Why should I give a shit if my Saiga 12 is a DD?

[6500rpm 670]

It seems like every time a new mag over 5 rounds gets ready to be available in the states, someone starts shouting about "oh my god, BATF will make them DD's". The big question in my mind is why should I give a shit. I might pick up a few more when they come back on the market, other than that, it sucks to be a late commer. If they go DD, wouldn't mine be grandfathered since I already own them???? I can see why importers might care, but other than that, why would I give a rats ass? I picked up a Galil ARM (Action Arms) in 1986 for around $750, sold it several years later after the first AWB for $2400. If I wanted to buy another one, yeah it would suck because I'd have to buck up. How is this and the Saiga 12 DD b.s. any different.

In my mind, make it a DD, my stock just went up.........kinda like playing the market with a 12ga. plus I get the fun of shooting it. Would it effect 3 gunners or people who use it for competition? Why does anyone fucking care, just add it to the list of all the other guns we can't bring in anymore and let us who have reap the benefits.

[TacticalResponse 0]

In 1994 I bought a USAS 12 gauge shotgun. Clinton two weeks later declared it a destructive device. Some friends of mine in the industry took my picture and typed out all of the necessary forms for me, then off to the police department to be finger printed. I then had to have the local chief of police approve and sign one of the forms. Off went the paperwork to the ATF/ NFA. It took about 3 1/2 months for the feds to approve it. Yes, it was a big hassel. The gun was not grandfathered. I understand that many USAS 12 shotgun owners couldn't get approved so they sold the guns off cheap to FFL's that dealt with title 11 destructive devices and class 111 weapons. Most owners lost a lot of money over the deal. About future gun laws? You have to remember that 6% of the far left in the Democratic party control it. Many people are saying that George Bush senior was the cause for Clintons 92 victory. Now people are saying that George W Bush is going to cause a far left candidate to win in 2008. Do people really believe that after Bush allowed the crime bill to sunset, that the far left will be happy with just a new anti assault weapons bill? No Way! There going to want something that cannot ever be reversed again, and I believe that most people know what I'am talking about. Impossible? All of my life I have seen things being done with our gun rights that everyone said (that can never happen in America). Well it did and it has.

Edited November 7, 2005 by TacticalResponse

[6500rpm 670]

That sucks, guess I should care atleast a little-any fees associated w/ registration, and or, can it be used in shotgun catigory events? Hey don't know until you ask .......

[TacticalResponse 0]

Yes, I had to pay the tax stamp fee. Unless it's some type of combat shooting event where DD and class lll weapons are allowed the answer is no. Most shooting ranges don't allow either guns on their ranges. Some don't even allow shotguns period, or 50 caliber rifles. Nevada ranges I hear have some pretty lose gun laws however if there still in effect.

Edited November 7, 2005 by TacticalResponse

[pedal2alloy 206]

It seems like every time a new mag over 5 rounds gets ready to be available in the states, someone starts shouting about "oh my god, BATF will make them DD's". The big question in my mind is why should I give a shit.

 

Anyone who values any of his rights should care if those rights are being trampled. And yes, some people had made some short-term gains when different laws and restrictions were passed, but the long term damage was done.

[shaneman153a 39]

In 1994 I bought a USAS 12 gauge shotgun. Clinton two weeks later declared it a destructive device. Some friends of mine in the industry took my picture and typed out all of the necessary forms for me, then off to the police department to be finger printed. I then had to have the local chief of police approve and sign one of the forms. Off went the paperwork to the ATF/ NFA. It took about 3 1/2 months for the feds to approve it. Yes, it was a big hassel. The gun was not grandfathered. I understand that many USAS 12 shotgun owners couldn't get approved so they sold the guns off cheap to FFL's that dealt with title 11 destructive devices and class 111 weapons. Most owners lost a lot of money over the deal. About future gun laws? You have to remember that 6% of the far left in the Democratic party control it. Many people are saying that George Bush senior was the cause for Clintons 92 victory. Now people are saying that George W Bush is going to cause a far left candidate to win in 2008. Do people really believe that after Bush allowed the crime bill to sunset, that the far left will be happy with just a new anti assault weapons bill? No Way! There going to want something that cannot ever be reversed again, and I believe that most people know what I'am talking about. Impossible? All of my life I have seen things being done with our gun rights that everyone said (that can never happen in America). Well it did and it has.

 

Hey Tac,

 

What state do you live in? I'm wondering how this would pan out if this were to happen to S-12's (Knock on wood) for those who live in more gun-friendly states. In a state where you can have Class III weapons, do you have to have some type of permit? And does a DD fall under class III? Or is that a different permit? Is there a permit? Did everyone get burned by this action who owned USAS-12's, or was it depending on the state?

[TacticalResponse 0]

Believe it or not, I had my forms off to the ATF/NFA in only two days! Some of my class lll friends really rushed me. Of course I lived in a small rural town at the time so it wasn't as hard for me to approach the police chief and ask him if he would sign one of the forms for me as if I had lived in a large city where he didn't have the time. Well, he could of refused, and then I would of been up the creek on my gun. You have to go through many government background checks to be approved for a title ll destructive device. Plus having your local high ranking law enforcement offical sign off on it which many will not. It really depends on what state that you live in and often the county also. Yes, I hear that most USAS 12 owners lost their guns. I live in Arizona which is a strange state regarding firearms. Why? because the state is checkered between red and blue counties. Our state gun laws are all the same, yet how some local officals decide to enforce them can be odd to say the least. Many law enforcement officals will not sign off on a DD class lll or short barreled shotgun. To my Knowledge unless laws have changed a DD is diferent from a class lll. A DD can mean many different things. A mortar, an M203 40mm grenade launcher. A class lll? select fire weapon with the ability to have different barrel options. When you buy a class lll weapon generally you put 50% down on it. The owner then keeps possession of the firearm until your paperwork goes through. When the buyer is approved by the ATF/NFA the seller will receive the needed documents for the legal transfer of the restricted firearm. The buyer will then pay the seller the remainder of the money owed him. The seller then transfers the firearm to you. To be honest with you the cost of most class lll firearms has become to expensive for most people.

Edited November 7, 2005 by TacticalResponse

[Grau_Tek 0]

the fact that its become so prohibitively expensive is the whle point

all it is is second amendment infringing class warfare

[shaneman153a 39]

Can you buy an AK parts kit, apply for a class III, and then put a select fire FCG in it? I know you can't make any gun that was intended to be semi auto into an auto, but how do you know what it's intent is. For example, the krinkov 5.45 kit in the for sale board, I'm pretty certain that when it was manufactured, the intent was select fire. (I don't know for sure, if I'm wrong, educate me) Could you apply for the license and then build it that way?

[shooter2 5]

Can you buy an AK parts kit, apply for a class III, and then put a select fire FCG in it?

 

What do you mean, "apply for a Class III"? If you mean a manufacturing license, that's one thing. But if you mean paying your $200 tax stamp, then no. Manufacture of machine guns by non-licensed persons has been illegal since May 1986; the tax stamp only covers ownership of an MG that was registered prior to the cutoff date.

[shooter2 5]

Of course I lived in a small rural town at the time so it wasn't as hard for me to approach the police chief and ask him if he would sign one of the forms for me as if I had lived in a large city where he didn't have the time.

 

Your mileage may vary. I live in a "large city" and the Sheriff routinely signs ATF transfer forms. Just drop them off with the folks at Citizens Services, and they mail the forms back signed in a couple weeks. OTOH, I've heard of plenty of small-town sheriffs who will refuse to sign.

 

Well, he could of refused, and then I would of been up the creek on my gun.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of folks who satisfy BATFE's definition of "chief law enforcement officer" should the Sheriff refuse to sign. Judges, Assistant DAs, State/City police chiefs, etc. - as long as they have jurisdiction in the area where you live. If all that fails, you can always form a corporation and eliminate the need for the CLEO sign-off altogether.

 

To my Knowledge unless laws have changed a DD is diferent from a class lll. A DD can mean many different things. A mortar, an M203 40mm grenade launcher. A class lll? select fire weapon with the ability to have different barrel options.

 

In terms of Federal law, a Destructive Device is no different from other Title II or NFA weapons such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns/rifles; the same BATFE forms are used to transfer and register them (there's really no such thing as a "Class III" weapon, but that's a discussion for a different day). If the CLEO will sign for an SBR or MG, he (theoretically) should sign for a DD, too, assuming they're legal in your state. And that's where things might get sticky. Indiana, for example, allows all types of NFA devices except for short-barreled shotguns and explosive DDs. "Large bore" DDs are fine, however. Other states may regulate different classes of NFA weapons differently.

[Caspian 32]

o.k., time for a refresher course in MG 101. The following text is FACT. There is no speculation or misinformation. If you want to verify it, please do so at a reputable MG site such as www.subguns.com. If you choose to take it to your smoky corner gunshop with the old crank guy behind the counter and ask for his take, odds are, he'll agree with the misinformation above.

 

Based on the declaration of Street Sweepers being DDs here's what will happen:

 

The ATF will distribute flyers to gunshop and take out ads in SGN (Shotgun News) informing the public that Saiga 12's are classified as DDs.

 

Owners will have an amenisty period (say 1 year for example) to register their Saigas on a form 4.

 

Generally you would have to pay $200 for registeration of an item on a Form 4 (you can legally manufacture your own suppressor by doing so on a Form 4) and get Cheif Law Enforcement signature.

 

However, with amnesties, the ATF waives the $200 fee and CLEO signature.

 

All subsequent transfers will require the $200 and signoffs.

 

For what it's worth, the NFA branch has moved to WV and been restaffed with folks who actually work rather than those who fill affirmative action positions. therefore, transfers have gone much quicker.

 

Caspian

Edited November 7, 2005 by Caspian

[AegisDei 2]

I feel like this is crossing a dangerous bridge, but I'm curious and I figure y'all will be educated enough to teach me, and hopefully gentle enough not to tear me up. All of these firearm restrictions seem very unconstitutional to me, however, to my knowledge there's never been a gun case tried at the level of the supreme court. I could be wrong here, so please inform me if I am and if you really want to receive some brownie points, can you please link to the cases and arguments? I'm going to law school next year and trying to decide between Constitutional Law and Patent Law. There's more money in Patent, but if I could help protect my rights and the American Dream, I'd rather do that.

 

So assuming I'm not terribly wrong about how few cases find their way to the supreme court, I've been told it's because folks are scared that right now all restrictions are done legislatively. This provides some level of protection because the legislative body is stupid and can't get a gun law right to save their asses. Some of the restrictions suck, but for the most part we'll still be able to have most of our guns. So are cases just not getting to the supreme court because none of the restrictions are THAT bad? Or is it because people are scared that the court would take statutory law and turn it into a full-blown constitutional precedent which would make it much more permanent and hard to change? I realize, if we lose at the supreme court level instead of just legislative it's all down hill, but what if we win?

 

Getting these cases into the court takes gun issues to a very dangerous arena with slippery slopes in every direction, but the more restrictions that get passed, the harder it will be later to make a stand IMHO. The ban of the .50 in california, now they're trying to take away pistols in California, there's rumors of more AWBs. It seems like we're just getting desensitized to losing our weapons. So what's the deal? Especially now...Bush has counter-balanced the court and is finally stacking it with textualists and constructionists, so wouldn't these restrictions get vetoed as unconstitutional and forever set the precedent that civilians have every right to bear arms?

 

Please enlighten me...Thanks!

[Caspian 32]

The case law history is beyond me, so i will defer to someone else. Maybe Tony Rumore could step in.

 

However, this link may give you some direction:

James Bardwells Law info

 

Caspian

[dinzag 31]

I'm going to law school next year and trying to decide between Constitutional Law and Patent Law. There's more money in Patent, but if I could help protect my rights and the American Dream, I'd rather do that.

I deal with patent attorneys on a regular basis...every couple months we have a new one...very high turnaround rate (and suicide, I imagine)

You really have to love doing that to stick with it. Dave, our last agent, got into it for the $$$, but he left after 4 months because it was mentally taxing.

Good luck with your quest - hope it works out for you!

[shooter2 5]

However, with amnesties, the ATF waives the $200 fee and CLEO signature.

 

ATF memo from the 2001 amnesty closing indicates that the $200 payment for the tax stamp was waived, but does not mention the CLEO sign-off being waived.

 

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel...ling.2001-1.txt

[Caspian 32]

ATF required owners of these guns to register them, as NFA weapons. This is not exactly an amnesty, as the weapons were not NFA weapons when made. While ATF has not required the payment of the $200 making/transfer tax to register them, they had required the registrant obtain the law enforcement certification on the registration paperwork (Form 1). According

to the 7/95 Machine Gun News, NFA Branch has now dropped the requirement for the law enforcement certification on the initial Form 1 registration, subsequent transfers will be by regular NFA procedures.

 

this quote is from Cruffler Legal

 

caspian

 

p.s. the correct registration for initial manufacturing of a DD is Form 1, not form 4.

[jimmbswu 0]

After the first gun act passed, the one in the 1920s that started the taxes on SBRs, SBSs, and machine guns, there was a challenge, I think it was "Miller". Forgot if the Miller case was in the '20s or '50s, but it involved an SBS.

 

The supreme court ruled that Congress has the right to regulate inter-state commerce by requiring the tax and registration on firearms sold inter-state. On the other hand, only states have the right to tax and register firearms intra-state.

 

Congress expanded the regulation in 1986 NFA by banning manufacture of machine guns altogether.

 

You can probably make the case that the 1986 NFA infringed on states' rights because hobby manufacturing of MGs should fall under intra-state commerce. Plus, the 1986 NFA overstepped the commerce clause as well.

[icarus 3]

Ok This is what I found;

 

There is no "Class III" definition of a firearm, Class III is the FFL required to deal in NFA weapons. "NFA" regulated weapons, National Firearms Act, fall under a few diff categories. You have "SBR"s, AOW"s, the infamous "DD", and machineguns.

 

SBR; Short Barreled Rifle is a rifle with a barrel less than 16 in.

AOW; Any other Weapon is either a short barreled shotgun, a pistol with a front grip, or pen guns.

DD is pretty much anything over half inch caliber, with the exception of most shotguns.

Machine Gun is anything that fires two or more rounds with one pull of the trigger

 

If you want to build new DD's or machineguns you need an "SOT", special occupational tax stamp. If you just want to "deal" in them you need a Class III FFL. But if you have an "SOT" and a class II FFL you may deal in them because the SOT allows you to build them.

 

About a year ago I came across a web site that had a collection of regs regarding everything from the Brady bill to vulcan canons. I don't know how correct any of it is, but it looked pretty good. When I get home I'll try to find the website and post a link to it. I think it info on street sweepers too.

Edited November 7, 2005 by icarus

[kmoore 3]

Indiana, for example, allows all types of NFA devices except for short-barreled shotguns and explosive DDs. "Large bore" DDs are fine, however. Other states may regulate different classes of NFA weapons differently.

 

IIRC, Virginia specifically bans street sweepers and striker 12's

[TacticalResponse 0]

So much of this involves wether a state will or will not allow certain devices and then what type of devices that they will allow.

Edited November 7, 2005 by TacticalResponse

[expeditionx 1]

If DD's are truely just regulated by name and not design then one solution may be to create an exact duplicate receiver and just swap out the original.

 

This being done before the saiga becomes nonimportable because of DD designation will allow someone to assemble a rifle out of imported parts and get your polaroid pictures notarized by at least one notary public

before the declaration of DD date. You do not even need a serial number if you do a home made receiver.

But, once saiga shotguns are declared DD's assembling one with a clone receiver is creating a non-importable out of imported parts.

 

However, (not sure if you can or cannot )if you can make a homemade street sweeper out of non-foreign parts then maybe even after saiga shotguns are declared DD's you should be able to swap out the receiver for a clone and get the 922 compliance parts in and it you avoided registering and paying.

I would personally rather swap out before an official ATF ruling.

[TacticalResponse 0]

A destructive device is going to be ruled a destructive device by the government wether it's domestic or foriegn it doesn't matter. If they have their minds set on doing it believe me their going to do it. If you change something on the firearm they will say that what you did was illegal and they will conficate it, or change a rule that will make it illegal. You have to remember that destructive devices have to be registered. Their not like a normal firearm. The same ownership rights don't apply as with a regular firearm. Owning a registered firearm is considered a privilege by the NFA not a right. We have had some legal recourse with them over imported semi-automatic rifles. Import extensions ect. Not with restricted weapons or weapons that they want restricted. It's a no win situation when they have their minds made up. Especially when the left is in office.

Edited November 8, 2005 by TacticalResponse

[Bvamp 604]

the only way they can DD the saiga12 is if a drum of any quantity, or if a mag over 10 rounds of capacity is manufactured and sold to the general public for it. believe me, they are watching for that. that is all everyone is saying.

 

about the DD grandfathering thing. im not disagreeing by any means with whats been said but I just want to point out that not everyone will be able to FIND an official of adequate reference to SIGN OFF on it. nevermind individual state and couty laws NATIONWIDE that prohibit them in some areas.

 

this saiga12 IS THE BEST all-around shotgun Ive ever shot or owned. I would be mighty upset if I had to turn it in because someone got greedy and tried to sell huge mags for it. even though gun laws and gun control is highly illegal and a violation of my constitutional rights to begin with.

[TacticalResponse 0]

Bvamp if an ultra left wing liberal wins the election in 2008 do you really think that any of us would even be allowed to own any type of shotgun?

[pistonring8 1]

If you really want a drum or long assed stick mag that badly, fabricate one! Its not that difficult. As soon as I get a Saiga shotty, I might just make a few for myself. The key is that it is a home manufactured magazine. Not a mass produced, commercially available product. When high cap Saiga shotty mags are mass produced for the general public, then you are headed for a DD classification for shure.

 

So far I dont think there are enough Saiga shotties in the US (not to mention the %age of owners who desire a high cap mag) to gain the attention of a company to mass produce them. I dont think the market will ever be flooded with them. And I dont think you will ever see the price that you all paid for yours again.

 

So there will be few Saigas around and they will be more expensive. I wouldent sweat it too much.

[Bvamp 604]

if they ban guns, I have a reciept showing they were all sold in august sept 2004. with serial # rubbings.

 

and if that doesnt work, there is the barrel of oil under 6 feet of dirt trick.

 

then it is time to overthrow the tyrannical gov. and put patriots back in office, which is exactly why me you and they all HAVE guns in the first place. contrary to what people might say, the consitution doesnt provide for the right to bear ARMS to hunt with or for sport, but like i keep saying to ensure the people will never lose power over thier self-rule. it is disturbing how 150 years pass between people making game laws, and those laws somehow turn into general gun control laws. its fucking illegal. you cant shoot a whole flock of geese down with your 6 gauge, yeh fine, but someone should really explain to me sometime what that has to do if anything, with my right to bear ARMS.

[expeditionx 1]

Off the subject-Highly unlikely it would happen,

 

as I understood from a lawyer some time back. However, if their was a jury full of second amendment supporters

and someone was being tried for a gun violation based on either of the major gun control acts.

I was told that the jury can liberate the defendant based on their declaration that they as a jury find the written gun law in conflict with the constitution and therefore can set a presidence as a jury against the written gun control act as unconstitutional. But, I was told most juries didnt know they could do that.

Edited November 8, 2005 by expeditionx

[6500rpm 670]

Damn, I have to remember not to drink before I post anymore. Just got slightly emotional reading some of the posts related to Z's project. I'm legal zero on this subject, but can anyone back up Bvapm's views on mags, 10 rounds or less keeping us out of the red? Seems to be more than just a few on the board that are versed in legal issues that could put the masses at ease (actually that's where I was going at the start of the post). I'd like to hear some positive things as long as they are factual.

[TacticalResponse 0]

This goes back mostly to April and May of 1994 before the crime bill was passed when Klinton started using executive privilege to ban certain gun imports. Remember what he did to arms imports from China? Turning some shotguns into destructive devices? This was done before the crime bill was passed in May of that year. Some new laws were made from the oval office just days before it was signed. People often think ok the crime bill was allowed to sunset so everything is back to normal. Well lets try rolling back some of Klintons executive orders that effected shotguns and other firearms that most gun owners are not even aware of. All that I can say is good luck. Laws made by a sitting president using executive privilege bypassing congress are extremely difficult for the next president to undo.

Edited November 8, 2005 by TacticalResponse