Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: What, you thought that 2nd amendment protected you? LOL!!!......

  1. #1
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840

    What, you thought that 2nd amendment protected you? LOL!!!......

    I wish this were a joke. It's not. And it may be too late. I don't know.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2012/05/6611...blic-comments/

    http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9223
    Last edited by mobiushky; 06-22-2012 at 10:28 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Pardner!
    This particular story has cropped up before, and has the general overall feeling of an urban legend.

    What I do know is that the ATF was looking into banning the IMPORTATION of certain types of shotguns, but nothing beyond that.

    Being the sort of guy I am (prone to taking things with a grain of salt) I decided to contact the ATF by phone to get a direct answer.
    What I was told, and may not be especially relevant to this thread, is that:
    "The ATF did have a specific entry on their website inviting public comment."
    What those public comments were in relation to is not clear.
    My question was specific to the banning of certain types of military style shotguns, and they could not state that was the purpose of inviting public comment at this time.

    As a result, I gave my phone number and name to the person on the phone who promised they'd research the question and contact me with the answer.

    When that'll happen is unknown to me, but when the answer comes, I'll be certain to post it here.

    Stay tuned for more information.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  3. #3
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    I'm normally very skeptical also. What piqued my interest was that RMGO was quoted, which lends some credibility to the story. But I am interested to see where this goes. We had intended to purchase a home defense shotgun next year sometime. This may well bump that time frame forward some. If it works out to be true.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Sorry for the double post, but here's the link to the study they are talking about.

    http://atf.gov/publications/firearms...n-shotguns.pdf

    What's being talked about is this particular portion the conclusion:

    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 firearm. Our determinations will in no way preclude the importation of true sporting
    shotguns. While it will certainly prevent the importation of certain shotguns, we believe that those shotguns containing the enumerated features cannot be fairly characterized as “sporting” shotguns under the statute. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the working group that shotguns with any of the characteristics or features listed above not be authorized for importation.
    So what are the characteristics that they are talking about?

    Here's one from the report:

    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.
    Here are the list of features that according to the study make it not for sporting:

    (1) Folding, telescoping or collapsible stock.
    (2) Bayonet Lug.
    (3) Flash Suppressor.
    (4) Magazine over 5 rounds, or a Drum Magazine.
    (5) Grenade Launcher Mount.
    (6) Integrated Rail Systems.
    (7) Light Enhancing Devices.
    (8) Excessive Weight.
    (9) Excessive Bulk.
    (10) Forward Pistol Grip or Other Protruding Part Designed or Used for Gripping the Shotgun
    with the Shooter’s Extended Hand.

    What does that make it? A self-defense shotgun.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    The NRA-ILA responded to public comment in April 2011 on this..
    They basically indicated that the Supreme Court has already ruled that "sporting purposes" is only ONE reason that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

    Personally I'm not worried about it unless our current administration continues past November.. Even then, I do not think this would pass Supreme Court muster.

    --Rob

    [Edit to add] Here's the link to the response http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Sho...ATFE_FINAL.pdf it's 32 pages or so..
    Last edited by Bellum_Intus; 06-22-2012 at 02:46 PM.
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  6. #6
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    The NRA-ILA responded to public comment in April 2011 on this..

    Personally I'm not worried about it unless our current administration continues past November..

    --Rob
    That's exactly how I feel right now. I'm hoping it never goes into effect.

    Oh and thanks for the comment on NRA-ILA. I tried finding info at the NRA site and couldn't find anything.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 06-22-2012 at 02:43 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Thanks to Rob's comment I did some more digging it a different way and found the NRA's comments. Here's the link:

    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Sho...ATFE_FINAL.pdf

    Enjoy.

  8. #8
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy folks!
    ATF called back. This only affects imported shotguns not domestically made ones.
    Note that it said it does not affect law abiding citizens.
    Since it only applies to important shotguns, I see no reason to get our knickers in a knot.

    Hopefully the motive behind this is to help domestic gun makers.

    Blessings.
    M-Taliesin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy folks!
    ATF called back. This only affects imported shotguns not domestically made ones.
    Note that it said it does not affect law abiding citizens.
    Since it only applies to important shotguns, I see no reason to get our knickers in a knot.

    Hopefully the motive behind this is to help domestic gun makers.

    Blessings.
    M-Taliesin
    I don't want to see this 'ban', the UN 'ban' or any other 'ban' .. I want an imported Benelli shotgun...
    We all saw how successful the Assault weapons 'ban' was.. so much so it was expired..

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  10. #10
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy folks!
    ATF called back. This only affects imported shotguns not domestically made ones.
    Note that it said it does not affect law abiding citizens.
    Since it only applies to important shotguns, I see no reason to get our knickers in a knot.

    Hopefully the motive behind this is to help domestic gun makers.

    Blessings.
    M-Taliesin
    It always seems innocuous. Problem is, how many shotguns are ACTUALLY made in the US? I'm sure there are some. But the problem is, it's a first step. They shouldn't be banning any of it. If no one objects to the importation, who will object to stopping them from being made? Maybe it's just me.

    Keep in mind that they use weasel words all the time to try to get de facto bans in place. Sort of like when NJ considered banning ammunition.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    It always seems innocuous. Problem is, how many shotguns are ACTUALLY made in the US?.

    USA
    Mossberg
    Ithica
    Remington
    Ruger


    Imported:
    Benelli USA is still manufactured in Italy
    Savage - China

    umm.. let me do some research
    Last edited by Bellum_Intus; 06-22-2012 at 03:19 PM.
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  12. #12
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    I know Mossberg for sure

    Benelli USA is still manufactured in Italy
    Savage - China

    umm.. let me do some research
    What's always a little touchy in these cases is what is actually made in the US. Some products (not really speaking guns here) are just bolted together here, but are actually imported from other places. But they can still call them made in the US. Even though they are actually imported. Just a thought.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    What's always a little touchy in these cases is what is actually made in the US. Some products (not really speaking guns here) are just bolted together here, but are actually imported from other places. But they can still call them made in the US. Even though they are actually imported. Just a thought.
    EXACTLY..

    Benelli is a prime example, they are ASSEMBLED in the US, imported parts.

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  14. #14
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    EXACTLY..

    Benelli is a prime example, they are ASSEMBLED in the US, imported parts.

    --Rob
    Glock too, even though that has nothing to do with shotguns.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Avon, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    53
    Believe it or not, but Congress has already taken care of this issue with a little read provision.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/19/l...gun-ban-plans/

  16. #16
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass View Post
    Believe it or not, but Congress has already taken care of this issue with a little read provision.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/19/l...gun-ban-plans/
    Nice find..

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  17. #17
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Since it only applies to important shotguns, I see no reason to get our knickers in a knot.

    Hopefully the motive behind this is to help domestic gun makers.

    Blessings.
    M-Taliesin
    Wow. Did I read that right? I would support any true incentive to help US anything makers such as tax breaks and whatever. But this is nothing more than the steady progression of limiting our right to firearms. Plus the coolest shotgun ever is the Saiga 12. I don't want to see it go away


    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    It always seems innocuous. ....... They shouldn't be banning any of it. If no one objects to the importation, who will object to stopping them from being made? Maybe it's just me.

    Keep in mind that they use weasel words all the time to try to get de facto bans in place. Sort of like when NJ considered banning ammunition.
    BINGO!

  18. #18
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass View Post
    Believe it or not, but Congress has already taken care of this issue with a little read provision.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/19/l...gun-ban-plans/
    Yes. Thank you for finding this. It makes me wonder why we're seeing the articles now? Note that the article posted was May 29, 2012. Oh well, I'm happy to be wrong in this case.

  19. #19
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    Here's my take on the thing:
    We have the right to keep and bear arms. That's what the Constitution says. Pretty straightforward and plain.
    It doesn't say anything about importing firearms from other countries in general (i.e. Italy)
    or other countries that have an agenda to topple the United States (i.e. China)

    So I'm a real fan of buying American stuff.
    No, not all of my handguns are American made, but I do plan on buying American going forward.

    My shotgun? Mossburg Maverick 88 12 ga.
    Perfect for home defense.
    Expecially with 000 buck.

    Regardless of my own personal opinion, it would appear that the matter is moot in any regard.
    Considering congress did something worthwhile for a change.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy Folks!

    My shotgun? Mossburg Maverick 88 12 ga.
    Perfect for home defense.
    Expecially with 000 buck.

    Regardless of my own personal opinion, it would appear that the matter is moot in any regard.
    Considering congress did something worthwhile for a change.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    I have a Mossberg 500 and 535.. I REALLLLY want a Benelli though..
    My carry pistol is a Beretta 92FS manufactured in 1999 .. old.. but very reliable..

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  21. #21
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy Folks!
    Here's my take on the thing:
    We have the right to keep and bear arms. That's what the Constitution says. Pretty straightforward and plain.
    It doesn't say anything about importing firearms from other countries in general (i.e. Italy)
    or other countries that have an agenda to topple the United States (i.e. China)

    So I'm a real fan of buying American stuff.
    No, not all of my handguns are American made, but I do plan on buying American going forward.

    My shotgun? Mossburg Maverick 88 12 ga.
    Perfect for home defense.
    Expecially with 000 buck.

    Regardless of my own personal opinion, it would appear that the matter is moot in any regard.
    Considering congress did something worthwhile for a change.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    These are good and true American values M. My only issue is when I see the import-issue being used as an Anti-gun move (which is what I would percieve this now defunct ATF move to be). In these situations I feel it is appropriate to get bunched panties (or knickers knotted)!

  22. #22
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    These are good and true American values M. My only issue is when I see the import-issue being used as an Anti-gun move (which is what I would percieve this now defunct ATF move to be). In these situations I feel it is appropriate to get bunched panties (or knickers knotted)!
    Howdy Twoskins!
    Let me illuminate my point just a wee bit, if that's okay.
    I don't wish to be nit-picky, but the title of the entire thread was:

    What, you thought that 2nd amendment protected you? LOL!!!......

    And I was trying to illustrate that 2a applies to our right to keep and bear arms.
    It says nothing about any associated right to import them.
    Hence, when taken together with the original claims (badly overstated to begin with, considering the question only appliled to imports and subsequently rendered moot by congressional involvement) was a really cynical title considering there was not any actual or exigent threat to the 2nd Amendment as suggested by the title.

    None of this is to be construed as a critique of the OP, who posted in good faith and sincere desire to define he viewed as a threat to liberty. My only concern is that the OP did not research to verify the facts which I will do routinely to be certain the matter is relevant. As it turned out, there was no exigent threat, hence no need for getting knickers knotted or anything wadded or bunched up.

    We have enough an ample supply of issues before us, and are too few in number as a percentage of the U.S. population, to squander time or resources getting all excited about a dead issue. Hence, did I call ATF myself to verify a claim that seemed fanciful at best and provocative at worst. And my findings verified precisely what I suspected.... we were presented with an alarm and call to action for a non-issue.

    That the comments were invited by ATF is true, but they (along with every other freedom loving American) also have the right to free speech protected by the 1st Amendment. Anybody remember that one?

    They exercised their 1st Amendment right to voice their opinion, and invited other Americans to voice their opinion about the subject under consideration. In the aftermath, they found themselves being slammed (including comments on this thread) for having the unmitigated gall to have posed the question. References to what happened at Waco, and whether they are an outfit that should even exist and whether they have any scruples; being the 1st Amendment right of their detractors on this and other forums across the spectrum of firearms related boards. For what? A moot point?

    Like poor marksmen, we set ourselves to hitting the wrong target.
    We have far bigger fish to fry, and best be getting on with it.
    The recent incident in Aurora poses a greater threat by far than the imaginary one proposed by an issue that congress resoved already.
    Let's move on, and gather where actual threats to our freedom really exist. And for the love of Mike, let's have a clear sight picture and make sure what we're aiming at.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Last edited by M-Taliesin; 06-23-2012 at 10:48 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    Or, the short version might well read:


    On June 22nd, 2012, at This Very Site
    Nothing Happened!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Last edited by M-Taliesin; 06-23-2012 at 10:54 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Gotta stick up a little bit for myself. I did do a ton of research before I posted. Problem was, I was looking for the wrong things.

    The other issue is, to me, fixating on the "importation" part is short sighted in my opinion. No offense intended. It's just that there are a lot of ways that the government will get around 2A by using laws that make it more difficult to get the arms. I'm not opposed to "buy USA", it's just that there are ways to make 2A irrelevant by making it impossible to get certain things. For instance. NJ has a bill currently being debated that will allow the AG of NJ to ban any and all ammunition they feel is "dangerous." The bill is couched as a "no armor piercing bullets" bill, but there is actual language in the bill that opens the door to allow the local AG to ban ammo using executive fiat. Now I know that odds are pretty slim that the AG will ever really do that. BUT, what happens when a staunchly anti-gun AG hits the office and decides well all bullets are dangerous?

    My point is, banning the importation of a type of weapon can effectively result in the ban of that weapon completely. Because in the long run US companies won't be able to produce them as cheaply and no one would be able to afford $2000 plastic shotgun. Etc. It's not an out and out ban, but it's one step closer.

    The other issue is, when did you hear about this particular study? I knew nothing about it until it was published by 2 news outlets in May of this year. Why didn't we all know about it well in advance? It's a bit shady to me that the ATF even tried this in the first place. To me, that sufficient to be upset. Even if nothing came of it. But then, that's why we post on the forums, so other people who have more information can provide that info. Which they did, and I'm happy they did.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 06-23-2012 at 03:13 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Avon, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    53
    To back up mobiusky a bit, I would like to point out that there have been attempts at backdoor gun-banning by this administration already. The attempt by the EPA to ban lead ammo would have put a serious crimp in all our shooty goodness. Fortunately, Congress also jumped in and scuttled that attempt.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...in-ammunition/

    The newest work around has the Obama Administration pushing OSHA to get involved by trying to shut down gun ranges for "employee safety" issues.

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/23/osh...hooting-range/

    What I'm saying, is that while the 2A doesn't say anything particular about bullets, safety, importation, .etc, it should be read so as to protect the Right to Keep and Bear along with all the ancillary things necessary to Keep and Bear.

    Just my 2 cents.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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