Beginning of new Assault Weapons Ban?

New BATFE plans reveled - essentially renews many of the original "assault weapons" restrictions, one gun at a time - beginning with banning importation of certain shotguns.

Any one feature will be deemed not suitable for sporting purposes:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

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

Grapeshot said:

New BATFE plans reveled - essentially renews many of the original "assault weapons" restrictions, one gun at a time - beginning with banning importation of certain shotguns.

Any one feature will be deemed not suitable for sporting purposes:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

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

Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean who would ever hunt with a collapsing stock??

This is the path that they choose to kill our rights. They do not have the votes in the congress to enact laws so they instead implement regulations that strangle the right.

Thundar said:

They do not have the votes in the congress to enact laws so they instead implement regulations that strangle the right.

Click to expand...

Not a regulation yet. This is a study, obviously proposal based.

It is allegedly in the comment period, although I do not have a link as to where to direct comments yet.

Further, since when did only for legitimate sporting purposes have anything to do with it?
Do we suddenly only have the right to hunt and break clay pigeons - where is that so declared in the 2nd Amendment?

I don't see this getting past a court challenge based on Heller. The right is not "to bear weapons for hunting."

Wow, just wow.

Have these idiots ever even used a shotgun?

I learnt to shoot them at what the USA would consider 'primary' school (I was 9) and I can't see how any of the weapons we used would pass this nonsense. For a start, that forward grip bit, as written would seem to be open to very wide interpretation and several of the guns we used at the time had 10 round magazines, as I recall (a later law forced all existing guns to be modified to a maximum of 3, this law remains to this day).

One problem with this... what does the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting?

Comments should be made, after reading the actual document, to: shotgunstudy@atf.gov

So it seems, after reading some of the document, that ATF thinks military-style competition is a sport, but the working group tasked with helping them make the decision did not think that Congress, in 1968, contemplated that. The 1968 GCA prohibits the importation of all firearms, except 4 categories of arms, including those having a sporting purpose. In 1984, again, ATF was told that police and military-style competition is not a sporting purpose for these purposes.
"In doing this [making a 1984 decision about certain weapons], ATF reversed an earlier opinion and specifically rejected the proposition that
police or combat competitive shooting events were a generally accepted 'sporting purpose.'”

And in addition to preventing the dumping of military weapon on the US market, the GCA was largely a protection of markets for the US manufacturers of firearms. And I'm OK with that part.

As for needing actually military weapons (grenade launchers?), you use the weapon you have to get the weapon you need. We've all seen Red Dawn.

nonameisgood said:

As for needing actually military weapons (grenade launchers?), you use the weapon you have to get the weapon you need. We've all seen Red Dawn.

Click to expand...

"Muskets were the assault rifles of the founding years". The 2nd Amendment recognizes the freedom of The People to keep and bear ALL arms. The SCOTUS has reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment; however, they have been lax in enforcing it.

AFPVet said:

One problem with this... what does the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting?

Click to expand...

Nothing. But the more solidly they can link owning guns to hunting, the better because there are also very strong moves to ban hunting which would then remove the reason for anyone to own firearms... in their little minds.


Gentlemen;

Most of the day-to-day controls we encounter are the result of "acts and agency", not through the efforts and workings of our elected officials. Think about it. Nearly everything you encounter, from warning labels on over-the-counter medications to crib safety mechanisms to just about anything you can name has been affected by some regulatory agency or regulation act for the good of all... for our own safety. How many times have we heard the cry for firearms safety regulation to match that of other consumer products? Aside from a complete ban, that is probably the next highest goal on their list of how-tos for controlling firearms ownership.

Ah yes, the safety restriction and no sporting purpose, no Sat night specials, no evil black guns, and on, and on, and on ........

What other thing/object in your life is so heavily regulated, controlled, limited, or outright banned? Reasonable restrictions on an inalienable right that shall not be infringed ........ until there is no right left, just a privilege denied.

I wonder how many millions of taxpayer dollars went into this study of nonsense? :banghead:

the entire list of where comments may be directed are as follows:

Comments may be submitted by e-mail to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to (202)648-9601.
Faxed comments may not exceed 5 pages.
All comments must include name and mailing address.
ATF encourages submission of comments no later than May 1, 2011.

I believe as Patriots we should send comments and be persistent. Mine are on the way.