ATF going after shotguns now

[comp73]

Looks like the ATF is now going after shotguns.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... in-at-risk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a PDF of the ATF document.

http://atf.gov/publications/firearms/01 ... otguns.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And finally, the ATF e-mail so we can tell them what a bunch of bull this is

shotgunstudy@atf.gov

My apologies if this is a repost, but I did attempt a search.

[RPB]

Don't expect an answer if you contact the atf

To: <shotgunstudy@atf.gov>
Subject: Question
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:51:09 -0500

I have no interest at all in hunting or killing animals, but I'm curious why you would try to limit or regulate what tool a person can use for self defense in their own home?

If 5 home invaders break into a handicapped person's home who has only 1 hand at night, why couldn't he have a 15 round .410 shotgun with a pistol grip or device to help him maintain control of it and a flashlight and laser? Why do you object to that?
-----------------

Something similar to your post, though not as complete I think, was posted but in reference to why SAIGA shotguns recently increased in price, and got harder to find..... and may be harder to import, and a picatinny rail for a flashlight makes them more assaultive instead of duck-hunty guns. (I see nowhere that they are regulating self-defense weapons, but through a back door of "these are not for "sporting" ... which is a false premise that "sporting is ..... the .... ONLY legitimate use."

But you may have heard ....
the ONLY use for a gun is ..... to kill and maim
the ONLY use for a foot long assault clip is .... to spray lots of bullets real fast


I still propose that the ONLY use for shoes is to allow mass murderers to run around faster to do more damage and they should be banned.... Not every mass murderer used this or that gun or magazine but every one of them wore shoes ....

[mrvmax]

Looks like the ATF is now going after shotguns.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... in-at-risk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a PDF of the ATF document.

http://atf.gov/publications/firearms/01 ... otguns.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And finally, the ATF e-mail so we can tell them what a bunch of bull this is

shotgunstudy@atf.gov

My apologies if this is a repost, but I did attempt a search.

If I am reading correctly it is only imported shotguns not for sporting purposes (at least that was what was in the summary). Not that it makes things much better, but eventually there will be no more Saiga's and other imports.

[hirundo82]

If I am reading correctly it is only imported shotguns not for sporting purposes (at least that was what was in the summary).

That's all that the GCA allows them to go after. If they had the authority to do more than that, you can bet this administration would be pushing them to do so.

[RPB]

"not for sporting purposes"

Wish I could do Venn diagrams on here

"Home Defense" is "not for Sporting purposes"
By having power to regulate everything "not for sporting purposes" they infringe upon "home defense" 2nd Amendment self-protection.

Seems like an Act (Gun Control Act/Assault Weapons Ban) is at least in part, unconstitutional if it allows infringement on "self-defense/home defense. I didn't research laws on this much, but I can't see constitutionality of regulating home defense.

[hirundo82]

Seems like an Act (Gun Control Act/Assault Weapons Ban) is at least in part, unconstitutional if it allows infringement on "self-defense/home defense. I didn't research laws on this much, but I can't see constitutionality of regulating home defense.

I'm not sure that an "Assault Weapons" Ban would be found unconstitutional, but a law that restricts firearms to those suitable to "sporting purposes" would seem to conflict with the key holding in Heller--that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes.

[RPB]

Seems like an Act (Gun Control Act/Assault Weapons Ban) is at least in part, unconstitutional if it allows infringement on "self-defense/home defense. I didn't research laws on this much, but I can't see constitutionality of regulating home defense.

I'm not sure that an "Assault Weapons" Ban would be found unconstitutional, but a law that restricts firearms to those suitable to "sporting purposes" would seem to conflict with the key holding in Heller--that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes.

I propose that given that there are 2 sides in any armed conflict, one is used for assault, and if assaulted, the other is used for defense of that assault, and often, they are the same weapon. So, assault weapons are, or can be defensive weapons. When either one drops his gun and the other party picks it up, it is often used for the "other purpose"

If an enemy with an assault weapon gives it up and you are holding it, and you are attacked by another enemy, the former assault weapon becomes a defensive weapon against the new enemy holding an assault weapon, which is identical to the one you use to defend yourself..

I've read News reports of AK-47 defending homes, Dr. Suzanna Hupp testified of what an AR-15 defending homes?
I'd bet SKS rifles have too.

But , picatinney rails, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and a pistol grip make them only useful for assault and useless for defense ..
(Those grips/stocks/flashlight mounts must make the bullet come out harder so it is more bad?)

[Tamie]

The ultimate law of America says shall not be infringed.

Once we allowed them shove us down the slippery slope, one temporary stopping point is as good as another.

[RPB]

yup

shall not be infringed

ok we'll regulate "sporting" ...
Capacity= no more than # shells in a shotgun for ducks
this caliber or bigger for deer
Steel no lead shot

which became (to the ATF)
ok we'll regulate everything NOT "sporting"
no pistol grips
no collapsible stocks
no flashlight mount
etc


And
N.Y wants
can't be pink

Soooo ... how'd that happen ...

[Dave2]

So... since this is only a ban on importing Saiga 12s, what's to stop some domestic manufacturer from cloning it and selling them?

[The Mad Moderate]

So... since this is only a ban on importing Saiga 12s, what's to stop some domestic manufacturer from cloning it and selling them?

As far as I understand this, this will do nothing to change domestic shotguns, it only applies to the imported shotguns. While it still makes no sense to me I'd rather have american made anyway.

[Dave2]

So... since this is only a ban on importing Saiga 12s, what's to stop some domestic manufacturer from cloning it and selling them?

As far as I understand this, this will do nothing to change domestic shotguns, it only applies to the imported shotguns. While it still makes no sense to me I'd rather have american made anyway.

As would I, but I can't find any American-made magazine-fed shotguns. Oh, except the AA12, but they don't make that in a civilian version.

[hirundo82]

So... since this is only a ban on importing Saiga 12s, what's to stop some domestic manufacturer from cloning it and selling them?

As far as I understand this, this will do nothing to change domestic shotguns, it only applies to the imported shotguns. While it still makes no sense to me I'd rather have american made anyway.

As would I, but I can't find any American-made magazine-fed shotguns. Oh, except the AA12, but they don't make that in a civilian version.

It basically comes down to the fact that they don't want you to have magazine-fed semiauto shotguns. I'll bet if some domestic manufacturer started making them that the ATF would declare them destructive devices (possible because they have a bore greater than 0.5").

It all rests on the "sporting purposes" test of the Gun Control Act, a clause IMO that is very vulnerable to a Second Amendment challenge.

[Purplehood]

I submit that the letter "F" be removed from BATFE. In my mind there is no purpose in regulating Firearms unless one is a convicted Felon or it can be demonstrated that an existing law is being violated. Those are all areas covered by varying levels of Law Enforcement already.

[hirundo82]

Nothing that the ATF does couldn't be handled by other law enforcement agencies. Most of the things they police should constitutionally be handled by the states--gun sales, NFA items, criminal possession of firearms. Trafficking in alcohol and tobacco could be handled by the IRS (it's mostly a tax issue anyhow), and any related criminal activities could be handled fine by the DEA. Maybe send a few people over to the FBI to handle regulation of explosives.

The ATF's virtually only purpose is firearms--take that away and there is no reason for them to continue to exist.