inzami 36 Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) The study is ambiguous on detachable mags, for example in this excerpt first paragraph states they are ok followed by the next paragraph saying otherwise "In regard to sporting purposes, the working group found no appreciable difference between integral tube magazines and removable box magazines. Each type allowed for rapid loading, reloading, and firing of ammunition. For example, “speed loaders” are available for shotguns with tube-type magazines. These speed loaders are designed to be preloaded with shotgun shells and can reload a shotgun with a tube-type magazine in less time than it takes to change a detachable magazine. However, the working group determined that magazines capable of holding large amounts of ammunition, regardless of type, are particularly designed and most suitable for military and law enforcement applications. The majority of state hunting laws restrict shotguns to no more than 5 rounds.39 This is justifiable because those engaged in sports shooting events are not engaging in potentially hostile or confrontational situations, and therefore do not require the large amount of immediately available ammunition, as do military service members and police officers." This is what it is not ambiguous about: "However, in the past several years, ATF has witnessed increasingly diverse shotgun design. Much of this is due to the fact that some manufacturers are now applying rifle designs and features to shotguns. This has resulted in a type of shotgun that has features or characteristics that are based on tactical and military firearms. Following a review of numerous shotguns, literature, and industry advertisements, the working group determined that the following shotgun features and design characteristics are particularly suitable for the military or law enforcement, and therefore, offer little or no advantage to the sportsman. Therefore, we recognized that any shotgun with one or more of these features represent a “type” of firearm that is not “generally recognized as particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” and may not be imported under section 925(d)(3)." From the language used in the study it appears to target Saiga shotgun but if the current Saiga configuration is safe what's the point of doing the study? Edited April 6, 2011 by Inzami Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beefcakeb99 572 Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) Maybe all the vendors that are building "particularly suitable for the military or law enforcement" Saiga 12s are doing us an injustice and are being baited by the .gov. How many of them have designs out there for contract for the government right now? Three, four? five even?more?! Edited April 6, 2011 by beefcakeb0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chaseface 41 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) The study is ambiguous on detachable mags, for example in this excerpt first paragraph states they are ok followed by the next paragraph saying otherwise "In regard to sporting purposes, the working group found no appreciable difference between integral tube magazines and removable box magazines. Each type allowed for rapid loading, reloading, and firing of ammunition. For example, "speed loaders" are available for shotguns with tube-type magazines. These speed loaders are designed to be preloaded with shotgun shells and can reload a shotgun with a tube-type magazine in less time than it takes to change a detachable magazine. However, the working group determined that magazines capable of holding large amounts of ammunition, regardless of type, are particularly designed and most suitable for military and law enforcement applications. The majority of state hunting laws restrict shotguns to no more than 5 rounds.39 This is justifiable because those engaged in sports shooting events are not engaging in potentially hostile or confrontational situations, and therefore do not require the large amount of immediately available ammunition, as do military service members and police officers." This is what it is not ambiguous about: "However, in the past several years, ATF has witnessed increasingly diverse shotgun design. Much of this is due to the fact that some manufacturers are now applying rifle designs and features to shotguns. This has resulted in a type of shotgun that has features or characteristics that are based on tactical and military firearms. Following a review of numerous shotguns, literature, and industry advertisements, the working group determined that the following shotgun features and design characteristics are particularly suitable for the military or law enforcement, and therefore, offer little or no advantage to the sportsman. Therefore, we recognized that any shotgun with one or more of these features represent a "type" of firearm that is not "generally recognized as particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes" and may not be imported under section 925(d)(3)." From the language used in the study it appears to target Saiga shotgun but if the current Saiga configuration is safe what's the point of doing the study? The Saiga shotgun is imported with a 5 round magazine so in its imported configuration it should be safe... However it is capable of accepting larger capacity magazines and the study does not mention whether or not that is going to be considered. Obviously the way it is imported meets all of the criteria for a "sporting shotgun" (their term). The same thing happened with AK47's tho, even if they were imported with a 10 round magazine, they were still not allowed to be imported because they were capable of using large capacity military magazines which is why the Saiga 7.62 uses a proprietary style magazine to get around that. However there is nothing illegal about altering something from sporting configuration once its here, like attatching a bullet guide, pistol grip, etc. I think the only thing that they could say is that since in Russia there are "large capacity" shotgun magazines for the Saiga 12 that it should not be imported (worst case scenario) in its current configuration... so then they would create a different proprietary magazine that has no larger capacity magazines (in Russia) and import it under a different name. Just like they did originally by calling it a Saiga instead of AK47. Then we could begin importing it again and create new magazines here in the US and continue the cycle. Just a little rant but I think thats the worst case scenario. Edited April 7, 2011 by chaseface Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Heath_h49008 442 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 No, the worst case scenario is a flat ban on the importation and a DD declaration for ANY magazine fed firearm 1/2" dia bore or larger. That would allow them to get the .50BMGs and the 12/20ga guns in one fell swoop. All of them look evil, domestic manufacturers would salivate at the destruction of the competition, and what politician will do crap for Barrett 50s and Saiga 12s when you see how they are portrayed in the media. That is a worst case scenario... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cfpkiller 2 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) No, the worst case scenario is a flat ban on the importation and a DD declaration for ANY magazine fed firearm 1/2" dia bore or larger. That would allow them to get the .50BMGs and the 12/20ga guns in one fell swoop. All of them look evil, domestic manufacturers would salivate at the destruction of the competition, and what politician will do crap for Barrett 50s and Saiga 12s when you see how they are portrayed in the media. That is a worst case scenario... I got lucky last week and found a used unconverted s12 for 350 at my dealer...Hes sold out of new ones, I guess he doesnt follow the forums and isnt aware that he might not be getting anymore. even his employess were suprised at the tag. I put it on layaway. this suxs... i have 3 s12's and i want a barrett 50. Edited April 7, 2011 by cfp636 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
btr 15 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 50 caliber rifles like the Barrett CAN'T be classified as destructive devices, since a DD is defined as a weapon with a bore diameter of OVER .5 inch without a sporting purpose. Not .5 inches. Any 12 gauge could be classified as one but with the Saiga IMO it is very unlikely as there are so many floating around trying to get them all registered with an amnesty would be a nightmare. Do you think they want to process 10,000s of amnesty forms?!?! These guns are way more popular than the two other shotgun DDs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AJ Dual 43 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I really hope Gura.. the NRA... somebody gets a court case going that leverages Heller vs. D.C. and strikes the "sporting purposes" clause of GCA 68. Save maybe the single shot and the double, EVERY shotgun design, tube fed/box fed, pump, auto has had "military and police" use in the past going back at least to WWI. The whole thing is really "thoughtcrime" since if you've got a "tactical" style shotgun, the worry is you might start having "tactical" style thoughts I guess. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
datubie 21 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) Yes, I think they can. I believe .50 BMG is actually 0.512" or something close. 50 caliber rifles like the Barrett CAN'T be classified as destructive devices, since a DD is defined as a weapon with a bore diameter of OVER .5 inch without a sporting purpose. Not .5 inches. Edited April 7, 2011 by turbotezza Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chaseface 41 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Is Destructive Device a federally recognized term? In california it has to be over .60 to be a DD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Caged_Bird 474 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Yes, I think they can. I believe .50 BMG is actually 0.512" or something close. 50 caliber rifles like the Barrett CAN'T be classified as destructive devices, since a DD is defined as a weapon with a bore diameter of OVER .5 inch without a sporting purpose. Not .5 inches. I hate it when ricers are right... :lolol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
datubie 21 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Hey! I represent that!!! Yes, I think they can. I believe .50 BMG is actually 0.512" or something close. 50 caliber rifles like the Barrett CAN'T be classified as destructive devices, since a DD is defined as a weapon with a bore diameter of OVER .5 inch without a sporting purpose. Not .5 inches. I hate it when ricers are right... :lolol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Caged_Bird 474 Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 Hey! I represent that!!! Yes, I think they can. I believe .50 BMG is actually 0.512" or something close. 50 caliber rifles like the Barrett CAN'T be classified as destructive devices, since a DD is defined as a weapon with a bore diameter of OVER .5 inch without a sporting purpose. Not .5 inches. I hate it when ricers are right... :lolol: Sorry, it's just, usually you guys are wrong. I'm just saying is all... j/k man, it's all in good fun, at least you didn't choose a goddamned Civic! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
datubie 21 Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 Almost 10 years ago! And we should probably get back on topic. Hey! I represent that!!! Yes, I think they can. I believe .50 BMG is actually 0.512" or something close. 50 caliber rifles like the Barrett CAN'T be classified as destructive devices, since a DD is defined as a weapon with a bore diameter of OVER .5 inch without a sporting purpose. Not .5 inches. I hate it when ricers are right... :lolol: Sorry, it's just, usually you guys are wrong. I'm just saying is all... j/k man, it's all in good fun, at least you didn't choose a goddamned Civic! 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.