sandbanger
how's it going eisenhower
- Dec 14, 2010
- 1,596
ATF to Issue New Ruling on Monday regarding New Restrictions on Shotgun Importation
- Thread starter Norton
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
no 7 day wait, its not regulated.
oldman12
Ultimate Member
real sweet piece.
Reminder the comment period openned yesterday.
Time to get those letters out!
Time to get those letters out!
HKB
Ultimate Member
any updates?
I did not know that the mighty gov`t was trying to take another of our rights away. I was looking at a Saiga 12 a few months ago at the nations gun show and now that I have my tax refund burning a hole in my pocket I was thinking of buying one. I started to look on gunbroker and noticed a steep price increase and a few said "get it before it is banned"
which brought me here to search for info
I did not know that the mighty gov`t was trying to take another of our rights away. I was looking at a Saiga 12 a few months ago at the nations gun show and now that I have my tax refund burning a hole in my pocket I was thinking of buying one. I started to look on gunbroker and noticed a steep price increase and a few said "get it before it is banned"
which brought me here to search for info
jmac
Active Member
If the Saiga 12 does become a "DD" how would that effect me taking it to Myrtle Grove? Also would I have to give my gun to MSP or can I take it to the shop where I bought it, for the re-registraton?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
Doesn't affect it at all.
I take my AOW's up there often. As long as you do not violate the 1 shot per second, you are fine.
yellowfin
Pro 2A Gastronome
Prices are still hanging at 50% up from pre-scare levels. This I find highly annoying.
jmac
Active Member
Cool thanks for the heads up!
Take note.
IF (big IF btw) the saiga-12 goes the way of the destructive device. You will need to keep a copy of your tax stamp with the firearm(s). You will have to prove the DD is legal upon request.
jmac
Active Member
Will the MSP be the only way I can get it re-registered, or can I go thru the gun shop where I originally purchased it, and will the "DD" have to be surrendered for any amount of time?
The last go around with the street sweepers. The BATFE notified everyone they could find, and gave them a free tax stamp.
No need for MSP involvement because it's an NFA item, because the MSP only tracks machineguns.
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
Comments submitted ...
I am writing to disagree with the conclusion presented in “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns.”
This study contains multiple serious errors.
The first error is an error in law. In multiple locations, the study refers to certain firearms as not “particularly suitable for sporting purposes”.
From page 3:
In the 1984 study, ATF ruled that the Striker-12 and the Streetsweeper were not eligible for importation under 925(d)(3) because they were not “particularly suitable for sporting purposes.”
From page 4:
The 1989 study concluded that semiautomatic assault rifles were “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications.”
From page 4:
With this, the study determined that they were not suitable for sporting purposes and should not be authorized for importation under section 925(d)(3).
From page 9:
Following a review of numerous shotguns, literature, and industry advertisements, the working group determined that the following shotgun features and design characteristics are particularly suitable for the military or law enforcement, and therefore, offer little or no advantage to the sportsman.
From page 10:
However, the working group determined that magazines capable of holding large amounts of ammunition, regardless of type, are particularly designed and most suitable for military and law enforcement applications.
In each of these locations, the study refers to suitability but not adaptability. In doing so, the study fails to uphold the law, which requires allowing importation of a firearm if it “is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” (emphasis added). Including adaptability as a consideration would lead to the opposite conclusion in at least some such instances. In order to bar a firearm’s importation legally, the ATF must prove not only that a firearm is not suitable for a sporting purposes but also that it is not readily adaptable to sporting purposes. The study repeatedly fails to do so, considers suitability without considering adaptability. As such, the conclusions of the study are not grounded in law, and are in fact in opposition to law.
The second error is an error in logic.
From page 7:
Recognition of plinking as a sporting purpose would effectively nullify section 925(d)(3) because it may be argued that any shotgun is particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to this activity.
Here, the study erroneously assumes that section 925(d)(3) was intended to restrict importation not just of some firearms, but specifically of some types of shotguns. The law nowhere states such an intention. The logic of the study here is as follows:
1. Congress intended to ban importation of certain shotguns, because Congress believed that not all shotguns have a sporting purpose.
2. If plinking were recognized as a sporting purpose, all shotguns would serve a sporting purpose.
3. Therefore, plinking must not be a sporting purpose, because otherwise Congress’s intention to restrict shotgun importation would not be achieved.
This logic begins with a false premise (#1). In fact, the previous position of the ATF (technically, its predecessor), was the opposite.
From page 3:
However, no discussion took place on shotguns given that, at the time, all shotguns were considered inherently sporting because they were utilized for hunting or organized competitive target competitions.
The argument on page 7 assumes precisely the opposite, that not all shotguns are inherently sporting, and then proceeds to use this assumption to “prove” that plinking must not be a sporting purpose, because otherwise one must conclude that all shotguns are inherently sporting (and therefore allowing their importation would be required under law) This is circular logic, assuming one’s conclusion, and a non-sequitur. In employing such errors, the study is founded, not on sound reasoning, but on logical fallacies.
The third error is also an error both in logic and in law.
From page iii:
However, in reviewing the previous studies, the working group believes that it is appropriate to first consider the current meaning of “sporting purpose” as this may impact the “sporting” classification of any shotgun or shotgun features.
From page iv:
Following this review, the working group determined that certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes.
From page 5:
The 1998 study identified the firearms in question and determined that the rifles shared an important feature—the ability to accept a large capacity magazine that was originally design for military firearms. Capacity Military
From page 5:
The study noted that after 1989, ATF refused to allow importation of firearms that had any of the identified non-sporting features…
From page 5:
To conduct this study, the working group reviewed current shooting sports and the sporting suitability of common shotguns and shotgun features.
From page 5:
These features are typically used by military or law enforcement personnel and provide little or no advantage to sportsmen.
From page 9:
Following a review of numerous shotguns, literature, and industry advertisements, the working group determined that the following shotgun features and design characteristics are particularly suitable for the military or law enforcement, and therefore, offer little or no advantage to the sportsman. Therefore, we recognized that any shotgun with one or more of these features represent a “type” of firearm that is not “generally recognized as particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” and may not be imported under section 925(d)(3).
Here (and in multiple other places too numerous to list), the study considers features of a firearm without considering a firearm as a whole. The study then draws a conclusion regarding the sporting purpose of a firearm as a whole solely on the basis of such features. This reasoning is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. Just because a firearm has a feature that does not itself have a sporting purpose does not mean that the firearm as a whole fails to be particularly suitable or readily adaptable to a sporting purpose. Consider “Light Enhancing Devices” (page 11). The presence of such a feature is insufficient to prevent the ready adaptation of such a firearm to a supporting purpose. In such conclusions, the study proceeds as if the law read:
the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm . . . to be imported or brought into the United States . . . if the firearm . . . does not possess any feature that is not is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes
The law most definitely does not read as such. By considering features exclusively and failing to consider the suitability and adaptability of a firearm as a whole, the study makes an error both in logic and in law, and recommends that the law be administered in a manner that not only exceeds the authority granted by Congress but also in opposition to the law as it is written.
The fourth error is an error in interpretation.
From page 6:
In coming to a determination, the working group recognized that a shotgun cannot be classified as sporting merely because it may be used for a sporting purpose. During debate on the original bill, there was discussion about the meaning of the term "sporting purposes." Senator Dodd stated:
Here again I would have to say that if a military weapon is used in a special sporting event, it does not become a sporting weapon. It is a military weapon used in a special sporting event . . . . As I said previously the language says no firearms will be admitted into this country unless they are genuine sporting weapons.
The study here references one particular legislator’s opinion regarding the interpretation of the bill’s wording. Though these words and this interpretation are not mentioned at every point, their presence can be felt through the study. The reasoning of the study throughout proceeds as if the law actually stated “genuine sporting weapons” rather than “generally recognized as particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,” which is what the law actually states. Such reasoning occurs in the errors mentioned earlier, for example, disqualifying shotguns with “Light Enhancing Devices.” Such a disqualification might make sense if the law spoke of “genuine sporting weapons.” But the law states the matter differently, and the study fails to base its reasoning on the law as it is written, instead finding justification in imprecise statement by one lawmaker attempting, not a formal legal interpretation, but persuasion of others in the political process.
The fifth error is an error in fact.
From page 8:
Further, while it is clear that shotguns are used at certain practical shooting events, it is unclear whether shotgun use is so prevalent that it is “generally recognized” as a sporting purpose.
The study makes no mention of the number of shotguns used at such events, nor of the number of such events. The study here assumes that a firearm is “generally recognized” as having a sporting purpose only if its usage is sufficiently prevalent, but nowhere does the study justify this assumption. Furthermore, in merely stating that it is “unclear” whether prevalent usage exists, the study fails to meet the burden of proof the law requires. The law requires that the Attorney General authorize importation of a firearm if it is generally recognized as having a sporting purpose. Since the study failing to determine whether or not a particular usage is sporting, the Attorney General must allow importation of the firearm until its non-sporting usage is proven.
The final error I will mention here is an error in authority.
The study considers only the sporting purposes of a weapon. It fails to consider personal defense, practical shooting events, and other such purposes. In doing so, the study runs afoul of District of Columbia v. Heller, which states:
the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.
In failing to consider self-defense, the study makes an extremely restrictive interpretation of section section 925(d)(3) without considering whether, given such an interpretation, Congress would have the authority to enact such a law. The study fails to consider the limitation on congressional authority as established by the Second Amendment. It is here that the study makes its gravest error. By failing to consider District of Columbia v. Heller in its interpretation of section 925(d)(3), the study runs afoul not only the law (as mentioned earlier) but the Constitution itself.
I am writing to disagree with the conclusion presented in “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns.”
This study contains multiple serious errors.
The first error is an error in law. In multiple locations, the study refers to certain firearms as not “particularly suitable for sporting purposes”.
From page 3:
In the 1984 study, ATF ruled that the Striker-12 and the Streetsweeper were not eligible for importation under 925(d)(3) because they were not “particularly suitable for sporting purposes.”
From page 4:
The 1989 study concluded that semiautomatic assault rifles were “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications.”
From page 4:
With this, the study determined that they were not suitable for sporting purposes and should not be authorized for importation under section 925(d)(3).
From page 9:
Following a review of numerous shotguns, literature, and industry advertisements, the working group determined that the following shotgun features and design characteristics are particularly suitable for the military or law enforcement, and therefore, offer little or no advantage to the sportsman.
From page 10:
However, the working group determined that magazines capable of holding large amounts of ammunition, regardless of type, are particularly designed and most suitable for military and law enforcement applications.
In each of these locations, the study refers to suitability but not adaptability. In doing so, the study fails to uphold the law, which requires allowing importation of a firearm if it “is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” (emphasis added). Including adaptability as a consideration would lead to the opposite conclusion in at least some such instances. In order to bar a firearm’s importation legally, the ATF must prove not only that a firearm is not suitable for a sporting purposes but also that it is not readily adaptable to sporting purposes. The study repeatedly fails to do so, considers suitability without considering adaptability. As such, the conclusions of the study are not grounded in law, and are in fact in opposition to law.
The second error is an error in logic.
From page 7:
Recognition of plinking as a sporting purpose would effectively nullify section 925(d)(3) because it may be argued that any shotgun is particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to this activity.
Here, the study erroneously assumes that section 925(d)(3) was intended to restrict importation not just of some firearms, but specifically of some types of shotguns. The law nowhere states such an intention. The logic of the study here is as follows:
1. Congress intended to ban importation of certain shotguns, because Congress believed that not all shotguns have a sporting purpose.
2. If plinking were recognized as a sporting purpose, all shotguns would serve a sporting purpose.
3. Therefore, plinking must not be a sporting purpose, because otherwise Congress’s intention to restrict shotgun importation would not be achieved.
This logic begins with a false premise (#1). In fact, the previous position of the ATF (technically, its predecessor), was the opposite.
From page 3:
However, no discussion took place on shotguns given that, at the time, all shotguns were considered inherently sporting because they were utilized for hunting or organized competitive target competitions.
The argument on page 7 assumes precisely the opposite, that not all shotguns are inherently sporting, and then proceeds to use this assumption to “prove” that plinking must not be a sporting purpose, because otherwise one must conclude that all shotguns are inherently sporting (and therefore allowing their importation would be required under law) This is circular logic, assuming one’s conclusion, and a non-sequitur. In employing such errors, the study is founded, not on sound reasoning, but on logical fallacies.
The third error is also an error both in logic and in law.
From page iii:
However, in reviewing the previous studies, the working group believes that it is appropriate to first consider the current meaning of “sporting purpose” as this may impact the “sporting” classification of any shotgun or shotgun features.
From page iv:
Following this review, the working group determined that certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes.
From page 5:
The 1998 study identified the firearms in question and determined that the rifles shared an important feature—the ability to accept a large capacity magazine that was originally design for military firearms. Capacity Military
From page 5:
The study noted that after 1989, ATF refused to allow importation of firearms that had any of the identified non-sporting features…
From page 5:
To conduct this study, the working group reviewed current shooting sports and the sporting suitability of common shotguns and shotgun features.
From page 5:
These features are typically used by military or law enforcement personnel and provide little or no advantage to sportsmen.
From page 9:
Following a review of numerous shotguns, literature, and industry advertisements, the working group determined that the following shotgun features and design characteristics are particularly suitable for the military or law enforcement, and therefore, offer little or no advantage to the sportsman. Therefore, we recognized that any shotgun with one or more of these features represent a “type” of firearm that is not “generally recognized as particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” and may not be imported under section 925(d)(3).
Here (and in multiple other places too numerous to list), the study considers features of a firearm without considering a firearm as a whole. The study then draws a conclusion regarding the sporting purpose of a firearm as a whole solely on the basis of such features. This reasoning is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. Just because a firearm has a feature that does not itself have a sporting purpose does not mean that the firearm as a whole fails to be particularly suitable or readily adaptable to a sporting purpose. Consider “Light Enhancing Devices” (page 11). The presence of such a feature is insufficient to prevent the ready adaptation of such a firearm to a supporting purpose. In such conclusions, the study proceeds as if the law read:
the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm . . . to be imported or brought into the United States . . . if the firearm . . . does not possess any feature that is not is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes
The law most definitely does not read as such. By considering features exclusively and failing to consider the suitability and adaptability of a firearm as a whole, the study makes an error both in logic and in law, and recommends that the law be administered in a manner that not only exceeds the authority granted by Congress but also in opposition to the law as it is written.
The fourth error is an error in interpretation.
From page 6:
In coming to a determination, the working group recognized that a shotgun cannot be classified as sporting merely because it may be used for a sporting purpose. During debate on the original bill, there was discussion about the meaning of the term "sporting purposes." Senator Dodd stated:
Here again I would have to say that if a military weapon is used in a special sporting event, it does not become a sporting weapon. It is a military weapon used in a special sporting event . . . . As I said previously the language says no firearms will be admitted into this country unless they are genuine sporting weapons.
The study here references one particular legislator’s opinion regarding the interpretation of the bill’s wording. Though these words and this interpretation are not mentioned at every point, their presence can be felt through the study. The reasoning of the study throughout proceeds as if the law actually stated “genuine sporting weapons” rather than “generally recognized as particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,” which is what the law actually states. Such reasoning occurs in the errors mentioned earlier, for example, disqualifying shotguns with “Light Enhancing Devices.” Such a disqualification might make sense if the law spoke of “genuine sporting weapons.” But the law states the matter differently, and the study fails to base its reasoning on the law as it is written, instead finding justification in imprecise statement by one lawmaker attempting, not a formal legal interpretation, but persuasion of others in the political process.
The fifth error is an error in fact.
From page 8:
Further, while it is clear that shotguns are used at certain practical shooting events, it is unclear whether shotgun use is so prevalent that it is “generally recognized” as a sporting purpose.
The study makes no mention of the number of shotguns used at such events, nor of the number of such events. The study here assumes that a firearm is “generally recognized” as having a sporting purpose only if its usage is sufficiently prevalent, but nowhere does the study justify this assumption. Furthermore, in merely stating that it is “unclear” whether prevalent usage exists, the study fails to meet the burden of proof the law requires. The law requires that the Attorney General authorize importation of a firearm if it is generally recognized as having a sporting purpose. Since the study failing to determine whether or not a particular usage is sporting, the Attorney General must allow importation of the firearm until its non-sporting usage is proven.
The final error I will mention here is an error in authority.
The study considers only the sporting purposes of a weapon. It fails to consider personal defense, practical shooting events, and other such purposes. In doing so, the study runs afoul of District of Columbia v. Heller, which states:
the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.
In failing to consider self-defense, the study makes an extremely restrictive interpretation of section section 925(d)(3) without considering whether, given such an interpretation, Congress would have the authority to enact such a law. The study fails to consider the limitation on congressional authority as established by the Second Amendment. It is here that the study makes its gravest error. By failing to consider District of Columbia v. Heller in its interpretation of section 925(d)(3), the study runs afoul not only the law (as mentioned earlier) but the Constitution itself.
Markp
Ultimate Member
- Dec 22, 2008
- 9,392
Because it's cheap and has an available 20 round drum... that's all.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Have you ever tallied up the amount of money that you’ve spent on one gun? (13 Viewers)- Latest: Bafflingbs
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
C&R/Milsurp 2 Gun Action Match - AGC Action Shooting - June 2, 2024 (5 Viewers)- Started by Red1917
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
Kind Sniper Announces Partnership with CoreWARE to Replatform Kind Sniper .shop on CoreFORCE (1 Viewer)- Started by ks1
- Replies: 0
-
-
