Xitesmai 1 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Ok sorry if this has been gone over before..but I'm alittle confused on the ATF "study" and how it pertains to certain shotguns. It was my understanding that the Saiga 12 is able to be imported into the US, due to it being in a sporting configuration... 922r restricts the use of high capacity magazines,pistol grip, folding stock..etc, unless the firearm is a not considered an imported firearm... Hence we purchase a Saiga, convert it to a non imported firearm...then add all the features we like... The new ATF report singles out all the accessories that are common on alot of shotguns...Remington 870 Tactical, Benelli M series, Mossberg 590s, Saigas...etc. If the ATF changes the policies to consider these firearms to be destructive devices...are the current firearms grandfathered in...much like the 1986 FOPA? Am I going to have to disassemble my Saiga....(just ordered a new IZH-109BHO today from K-var) Will a restriction only apply to import shotguns, or all shotguns? Any way why shotguns? I have an AR-15 that has most of the features discussed in this report... Can someone please break down the report and its potential implications in plain english? Edited February 11, 2011 by Xitesmai Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a81lp 5 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 this may help answer your questions http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=62491 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
308SAIGA 55 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 In a nutshell "they have changed their mind" as to the sporting purposes of the Saiga 12.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I can understand that...since they dont want to tackle the issue of what "sporting purposes" means in the 21st century... But I think that making the importing of Saiga 12s isnt going to do anything really...other than open opportunities for US manufacturers to make Saigas domestically... I think they could be scarce for a few months until some forward thinking company starts producing them...unless there is patent infringement agaisnt Izhmash. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spartacus 1,619 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 It's really less about import vs. domestic and more about trying to restrict citizens from having effective combat weapons. The "sporting purposes" shenanigans is to side-step 2A. >>Any why shotguns? I have an AR- that has most of the features discussed in this report... The ARs & AKs are on the hit list too, along with "hi-cap" mags, and ultimately, handguns and anything semi-auto. By the time ATF is done rethinking what 2A really means, you will be lucky to keep your pellet gun. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 But thats the issue though...I didnt believe the ATF has the authority to "ban" anything...they have to report to congress and congress must pass laws that restrict the importing or purchasing of certain items.. I cant really see any Republican congress allowing that legislation to pass... ..even Obama hasnt introduced any legislation to restrict the sale of items... Granted in the wake of AZ there may be some coming down the pipe...but it will be hard to pass a Republican house... ..I can see stricter requirements for the legal purchasing of firearms... Just my 2c, but I think a class should be taken before one is able to buy a certain type of firearm... ..we have to take a class to learn how to drive...yet anyone can buy a firearm with no training whatsoever in the care, use, and handling of it... ....I was at the range the other day and got swept by some snot nosed youngster while he was racking his .40..he swept the whole line...it was as if this guy didnt even know basic gun safety...I'm sure many of you have had similar experiences ...lets face it...the problem isnt the acquisition of these items...but the ease of acquiring those items without knowledge or understanding of the system being bought. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TexasTech 32 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 In Texas you must take and pass a hunter safety course before you go hunt or buy a hunting license. This course covers firearms safety. I guess we are ahead of all the 2nd tier states. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rob-cubed 74 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 But thats the issue though...I didnt believe the ATF has the authority to "ban" anything...they have to report to congress and congress must pass laws that restrict the importing or purchasing of certain items.. That is correct, however they do have the power to restrict guns from importation by re-interpreting what "sporting" means within the existing letter of the law. Just like recently getting the WASRs with original "military" barrels banned, though they are still being imported with new production Romy barrels on them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
xbmxxx 5 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 In Texas you must take and pass a hunter safety course before you go hunt or buy a hunting license. This course covers firearms safety. I guess we are ahead of all the 2nd tier states. Colorado does this too I believe. We also have to take an 8 hour class to get a Concealed permit. In Washington I walked in and payed 40 bucks and got one. and CO wont transfer it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 In Texas you must take and pass a hunter safety course before you go hunt or buy a hunting license. This course covers firearms safety. I guess we are ahead of all the 2nd tier states. I can understand and respect that as it applies to hunting...i.e. how to carry when in the bush, what to wear, only point at what you intend to destroy, etc. But does anyone think along the lines that the public would be better served if firearm owners knew the proper way to handle their property. When I was a kid my father drilled gun safety into me... For some people this has never happened....and its a shame... ...does anyone else think that better educated would serve the public interest and discourage illicit firearms purchases? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
308SAIGA 55 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 But thats the issue though...I didnt believe the ATF has the authority to "ban" anything...they have to report to congress and congress must pass laws that restrict the importing or purchasing of certain items.. Many have that same misconception, read this: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/paperwork-reduction/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TexasTech 32 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Nope. Edited February 12, 2011 by Jackal Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vanveen 0 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Gotta agree with Xitesmai. Any gun legislation introduced right now would never clear the House; and it wouldn't even if the Democrats kept the majority. There are only a couple of gun control bills floating around right now, and they only have/ had the most limited support. It would be wise for everybody who is concerned with their gun rights to not freak out every time a new legislator or president is elected. No matter what party they come from, they answer to their constituents. If these things are important to any you than call up your congressmen, senators, or local officials and let them know what you think. Saying dumb shit like Obama Hussein and Librel-whatever-the-fuck is not constructive on any level. Oh, and I'd like to remind everybody that James Brady (of the Brady Bill) was on Regan's team; just to drive home that these things don't rest on party lines, but rather the positive or negative feelings of citizens. Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this discussion, but as a firearm lover and owner it bites my ass how politically ignorant gun owners can be. Attack me all you want, America is only as good as it's citizen's opinions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 The president can do pretty much what ever he wants regarding imported goods, the only real blow back would be from other countries taking counter actions. What is going to happen is that they will ban the importation of what ever they like. Pretty much anything that can be tied to a preexisting military configuration or converted to a military condition will be banned from import. Once representative Giffords is capable of speaking to the public the time for the announcement will draw nigh. One thing the ATF did in the study to "unconfuse" things is that they stated that pistol gripped shotguns are sporting. They had previously written a letter stating that if it had a pistol grip it was not considered a shotgun because it was non sporting, which meant that shotguns with pistol grips were potentially destructive devices. They have now fixed that with this new study; by doing that they wont have to go after a bunch of turkey guns and make lots of people angry. Two things left in the immediate playbook is to declare anything that fits their new "non sporting" test as unsuitable for import (that will include parts); the next is to declare anything not meeting the new "non sporting" definition a destructive device. They may hold off on the later because of potential "Heller" issues, but we will see. Buy all the imported stuff you can right now, if you wait until after Congressman Giffords gives her first interview you will already be way behind the curve. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vanveen 0 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 The President does possess the ability to control the import or export of firearms, and to deem which firearms should be restricted. Will Obama put new restrictions on imports? Absolutely not. With an overwhelming Republican majority in the House, President Obama will have to make (and had already begun) concessions in order to fulfill his own agendas. Even despite the Giffords shooting, public opinion on gun control is one of ambivalence right now (trust me, I work in politics, and have to look at polls all the time.) Politics means compromise, and President Obama will not sacrifice the agendas he has prioritized by throwing new fuel on the fire. Given the fact that he's going to have to fight new battles over health care, I sincerely doubt anybody needs to be concerned about any new gun regulations. The shitty thing about this reactionary behavior to perceived threats of regulation, is that it drives demand way up, and with it prices. I can barely afford to shoot 9mm anymore because yahoos keep buying up all the surplus for their bunkers. If everybody freaks out now you can expect Saigas to triple in price way before any real legislation is even in sight. Panic is not a friend to gun owners. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mike1234567 26 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Panic is not a friend to gun owners. Oh c'mon. The sky's falling and you damned well know it. That's why I'm buying enough Saigas to prop it up all around my house and enough ammo to keep my protectors fed for many years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Panic is not a friend to gun owners. Oh c'mon. The sky's falling and you damned well know it. That's why I'm buying enough Saigas to prop it up all around my house and enough ammo to keep my protectors fed for many years. I duno, I just don't see how anyone can say we should not panic. Look at all of the BS rules, laws, and regulations on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Look at all of the politicians overstepping their bounds. I think it's fair to say a bit of panic is in order. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Elaine Dickinson: There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vanveen 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Panic is not a friend to gun owners. Oh c'mon. The sky's falling and you damned well know it. That's why I'm buying enough Saigas to prop it up all around my house and enough ammo to keep my protectors fed for many years. I duno, I just don't see how anyone can say we should not panic. Look at all of the BS rules, laws, and regulations on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Look at all of the politicians overstepping their bounds. I think it's fair to say a bit of panic is in order. Not that I don't agree with you that some regulations are bs, especially 922r, but nobody's overstepping any bounds. The ability of the government to regulate arms is based on the Commerce Clause (not an amendment, but part of the Constitution itself), so it is invariably legal for them to do so, whether you agree with them or not. That aside, recent rulings have actually secured further gun ownership rights like McDonald v. Chicago and DC v. Heller, which may be unrelated to import laws, but they hint at positive improvements to gun laws. How about a friendly wager? If I'm wrong, I will walk the walk of shame and sorrow; if I'm right, stop buying all the damn 9mm ammo so I can start plinking with my beloved M9 again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Panic is not a friend to gun owners. Oh c'mon. The sky's falling and you damned well know it. That's why I'm buying enough Saigas to prop it up all around my house and enough ammo to keep my protectors fed for many years. I duno, I just don't see how anyone can say we should not panic. Look at all of the BS rules, laws, and regulations on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Look at all of the politicians overstepping their bounds. I think it's fair to say a bit of panic is in order. Not that I don't agree with you that some regulations are bs, especially 922r, but nobody's overstepping any bounds. The ability of the government to regulate arms is based on the Commerce Clause (not an amendment, but part of the Constitution itself), so it is invariably legal for them to do so, whether you agree with them or not. That aside, recent rulings have actually secured further gun ownership rights like McDonald v. Chicago and DC v. Heller, which may be unrelated to import laws, but they hint at positive improvements to gun laws. How about a friendly wager? If I'm wrong, I will walk the walk of shame and sorrow; if I'm right, stop buying all the damn 9mm ammo so I can start plinking with my beloved M9 again. If only the British had thought to tell the farmers at Lexington and Concorde that the gun confiscation wasn't illegal because it was an act of commerce, the whole revolutionary war could have been avoided. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vanveen 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mike1234567 26 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Panic is not a friend to gun owners. Oh c'mon. The sky's falling and you damned well know it. That's why I'm buying enough Saigas to prop it up all around my house and enough ammo to keep my protectors fed for many years. I duno, I just don't see how anyone can say we should not panic. Look at all of the BS rules, laws, and regulations on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Look at all of the politicians overstepping their bounds. I think it's fair to say a bit of panic is in order. I intended that to read at least somewhat as "tongue-in-cheek". I'm buying one each of most Saiga calibers while I'm sure I still can. That stated... I'm NOT going to overpay during a so-called "panic". Should prices go crazy and stay that way I'll just do without the calibers I don't already have. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I dont even believe that we (as gun owners and enthusiasts) will have a problem when any legislation comes before Congress to restrict gun ownership/importation. Lets be honest here....if anyone doesnt think some Senator (cough..cough..New Jersey) isnt writing up a new AWB you're kidding yourself...however I dont think it will pass... I would like to discuss the real issue here... Its about irresponsible / mentally unstable / untrained / ill-equipped / criminally inclined people purchasing a firearm... I believe it was Ted Nugent who said "If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective"... I really believe this... If I had an MP5 Navy sitting at my house it doesnt mean that I'm going to go postal.... However that same MP5 in the hands of a nut case could do serious damage...the issue is not the weapon...its the person... The NICS holds a denial list of all persons deemed unfit to own a firearm, however there is no compulsory legislation to require states add people to that list unless determined by court to be mentally defective or guilty of a felony... By 2018, all states are required by law to report all persons who have been ordered for outpatient psychiatric help, or been involuntarily committed...I still see this as insufficient...as many crazies arent arrested or sent before a court... Can anyone think of a method to tighten access to firearms yet opening the spectrum of obtainable firearms to include all/most NFA items. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I dont even believe that we (as gun owners and enthusiasts) will have a problem when any legislation comes before Congress to restrict gun ownership/importation. Lets be honest here....if anyone doesnt think some Senator (cough..cough..New Jersey) isnt writing up a new AWB you're kidding yourself...however I dont think it will pass... I would like to discuss the real issue here... Its about irresponsible / mentally unstable / untrained / ill-equipped / criminally inclined people purchasing a firearm... I believe it was Ted Nugent who said "If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective"... I really believe this... If I had an MP5 Navy sitting at my house it doesnt mean that I'm going to go postal.... However that same MP5 in the hands of a nut case could do serious damage...the issue is not the weapon...its the person... The NICS holds a denial list of all persons deemed unfit to own a firearm, however there is no compulsory legislation to require states add people to that list unless determined by court to be mentally defective or guilty of a felony... By 2018, all states are required by law to report all persons who have been ordered for outpatient psychiatric help, or been involuntarily committed...I still see this as insufficient...as many crazies arent arrested or sent before a court... Can anyone think of a method to tighten access to firearms yet opening the spectrum of obtainable firearms to include all/most NFA items. I completely agree. When I argue with the gun grabbers, I say, "it's asine to assign blame to an object". It just doesn't make sense. I mean, according to their logic pencils are responsible for spelling errors. Things are just things. Guns, knives, cars, forks, even ideologies like Capitalism and Communism are just things. It is impossible for them to be good or bad. It always has and always will boil down to the people who use them. PEOPLE, as usual, are the problem. Not things. This is such an easy concept that I'm honestly starting to thing that people who disagree are missing some chemicals in their brain and need to be medicated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Demanding the government to follow the laws of the land as intended by the founding fathers is NOT "rejecting government"; it is rather embracing government as the forefathers intended. Also I remind you that the British were not an invading army, they were the legitimate government, that is why the Declaration of Independence was written the way it was. In regards to the executive branch, people complain less when their personal "good king" is in charge. Of course which one is the "good king" depends on your own political point of view. But in either case, the Constitution is supposed to protect us from presidents acting as "kings", even if the majority approve. As the old saying went "NO KING BUT KING JESUS". But today, the executive does function as a king, and the king my friend is about to put the smack down on all imports as his whims dictate. The opportune time to buy imports is fast closing. Did you just recently buy stock in K-Var or something.... No indication that any ban or restriction will pass, let alone lose on appeal from the numerous lawsuits in the event of such legislation / executive order. Gun rights have expanded during this administration... And no the president may not act like a king..a king is not subject to the law of the people..the president is...now a president may choose to work outside the normal scope of due process by issuing an executive order... I see that however as a far fetched notion....the thing to due is try to lobby the NRA to lobby congress to impose gun control that ACTUALLY works... Things like... 1. A required psych eval - yearly ( Granted this can backfire by doctors who are anti-firearms ) 2. A safety class for each type of firearm 3. A criminal background check 4. A modest waiting period 5. Requirement to keep a registry of firearm transactions - basically a requirement to personally keep a record of sale...(I bought it from Bob Guy on this date, sold it to Timmy Someone on this date...) 6. States actually contributing to the NICS denied persons list... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 ...... I'm buying one each of most Saiga calibers while I'm sure I still can. That stated... I'm NOT going to overpay during a so-called "panic". Should prices go crazy and stay that way I'll just do without the calibers I don't already have. That's not a bad way to handle it; if you want an imported weapon, between now and the press conference is the time to make that purchase. I suspect that there are people trying to get "insider" positions on imported weapons and accessories. For example, does any one else wonder why only one guy shared the knowledge of what was coming out of the ATF announcement? The prince law blogger is the only one who posted what was about to happen; how many other people in that room took that information and held that knowledge to try and get an insider position. How many Saigas where moved between the announcement being made known and the knowledge being leaked on the net? Did anyone else notice how the prince law blogger was attacked for reporting the information, and how it was called BS all the way up until it was released? My thoughts are that the genie is not yet out of the bottle on the Benelli M4; if you want one buy one right now, and buy the factory collapsible stock for it too. Prices on the Saiga are going out of the bottle now, maybe less so on the already converted ones. Probably the best thing to still get cheap on the Saiga is the factory imported 5 round mags. People are still trying to put the Genie back in the bottle on the Saigas, so there is still chance to get in on a good deal (at least compared to where they will be in price down the road) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Demanding the government to follow the laws of the land as intended by the founding fathers is NOT "rejecting government"; it is rather embracing government as the forefathers intended. Also I remind you that the British were not an invading army, they were the legitimate government, that is why the Declaration of Independence was written the way it was. In regards to the executive branch, people complain less when their personal "good king" is in charge. Of course which one is the "good king" depends on your own political point of view. But in either case, the Constitution is supposed to protect us from presidents acting as "kings", even if the majority approve. As the old saying went "NO KING BUT KING JESUS". But today, the executive does function as a king, and the king my friend is about to put the smack down on all imports as his whims dictate. The opportune time to buy imports is fast closing. Did you just recently buy stock in K-Var or something.... No indication that any ban or restriction will pass, let alone lose on appeal from the numerous lawsuits in the event of such legislation / executive order. Gun rights have expanded during this administration... And no the president may not act like a king..a king is not subject to the law of the people..the president is...now a president may choose to work outside the normal scope of due process by issuing an executive order... I see that however as a far fetched notion....the thing to due is try to lobby the NRA to lobby congress to impose gun control that ACTUALLY works... Things like... 1. A required psych eval - yearly ( Granted this can backfire by doctors who are anti-firearms ) 2. A safety class for each type of firearm 3. A criminal background check 4. A modest waiting period 5. Requirement to keep a registry of firearm transactions - basically a requirement to personally keep a record of sale...(I bought it from Bob Guy on this date, sold it to Timmy Someone on this date...) 6. States actually contributing to the NICS denied persons list... Wow, you really endorse this stuff? I have some choice things to say to you, but I won't. That shit doesn't work. That guy in AZ who just shot up a bunch of people followed all the laws and that didn't stop him. Like I said, people who think gun control works are brainwashed. Politicians who are in favor of gun control have a very specific reason as to why. 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.