Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

ATF Study on shotguns has further implications than importation of "certain" shotguns

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by desmocorse996, Apr 20, 2011.

  1. desmocorse996

    desmocorse996 Vancouver, WA Member

    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Second Amendment Rights Once Again at Risk

    Second Amendment Rights Once Again at Risk

    Americans continue to watch their Second Amendment rights diminish, this time as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ( still known as ATF) launches a campaign to change the definition of “shotgun.” According to the blog Beregond’s Bar, a recently released study by the Bureau will ultimately make shotguns illegal, and may also have negative implications for all guns.
    The ATF states that the purpose of the study is to “establish criteria that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will use to determine the importability of certain shotguns under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) …[which] generally [prohibit] the importation of firearms into the United States.”

    The study focuses specifically on the sporting purposes of shotguns, just as the ATF 1998 survey provided guidelines for determining the sporting purposes of rifles.

    Beregond’s Bar notes, “Sporting is one of the three main thrusts of gun control efforts in America. The other two are racism and those who openly advocate complete bans except for military and police.”

    Providing background on how sporting criteria is often utilized to advance gun control, Beregond’s Bar explains:

    Sporting use was how the original distinction was made about what weapons would be subject to a special tax in the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, and again in Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The congressional power to tax was used selectively to make ownership of weapons the government didn’t like burdensome and expensive. This was gun control via the back door, as even the ATF admits. As would become the pattern, politicians found that actually dealing with crime and criminals was difficult and expensive. Blaming guns and passing a law to look like they were doing something about it was much simpler.

    Declaring that activities that were “generally recognized” as legitimate “sporting purposes in previous studies are not necessarily the same as those activities that are generally recognized as sporting purposes in the modern era,” the study outlines a number of features of shotguns wherein “sporting use” cannot apply, many of which are common in hunting and self-defense:

    • Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

    • bayonet lugs;

    • flash suppressors;

    • magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

    • grenade-launcher mounts;

    • integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);

    • light enhancing devices;

    • excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);

    • excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

    • forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

    The study concludes that there should be a “limited exception to the general prohibition on the importation of firearms without placing any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions of burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms.” Though the ATF contends that its determinations will have no impact on “true sporting shotguns,” it admits that they will “certainly prevent the importation of certain shotguns.”

    The study also recommends that “sporting determinations for shotguns not specifically addressed by this study be reviewed by a panel pursuant to ATF orders, policies and procedures, as appropriate.”

    According to Beregond’s Bar, however, the intentions are far more sinister than the study purports: “The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation.”

    Beregond’s Bar notes that while there are a number of objections to be raised over the study, including its method of determining “true sporting shotguns,” the greatest objection is how the criteria measure up to the Constitution:

    But there is a far more basic objection that must be raised to this new attempt at regulatory gun ban — Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is there anything about a “sporting purpose.” The second amendment says:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Nary a “sporting purpose” in sight in the entire document. So where did it come from?

    A sporting requirement certainly seemed to be the last thing on the mind of George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment, who observed, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best way and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    While Second Amendment rights are already at risk from this study, as shotguns may be banned as a result of its determinations, Beregond’s Bar contends that the “sporting use” definition found in the study could eventually be applied to all guns:

    One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at [a gun] and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that if any ONE item is on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, then the gun is banned.

    So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns.

    It seems that proponents of gun control lack a fundamental understanding of the Second Amendment and the dignity it provides the American people as it affirms their last line of defense against tyranny. George Washington emphasized the importance of firearms and their assurance of liberty when he said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

    The variety of "acceptable" firearms, however, continues to decline via federal government regulation.
     
  2. armedredneck

    armedredneck Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    34
    Of course, why wouldn't they?

    My personal opinion, as I'm sure others have shared here before....is that our 2nd Amendment rights have been infringed all to **** already. The 2A says nothing about sporting purposes as the above article mentions. It also neither mentions hi-cap mags, automatic functionality, suppression, etc. etc....

    Pretty sure the founders were not concerned with our "hunting rights". Pretty sure they considered that a given and didn't see the need to write it down. The citizenry was expected to keep their weapons to defend themselves and ward off tyranny. At that time the early Americans had weapons of similar stature to the ones carried by the oppressors they were fighting. Why can't that hold true today? I think that's a valid argument for being allowed to own anything I want. Up to and including a tank or a fighter jet.

    It's a farce that I have to get a permit to exercise my right to bear a firearm on my person. It shouldn't matter whether it's out in the open or concealed. There's nothing there about needing a permit to bear arms.

    After the Arizona shooting, all the talking heads and politicos were questioning why anyone would ever need a 33 rd mag for a pistol. "Because I may need it to fight oppression", should be a valid reason. None other required.

    Just my 2 cents. It just jerks me that they walk all over us like this.
     
  3. spookshack

    spookshack Forest Grove, OR Life Member Lifetime Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    262
    Amen, brother!
     
  4. Nwcid

    Nwcid Yakima and N of Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    1,480
  5. Smokey85

    Smokey85 Vancouver Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    WOW.
    Gun control and CCW should be simple. to get concealed carry it should be background check, fingerprints etc. but it shouldn't be up to the state to regulate it it should be a federal permit. (oh but that would take revenue from the state too bad) if the state doesn't support it they shouldn't get federal funding. if everyone had a federal CCW (not FFL) the law should be you can buy a firearm wherever within the U.S. importation should be regulated on firearms (not for reasons of sporting purpose but to protect our gun economy in US) since we don't want the market to be flooded with cheap guns which eventually end up in the hands of bad guys. (most of the time) you don't see gang bangers or robbers using high end weapons generally speaking. on full automatic weapons, class 3 etc. There should be some form of control on that as well, so we don't have a revert to violence by force (mafia types) that's too may bullets carelessly aimed about causing collateral. On this there should be like a flat 200 dollar fee every so often 3-5 years and additional screening i.e. mental eval. should be done. but then add it to your concealed permit as an identifier, like a motorcycle endorsement on a drivers license. Law's should be simple and concise not needing an attorney/litigator to understand so everyone knows it. pretty simple. as far as explosives, thats a class of its own!! larger weapons like deck guns etc. come on now do we really need them? (by deck guns i'm talking anything bigger than a 50 bmg. unless you have an old collector's tank or something you want to fire blanks or training rounds or something, but how many folks have those and where would you go to shoot it? honestly though, we have the 2nd amendment for a reason but we have these crazy reg.s that the old government law is you can add but not take away. and you can't just have guns without the ATF or similar agency because there has to be a balance. I feel this is fair, reasonable and logical. will it ever happen? probably not. but its a nice thought.
     
  6. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    I really don't want to respond to this and give it any validity but since you're all over the board posting this nonsense I feel I must

    The 2nd Amendment does not allow ANY infringement of the RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS. There is no line you or anyone else can draw on military arms types, calibers, etc that does not violate the 2nd Amendment, and CCW permits are also unconstitutional
     
    Buddhalux and (deleted member) like this.
  7. armedredneck

    armedredneck Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    34
    Thankyou Sir! That was exactly my point. Would I own a tank or a fighter jet? Probably not. Not really in the budget. But I shouldn't be told that I can't.
     
  8. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    The amendment says ARMS.. not merely guns. The Colonists had cannons, mortars, hand grenades, rockets and more at the outbreak of hostilities in 1775, and thank God they did. The good reason for us being as well armed as the government has only been re-enforced since they began to seriously restrict our weapons liberties in 1934

    There may be a point of no return in the near future as the government obtains the latest technology which may obsolete our small arms. That will be the totalitarian end game.. what would the Founders say?
     
  9. armedredneck

    armedredneck Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    34
    Thankyou for your input. Now please relocate to San Fran with the rest of the hippies.
     
  10. Nwcid

    Nwcid Yakima and N of Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    + 1000
     
  11. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Smokey85:

    Thanks for the jokes, I needed a good laugh today!!

    Have you posted this in the jokes section yet?

    8 US Presidents have been NRA members. They are: Ulysses S. Grant,
    Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
    John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

    80 MILLION gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

    Deen
    NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
    Washington Arms Collector member
     
  12. Smokey85

    Smokey85 Vancouver Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lmao,
    Do you even know why restrictions which I do agree with you are wrong but it's a sad reality were put in place? Because of the time period where we had all the lawlessness and gangsters out gunning police, hurting folks. People were up in arms saying something had to be done. Not saying th right thing was done at all but for the time period it worked. I'm not a hippie lol and I'm not from the land of fruits and nuts. I'm just saying that even though it does violate the constitution would be a better compromise than our current laws today!! Now if you had the money to buy an M1 Abrams tank (approximately $5-12m) I wouldn't have a problem with it but the better question is where would u shoot it? I personally like Alaska's view on concealed carry. Lol open carry or concealed no permit necessary. But the sad reality is that today it's not gonna happen. Too many liberals with their signs and unrealistic views on the world. That thinking is crazy! But I feel a good compromise like the one proposed would be more realistic in today's world. I'm a firm believer in speaking softly but carrying a big gun. (or guns) think reality though and what can realistically be accomplished that idea could be feasible I believe if it got enough support. If those were the laws are you kidding me life would be way better than currently.
     
  13. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMLfIBWH7gzc4v9aD2q5PuPHT20IfJHBQlOPvy_KZUlCZtz-ARQA.jpg
     
  14. Smokey85

    Smokey85 Vancouver Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    Crap on my iPhone in first part it says I do spell check must have changed it. I don't agree with the restrictions
     
  15. Smokey85

    Smokey85 Vancouver Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    Deens you mean it's not in the jokes segment????
     
  16. armedredneck

    armedredneck Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    34
    I understand and respect your point about how we have to face the reality of the situation. However, I do not agree with it. That's why we are where we are today. "Well they've been handing us turds for years, so I guess I'll accept this shiny new one they're handing me now". It's apathy and it's gotten us to the "Mother May I" point. I stand by my original reasoning that pretty much ANY regulations are infringement.

    To answer your question.....I would shoot it pretty much anywhere I wanted. Who's gonna stop me. I have a tank. :laugh:
     
    Smokey85 and (deleted member) like this.
  17. joeroket

    joeroket Everett,Wa. Active Member

    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    25
    What SCOTUS case states that? I have read many that actually contradict your statement.
     
  18. miletwo

    miletwo Gresham, Oregon Member

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    4
    Why does a supreme court ruling have validity over the constitution if the ruling is wrong? That makes no sense. I'm sure we could find MANY SCOTUS cases that contradict the constitution.
     
  19. armedredneck

    armedredneck Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    34
    SCOTUS is part of the problem. They're helping to infringe. I highly doubt that you would find an opinion that reflects the same view that I and Blitz have shared here.

    I don't doubt at all that you've found several opinions that contradict.
     
  20. RB87

    RB87 Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    228

    Right. The 1934 NFA... a law that was passed 5 years after the big St. Valentines Day massacre in 1929. And why did this gang battle take place? Why it was over illegal booze aka during Prohibition, a ban made via ammendment to the Constitution. An ammendment that was repealed in 1933. So if the cause of that gangster massacre, alcohol prohibition was reversed why did the government need to control firearms, especially those new "tommy guns" that could fire full auto?