Page 1 of 9 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 121
  1. #1
    10,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    F*CK Mexifornia
    Posts
    10,011

    Default Could Your Shotgun Soon be Outlawed?

    Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way

    What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

    In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on Redstate.com), author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling.

    Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more.

    Part 1, which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns:

    The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons.

    [...]

    Sporting use 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. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day.

    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.

    Part 2
    , which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense:

    In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.”

    However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays.

    In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3.)

    One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use:

    (1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

    (2) bayonet lugs;

    (3) flash suppressors;

    (4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

    (5) grenade-launcher mounts;

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

    (7) light enhancing devices;

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

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

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

    Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports.

    Part 3, which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use:

    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?

    And finally, Part 4, which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed:

    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 guns 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 any ONE item 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, and the gun is banned.

    So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”

    Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here.

    But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address.

    Interesting.



    *According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.

    UPDATE:

    Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette covered the ATF’s study, too. He puts in terms of “military”-style shotguns vs. others. But, he notes, according to the specifications used, “military” could apply to so many shotguns:

    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.”

  2. #2
    5000+
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Alfar Territories
    Posts
    5,178

    Default

    well... they can TRY to take it... :O
    Originally Posted by Daggermaniac
    The only DF player that I have expected of Aim Botting is Zato Ichi.

  3. #3
    10,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    F*CK Mexifornia
    Posts
    10,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zato`1 View Post
    well... they can TRY to take it... :O

    I think the same way. I will own a shotgun by the end of the month. My initial plan was to own a IZ-109 aka Saiga 12. With the price going up to about $750 I doubt I will be picking one up.. unless I can sell my PSL for a good $900-$1000. What I will most likely be doing is picking up a pump 12 gauge and sticking with that, regardless, as I have said before. Putting holes in baby blue helmets will be a sport of mine if anyone attempts to rid me of my personal protection.

  4. #4
    Banned US1 Player
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [LoD] EE View Post
    Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way

    What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

    In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on Redstate.com), author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling.

    Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more.

    Part 1, which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns:

    The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons.

    [...]

    Sporting use 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. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day.

    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.

    Part 2
    , which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense:

    In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.”

    However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays.

    In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3.)

    One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use:

    (1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

    (2) bayonet lugs;

    (3) flash suppressors;

    (4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

    (5) grenade-launcher mounts;

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

    (7) light enhancing devices;

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

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

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

    Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports.

    Part 3, which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use:

    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?

    And finally, Part 4, which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed:

    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 guns 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 any ONE item 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, and the gun is banned.

    So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”

    Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here.

    But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address.

    Interesting.



    *According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.

    UPDATE:

    Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette covered the ATF’s study, too. He puts in terms of “military”-style shotguns vs. others. But, he notes, according to the specifications used, “military” could apply to so many shotguns:

    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.”
    cool story bro.

  5. #5
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Lol, I can't wait for idiot rednecks to start killing and inevitably getting killed by cops. Can anyone say 2 birds 1 stone?

  6. #6

    Default

    Mexicans are tekkin arr jerbs

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [LoD] EE View Post
    I think the same way. I will own a shotgun by the end of the month. My initial plan was to own a IZ-109 aka Saiga 12. With the price going up to about $750 I doubt I will be picking one up.. unless I can sell my PSL for a good $900-$1000. What I will most likely be doing is picking up a pump 12 gauge and sticking with that, regardless, as I have said before. Putting holes in baby blue helmets will be a sport of mine if anyone attempts to rid me of my personal protection.
    So if the police come to take a gun from you, you are going to shoot them and go to jail?

  8. #8

    Default

    He will attempt to raise the weapon against the police, just as cholesterol claims another victim.

  9. #9
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    If you outlaw shotguns, only outlaws and hobos will have them.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    If you outlaw shotguns, only outlaws and hobos will have them.
    A hobo with a shotgun is quite awesome though.
    Wisdom Of Bots
    1, then tired, do not forget to smile; be anxious, but also pay attention to tone; no matter how tough, do not forget to adhere to; No matter how tired, but also love yourself.
    But we are jet modified and not faint-hearted of difficulties

  11. #11

    Default

    outlaws and hobos having shotguns is not enough. Let's give them to rednecks, too..



    Owait.

  12. #12

    Default

    Benelli, accept no substitute.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uHt4AwYb4
    Wisdom Of Bots
    1, then tired, do not forget to smile; be anxious, but also pay attention to tone; no matter how tough, do not forget to adhere to; No matter how tired, but also love yourself.
    But we are jet modified and not faint-hearted of difficulties

  13. #13
    10,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    F*CK Mexifornia
    Posts
    10,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doomahx View Post
    So if the police come to take a gun from you, you are going to shoot them and go to jail?
    If someone came into my home uninvited to take my rights away from me, they would have to kill me to take them from me.

    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.
    My rights shall not be infringed.

    Quote Originally Posted by natedagreat View Post
    cool story bro.
    Its a good thing your parents didnt abort you so you could waste our oxygen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emolas View Post
    Mexicans are tekkin arr jerbs
    Yes they are. They just busted McDonalds for hiring of illegal aliens. Lots of citizens were not working because of that. Dont really know how that pertains to this conversation but at least your dumb ass is seeing the light finally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sqarak View Post
    Benelli, accept no substitute.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uHt4AwYb4
    Great shotguns but mighty expensive. I dont need a $700 shotgun for home defense. $400 shipped Mossberg 500 will do fine.

    I have not decided on which one yet. It will be my boat gun, in case something happens and I am stuck out in the wilderness for a bit, I have some form of defense against boar, mountain lions, bear, Christians or whatever else it is needed against.

    Mossberg 500 cruiser JIC

    Mossberg 500 Mariner JIC

  14. #14

    Default

    Against Christians I usually use a "torch-a-church"-kit.

    To be honest I really wonder how the US is ever going to round up all guns like many fear-mongers claim. It's basically very big hassle, a load of paperwork and bad for the US economy.

    If a large portion of the US citizens buy guns and ammunitions so frequently then the big arms-dealers in the US will never allow for a ban on anything that might cost them their profit.
    At least it would be odd if they did. Seeing as lobbying makes a large part of US legislation I'd expect them to step in and say "errmm good Sir, I don't fucking think so."
    Wisdom Of Bots
    1, then tired, do not forget to smile; be anxious, but also pay attention to tone; no matter how tough, do not forget to adhere to; No matter how tired, but also love yourself.
    But we are jet modified and not faint-hearted of difficulties

  15. #15
    10,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    F*CK Mexifornia
    Posts
    10,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sqarak View Post
    Against Christians I usually use a "torch-a-church"-kit.

    To be honest I really wonder how the US is ever going to round up all guns like many fear-mongers claim. It's basically very big hassle, a load of paperwork and bad for the US economy.

    If a large portion of the US citizens buy guns and ammunitions so frequently then the big arms-dealers in the US will never allow for a ban on anything that might cost them their profit.
    At least it would be odd if they did. Seeing as lobbying makes a large part of US legislation I'd expect them to step in and say "errmm good Sir, I don't fucking think so."
    Honestly, I dont see the US trying it. I would say the chance of that is a 1 in a million. Did they round up all the automatic weapons when they banned them? Nope, they just made you pay a $200 tax for owning them. If anything, what would happen is exactly this, you pay a $200 tax for owning them and its a bitch to sell them so.. they stay put, the government knows where they are and that is it. Truthfully I think they would be insane to try to take them from US Citizens, it would be a messy cleanup.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •