Jump to content

ATF Shotgun Study - Here it is!


Recommended Posts

I wanted to further add my opinion of the "REAL" reason for this study

 

I has nothing to do with importability...and everything to do with classifying some shotguns as DDs

 

NFA states that any weapon with a bore greater that 50 caliber, except shotguns used for a sporting purpose, shall be designated as DDs

 

The study states that shotguns configured for police or military purposes may be used in sporting terms, but are not sporting

 

...If the BATFE can classify all our favorite attachments as non-sporting...then our shotguns become DDs overnight...as well as all the pumps with collapsible stocks, or folders...

 

Thinking back on this study its rather underhanded and sneaky....

Edited by Xitesmai
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 471
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is not true. I spoke with them this week and they are still importing Saiga's. Things are just moving much slower due to the distributor companies buying all his inventory and jacking the prices

I have been going to the ATF website every day looking to see what they have posted and today I see that the Study that has been touted since last week in now posted. Here is a link to the study:  

I will make sure I put some videos up on Youtube of 5-shot, 2 minute-long mag dumps so people will see how sporting my Saigas are.   I don't see the sky falling, despite some comments here.   Wh

Posted Images

Since every pump and shotgun in the US can be made to hold more than 5 rounds I have no idea if they have the balls to do this, as turning every pump and semi shotgun in the US into a DD strongly suggests means the Republican nominee for president in 2012 gets a veto-proof majority in congress. Plus I'd like to see the ATF handle the more than 25 million NFA weapon forms with the (I'm told) six NFA inspectors. But you never know. Remember the ATF is the organization that promoted Waco Jim after his shootout and barbecue, so they are a deeply defective organization.

 

Well, hold on - the study is simply about the importation of certain shotguns. Generally, importing foreign-made military weapons is a no-no, as I understand it. So, guns that are imported must satisfy sporting-use criteria. This study makes some recommendations (probably about forthcoming policy) to the effect of what sorts of shotguns will be allowed to be imported. The S12, as we know and love it today, would still be allowed for import if the recommendations of this study are made policy.

 

The question is, will this definition of "sporting use" be applied only in matters of importation, or will it be applied to the enforcement of the NFA in regards to its requirements for "sporting use" shotguns? And if so, would that happen "soon" or are we talking about years from now when another big push is made?

 

Two things are for sure: they don't like shotguns with drums; and if these recommendations are used to enforce the NFA, the "home defense shotgun" market in the US, and Mossberg's entire new product line (including the crazy chainsaw gun) are all out the window.

 

So, I think that kind of back-pressure against them might be good for us.. but only time will tell. I'm kind of expecting it to go DD. Just because its too damn fun, they have to tax it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to further add my opinion of the "REAL" reason for this study

 

I has nothing to do with importability...and everything to do with classifying some shotguns as DDs

 

NFA states that any weapon with a bore greater that 50 caliber, except shotguns used for a sporting purpose, shall be designated as DDs

 

The study states that shotguns configured for police or military purposes may be used in sporting terms, but are not sporting

 

...If the BATFE can classify all our favorite attachments as non-sporting...then our shotguns become DDs overnight...as well as all the pumps with collapsible stocks, or folders...

 

Thinking back on this study its rather underhanded and sneaky....

 

I tend to agree that there is likely some other reason for this study. From what I can tell, the proposed new definition of "sporting-use" does nothing to limit guns that are currently being imported. I don't know of a single gun that is currently being imported that will NOT be imported based on this criteria. I suspect that the references to import are just misdirection.

 

My gut says this has to do with the NFA as well; it is a way to get combat shotguns classified as DD. Sneaky? Yes. Underhanded? Sure. But, as written, the NFA can be interpreted to mean exactly that. ATF is now just providing a formal definition for "sporting-use" shotgun where they didn't have one before.

 

I don't particularly like their definition, and I do find several problems with it - but they aren't out in left field on this. Forward facing lights and large capacities don't have a sporting use (where the "sports" are narrowly defined). I'm less convinced about where rails are attached, or VFG's, for example. But that's life.

 

It doesn't surprise me at all. When I first saw video of a Saiga drum dump - I was awed, and specifically thought to myself "I'm surprised that's legal. I need to get one."

All the while with visions of a shotgun that is far more badass than "legit" DD's like the Striker and so on. Nearly everyone that has ever come up to me at a range to talk about my crazy shotgun wonders whether it is legal or if I needed a stamp for it - and they are surprised when I tell them its just a Title 1 firearm with some mail-order parts.

 

The S12 is going to be alright.. the market may need to adjust some. I think, for example, magazine manufacturers would be wise to start considering how best to start making high-quality 5rd mags. If this all goes the way we fear, it would be nice for Chaos to continue to make their rail systems, but with the side and bottom rails as bolt-on picatinny pieces that screw into the foregrip. That would be nice anyhow - even if this thing goes no-where because it'd be nice to remove some front weight by getting rid of unused rails.

 

I mean - really, I don't think of all this as a big deal. An inconvenience, but its just a tax. Who likes taxes, anyhow?

 

Now, here is a question.. assuming we need to register as DD, I would start an NFA Trust to take care of my stamps and NFA weapons. As a legal entity, the trust must be named "So and So Trust" ..

 

Sooo.. how much hassle do folks think ATF would give me if I named my trust "No Government Deserves Trust" .. or "The Government Has Lost My Trust". Since the owner's name must be engraved onto the DD (I believe) some phrase like this would need to get cut into the receiver. I think it would be beautifully ironic and poetic to be legally required by the Federal government to engrave that on my shotgun.

 

I gotta check with a lawyer to see if they have powers of arbitrary discretion about stuff like that though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It doesn't surprise me at all. When I first saw video of a Saiga drum dump - I was awed, and specifically thought to myself "I'm surprised that's legal. I need to get one."

All the while with visions of a shotgun that is far more badass than "legit" DD's like the Striker and so on. Nearly everyone that has ever come up to me at a range to talk about my crazy shotgun wonders whether it is legal or if I needed a stamp for it - and they are surprised when I tell them its just a Title 1 firearm with some mail-order parts."

 

Exactly what I thought.

 

As for easily convertible, aren't these pretty easy to do into a PG shotty, even if they are capons upon importation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone want to start a pool on how long it will be before there is a report on tax revenue that can be generated by turning all "enhanced / non-sporting" shotguns into destructive devices?

 

Hah. Yeah, I was thinking about that actually. While it would probably generate a fair amount of revenue if people actually registered .. there would be a shit storm over the fact that ordinary shotguns are now classified as DD, and hence illegal in any of the states that don't allow NFA DD items. And in the free states that allow DD's, there would still be a shit storm over the $200 and registration.

 

You know, I'm pretty sure that President Obama had said at one point that he didn't think we needed new guns laws, we just needed the existing laws enforced. This could be part of enforcing the NFA, and they can hide behind "This law has been on the books since the '30s. We are just providing clarity and enforcing it."

 

Fortunately, this technique doesn't apply to rifles with a bore < .5" - so .. there are no 'sporting' considerations there. They'll have to cook something else up, and without renewing a federal AWB, I don't think they have much to go on.

 

But of course, this is all speculation and we won't know what the hell is really happening until it happens. But, I'm getting prepared, getting all the trust and NFA paperwork that I'm going to need in order so that if I need it, I can just drop it in the mail. And if it turns out that I don't need it, I can still drop it in the mail and start my stamp collection :)

 

Yay for motivation to get off my ass and get this stuff in order. Thanks ATF! :haha:

Edited by Michael Graffam
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he is not.

 

It's simple. If it exists, it is here now or at one point or another came into existence. Anything that came before that existance is "pre". I came into this world in 1979. I didn't exist before then. Anything before that was/is pre-Jason.

 

very simple concept and that is why "pre" (existing medical condition, ban, et cetera) are all terms used constantly.

 

He is not even close to correct.

 

The way the term preexisting is typically used is redundant and unnecessary. If one wants to reference a previous condition or situation by using the prefix "pre" they should do so by adding the prefix to a word that has an associated time period relative to the topic of discussion. Pre-Jason would be correct within the context of your example, because it references a time that predates Jason. Pre-Moron could also be used to describe the time in this thread before you posted. :lolol:

 

BTW... We made page 16. :super:

Edited by Bridis
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he is not.

 

It's simple. If it exists, it is here now or at one point or another came into existence. Anything that came before that existance is "pre". I came into this world in 1979. I didn't exist before then. Anything before that was/is pre-Jason.

 

very simple concept and that is why "pre" (existing medical condition, ban, et cetera) are all terms used constantly.

 

He is not even close to correct.

 

The way the term preexisting is typically used is redundant and unnecessary. If one wants to reference a previous condition or situation by using the prefix "pre" they should do so by adding the prefix to a word that has an associated time period relative to the topic of discussion. Pre-Jason would be correct within the context of your example, because it references a time that predates Jason. Pre-Moron could also be used to describe the time in this thread before you posted. :lolol:

 

BTW... We made page 16. :super:

 

 

I posted the meanings of exist and pre. The term is not redundant and unnecessary. Something, anything that exists came into existance at some point in time. This is what you don't understandt. Anything before that is the "pre" part. I'm sorry if your reading comprehension level is that of a third grader. Like I said, this term is use by professionals, mega corporations, and in legal documents all the time.

 

You are not correct. Your posts make you look stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone want to start a pool on how long it will be before there is a report on tax revenue that can be generated by turning all "enhanced / non-sporting" shotguns into destructive devices?

Not nearly as much as could be make by allowing form 1 machine guns again, at $500 per.

 

Thats a certainty...Unfortunately alot of folks in office seem to think like good ole Bill Hughes...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I posted the meanings of exist and pre. The term is not redundant and unnecessary. Something, anything that exists came into existance at some point in time. This is what you don't understandt. Anything before that is the "pre" part. I'm sorry if your reading comprehension level is that of a third grader. Like I said, this term is use by professionals, mega corporations, and in legal documents all the time.

 

You are not correct. Your posts make you look stupid.

 

 

Hey dumb dumb, exist and existing are two different words. I know that is a somewhat overwhelming concept for you to comprehend, being retarded and all. But that tricky little "ing" thing changes the context of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the real issue to me is the whole sporting purposes thing and that is what needs to be challenged

 

Challenge it. But you'll probably lose.

 

In this case, the "sporting purpose" was originally thrown in for our benefit. Large bore ( > .5") devices are NFA restricted (not outlawed), unless they are shotguns for sporting purposes. Just like cigarettes, and alcohol are restricted - by tax. And tax only.

 

The Supreme Court, for right or wrong, has ruled - and CONTINUES to rule that Federal and State governments have the ability to restrict certain weapons. Just like each State has its own taxes on cigarettes.

 

What needs to be challenged is not "sporting-purpose" vs. "self-defense" or any other set of criteria for a gun. What needs to be challenged is the very idea that the government has any legitimate/Constitutional ability to even pass laws with the word "gun" in them. Period. Well that's going a little too far. They should pass a law requiring used/retired guns owned by police and military to be given away in a lottery system to non-felon taxpayers. We did buy those guns, after all.. but you get the point.

 

"What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand."

 

Unfortunately, that is an impossibly hard fight at this point. Decades of case law and rulings predicated on the idea that restriction is not infringement.. that isn't going to just all go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please someone end this thread :nuke:

 

When you're at a party, and some folks are standing around engaging in a conversation you don't like, or find interesting, are you so rude as to ask them to stop? Or do you pardon yourself and go get another drink, and find a different conversation?

 

I imagine the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. When I go to a party, and stand around engaging in conversation, I fart a lot, and that tends to make everybody walk away from me....so I can pretty much discuss what I want, for as long as I want. How exactly can you fart on someone in a forum? I think that would solve quite a few problems.

In any case, I for one, am holding off doing a permanent conversion based what I have read here. If it looks like converting could make you money, there will be a grace period to do it. If it appears to be a bad choice, I don't have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. When I go to a party, and stand around engaging in conversation, I fart a lot, and that tends to make everybody walk away from me....so I can pretty much discuss what I want, for as long as I want. How exactly can you fart on someone in a forum? I think that would solve quite a few problems.

In any case, I for one, am holding off doing a permanent conversion based what I have read here. If it looks like converting could make you money, there will be a grace period to do it. If it appears to be a bad choice, I don't have to.

Well.... here's to bad choices :beer:

 

post-22401-0-19779800-1299642716_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. When I go to a party, and stand around engaging in conversation, I fart a lot, and that tends to make everybody walk away from me....so I can pretty much discuss what I want, for as long as I want. How exactly can you fart on someone in a forum? I think that would solve quite a few problems.

In any case, I for one, am holding off doing a permanent conversion based what I have read here. If it looks like converting could make you money, there will be a grace period to do it. If it appears to be a bad choice, I don't have to.

Well.... here's to bad choices :beer:

 

post-22401-0-19779800-1299642716_thumb.jpg

 

I'm picking mine up from the FFL dealer today, and converting it...I'll pay the tax stamp IF the BATFE says I have to...but that wont be for atleast another 2 months...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...