GunBroker.com Message Forums
Review our Posting Guidelines
GunBroker.com Message Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 GunBroker.com Message Forums
 Gun Rights and Constitutional Law
 ATF about to outlaw certain shotguns

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
kissgoodnight Posted - 04/20/2012 : 09:15:31 AM
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9223


ATF to accept public comments prior to outlawing shotguns

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is taking a rare step of allowing public comments prior to issuing a decision on a study that could result in outlawing certain types of shotguns currently available to citizens.

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined "Sporting Purpose" test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be "military" by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

Ironically, many shotguns with "military" features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.

Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it "will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns."

The ATF is currently allowing public comments on the study until the end of the month. Those wishing to express concerns about the study can send an email to shotgunstudy@atf.gov
12   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Barzillia Posted - 05/05/2012 : 7:30:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zulu7

My email to the ATF:

Dear ATF:

Allow me to draw your attention to a portion of the text in this link:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Specifically, where it says "Amendment II:"

"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."

Let me educate those of you who have difficulty understanding that sentence.

In 1789, when the Bill of Rights was ratified and added to the Constitution as a further limitation of the U.S. Government's power, a "Militia" was a group of citizens who were in no way associated with the U.S. Military. They were charged with the defense of their homes and communities in the event of war or other conflict.

In this case, a "free State" is in reference to a state of being, not a geo-political region outlined by lines on a map.

I'm not sure what else can make "the right of the people" more clear. It is a right to be used and enjoyed by the people, not the government.

"...to keep and bear Arms" is also quite clear. Not only do the people have the right to own arms (in this case, it is in reference to military-grade weaponry, as military and civilian weaponry were identical in 1789), but they also have the right to carry them and, if need be, use them.

But all of that pales in comparison to the last four words of the Amendment: "shall not be infringed."

The use of the words "shall not" is an absolute. It is ministerial, very much in the same way that Wisconsin's domestic abuse laws say that the officer "shall arrest." It does not leave room for negotiation, compromise, or discretion.

"...be infringed." For a definition of the word "infringe," I direct your attention to the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

For those of you who don't want to read it, it says:

"Infringe (transitive verb): to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another."

By the very nature of Amendment II of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America, any law, regulation, or other such limitations by the Government or its Agencies is un-Constitutional, and therefore, in the United States of America, illegal. In fact, the very existence of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is un-Constitutional, and any regulations made by the BATFE regarding the legality of shotguns would also be un-Constitutional.

So allow me to close with the following:

If you ever have a collective thought or idea that makes the BATFE consider passing a new regulation that limits the types of firearms the citizens of the United States of America can legally own or possess, read the 2nd Amendment again...and again and again, and then ask yourselves the following question: "Does this idea infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" If the answer to that question is "Yes," then don't do it. Ever.

Thank you for your time.

Jake Jennerman
U.S. Citizen




No, it does not.
llama girl Posted - 05/02/2012 : 4:48:10 PM
It goes to show that anytime I fall in lust with a semi-auto the gun snatchers find a way to take it away. My Saiga 12 gauge has a 20 rnd drum.Sigh.
A long time ago a friend said to me citizen doesn't need a 30 rnd clip for any sporting purpose. Wrong! I can chase a rabbit arond a field with no intention of killing it. He said that's a waste of money. I replied, IT'S MY MONEY. As well as the fact I can "hunt" the same rabbit all I want. GO for it law enforcement types, salty satire types. I live in the sticks,But you can see the boonies from here. I have law enfocement next door. The only time he says much of anything about it is when I fire my cannon his dogs hide under the desk and pee on the floor. No projectiles just packed power.
45long Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:35:17 AM
I get that. What I'm saying is that this is not a competition shotgun. And if you talking trap guns, 1,000 isn't squat. I know guys that have 5K O/U's. Heck, I have a 1K in my tactical Vang Comp 12G. What I was saying is that the new Kel-Tec bullpup 12, is not practical as a comp gun.
azpowerwagon Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:13:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 45long

Yeah well. I guess that is an option in those sports. However. I don't see that it will be a popular choice. I don't see a lot of shotguns used in these events with a drum magazine either. It's interesting, but I don't think it is very practical. As for restricting it, Not really needed. The price will keep it a toy for the collector. I really don't see it as being popular on a wide spread demographic. $1,600 to an extreme of $2,600 will keep it controlled with out formal restrictions.



This price range is just getting started for a lot of serious shooters in these sports.And I'm not talking about the pros either. Heck, a trap/skeet shooter will spend $1000 on that O/U.
45long Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:24:35 AM
Yeah well. I guess that is an option in those sports. However. I don't see that it will be a popular choice. I don't see a lot of shotguns used in these events with a drum magazine either. It's interesting, but I don't think it is very practical. As for restricting it, Not really needed. The price will keep it a toy for the collector. I really don't see it as being popular on a wide spread demographic. $1,600 to an extreme of $2,600 will keep it controlled with out formal restrictions.
azpowerwagon Posted - 05/01/2012 : 09:28:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 45long

I'm guessing the new Kel-Tec double mag tube bullpup 12Ga. is the reason for this new interest. And while the 2nd never mentions "sporting Purposes", even I would be hard pressed to figure out how the new Kel-Tech couold fit into such a catagory. I was wondering when it would happen. Sure didn't take it long.



IPSC,USPSA,IDPA....you know, all those shooting sports.
45long Posted - 04/30/2012 : 6:12:41 PM
I'm guessing the new Kel-Tec double mag tube bullpup 12Ga. is the reason for this new interest. And while the 2nd never mentions "sporting Purposes", even I would be hard pressed to figure out how the new Kel-Tech couold fit into such a catagory. I was wondering when it would happen. Sure didn't take it long.
MudderChuck Posted - 04/20/2012 : 10:18:26 AM
I really don't think they think these things through when they make up many of these regulations. Even the three shot plug rule is kind of stupid IMO. Outlawing bayonets is also right up there on my stupid list.

To me it is all about options. Anytime they limit the capabilities they are limiting the options.

When I go Pheasant hunting I stack the tube with two rounds of two or four shot, one of Buck and two slugs. Few times in my life have I ever gotten off more than two shots at a Pheasant. I have flushed Fox and needed the buckshot for distance. I've also walked up on a sleeping Boar and/or come face to face with a Deer. Most times they take off the other direction, if they don't I want options. I have been charged by a Deer.

IMO a good thing about a shotgun is it is easy to cycle, a throw away round cycled out, to get to one more appropriate to the situation can be done quickly. It's called flexibility.

A lot of guys here have bayonet lugs on there shotguns, it is what they use when going into heavy brush after a wounded Boar. Somebody who has never been there and done that, might not get it at all. You are walking through stuff so thick you can see about three feet. There is likely to be other hunters and/or dogs in there with you. All the noise and the Hogs don't see any better than you do, their situational awareness is just pretty much panic, they don't know which way to run. They come through the brush doing around 25 MPH and can be on you in a second, by instinct they take a couple of slashing bites on the way through. Leading with a bayonet is not a bad tactic, shooting into brush with your friends and dogs running around in there is just plain stupid.

Give me a double and a pocket full of shells and I'll fire two and reload two in about the same time you can fire five. I'll likely fire ten faster than you can.

IMO people make up these stupid rules just to whittle away at the whole gun ownership thing. Kind of a boiling the frog scenario, you turn the heat up slow and the frogs don't don't notice until they are cooked. These suckers pop out periodically and pass some legislation then submerge again and hide in the bureaucracy.

A bayonet is another option, wouldn't it be better to back somebody out the door at bayonet point than having to shoot them? And or discourage a wild pig from crawling up your pants leg without having to shoot in an environment that is unsafe?

The difference in firing 14 rounds from one magazine and firing two magazines of 7 rounds is maybe 2-3 seconds difference. If I had a slap forehead smiley I'd put it here.

I've shot competitions with a revolver against a 13-14 shot magazine auto. And at the end of the competition they got off maybe 4-5 more rounds that I did. I'm not all that quick or agile and just used a pocket full of old school speed loaders in my field jacket pocket. It really isn't how many rounds you can get off anyway, it is how many that hit that count.
wpage Posted - 04/20/2012 : 10:08:15 AM
Bending and breaking the rules seems to be the "way" of the current federal direction...

Its a shame that the the stroke of a pen in certain hierarchic can ruin the plans of decent law abiding citizens.
Viktor Posted - 04/20/2012 : 09:48:27 AM
My email to the ATF:

Dear ATF:

Allow me to draw your attention to a portion of the text in this link:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Specifically, where it says "Amendment II:"

"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."

Let me educate those of you who have difficulty understanding that sentence.

In 1789, when the Bill of Rights was ratified and added to the Constitution as a further limitation of the U.S. Government's power, a "Militia" was a group of citizens who were in no way associated with the U.S. Military. They were charged with the defense of their homes and communities in the event of war or other conflict.

In this case, a "free State" is in reference to a state of being, not a geo-political region outlined by lines on a map.

I'm not sure what else can make "the right of the people" more clear. It is a right to be used and enjoyed by the people, not the government.

"...to keep and bear Arms" is also quite clear. Not only do the people have the right to own arms (in this case, it is in reference to military-grade weaponry, as military and civilian weaponry were identical in 1789), but they also have the right to carry them and, if need be, use them.

But all of that pales in comparison to the last four words of the Amendment: "shall not be infringed."

The use of the words "shall not" is an absolute. It is ministerial, very much in the same way that Wisconsin's domestic abuse laws say that the officer "shall arrest." It does not leave room for negotiation, compromise, or discretion.

"...be infringed." For a definition of the word "infringe," I direct your attention to the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

For those of you who don't want to read it, it says:

"Infringe (transitive verb): to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another."

By the very nature of Amendment II of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America, any law, regulation, or other such limitations by the Government or its Agencies is un-Constitutional, and therefore, in the United States of America, illegal. In fact, the very existence of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is un-Constitutional, and any regulations made by the BATFE regarding the legality of shotguns would also be un-Constitutional.

So allow me to close with the following:

If you ever have a collective thought or idea that makes the BATFE consider passing a new regulation that limits the types of firearms the citizens of the United States of America can legally own or possess, read the 2nd Amendment again...and again and again, and then ask yourselves the following question: "Does this idea infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" If the answer to that question is "Yes," then don't do it. Ever.

Thank you for your time.

Jake Jennerman
U.S. Citizen
m88.358win Posted - 04/20/2012 : 09:20:58 AM

Odd they refer to "military-type" shotguns. The military uses sporting shotguns that are modified to accept bayonets, have longer magazines and heat shields. The Remington 870, Mossberg 500 and 590, Ithaca, Stevens and Bennelli are all sporting guns. This sounds like a ruse to disarm the American public. Next, they'll be referring to "sniper rifles" to outlaw bolt action rifles.



cpermd Posted - 04/20/2012 : 09:20:26 AM
Maam, check the date.
That is over a year old.

Nothing came of it.

CP

GunBroker.com Message Forums © 1999-2014 GB Investments, Inc. All Rights Reserved Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.06


Visit GunBroker.com at: www.gunbroker.com
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the site's User Agreement
Site Map