PDA

View Full Version : atf shotgun study taking comments


peterhodges
03-25-2011, 10:39 AM
saw this here (http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/03/batfe-seeks-attack-second-amendment-by.html), they apparently sourced it from WND (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278429).

study proposes:

-Registering all shotguns
-Ban the importation and restriction on shotguns
-Ban on semi auto shotguns that use a box or tube that hold more than five rounds or pump action shotguns.
-Ban on aftermarket parts that are imported as parts for shotguns/

comments here:

shotgunstudy@atf.gov

mag360
03-25-2011, 11:08 AM
never all the benelli boys have too much money.

The Shadow
03-25-2011, 11:12 AM
And the jack booted thugs continue to march against us.

Mesa Tactical
03-25-2011, 1:40 PM
I admit I haven't read the study, but does it indicate in any way what urgent problem they are trying to solve?

peterhodges
03-25-2011, 1:55 PM
aha, it looks like the long anticipated judgement on the the saigas as well. can't wait to take a read myself

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

edit:

Read it. It will make you angry.

Evidently there are now two classes of people in these United States:

In one class, you have assorted politicians, and the presumably the bankers who own them. And their enforcers and protectors in military and LE.

In another class, you have the rest of us.

America, and the Constitution, are long dead.

AJAX22
03-25-2011, 2:01 PM
The registration provision is a red herring, as is the pump action provision.

Maestro Pistolero
03-25-2011, 2:02 PM
The whole sporting-purpose basis is without foundation post Heller. Arm in common use for a variety of lawful purposes are protected items. I know this has to do with importation. But whether an arm has a sporting purpose or not is irrelevant.

N6ATF
03-25-2011, 2:04 PM
I admit I haven't read the study, but does it indicate in any way what urgent problem they are trying to solve?

Those dastardly law-abiding citizens who know their legal rights-they are making a mockery of our Police State!!!

^^^

AJAX22
03-25-2011, 2:15 PM
That article went through GREAT lengths to avoid mentioning the S12...

Although they had a pic of it, and of a drum magazine.

bulgron
03-25-2011, 2:17 PM
aha, it looks like the long anticipated judgement on the the saigas as well. can't wait to take a read myself

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

edit:

Read it. It will make you angry.



Yes, it did make me angry.

These jerks have too many tax dollars to spend on things like this. Time to cut the federal budget by at least 50%. While we're at it, nuke ATF in their entirety. They no longer are serving any useful purpose.

ubet
03-25-2011, 2:24 PM
, nuke ATF in their entirety. They no longer are serving any useful purpose.

No their only purpose should have been to be a store, not a guberment totalitarionship.

HondaMasterTech
03-25-2011, 2:28 PM
Back-door legislation. That's what this is. Is ludicrous and offensive. Their legislative powers should be taken away.

rero360
03-25-2011, 2:33 PM
I skimmed through it, total nonsense, I don't see how having a flashlight attached to a shotgun makes it "non-sporting" I would imagine having a light mounted to your shotgun would be pretty necessary for hunting at night, i.e. yotes.

I think the whole "sporting" premise is fundamentally flawed, its no different than the AW nonsense, its all about appearances, ooooo, its scary looking, lets ban it :puke:

Mesa Tactical
03-25-2011, 2:43 PM
The whole sporting-purpose basis is without foundation post Heller. Arm in common use for a variety of lawful purposes are protected items. I know this has to do with importation. But whether an arm has a sporting purpose or not is irrelevant.

It remains relevant until the 1968 GCA is somehow overturned.

I don't believe that is on anyone's radar.

peterhodges
03-25-2011, 2:49 PM
The registration provision is a red herring, as is the pump action provision.

You may be correct regarding registration, however the study specifically states that tube and box magazines are equivalent. So any pump action shotgun of greater than 5 round magazine capacity would be non-sporting, and banned from importation.

Hey mesa tactical, I believe a neighbor and friend of mine up here in June is an engineer of yours! :)

Mesa Tactical
03-25-2011, 2:50 PM
The purpose of this study is to establish criteria that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will use to determine the importability of certain shotguns under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

Actually, such documentation is long overdue. At the moment, there is no clear definition of what can and cannot be imported. This makes it hard on importers as well as collectors and sportsmen who wish to remain 922r compliant.

The way the law was used to ban in the importation of full-magazine Benelli M4s while allowing similarly configured FN SLPs was arbitrary and unfair.

Mesa Tactical
03-25-2011, 2:58 PM
Page 31 includes a couple of photos of Mesa Tactical products, one to illustrate a "sporting" Picatinny rail and one to illustrate a "non-sporting" magazine clamp with flashlight mount.

We are so proud.

rromeo
03-25-2011, 3:15 PM
Does San Diego really consider any shotgun over 6 rounds as an assault weapon? Can they do That?

shocknm
03-25-2011, 3:16 PM
Integrated Rail Systems.42
This refers to a mounting rail system for small arms upon which firearm accessories and features
may be attached. This includes scopes, sights, and other features, but may also include
accessories or features with no sporting purpose, including flashlights, foregrips, and bipods.
Rails on the sides and underside of shotguns—including any accessory mount—facilitate
installation of certain features lacking any sporting purpose. However, receiver rails that are
installed on the top of the receiver and barrel are readily adaptable to sporting purposes because
this facilitates installation of optical or other sights.



Wait, is it April 1st?

cmichini
03-25-2011, 3:22 PM
As to the conclusions regarding collapsible stocks. How about us shooters with short arms? I'm not impoartant enough to have the opportunity to have the stock fit me without permanently altering (destroying) the stock?

Vertical handgrip. I bet someone with a disability may like that extra support and control. Any ADA compliance issues with their arbitrarily identifying that as 'non-sporting' characteristic.

Other than that the study was an exercise in FAIL. They should

This quote was a winner:
"Further, the simple fact that a military firearm or feature may be used for a generally recognized sporting purposes is not sufficient to support a determination that it is sporting under 925(d)(3)."
Oh, so if it used for a sporting purpose it's not sporting.

Here's another beaut:
"The fact that a firearm or feature was initially designed for military or tactical applications, including offensive or defensive combat, may indicate that it is not a sporting firearm."
So arms designed for tactical purposes are not appropriate for tactical sporting events.

Did all these folks go to the Bill Clinton school of sentence parsing?

Knight_Who_Says_Ni
03-25-2011, 4:36 PM
aha, it looks like the long anticipated judgement on the the saigas as well. can't wait to take a read myself

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

edit:

Read it. It will make you angry.

Evidently there are now two classes of people in these United States:

In one class, you have assorted politicians, and the presumably the bankers who own them. And their enforcers and protectors in military and LE.

In another class, you have the rest of us.

America, and the Constitution, are long dead.


I read this when it first came out. It could hurt some of the serious competition shooters, the weight requirement is going to hurt people that use certain Perazzis and Blasers as they would weigh over 10lbs with O/U barrel. And then there are the tacticool Benelli guys. :D

Maestro Pistolero
03-25-2011, 5:27 PM
It remains relevant until the 1968 GCA is somehow overturned.

I don't believe that is on anyone's radar.Not yet. But according to Heller the second amendment right is 'most acute' for self defense, at least in the home. Certainly limiting firearms imports to sporting purposes is in conflict with that principle. It is like saying you have a right to a fire extinguisher, but only of sufficient size to blow out a small campfire.

I would think the sporting purposes clause of the GCA of 1968 might be it's Achilles heel.

cdtx2001
03-25-2011, 5:38 PM
So I guess what the ATF is saying is that if THEY determine that a firearm has no sporting purpose, we can't have it. How soon until they say that every firearm has no sporting purpose? I want they flexibility of downing some ducks AND keeping evil doers at bay when the SHTF, that choice SHOULD be up to me.

Hogxtz
03-25-2011, 6:24 PM
Wow! Thats scary. Whats next?

nick
03-25-2011, 8:38 PM
As to the conclusions regarding collapsible stocks. How about us shooters with short arms? I'm not impoartant enough to have the opportunity to have the stock fit me without permanently altering (destroying) the stock?

Vertical handgrip. I bet someone with a disability may like that extra support and control. Any ADA compliance issues with their arbitrarily identifying that as 'non-sporting' characteristic.

Other than that the study was an exercise in FAIL. They should

This quote was a winner:
"Further, the simple fact that a military firearm or feature may be used for a generally recognized sporting purposes is not sufficient to support a determination that it is sporting under 925(d)(3)."
Oh, so if it used for a sporting purpose it's not sporting.

Here's another beaut:
"The fact that a firearm or feature was initially designed for military or tactical applications, including offensive or defensive combat, may indicate that it is not a sporting firearm."
So arms designed for tactical purposes are not appropriate for tactical sporting events.

Did all these folks go to the Bill Clinton school of sentence parsing?

Indeed, all those matches with unsporting Garands sold by unsporting CMP :rolleyes:

cmichini
03-26-2011, 9:15 AM
I sent in my comments with lots of reference to ADA, citing discrimination from that as well as sexual discrimination (female may be weaker so why do they have to do without vertical grip).

I also stated that their logic appears to have started with a pre-determined conclusion and their study walks you right to that same conclusion, and they should re-evaluate their study with some objective assessment from those whose livelihood does not rely on the results of the study going their way.

Utter tripe.

Hott <3 Mess
03-26-2011, 9:36 AM
I read the study last week. i dont remember reading anything about registering all shotguns or a ban on aftermarket parts?

chaseface
03-26-2011, 9:42 AM
I read the ATF report yesterday. Their "study" does worry me about the future of the Saiga 12's. Particulary the part on page 5 where it has a list of " ... certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes". And number 4 on that list is "magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;" meaning that an imported shotgun that has magazines over 5 rounds, or drum magazines do not meet the strict guidelines for a shotgun that is primarily for sporting purposes. But what they DONT mention is whether or not the shotgun, even if cabable of using those larger magazines, must be IMPORTED with the larger magazine for it to be "not particularly suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes". And since they are imported with, as far as I know, 5 round magazines this may be the saving grace.

NytWolf
03-26-2011, 11:04 AM
I read the ATF report yesterday. Their "study" does worry me about the future of the Saiga 12's. .... And since they are imported with, as far as I know, 5 round magazines this may be the saving grace.

You said it yourself. All they have to do it "sporterize" it like they did with the Saiga rifles, and import it with 5-round magazines. And because aftermarket parts already exist (in consumer hands), they must include exceptions in whatever bill or law they want to write.

NytWolf
03-26-2011, 11:09 AM
The study concludes with:


The purpose of section 925(d)(3) is to provide a limited exception to the general prohibition on the importation of firearms without placing "any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms...."

If that were the case, I propose that the NHTSA conduct a study which determines the importability of vehicles based on its transportability of people.

My initial estimation is that the study will rule out vehicles like high-cost exotic cars, because they are largely impractical for transporting people, but at the same time, make it okay to sell Ford Pintos because it is a domestic and not affected by the study. The study would also rule out luxury cars, such as Lexus, BMW, and especially Bentley and Rolls Royce, because while they transport people, they impose a higher danger to the public because of their increased vehicle weight. Let's go even further and rule out the all-electric and hybrid vehicles too, because pedestrians cannot tell they are coming due to their lack of noise. Now, what about features? Features which do not contribute to the transportability of people, such as convertible tops, tow hitches, and aerodynamic parts such as rear spoilers and front fascias, should rule a vehicle non-importable. Offroad vehicles are military in nature, so those have no general purpose of transporting people.

Does my proposal sound ridiculous? You bet it does, but it'll never happen.

chaseface
03-26-2011, 11:10 AM
They are already "sporterized" they come with the same stock that the Saiga rifles come with. And I agree with what you saying, but that doesnt stop them from trying. Right now the Saiga shotguns are not being imported untill the ATF concludes their study.

chaseface
03-26-2011, 11:12 AM
The study concludes with:



If that were the case, I propose that the NHTSA conduct a study which determines the importability of vehicles based on its transportability of people.

My initial estimation is that the study will rule out vehicles like high-cost exotic cars, because they are largely impractical for transporting people, but at the same time, make it okay to sell Ford Pintos because it is a domestic and not affected by the study. The study would also rule out luxury cars, such as Lexus, BMW, and especially Bentley and Rolls Royce, because while they transport people, they impose a higher danger to the public because of their increased vehicle weight. Let's go even further and rule out the all-electric and hybrid vehicles too, because pedestrians cannot tell they are coming due to their lack of noise. Now, what about features? Features which do not contribute to the transportability of people, such as convertible tops, tow hitches, and aerodynamic parts such as rear spoilers and front fascias, should rule a vehicle non-importable. Offroad vehicles are military in nature, so those have no general purpose of transporting people.

Does my proposal sound ridiculous? You bet it does, but it'll never happen.

That was halarious haha. With your permission I would send this to the ATF right now if you havn't done it already

Mesa Tactical
03-28-2011, 7:52 AM
So I guess what the ATF is saying is that if THEY determine that a firearm has no sporting purpose, we can't have it. How soon until they say that every firearm has no sporting purpose?

They have no such authorization under the 1968 GCA or any other Federal law.

Nick Justice
03-28-2011, 1:27 PM
They have no such authorization under the 1968 GCA or any other Federal law.

The government has no authorization to do a lot of things (granting excess legislative powers to the executive branch). It still tries to get away with them.

repubconserv
03-28-2011, 2:31 PM
They have no such authorization under the 1968 GCA or any other Federal law.


The government has no authorization to do a lot of things (granting excess legislative powers to the executive branch). It still tries to get away with them.

Exactly. The government is getting to the point where it can get away with WTH it wants to. It sounds scary or :TFH: but the second amendment was created so that we the people could stop govt from doing S#!t like this.

resident-shooter
03-28-2011, 3:05 PM
Meh.... with all the anti gunners being brought into public courts and repeatedly raped in the аss for AW bans, mag capacity, ammo registration and others.... I really doubt that this will make it past an article. They need to try to hold on to whatever they have in place now.

Nick Justice
03-28-2011, 3:37 PM
Exactly. The government is getting to the point where it can get away with WTH it wants to. It sounds scary or :TFH: but the second amendment was created so that we the people could stop govt from doing S#!t like this.

I think it was in McDONALD where SCOTUS said that the Constitution takes certain choices off the government's table.

wazdat
03-28-2011, 3:50 PM
You can leave comments if you like, but they will have no effect. If BATFE has decided to change the rules on what features or shotguns they're going to restrict the only way to force them to change is through litigation.

I'm also involved in high powered rocketry and it took the National Association of Rocketry and Tripoli Rocketry Association ten years of litigation to force BATFE to stop classifying and regulating APCP (ammonium perchlorate composite propellant) rocket motors as explosives.

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.tripoli.org/News/Internal/BATFELawSuit/tabid/113/Default.aspx

Mesa Tactical
03-28-2011, 4:18 PM
Exactly. The government is getting to the point where it can get away with WTH it wants to. It sounds scary or :TFH: but the second amendment was created so that we the people could stop govt from doing S#!t like this.

The entire point of the memo is the ATF attempting to get a handle on what is meant by "non-sporting," so it can enforce the 1968 GCA as it is required to do. There is no authorization or, I suspect, desire on the part of the ATF to expand its remit.

Insisting otherwise and shouting about how they are all coming after us to take our guns is no doubt satisfying, but does nothing to help understand the purpose of the memo or its mostly likely consequences.

Congress irresponsibly hung the ATF out to dry in 1968 the same way the California Legislature has done to the California DoJ with vague and unenforceable "assault weapon" bans. "Sporting purposes" has no meaning on its face and is even more loosely defined and misunderstood than "assault weapon" and "AR-15 pattern rifle."

The ATF has a statutory responsibility to define what Congress refused to define. In that regard, they are taking their jobs more seriously than the California DoJ has in the past regarding "assault weapons," over which they have simply thrown up their hands and allowed the chips to fall where they may.

NytWolf
03-28-2011, 5:39 PM
That was halarious haha. With your permission I would send this to the ATF right now if you havn't done it already

No problem. Go ahead. :)

Legasat
03-28-2011, 5:43 PM
Another not so subtle back-door attempt at restricting our gun rights.

They will never stop!

vincewarde
03-29-2011, 12:24 AM
Bury them. The address is: shotgunstudy@atf.gov

Feel free to use all or part of the wording that follows. Get everyone in your family to send a comment too. I believe they will have to report the number and type of comments they received. It may be hard for them to push this through if they get millions of negative comments.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed shotgun import regulations.

I oppose any additional import regulations on shotguns for the following reasons:

1) The 2nd amendment, as affirmed in the Heller and McDonald decisions does not support a "sporting use" test.

2) If the term "sporting use" includes organized competitive target shooting, the shotguns in question meet this test. The are used in virtually every IDPA and IPSC 3 gun match - two of the most popular shooting sports in the US.

3) The "sporting use" test is unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary. It relies upon nothing more than personal taste and fashion. Before WW1, lever action rifles were the preferred sporting rifle. During WW1 millions of soldiers were trained to use bolt action rifles. After the war, the bolt action rifle became the preferred sporting arm. Before the war, a "sporting use" test might well have found that bolt action rifles had no sporting use - after the war these very guns became the most popular hunting rifles in the nation, and such a ruling would have been impossible. Now that almost 50 years worth of military veterans have been trained on the M16/M4 platform, it is no surprise that they prefer the same ergonomics (pistol grip and telescoping stock) in their sporting rifles and shotguns.

Thank you for considering my comments.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

RomanDad
03-29-2011, 9:04 AM
The study concludes with:



If that were the case, I propose that the NHTSA conduct a study which determines the importability of vehicles based on its transportability of people.

My initial estimation is that the study will rule out vehicles like high-cost exotic cars, because they are largely impractical for transporting people, but at the same time, make it okay to sell Ford Pintos because it is a domestic and not affected by the study. The study would also rule out luxury cars, such as Lexus, BMW, and especially Bentley and Rolls Royce, because while they transport people, they impose a higher danger to the public because of their increased vehicle weight. Let's go even further and rule out the all-electric and hybrid vehicles too, because pedestrians cannot tell they are coming due to their lack of noise. Now, what about features? Features which do not contribute to the transportability of people, such as convertible tops, tow hitches, and aerodynamic parts such as rear spoilers and front fascias, should rule a vehicle non-importable. Offroad vehicles are military in nature, so those have no general purpose of transporting people.


Dont give them any ideas.


Does my proposal sound ridiculous? You bet it does, but it'll never happen.
There are a LOT of politicians who would PASS IT IN A HEARTBEAT.

Nick Justice
03-29-2011, 9:27 AM
The entire point of the memo is the ATF attempting to get a handle on what is meant by "non-sporting," so it can enforce the 1968 GCA as it is required to do. There is no authorization or, I suspect, desire on the part of the ATF to expand its remit.


The ATF has a statutory responsibility to define what Congress refused to define. In that regard, they are taking their jobs more seriously than the California DoJ has in the past regarding "assault weapons," over which they have simply thrown up their hands and allowed the chips to fall where they may.

But the stated "stautory responsibility" is unconstitutional. Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch. Doing so violates the seperation of powers, and the checks and balances.

Some may say Section 8 Clause 18 of the US Const. gives congress power to do anything it wants. Wrong. Clause 18 says "necessary and proper". Delegating legislative power is not necessary. Just because congress doesn't want to do something doesn't make it necessary for them to tell another branch of government that it has to do it. They are not allowed to escape their responsibilities. Nor is it proper for them to delegate the power, for the reasons stated above.

Mesa Tactical
03-29-2011, 11:39 AM
But the stated "stautory responsibility" is unconstitutional. Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch. Doing so violates the seperation of powers, and the checks and balances.

I will leave that determination up to the US Supreme Court, whose job it is to arbitrate such questions, but Congress does this sort of thing every day, when enabling regulatory bodies. The actual regulations are drafted by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive branch, as authorized by Congress.

In this particular case, Congress used a term they left undefined. It is up to the ATF to figure out what that term is supposed to mean. An unenviable position.

Mesa Tactical
04-06-2011, 4:41 PM
BTW, some important background reading concerning this memo include 1989 Report and Recommendation on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/documents/report-on-importability-of-semi-automatic-rifles.pdf) and 1998 Department of the Treasury Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Rifles (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-study-on-sporting-suitability-of-modified-semiautomatic-assault-rifles.pdf).

You can't really intelligently address the points raised in the current memo without familiarizing yourself with these earlier studies.

Uxi
04-06-2011, 4:56 PM
It remains relevant until the 1968 GCA is somehow overturned.

I don't believe that is on anyone's radar.

It will be. Hopefully once we get Nordyke, etc. Seems so very clear that the NFA itself needs a serious challenge, as well.

I'm not opposed to some reasonable regulation, but seems clear to me that an Amendment is necessary to do anything like what we have now. If BATFE was forced to give us our stamp if we're not otherwise disqualified (felony conviction, etc), it might be different.

Mesa Tactical
04-06-2011, 5:00 PM
It will be. Hopefully once we get Nordyke, etc. Seems so very clear that the NFA itself needs a serious challenge, as well.

While I agree the NFA is unreasonable and certainly inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment (as I have mentioned before, my gun rights views are probably more radical than 90% of the people posting here), it is unlikely I will live long enough before any influential body of Congressmen seek to overturn it.

After all, almost every public figure who attacks "assault weapon" bans (and I can't think of any prominent politicians who do) is careful to point out that "assault weapons" aren't machine guns.

And it's really hard to see how Heller or McDonald or Nordyke or any other civil rights ruling will protect the open importation of firearms.

IncVoid
04-06-2011, 5:14 PM
The study concludes with:



If that were the case, I propose that the NHTSA conduct a study which determines the importability of vehicles based on its transportability of people.

My initial estimation is that the study will rule out vehicles like high-cost exotic cars, because they are largely impractical for transporting people, but at the same time, make it okay to sell Ford Pintos because it is a domestic and not affected by the study. The study would also rule out luxury cars, such as Lexus, BMW, and especially Bentley and Rolls Royce, because while they transport people, they impose a higher danger to the public because of their increased vehicle weight. Let's go even further and rule out the all-electric and hybrid vehicles too, because pedestrians cannot tell they are coming due to their lack of noise. Now, what about features? Features which do not contribute to the transportability of people, such as convertible tops, tow hitches, and aerodynamic parts such as rear spoilers and front fascias, should rule a vehicle non-importable. Offroad vehicles are military in nature, so those have no general purpose of transporting people.

Does my proposal sound ridiculous? You bet it does, but it'll never happen.

I like this as a "see how ridiculous this sounds" piece.
I used to say lets limit vehicles gas tank size as well and all cars need a approved governor.

This is only imported firearms correct? Are there no USA made Saiga 12s?

paradox
04-06-2011, 5:17 PM
Couldn't you make a trade case in front of the WTO arguing that the US bans import of items that it allows to be built and sold domestically?

wazdat
05-10-2011, 2:38 PM
I wrote Duncan Hunter concerning the ATF shotgun study. We need more like him. His response below.

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

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding a recent study released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) on the importability of shotguns. It is good to hear from you.

I appreciate you making me aware of the article concerning gun control. As you may know, BATFE determines the importability of certain shotguns based on provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This recent study was conducted in order to establish such criteria for these provisions. I welcomed hearing your opposition to the findings of the study and the resulting proposed restrictions on the importation of shotguns and I share your concern.

As an avid outdoorsman and a gun owner myself, I strongly share your support for the fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to safely and responsibly possess firearms. Please be assured that I remain committed to upholding the Second Amendment and will monitor any developments in the matter with your thoughts in mind.

Thank you once again for contacting me. If you have any additional questions or concerns please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress