ATF may Ban Importation of Certain Semi-Auto Shotguns

[Crazed Rabbit]

On Monday that is.

Those :daisy: at the ATF (The Federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency) are looking to ban importation of one or more types of shotgun.

They can do this because the 1968 Gun Control Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) said all imported firearms must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."

Of course, the morons at the ATF do the recognizing (And being the numbskulls who declared a shoestring to be part of a machinegun, they recognize poorly), and thus it turns out that only hunting and certain types of organized, competitive target shooting are recognized as 'sporting purposes'.

The many other actual sporting uses - shooting at a range for fun and not in a competition - or practical shooting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhGRQ-zsWEU) competitions - are not recognized by the :daisy: ATF.

So they ban rifles with magazines over ten rounds from being imported, and very soon they will ban shotguns (http://blog.princelaw.com/2011/1/21/new-information-on-atf-s-ruling-that-will-be-issued-on-monday) that have parts that cause ignorant and timid people to wet themselves.


I previously wrote that the ATF announced at the SHOT 2011 Townhall meeting that a new ruling would be issued on Monday with regards to the importability of certain shotguns. I have since learned that the new ruling is going to be akin to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, in that, shotguns with bayonet lugs, large capacity magazines…etc or commonly referred to as “evil parts,” will no longer be importable as they have “no sporting purpose.”

It would seem that the Saiga would fit that category since it has available large capacity magazines, but I am unsure what other currently imported shotguns would fit this bill. Nevertheless, ATF has apparently done an in-depth review and this ruling will prevent the importation of more than one shotgun.

Yup, even after Heller we still have work to do. I would hope the 'sporting purposes' clause would be smitten down in the SCOTUS, but it would take at least a couple years to get there if a case started right now.

But right now the ATF can interpret the law as they please and drastically tighten the supply of guns to civilians.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yup, even after Heller we still have work to do. I would hope the 'sporting purposes' clause would be smitten down in the SCOTUS, but it would take at least a couple years to get there if a case started right now.

But right now the ATF can interpret the law as they please and drastically tighten the supply of guns to civilians.

CR

There is no problem. Someone will bring it to the Supreme Court, or a lower court will hold in favor of the Supreme Court's decision earlier last year. This isn't tyranny, it is a stupid policy that will take a couple years to be reversed. Although I am sure others will come in here screaming out how this is government evilness at its worse.

[HoreTore]

Well, it's a start.

Still, a long way to go....

[Moros]

You've got Afghanistan and Iraq for your fun, is that not enough?

[Fragony]

You've got Afghanistan and Iraq for your fun, is that not enough?

Are you drunk, that's really uncalled for

[rory_20_uk]

But seemingly apt. No, they're there to... help the locals... :laugh:

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Nothing helps out a family like a murdered dad.

[Fragony]

Rwanda was pretty bad, people getting chopped up and all, let's ban kitchen knives. Some people like shooting guns, why shouldn't they it's fun. What does it have to do with war. People used to kill with bows, when somebody likes archery does it mean he really wants to shoot people, or does he just enjoy shooting a bow youknow sports and all that. A bow is absolutely :daisy: deadly if you want to use it for killing. Is there such a thing as killing people for sports, and don't Stanleyhat me

[Lemur]

So they ban rifles with magazines over ten rounds from being imported,
This is the part I don't get. Semi-auto rifles with large magazines are easily available (http://www.thegunsource.com/Items.aspx?QID=-3&CAT=5&MFG=79), and some appear to be imported. Sig Sauer is not manufactured in the Carolinas, I don't think.

Explain, please? Not doubting you, I just figure there's some angle on this I haven't considered, since I don't follow gun news very closely.

-edit-

Okay, I'm an idiot. Apparently Sig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer) is one of five semi-independent branches of the Swiss company, and is based in New Hampshire. So I suppose their rifles do kinda sorta count as domestic, even if they are manufactured in part or whole in Swissland. International companies that spawn and spore semi-autonomous units confuse me.

Still and all, with all of the large-capacity tactical rifles available here from Beretta, Sig, H&K and so forth, I don't understand the nature or purpose of attempting to "ban" the importation of ... oh, nevermind. The whole thing is a mess.

[Fisherking]

Sure, if there is sufficient demand then someone will likely manufacture them in the states.

BATF does odd things but I figure most have political reasons behind them.
Remember as a bureaucracy they feel the need to justify their existence with regulations and internal interpretations.

Did they go ahead with classing cal .50 as weapons of mass destruction or what ever it was they were claiming? I never heard the outcome. If so, dose it effect black powder arms as well?

[Brenus]

It is just to protect the American Factories... Good old protectionism from the USA... Nothing new

[woad&fangs]

:gasp:

Now I will only have two dozen choices of shotgun model to choose from. Whatever shall I do! I may even be forced to buy a...a...a domestic shotgun!

:swoons:

:help:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On Monday that is.

Those :daisy: at the ATF (The Federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency) are looking to ban importation of one or more types of shotgun.

They can do this because the 1968 Gun Control Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) said all imported firearms must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."

Of course, the morons at the ATF do the recognizing (And being the numbskulls who declared a shoestring to be part of a machinegun, they recognize poorly), and thus it turns out that only hunting and certain types of organized, competitive target shooting are recognized as 'sporting purposes'.

The many other actual sporting uses - shooting at a range for fun and not in a competition - or practical shooting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhGRQ-zsWEU) competitions - are not recognized by the :daisy: ATF.

So they ban rifles with magazines over ten rounds from being imported, and very soon they will ban shotguns (http://blog.princelaw.com/2011/1/21/new-information-on-atf-s-ruling-that-will-be-issued-on-monday) that have parts that cause ignorant and timid people to wet themselves.



Yup, even after Heller we still have work to do. I would hope the 'sporting purposes' clause would be smitten down in the SCOTUS, but it would take at least a couple years to get there if a case started right now.

But right now the ATF can interpret the law as they please and drastically tighten the supply of guns to civilians.

CR

Buy American?

Oh, and that "practical" shooting competition looked like a lesson in how to die stupidly - fat old men playing at being soldiers.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Buy American?

Oh, and that "practical" shooting competition looked like a lesson in how to die stupidly - fat old men playing at being soldiers.

They're not all fat and old. Though it does amuse me how some people will spend thousands on a nice rifle, lots of gear, and training, but they look likely to die from a heart attack before anything else.


Now I will only have two dozen choices of shotgun model to choose from. Whatever shall I do! I may even be forced to buy a...a...a domestic shotgun!

Which domestic shotgun lets you attach a 12 shell magazine?

Also, the whole sporting purposes clause vastly limits the types of weapons available. Imagine being limited to only buying books from authors living in your country.

CR

[woad&fangs]

Why would I ever need a 12 shell magazine? I do not intend on going on a shooting spree nor am I a gun addict who is no longer capable of getting his fix from conventional shotguns. Your book example is laughable. I have never seen a book used as a deadly weapon before nor have I ever heard a sane person claim that guns are ideas.

edit: For those who are not aware, I am a hunter and own several guns. I'm not some Euro Commie who desires a gun-free utopia. However, I do support sensible gun control such as limiting over-the-top weapons and requiring gun safety training of anyone who owns a gun.

[gaelic cowboy]

What do people want semi auto shotguns for anyway, I mean there not for hunting unless your after people right.

If you want gun ownership then fine you can them have certain types of handgun and various hunting rifles etc, but some kind of rambo shotgun is a bit much in my view.

[woad&fangs]

Semi-autos are nice for fast moving birds that you might not get a second shot on with a pump shotgun. Also, they're design means they kick less than a pump. They are nice for hunting. I just can't see the need for a 12 shell magazine or bayonet lugs.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yea but the type there banning prob looks more like summit a swat team should have I bet

[HoreTore]

The point of the 2nd amendment cannot mean anything other than allowing citizens weaponry required to defeat a conventional army. Its objective is not to allow personal defense nor sports or hunting, that is a side-effect.

I find arguments like "weapon X is too much", because they're best at killing humans, very silly - because that is the very point of the second amendment.

The problem with the second amendment is that the US citizens don't take it seriously. CR and his gun buddies chance of standing up to the US Army is far lower than a snowballs chance of survival in Hell. Because of this, the 2nd amendment is today the most irrelevant paragraph in the entire US legal system.

Nothing whatsoever would change in the government-citizen relationship should it disappear. A tyrannical US President h nothing to fear whatsoever from a gun-toting population, and ironically it is because of the support the gun-toting part of the electorates has for an ever-increasing defense budget.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Horetore is right that the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. My book example was in relation to the first amendment.

I believe Horetore is way off in saying that no chance of revolution is possible.

A tyranny is a long ways off if it ever happens here. And if it does happen, the whole army may not go along with fighting the US people. And even then, the US cannot secure Afghanistan - a country much smaller, with far, far fewer people. A few groups of people in the US trying to fight the government would have no chance. But a widespread resistance like the first American Revolution would have a much better chance.

You may not see the need for bayonet lugs. But we're talking about rights, and needs have nothing to do with it. Also, when was the last - or first time, if ever, someone was killed in the US by a bayonet on a shotgun who wasn't a soldier in combat?

CR

[HoreTore]

I'm not saying there is no chance of a revolution to succeed(Tunisia is proving that these days).

I'm saying that the 2nd amendment does not make it more likely for a revolution to succeed.

[woad&fangs]

So in order to to stave off a tyranny, which you admit is far off and unlikely to happen, we should arm our citizenry with AK47s, M60s, and AA12s? Heck, even in your own scenario you admit that widespread assistance from the military would be necessary for such a rebellion to succeed. The second amendment is as relevant to modern society as laws mandating hitching posts outside of hotels. They may both be on the books but time has long since passed them bye.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why would I ever need a 12 shell magazine? I do not intend on going on a shooting spree nor am I a gun addict who is no longer capable of getting his fix from conventional shotguns. Your book example is laughable. I have never seen a book used as a deadly weapon before nor have I ever heard a sane person claim that guns are ideas.

edit: For those who are not aware, I am a hunter and own several guns. I'm not some Euro Commie who desires a gun-free utopia. However, I do support sensible gun control such as limiting over-the-top weapons and requiring gun safety training of anyone who owns a gun.

These types of statements from hunters always intrigue me.

No one needs to hunt to survive anymore, and you can certainly kill a lot of people with a standard Remington 870 if thats what you want to do. What makes your hobby (shooting small animals for sport) more legitimate than their hobby (shooting at targets)?

Who decides what is 'over-the-top'? Hunters do not need high cap mags, but they are certainly necessary for several different sport shooting competitions.

In any event, I see efforts such as Project Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile) - targeted at criminals and not law abiding citizens - as far more sensible forms of gun control legislation than arbitrarily picking and choosing which guns are super dangerous and which are just kind of dangerous. They can all kill people, and law enforcement efforts should be aimed at keeping them out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals. One of the worst mass shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) on record in the United States was carried out with hunting rifles. :book:

[rory_20_uk]

Any guns, almost without exception (I'm sure there are some) could be used to kill loads of people. The ability and planning of the person doing it is the determining factor. I don't think that banning specific types of shotgun are going to make the world a safer place - but ensuring there's loads of detail to legislation ensures the need for a lot of agents to supervise it.

The biggest difference would be preventing heavy weaponry from flowing South into Mexico.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

CR and his gun buddies chance of standing up to the US Army is far lower than a snowballs chance of survival in Hell.
Spoken like a man who never saw or understood that modern masterpiece, Red Dawn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn). WOLVERINES!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_I4WgBfETc

[woad&fangs]

These types of statements from hunters always intrigue me.

No one needs to hunt to survive anymore, and you can certainly kill a lot of people with a standard Remington 870 if thats what you want to do. What makes your hobby (shooting small animals for sport) more legitimate than their hobby (shooting at targets)?

Who decides what is 'over-the-top'? Hunters do not need high cap mags, but they are certainly necessary for several different sport shooting competitions.

In any event, I see efforts such as Project Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile) - targeted at criminals and not law abiding citizens - as far more sensible forms of gun control legislation than arbitrarily picking and choosing which guns are super dangerous and which are just kind of dangerous. They can all kill people, and law enforcement efforts should be aimed at keeping them out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals. One of the worst mass shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) on record in the United States was carried out with hunting rifles. :book:
I agree with you that stuff like Project Exile is the most effective way to curb gun crime outside of an outright ban on all guns. However, it should be obvious that weapons come in varying degrees of lethality. The ability of a person armed with a .22 to kill is much less than a person armed with a Remington 870, which is in turn much less than someoone armed with a high capacity semi-auto, which is in in turn much less than someone armed with an AA12, which is in turn much less than someone with a tank. What makes the tank enthusiast's hobby less relevant than the target shooters'? Neither intends to do harm, but obviously one has much greater potential to do so if they are to go off or if their equipment is to fall into others hands. The tank question is an exxageration, but a purposeful one. There is obviously a point where the dangerousness of the weaponry outweighs the enjoyment of the hobbyists. The question then is, "what is that point?". In my eyes, when a sport needs shotgun shell drums and bayonets to be enjoyed, it has hit that point. I am certainly open to debate on where the dividing line on the danger continuom should lie, but I do feel that having a dividing line is acceptable.

[Lemur]

What makes the tank enthusiast's hobby less relevant than the target shooters'?
This is actually a pretty good question, and one which I would not dismiss. If we accept "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as literal and unconditional, then how do we justify keeping any weapon out of anyone's hands? The founding fathers did not say "except for the criminals" or "except for the insane," they said "shall not be infringed." I'd be very curious to hear how CR and/or PJ would approach the idea of having any limits of the owning of any weapon by any citizen, be they babies, felons or madmen.

[PanzerJaeger]

I usually do not accept reductio ad absurdum arguments, as they always seem to be used to avoid the point at hand. We are really discussing the balance between freedom and safety for a very narrow field of weapon accessories, specifically high capacity magazines. I personally think that banning such magazines will only hurt the enthusiast community while having little impact on safety. Certainly in the Giffords case the magazine change was crucial to ending the spree, but that is not common. As we have seen in shootings from Columbine to Virginia Tech, shooters usually do not have trouble changing magazines and are able to carry out mass killings with standard weapons. Cho killed 31 people with a Walther .22 and a Glock 9mm with standard magazines.

However, I actually do not mind law abiding citizens owning heavy weaponry such as tanks and airplanes. The cost of running such weapons systems is so prohibitive, that ownership is limited to only a select few highly wealthy, highly successful individuals - not the type to go on shooting sprees.

In fact, in the US I know that it is legal with the correct licenses to own cannonry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_9R_2Kmay0&feature=related). Tanks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhCS3p86Yps) are also perfectly legal to own (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAHkEsyUpPE&feature=related). However, I am not sure if mounting live cannonry on those tanks is legal. If this is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZCoJCztRJ8), though, I'm not sure why fully armed tanks aren't.

One day, if I ever become super wealthy, I hope to restore and/or build a Panzer IV in the exact configuration of my grandfather's. God bless the USA. :smitten:

[Lemur]

I usually do not accept reductio ad absurdum arguments, as they always seem to be used to avoid the point at hand.
Just trying to get a sense of where 2nd Amendment advocates stand on restrictions of any sort. I find your response confusing, actually, 'cause you have this:


We are really discussing the balance between freedom and safety for a very narrow field of weapon accessories, specifically high capacity magazines.
... which implies that you do posit a "balance between freedom and safety," and then this:


I actually do not mind law abiding citizens owning heavy weaponry such as tanks and airplanes. The cost of running such weapons systems is so prohibitive, that ownership is limited to only a select few highly wealthy, highly successful individuals - not the type to go on shooting sprees.
... which implies that you don't see an ethical, constitutional or legal limit; just a financial one.

Not trying to distract from the OP, just trying to get a better understanding of your position. Should a convicted felon who has the means to own a gun be permitted by law? Should full-auto weapons require any special permits, such as the current regimen of "stamps"? Do you allow for any restrictions of weapon ownership beyond the ticket price? Are such restrictions unconstitutional? If not, why not?

[PanzerJaeger]

I was just pointing out that although gun discussions seem to always eventually escalate into the "should nuclear weapons be legal" argument, the appeal is not particularly helpful or applicable in a discussion about real world gun legislation.

My own position is that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own and operate whatever arms they want without restriction. If you have the means to acquire and F-15, the ordinance that accompanies it, and enough land to safely play with it - more power to you. As I said, the free market will greatly limit access to anything other than personal firearms.

Convicted felons lose their right to bear arms along with many others. Where it really gets tricky is the mentally ill. As in other areas of their lives, it is necessary to limit their rights for their own protection and that of others, but it is often difficult to prescreen for such issues. However, I do not believe sweeping legislation should be based on what the mentally ill may or may not do. Society should not be structured to suit the lowest common denominator.

I do not have a problem with background checks, stamps, or any other reasonable hoops put in place to ensure only appropriate sales that one must jump through in order to gain access to the more exotic weapons as long as there is a clear path to ownership for law abiding citizens.

[Lemur]

I do not have a problem with background checks, stamps, or any other reasonable hoops put in place to ensure only appropriate sales that one must jump through in order to gain access to the more exotic weapons as long as there is a clear path to ownership for law abiding citizens.
So speed bumps or hoop-jumps are okay ...


[L]aw abiding citizens should be allowed to own and operate whatever arms they want without restriction.
... but straight-up restrictions are not. Okay, I think I get it. Thank you for the clarification.

Given that position, as long as a law-abiding citizen has a reasonable avenue for getting, say, non-imported weaponry, would you be okay? Or would your position encompass the ability to buy from whatever source, so long as the safeguards you describe are in place?

[PanzerJaeger]

So speed bumps or hoop-jumps are okay ...


... but straight-up restrictions are not. Okay, I think I get it. Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, I would be less hostile to this decision if the ATF decided to require a stamp for high cap imported shotguns. It would still be ridiculous, as I do not see any pressing public safety threat from such weapons, but at least they wouldn't be arbitrarily banned outright.


Given that position, as long as a law-abiding citizen has a reasonable avenue for getting, say, non-imported weaponry, would you be okay? Or would your position encompass the ability to buy from whatever source, so long as the safeguards you describe are in place?

Well, as a collector I obviously want access to imported weapons. From a strictly legalistic perspective, I don't really know what the difference is as imported weapons are subject to the same government oversight and restrictions as domestically manufactured ones.

[Lemur]

We'll need to wait for CR to come back. He seems to have done a good bit of reading on this subject. Me? I treat it like Chinese history. Too big to engage casually.

[Beskar]

We'll need to wait for CR to come back. He seems to have done a good bit of reading on this subject. Me? I treat it like Chinese history. Too big to engage casually.

It's more like the Poetry of Genghis Khan for me. Just because he wrote a poem, it doesn't excuse the mass slaughter, genocide, blood-lust and wild ways of his character.

[woad&fangs]

PJ, I consider your ideas to be a reasonable alternative. Legal hoops to jump through to acquire high capacity foreign weapons could possibly be just as effective at gun-violence control as an outright ban, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to get guns that are enjoyable to shoot.

My reductio ad absurdum was mostly to feel out whether you were in the "No Rezrtictions Evah!" camp, or simply disagreed on how or when to limit weapons.

[Strike For The South]

We'll need to wait for CR to come back. He seems to have done a good bit of reading on this subject. Me? I treat it like Chinese history. Too big to engage casually.

That's what the ladies tell me

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obesity is nothing to be proud of. :no:

Seriously, it seems that this ban won't materialize. Hooray! The price on Saiga shotguns did jump hundreds of dollars in some spots over the nation mainly because of the one blog post I linked, though. :dizzy2:

In regards to restrictions I consider acceptable; I think instant background checks to prevent violent felons and people who have been involuntarily committed to an institution are acceptable.

I do not think the current restrictions on full-auto weapons are good. People should be able to buy them just like any other gun. They're not deadlier, just more fun at the range.

This stamp registration nonsense and multiple restrictions is what led to the ban on new full auto weapons in the 1980s. Some :daisy: democrat stuck some provision into a law saying no new full auto guns could be registered - and if you can't get them registered, you can't legally own them.

Even worse is requiring special permission to buy a high cap magazine.

I wouldn't mind people owning tanks and fighter jets - along with laws requiring safe amounts of space and backstop for anyone actually wanting to shoot one.

Some history on the ATF - back in 1989 those :daisy: under the first George H :daisy: W Bush banned over three dozen semi-automatic rifles from being imported (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html?pagewanted=1).*

The ATF did so with no law passed by Congress, no court order. Our rights should not rest on the whims of some bureaucracy.


It's more like the Poetry of Genghis Khan for me. Just because he wrote a poem, it doesn't excuse the mass slaughter, genocide, blood-lust and wild ways of his character.
:inquisitive:
I'm confused.

*As Lemur has mentioned before, the political climate is far, far different today. The rights-hating cretin politicians back then lied and said assault weapons were favored by gangs and we eventually got the assault weapons ban. Today, only the lone, pathetic politicians really try to ban guns nationally. More of the same lies, but few pay them any mind.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

In regards to restrictions I consider acceptable; I think instant background checks to prevent violent felons and people who have been involuntarily committed to an institution are acceptable.

CRThat's communism.


Why should a felon be stripped of his basic rights? Why is a felon allowed to own a skis to go skiing with, but not a gun to go shooting for sports with? Won't you gun-control crusaders enlighten me, because me I can't tell the difference between these two sets of sports equipment.
Also, if it can not be reasonably established that a violent felon will recommit violent crimes, then don't release him. But if he is released because he is expected to behave, then obviously he must be restored in his basic rights, including the right to buy all the firearms he wishes.


As for your mean-spirited suggestion to strip people with mental problems of their basic rights - this belongs to the Soviet Union. Just because a person is depressed does not mean he loses the right to vote, to drive a car, to play sports. Why should he lose the right to buy the sporting equipment of his choice? Have you seen what damage you can do with a baseball bat?


Why do you support the government to take away the most fundamental freedom of these vulnerable groups: the right to defend themselves? :no:

[HoreTore]

Society should not be structured to suit the lowest common denominator.

Actually PJ, with you being a fan of meritocracy, basing society on the least common denominator would probably be something you favour.

The lowest common denimonator will always be equal to or higher than the highest number. So, basing society on the lowest common denominator means basing society around the "normal" and "succesful" ~;)



This has been your daily message from The Math Crusade.
Onwards men; to factorization!!