PDA

View Full Version : If the ATF were to ban "non-sporting" shotguns


supermanuf
03-26-2011, 10:40 AM
How much warning would we have before such a ban would go into effect?

Been thinking about getting a new shotty... Do I have to hurry up?

Ross
03-26-2011, 10:43 AM
Just buy a Mossberg or Remington, replace barrel, stock, and fore grip. Swap back and forth as required.

i.e. - don't worry about it.

scrat
03-26-2011, 10:46 AM
nope pretty much any shotgun can be classified as a sporting shotgun. i have a couple single shot shotguns. if you need to classify them they are for hunting bird and old style clay birds. Yep. your classic home defense shot gun. Well that not a home defense shotgun thats a sporting style steel shooting competition shot gun. Which when you change the barrel can be used for hunting.


In short it would be pretty hard to stop shot gun sales. Pretty much for now its autoloading hand guns and rifles that are always in the eyes of the liberals.

chaseface
03-26-2011, 10:57 AM
the ATF is doing a study determining the IMPORTABILITY of certain shotguns, aimed at those that they decide do not have a sporting purpose. Home grown US of A products are not in jepordy. But shotguns like the Saiga 12 could be, thats why there is a current hold on the importation of them while the study is being done. Heres the link to the ATF study http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

scrat
03-26-2011, 11:10 AM
mmmm i did not know that. mmmmmmm well i have 6 shotguns so i think im ok. hopefully nothing happens though

jaymz
03-26-2011, 11:16 AM
You have six shotguns so you're good. What about everyone else? Attitudes such as yours make it easier to pass the bans.

chaseface
03-26-2011, 11:18 AM
yeah seriously, the price of Saiga 12 shotguns has gone up around $200 in the past few months. I even know of a gun shop in the bay area trying to charge $1400 bucks for one!!!!

CSACANNONEER
03-26-2011, 11:21 AM
How much warning would we have before such a ban would go into effect?

Been thinking about getting a new shotty... Do I have to hurry up?

Naw, they won't include airsoft "shotties" in the ban. However, if you wanted to buy a new shotgun and are afraid of some sort of ban, I'd think about getting it within the next few years.

mmmm i did not know that. mmmmmmm well i have 6 shotguns so i think im ok. hopefully nothing happens though

Only 6? You really need to work on that part of your collection. I'd expect you to have at least 6 charcoal burning fowlers.

wilit
03-26-2011, 11:23 AM
Like chaseface said, the proposed ban is on the import of non-sporting shotguns, not ownership. If Saiga were to license a company in the US to manufacture Saiga shotguns, then the non-sporting thing becomes a non-issue since they're not being imported.

NytWolf
03-26-2011, 11:23 AM
All the ban would do is limit shotguns to a 5-round maximum and exclude "evil features". All Saiga would need to do is make 5-round magazines.

chaseface
03-26-2011, 11:25 AM
Saigas are imported with 5 round magazines

rromeo
03-26-2011, 11:28 AM
Saigas already come with 5 round magazines, it's my understanding that anything more requires 922(r) compliance. So, what does this study really prove?

chaseface
03-26-2011, 11:42 AM
Well here's the way I see it, with rifles the ATF were able to restrict importation of rifles capable of using "high capacity" military magazines even if they were to be imported with a 10 round mag. Thats why Saiga rifles are imported with proprietary magazines and you must do a conversion to allow it to take the standard AK mag. So since in Russia, Saiga 12 shotguns can use magazines that hold over 5 rounds, including drum mags, it could pose a problem if the ATF attemps to use the same guidelines. The study does not mention whether or not they are taking that into consideration or whether they are only considering the shotgun the way it is imported.

jaustin612
03-26-2011, 12:11 PM
ATF just doesn't like that after street sweepers got reclassified that people can have saigas, which are just as cool btw...

Hogstir
03-26-2011, 12:32 PM
ATF should be happy to have another weapon they can "walk" into Mexico and then try to blame US citizens

nicki
03-26-2011, 12:55 PM
The title of this thread should be changed to the ATF ALREADY DID BAN "NON SPORTING SHOTGUNS" and they did this before the passage of the 1994 AW ban by reinterpretting the "sporting purpose" of the GCA 68.

The BATF has to justify it's existence, let's face it, since 1994 after they reclassified the streetsweeper, striker 12 and the USAS as destructive devices because they are "non sporting", someone probably got the idea that they can start reclassifying more shotguns.

The other side never stopped, they won't be able to get things through Congress, so they will do whatever they can with executive orders.

The other side starts with banning imports first, then they try to follow up with banning domestic production.

The "Sporting Purpose" test is very subjective, apparently the BATF don't consider combat shooting and three gun matches "Sporting".

If one took the position that only things like hunting and skeet shooting are "sporting purposes", then one could take the position that a shotgun that has a capacity of over 3 rounds is a non sporting gun.

The gun banners don't go after "common guns", they go after "less common" guns first and see how far they can get away with before we push back.

The original NFA34 included "handguns", but the Congress removed them because they were too "common". My gut tells me that SBS and SBR's were included not because they were particularly bad, but because the writers of the original NFA34 probably figured if they regulated handguns out of existence, cut down rifles and shotguns would be improvised replacements.

Back in 1934 handguns were already restricted in many areas of the United States already.

Some believe the NFA 34 was a jobs bill, one to justify keeping ATF officers since Alcohol Prohibition just ended. Had the NFA enact been stalled a few years, the decreasing crime rate from the end of prohibition may have resulted in the non passage of the NFA.

Funny thing, the second amendent isn't about sporting, it is about "self defense" so far.

Eventually we will get a case that it is about making sure that "We the People" have the means to protect our system of order liberty and self goverment from government officials that are in violation of the oaths of office.

Nicki

CSACANNONEER
03-26-2011, 2:41 PM
The BATF has to justify it's existence, let's face it, since 1994 after they reclassified the streetsweeper, striker 12 and the USAS as destructive devices because they are "non sporting", someone probably got the idea that they can start reclassifying more shotguns.

Nicki

I've never really paid attention to the 1994 date before. Was this part of or due to the Clinton importation ban?

Quiet
03-26-2011, 3:13 PM
Need to ammend Federal laws, in order to seperate "sporting purpose" and shotguns with a 12gauge or larger bore.


18 USC 921
(a) As used in this chapter—
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

GaryV
03-26-2011, 4:13 PM
I think it's time that someone started attacking the ATF's interpretation of the "sporting purposes" portion of the '68 GCA in court. I'm not talking about trying to overturn the GCA itself. That's another, later battle. But the GCA clearly says “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to a sporting purpose”. However, it is clear that the ATF has consistently ignored the emphasized portion of the law. They instead turn it on its head and argue that if it is readily adaptable to a non-sporting purpose, then it is banned. But that isn't what the law says. Several firearms that are already banned, or might soon be, are clearly easily adaptable to a sporting purpose, such as the Hadar version of the Galil, or the S12. Both have had their "evil" features removed and are/were imported with low-cap magazines, making it blatantly obvious that they already ARE adapted to sporting purposes in their imported configuration, making the question of their "adaptability" moot.

The ATF's argument though is that they could easily be adapted back to other purposes, and may therefore be banned from import. But that is not what the law says, and it is not within their authority under the GCA to ban guns under those criteria. This seems a relatively easy case to make in court, rather than trying for the full overturning of the "sporting purposes test altogether.

ElvenSoul
03-26-2011, 4:27 PM
The Saiga 12's will just be like the AK's...US made barells and recievers. The sales will continue.

cdtx2001
03-26-2011, 5:25 PM
I don't like the idea of the ATF telling me what is and is not "sporting" according to their definition. Here, you can have this but since we don't like that, you can't have it.

Doesn't the ATF have anything better to do? Hey wait, I think the cartels are running low on US made AR15s, time for them to walk a few more over there.

rromeo
03-26-2011, 5:51 PM
The Saiga 12's will just be like the AK's...US made barells and recievers. The sales will continue.
I was thinkiing of that. Making receiver flats wouldn't be too difficult, right? It's like any other AK?

Munk
03-26-2011, 7:18 PM
The entire idea of a subjective "sporting purposes" qualifier is absolutely offensive. It's also stupidly vague. It gives no clear defining metric for what "sporting purposes" are, and how things can be made to comply.

I think they're afraid to give a legally binding definition of what their "sporting purposes" metric is. If they did, we would just pull an OLL, or BB maneuver and tell them to pound sand.

I was thinkiing of that. Making receiver flats wouldn't be too difficult, right? It's like any other AK?

I think I asked about a Saiga 12 build party once, and the people who do the usual AK builds told me, "Not at this time, because the 'right people' think it's a bad idea".

I was wondering where this idea came from. Isn't it already legal to build your own Pistols and Rifles? I thought Shotgun manufacturing followed the same rules.

ke6guj
03-26-2011, 9:41 PM
I think I asked about a Saiga 12 build party once, and the people who do the usual AK builds told me, "Not at this time, because the 'right people' think it's a bad idea".

I was wondering where this idea came from. Isn't it already legal to build your own Pistols and Rifles? I thought Shotgun manufacturing followed the same rules.

not sure why it would be a bad idea except for the reason that most people would want to do a Saiga-12 build is to do a build that is on the cutting edge of legality. That might be why it is thought to be a bad idea.

But when I called AK-builder about flats, he said that he didn't make them, and had no plans to do so. Probably doesn't see a big enough market for them right now since you'd have to demil an S-12 to get an S-12 parts kit. The only reason I'd do that is so that I could make a PG-only gun that could be AOWed.

2Bear
03-27-2011, 4:15 AM
This is silly. A Saiga 12 - 22" with bolt hold-open is for skeet shooting.
http://www.saiga-12.com/images/Saiga01.jpg

AJAX22
03-27-2011, 8:18 AM
There is a u.s manufacturer (based in ca) who has flats and dies for s12 receivers already made in case something comes from this.

That said, the price would spike considerably.

To answer the op, what would happen is that the importer would apply for approval for a container full of s12's and would be denied.

Then it will (probably) go to court to challenge tue legitimacy of the ban.

I would hope that 2af is already prepping the case, as the import restriction WILL happen eventually...

These 'studdies' are highly agenda driven, and are relied upon.

Frankly, I'm considering writing up my own God damned study to have published that refutes the batfe's study point by point.

And then calls attention to the fact that the sporting purposes language will Lilly not withstand challenge on 2nd ammendment grounds.

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2011, 9:53 AM
I think I asked about a Saiga 12 build party once, and the people who do the usual AK builds told me, "Not at this time, because the 'right people' think it's a bad idea".

I was wondering where this idea came from. Isn't it already legal to build your own Pistols and Rifles? I thought Shotgun manufacturing followed the same rules.

First, I don't remember that thread. Secondly, there are no S12 parts kits around and you would have to make a receiver from scratch which is not easy enough to be done at a build party. Next, if you are only talking about converting or changing the appearance of a stock S12, there has been at least one S12 conversion party and many S12s have been converted at AK BPs. Finally, I don't know why "the right people" would have indicated that: changing the configuration of a legal stock S12 into a different legal configuration, would not be advisable.

-hanko
03-27-2011, 11:40 AM
How much warning would we have before such a ban would go into effect?

Been thinking about getting a new shotty... Do I have to hurry up?
The actual ban will prohibit shotgun ownership by those using the term "shotty";)

-hanko

Munk
03-27-2011, 4:36 PM
First, I don't remember that thread. Secondly, there are no S12 parts kits around and you would have to make a receiver from scratch which is not easy enough to be done at a build party. Next, if you are only talking about converting or changing the appearance of a stock S12, there has been at least one S12 conversion party and many S12s have been converted at AK BPs. Finally, I don't know why "the right people" would have indicated that: changing the configuration of a legal stock S12 into a different legal configuration, would not be advisable.

See, that's why I asked about it originally. I didn't know there were no parts kits available. I think that's kinda sad, because I wouldn't mind building one of my own and not having to count parts for 922r compliance would be a bonus. It would also ignore the "sporting" restriction on imports as well, since it would be home built.

Oh well. As they become more widespread, maybe one day I'll be able to do it.

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2011, 5:50 PM
See, that's why I asked about it originally. I didn't know there were no parts kits available. I think that's kinda sad, because I wouldn't mind building one of my own and not having to count parts for 922r compliance would be a bonus. It would also ignore the "sporting" restriction on imports as well, since it would be home built.

Oh well. As they become more widespread, maybe one day I'll be able to do it.

Parts kits normally come from completely built guns which have been demilled before they can be sold in the states. So, if you really wanted a S12 parts kit, you could always buy a complete S12 and cut it in two places with a torch while making sure that you remove enough material during the cutting process. As far as still having to comply with the number of imported parts being used, can you please explain why you don't think 922(r) would still apply. I believe it would. I think you need to read 922(r) a bit better. As a homebuilt gun, you are the one assembling it. Therefore, if it doesn't comply with 922(r), you are the one who broke the law.

Apocalypsenerd
03-27-2011, 6:20 PM
So, based on the definition of destructive device and bore diameter, does that mean a 20 gauge is automatically exempt?

Could we have a semi-auto shotgun in 20g and not worry about it?

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2011, 6:26 PM
So, based on the definition of destructive device and bore diameter, does that mean a 20 gauge is automatically exempt?

Could we have a semi-auto shotgun in 20g and not worry about it?

????? How would a 20g be exempt for federal law or Ca law?

JeffM
03-27-2011, 6:32 PM
There is a u.s manufacturer (based in ca) who has flats and dies for s12 receivers already made in case something comes from this.

That said, the price would spike considerably.

To answer the op, what would happen is that the importer would apply for approval for a container full of s12's and would be denied.

Then it will (probably) go to court to challenge tue legitimacy of the ban.

I would hope that 2af is already prepping the case, as the import restriction WILL happen eventually...

These 'studdies' are highly agenda driven, and are relied upon.

Frankly, I'm considering writing up my own God damned study to have published that refutes the batfe's study point by point.

And then calls attention to the fact that the sporting purposes language will Lilly not withstand challenge on 2nd ammendment grounds.

From what I'm hearing it sounds like BATF is already not allowing more Sagia-12 by simply sitting on the import applications without approving (or denying) them.

Apocalypsenerd
03-27-2011, 7:19 PM
????? How would a 20g be exempt for federal law or Ca law?

I don't know. It just seems that since the Destructive Device definition includes shotguns with bores larger than .5" that a smaller gauge could not be defined as destructive. It wouldn't be exempt, it just wouldn't fall under the definition of destructive device.

Maybe I am reading it wrong. I'm wondering if some laws/regulations passed to affect the 12 guage will not affect the 20.

rromeo
03-27-2011, 7:27 PM
20 gauge bore is .615"
Do you mean .410 bore?

Apocalypsenerd
03-27-2011, 7:29 PM
hmm, sure .410. I thought 12 gauge was .60 but I didn't look closely.

Scotty
03-27-2011, 7:29 PM
3-gun is a sport. Plenty of Saiga shotguns used in that sport.

ZRX61
03-27-2011, 7:33 PM
nope pretty much any shotgun can be classified as a sporting shotgun.

I shoot clays with a Mossberg 590.... :)

goober
03-27-2011, 7:40 PM
3-gun is a sport. Plenty of Saiga shotguns used in that sport.

not according to BATFE. read the report.

redneckshootist
03-27-2011, 8:36 PM
not sure why it would be a bad idea except for the reason that most people would want to do a Saiga-12 build is to do a build that is on the cutting edge of legality. That might be why it is thought to be a bad idea.

But when I called AK-builder about flats, he said that he didn't make them, and had no plans to do so. Probably doesn't see a big enough market for them right now since you'd have to demil an S-12 to get an S-12 parts kit. The only reason I'd do that is so that I could make a PG-only gun that could be AOWed.

Ive got s12 flats........ was gonna use them for AOWs but I may do more with them than that now. Waiting till next month to decide

Munk
03-27-2011, 8:46 PM
Parts kits normally come from completely built guns which have been demilled before they can be sold in the states. So, if you really wanted a S12 parts kit, you could always buy a complete S12 and cut it in two places with a torch while making sure that you remove enough material during the cutting process. As far as still having to comply with the number of imported parts being used, can you please explain why you don't think 922(r) would still apply. I believe it would. I think you need to read 922(r) a bit better. As a homebuilt gun, you are the one assembling it. Therefore, if it doesn't comply with 922(r), you are the one who broke the law.

No, I get 922(r). I was just basing it on the (mistaken) idea that the parts kits could be had from domestic (i.e. non-imported) sources.

From your description of how they are obtained, I am (now) aware that parts kits won't be readily available, and won't be of domestic manufacture.

I still think it's sad, but long for the the day that there will be american made parts available so that I may build one one of my own.