Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: ATF announcement monday re importing shotguns

  1. #1
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    ATF announcement monday re importing shotguns

    http://blog.princelaw.com/2011/1/20/...un-importation

    Looks like they might forbid future importing of Saigas as "no-sporting purpose."

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Maybe the rules on what we are allowed to hunt should be changed. I can think of some urban "pests" that would make a good hunting "sport". The Saiga might be one of the preferred shotguns.

    If this ruling holds, perhaps the manufacturer will do the same as others have done in the past. They will merely "license" a US Manufacturer and thereby eliminating the requirement for "sporting purpose" in order to import.

    This is how a lot of revolvers were sold in this country by foreign manufacturers after the import of 2" bbl'd revolvers were barred. Ditto on firearms like the Walther PPK.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    With as many people as there are out there manufacturing AK clones in the US, I can't imagine that it will be long before someone does start it up, licensed or just home-grown...

    I think this is a silly rule...but what do I know?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by oneeyeross View Post
    With as many people as there are out there manufacturing AK clones in the US, I can't imagine that it will be long before someone does start it up, licensed or just home-grown...

    I think this is a silly rule...but what do I know?
    Then they just make it a DD, which is not legal to own in WA.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    13
    All you guys looking at the negative side. I bet our good friends at the ATF are realizing their mistake banning the usas-12 and others and are going to lift the ban on them.

    Obviously since we have companies customizing Sagias for use in competition there is a "sporting purposes" for them.
    http://www.thehighroad.org//showthread.php?t=568449

    Oh yea, And they are really sorry for bringing all those ARs to Mexico.
    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...pad-statistics
    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...bust-wide-open
    Last edited by tobyjones; 01-23-2011 at 12:10 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    so exactly how many henious crimes have been committed by Saigas that we now need them banned for our own protection? Cite? Number? Anyone?
    Last edited by Metalhead47; 01-22-2011 at 11:46 PM.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Then they just make it a DD, which is not legal to own in WA.
    Can you cite the RCW on this?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Can you cite the RCW on this?
    No, and it looks like I was probably wrong.

    SBS and SBR are not legal. I assumed WA lumped DDs in with them, but a quick google found several threads on other forums that said DDs & AOWs were allowed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    No, and it looks like I was probably wrong.

    SBS and SBR are not legal. I assumed WA lumped DDs in with them, but a quick google found several threads on other forums that said DDs & AOWs were allowed.
    I kind of thought so but I couldn't find any cite myself. I was earlier looking at the legality of owning an M-203 for an AR-15. I guess one can if they want to go through the process. Now THERE's a Destructive Device.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16
    Maybe someone can point me to the part of the second amendment that requires a sporting purpose? I am also having trouble locating the part that requires I have any sort of justification or legitimate need.

    Don't play that game or we will head down their rat hole after them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Come on, you know the ATF doesn't care about the second amendment. They will just say that they are not banning all guns, just the evil ones that you shouldn't have.

  12. #12
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Stein View Post
    Maybe someone can point me to the part of the second amendment that requires a sporting purpose? I am also having trouble locating the part that requires I have any sort of justification or legitimate need.

    Don't play that game or we will head down their rat hole after them.
    This an interesting "requirement" from the ATF because in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
    The argument against "Miller" possessing the Short Barreled Shotgun was that it had not been shown to be widely used in military units therefore had no "use" in a militia.

    Seems like the ATF is playing both sides of the argument.

    In a sense, the Miller decision makes a good case for the legalization of civilian ownership of M-16's with the same capabilities as those issued to the military. After all, isn't it the standard issue rifle to all "troops"?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

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