heartbeat if it was more permissive on those, or other issues. I believe that you are mistaken about your views regarding DDs and or SBSs in your state. Proof is that, regardless of what your state requirements are for fees, licenses and ownership, you still have to pay a FEDERAL tax to own a SBS or TRANSFERABLE DD. Just because your state allows you to own a DD or SBS (many states do not) that does not mean that you do not need to file your papers and pay for your tax stamp to the feds. I believe your state allows you to own these things, but that does not mean that you don't have to jump through federal hoops to do so. If the Saiga was declared a DD, you would have to buy one that was mfgd prior to the DD declaration date, and do all the transfer papers. Also, like full-auto guns (which have a ban date in 1981) there will suddenly be a limited pool of registered Saiga DDs (pre 200-whatever) and, also like current DDs and MGs, the price would be in the many thousands of dollars because of that limited pool. Seek local legal counsel. Actual mileage may vary. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Control3 3 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 (edited) regardless of what your state requirements are for fees, licenses and ownership, you still have to pay a FEDERAL tax to own a SBS or TRANSFERABLE DD. Perhaps I didn't explain very well. Yes, State law is more stringent. SBS is illegal in State. DD is not illegal in State, so I go by federal rules for that. I am not relying in any way on State laws being more lenient. My thoughts on not having to pay the transfer tax are because of this... I already have a Saiga (that will be PG-equipped very shortly), so if they go DD and I am a prior owner then I should be grandfathered and thus avoid the $200 transfer tax. For example, I thought (I could be wrong!) that existing owners of USAS and SPAS were grandfathered so when those guns went DD and the owners registered as required by law, they didn't have to pay the transfer tax. It wasn't being transferred after all. If not, oh well I'll pay the $200. Does that make sense? Even if I don't explain myself very well, don't worry about me. I've already been through the Form 4 hoops for a suppressor and I am currently in the process again right now for a Remington 870 AOW. Unfortunately I am having signoff problems this time around because I live in a different county now and my Sheriff happens to be running for Congress dammit!!! Oh well I have a business so I can always go the corp route, but I'd prefer not to. Hopefully this is all moot anyway and the Saiga+PG won't become NFA. Edited September 21, 2004 by Control3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PvtPyle 0 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 I am a dealer and manufacturer of NFA weapons. And you can tell them all you want about sporting purposes, they dont care. They are going to do whatever they want. And with as many Saigas as there are in this country, their making them registerable DD's @ $200 a pop for registration is a huge windfall of cash to show why they should be allowed to continue existing as the bastard step child of the fed.gov. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inparidel 4 Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Pvt Pyle: You are right. And they WILL profit from their decisions. Sounds like a whopping conflict of interest to me. But, all you can do is try to point out the constitution to them. Control: Sounds like you have a good handle on the legal ramifications. I just didn't think it was in anyone's (citizens) interest for a Siaga to go DD. I sure as hell would not like that, regardless of how much my investment might skyrocket. I'd pass on the profit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beerslurpy 1 Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Whatever happened to repealing the "sporting purposes" test? Or is it just not possible to get that through the senate? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
inparidel 4 Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Beer: You must understand administrative law. An executive agency, like the BATFE can make its own determinations about issues it is charged with. The Senate or Congress in general cannot intervene unless the agency is charged with unconstitutionsl actions (which this is, but that's another legal argument). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ForGreatJustice 1 Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Essentially, in order to get the Senate to intervene, we would have to pool a LOT of money, file a suit or motion, and take ten years, and probably fail anyway. There WAS an amnesty offered for previous owners of striker-12s and Streetsweepers, I recall. I would hate for the Saiga to go DD, however. A short barrel would be sweet, but I'll take the freedom. Also, the ATF stands to make a KILLING from all the DD transfers this could have. Has anyone thought to challenge their collection of "taxes" based on the fact that they are no longer part of the Dept. of Treasury? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Don't giv the bastards any ideas! G O B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thousand son 0 Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 (edited) well so much for moving to washington state....well almost... Let see...I can own a 20mm cannon,PAK44 anti tank cannon,mortar, cruise missile-:<) Avenger 30mm gatling cannon BUT NOT an M16,SBR,SBS,Krinkov.......Makes perfect sense to me NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess it is harder to hide an oerlikon 20mm in your trousers than a sawed off shotgun-god it makes sense I....MUST....BANG....HEAD....AGAINST.....WAALL...TO....COME...TO....MY....SENSES >>b.b.b.b.b.bb.b.b.b.b OK I am back now....I have a head ache from trying to think like a worthless POS politician!!!!!! Wher is the Vodka??? Hey I found out why you need DD's in washington but not SBS or SBR's It is a matter of distance! See what they face in the wilds of Washington state! Edited September 25, 2004 by thousand son Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thousand son 0 Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 Or this when bird hunting........... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shooter2 5 Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 (edited) Declaring Saigas to be DD's would NOT be a cash cow for the .gov as some of you have postulated. When they did the same thing with the USAS, Striker and Street Sweeper, they had to "grandfather" all such weapons currently in private hands. So you had to do the sign-off/fingerprint/registration paperwork, but the $200 fee was waived. And once the ruling was passed, new purchases (read *paid* registrations) of such weapons trickled off to virtually nothing. So in short, if BATFE declares Saiga-12s and 20s to be DDs, it will be out of a desire to tread on our rights, not out of any financial motivation. Gee, isn't that comforting? Edited September 28, 2004 by shooter2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
emclean 0 Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 So you had to do the sign-off/fingerprint/registration paperwork, but the $200 fee was waived. that was then, what about now? is there anything compelling them to wave the fee? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.