Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 'Stupid' gun laws catch owners unaware

  1. #1
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    'Stupid' gun laws catch owners unaware

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234789

    A not very substantative article but a call for the right reform of stupid laws.

    Basically we should repeal all or most of the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 National Firearms Act!

    Again, gun laws only apply to the law abiding. Why should honest "citizens" be restricted in any way from bearing arms?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The author claims that millions of shotgun owners are breaking federal law, but never goes on to explain what the law is, or how they are breaking it.

    This article isn't journalism. It's muck-raing...

    If he posted on this forum, he would be inundated with an avalanche of "Cite Please" requests for his claims...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  3. #3
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    from the article...

    But the ATF has decreed that since the barrels of AR-pattern rifles are easily interchangeable, if a collector with a legal SBR possesses any other receiver on which that barrel can be installed, he is in possession of multiple SBRs and is in violation of the law if he doesn't pay the extra taxes and register each one – even if he never mounts the short barrel on any other receiver.
    Anyone know if this is true? I one day intend to build a suppressed SBR, but I already own an AR with a 16" barrel, is he correct that I would have to obtain tax stamps for both?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The author claims that millions of shotgun owners are breaking federal law, but never goes on to explain what the law is, or how they are breaking it.

    This article isn't journalism. It's muck-raing...

    If he posted on this forum, he would be inundated with an avalanche of "Cite Please" requests for his claims...

    Do you know what it is? (not being a smart-butt either)

    It pertains to the latest "sneaky" rule change the BATFE made that said all shotguns with a pistol grip (w/o a full stock) are no longer shotguns and are now considered to be in the category of AOW (any other weapon) and subject to the NFA registration and tax requirements.

    So the article is actually correct in saying that shotgun owners are in violation of the law. What bothers me, quite severely I might add, is that the rule change might be applied to those who possessed these shotguns PRIOR to the rule change.

    This would mean that the rule change would violate Ex-Post Facto law requirements. It's also an excellent example of the BATFE being an entity without checks and balances, without oversight, and apparently unlimited authority to make up any crap they deem necessary...especially if they are targeting a specific individual or group.

    The article informed me of something I wasn't aware of. I had no idea that if I had an AR in SBR configuration and had other lower receivers that I would have to register EVERY lower receiver as SBR and pay the taxes on them, even if they aren't assembled. That means it would even apply to a blank receiver that is INCAPABLE of being used with the SBR upper.

    The information is out there to prove the GCA and the NFA have done little to nothing to stop gun-related crimes. It's time to get rid of both acts and stop the madness called the BATFE.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    from the article...



    Anyone know if this is true? I one day intend to build a suppressed SBR, but I already own an AR with a 16" barrel, is he correct that I would have to obtain tax stamps for both?
    peruse ATF's website long enough and you will find that is what they want to enforce. However there is some precedent the other way. Look up the Thompson center pistol exception.

  6. #6
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    Short and simple, The TSA and BATFE have GOT TO GO!
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroHog View Post
    Short and simple, The TSA and BATFE have GOT TO GO!

    Good luck with that. Try pulling both of those from where they have spent years digging in deep.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Good luck with that. Try pulling both of those from where they have spent years digging in deep.
    it certainly won't happen if no one tries.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    Do you know what it is? (not being a smart-butt either)

    It pertains to the latest "sneaky" rule change the BATFE made that said all shotguns with a pistol grip (w/o a full stock) are no longer shotguns and are now considered to be in the category of AOW (any other weapon) and subject to the NFA registration and tax requirements.
    I haven't heard that one. Do you have a cite?

    I am aware of the ATF ruling that pistol grip only shotguns (like the Mossberg Cruiser or JIT) do not meet the legal definition of a shotgun or rifle, therefore anyone buying one from an FFL must be 21. (The law says the buyer of any firearm other than a shotgun or rifle must be 21; shotguns and rifles, by legal definition, are shoulder-fired weapons, so a pistol grip, while legally a long gun, does not qualify.)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Gainesville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I haven't heard that one. Do you have a cite?

    I am aware of the ATF ruling that pistol grip only shotguns (like the Mossberg Cruiser or JIT) do not meet the legal definition of a shotgun or rifle, therefore anyone buying one from an FFL must be 21. (The law says the buyer of any firearm other than a shotgun or rifle must be 21; shotguns and rifles, by legal definition, are shoulder-fired weapons, so a pistol grip, while legally a long gun, does not qualify.)
    Here you go:

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...tes-new-danger

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    A lot of the stuff I read on WND makes me think it's the Daily Kos for "right wingers" without any concern for facts.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    What they are classifying PGO shotguns as are "other firearms", subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968, but NOT subject to the NFA, NOT an "any other weapon", not a "destructive device" or any other such NFA regulated nonsense. There is a third category of firearms transferred via a standard form 4473: "other firearm". A stripped AR-15 lower receiver is in exactly same category. This is how a PGO shotgun is transferred.
    Spot on. "Other firearm" and "any other weapon" are not the same thing. To the casual reader they might seem synonymous, but AOW has a legal definition, and every AOW is subject to NFA controls.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387
    rescind all anti-weapon laws passed since 1300 and only put criminals in jail. Problem solved and BATF can be history. Win win.

Posting Permissions

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