Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Commenting on the ATF Shotgun Importability study- Time to let ATF hear from YOU!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    211

    Commenting on the ATF Shotgun Importability study- Time to let ATF hear from YOU!

    Our "friends" at ATF are soliciting comments on their proposed rule making scheme to limit importation of shotguns with certain features. Gunleaders.com has determined that some of ATF's criteria for NOT meeting sporting purposes just happen to violate the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), which affects the Wounded Warriors Shooting Program as well as Disabled Vets who shoot shotgun as well as disabled civilians.

    Further, the unintended consequences of such a ban; reclassification of existing shotguns as Class 111 or outright ban, higher prices for "made in America" only types etc. would eliminate an entire class of shooters.

    We need activists to go to: http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/01/commenting-on-the-atf-shotgun-importability-study/. All the facts are there along with ATF's email address.

    You can cut and paste all the salient points. We have until 5/1/11 to comment. Also, Call Webb's and Warner's office and ask why they aren't leading the charge to stop this.

    Senator Webb: 202-224-4024
    Email: http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

    Senator Warner: 202-224-2023
    Email: http://warner.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?p=ContactPage

    Congress gave ATF this rule making authority and they can tell them to stop, especially when they are violating Federal law.

    Our "friends" at ATF are soliciting comments on their proposed rule making scheme to limit importation of shotguns with certain features. Gunleaders.com has determined that some of ATF's criteria for NOT meeting sporting purposes just happen to violate the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), which affects the Wounded Warriors Shooting Program as well as Disabled Vets who shoot shotgun as well as disabled civilians.

    Further, the unintended consequences of such a ban; reclassification of existing shotguns as Class 111 or outright ban, higher prices for "made in America" only types etc. would eliminate an entire class of shooters.

    We need activists to go to: http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/01/commenting-on-the-atf-shotgun-importability-study/. All the facts are there along with ATF's email address.

    We have until 5/1/11. Contact your Congressman & Senator and tell them ATF is violating Federal Law and must stop.

    Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input?

    Read the full story only from Gunleaders.com AND click on the embedded links for some interesting info:

    http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/
    Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input?

    Read the full story only from Gunleaders.com AND click on the embedded links for some interesting info:

    http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/
    Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input? (Sarcasm dripping)

    Read the full story only from Gunleaders.com AND be sure and click on the embedded links for some interesting info:

    http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/
    We have not been able to verify this, though it was reported in the Washington Post, but the comment period for ATF's rifle registration program may well have been extended until 2/14/11. This, it appears, because Mayor Bloomberg and MAIG didn't get their comments in, in time. See full story here: http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/

    We need gun owners to really take up the slack. If you've commented, great. If you haven't, please, we need you to NOW. The email address and suggested comments are below. Please remember to sign your name. We can't afford to let Bloomberg or anyone else beat us on numbers.


    Send your comments to barbara.terrell@atf.gov or fax them to (202) 648-9640
    A reprint of our suggested comments linked above:

    I am writing to oppose the so called emergency regulation to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE as described in FR Doc. 2010-31761 from the 12/17/2010 Federal Register. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf
    This regulation is both illegal and unnecessary. Further there is no justification for any "emergency" implementation as reported by the Washington Post:
    White House delayed rule meant to stop gun flow to Mexico, Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2010, On-line edition:
    ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html ).
    * The regulation proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.
    * "FFL" holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(7).
    * The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of "certain types of firearms" as proposed. Because of this the regulation as proposed is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. 926(a). "No such rule or regulation . may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established."
    There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of "information collection" is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.
    * This regulatory action has not allowed the public sufficient time to comment.
    This regulatory action should not be approved.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    Mailed, and will call later
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  3. #3
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    What a Crock!

    I just read the referenced ATF "Study". It appears that they began with a preconceived set of conclusions, and then collected "evidence" to support them. The notion that certain military style features serve "no legitimate sporting purpose" is prevalent throughout the document, but they never discuss how such a feature fails to measure up to this arbitrary "standard". Magazine capacity is often cited as a "sporting limitation" but only because most states regulate it. AFAIK, those magazine limits have been around for decades, and were primarily put in place to enforce bag limits. Magazine types (particularly box) are dismissed as cumbersome, (So what hunter would use them?) with the claim that one can use speed loaders more efficiently. The notion of conveniently unloading one's gun in the field (afforded by a detachable box magazine) in order to, say, switch between shot sizes is completely overlooked.

    And to decide that a firearm isn't suitable for sporting purposes because it has a bayonet lug? Do they think that the average hunter won't be able to decide that the bayonet is unnecessary? Who the hell do these people think they are, anyway? Oh, wait... they're protecting us from criminals

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Seems like the State Department and the ATFE are the biggest actual threats to our firearm freedoms. Still can't re-import M-1 Garands from South Korea, can't import any firearms from China (even though they make very nice and inexpensive semi-auto M-14 and 1911 copies. Can't bring in a huge list of rifles because they aren't "suitable for sporting purposes" (have you checked the price on FALs recently). Now they want to restrict shotguns. It's disgusting.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    ATF needs to be reigned in
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  6. #6
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt_Kowalski View Post
    ATF needs to be reigned in
    Wrong administration for that.

    So were the last two.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892
    Is there a link to comment with the ATF?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Newport News, VA
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by T Dubya View Post
    Is there a link to comment with the ATF?
    All interested persons may submit comments on this study.
    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.

    [Red emphasis added by me]
    "Rule 1: All Guns Are Always Loaded" - Jeff Cooper
    On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs - by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892
    Sent, just curious. Do you think the Benelli M4 would be on the list?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by T Dubya View Post
    Sent, just curious. Do you think the Benelli M4 would be on the list?
    depending on how far they would choose to push their interpretation your browning A5 and 870 pump could be banned because they were used by our military forces and can be fitted with the correct bayonets.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I'm afraid they may outlaw almost all my guns because Napoleon used them when there was no lightening.

    When you can use the lightening, it is better than cannon

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Where in the RKBA does it say sporting purpose? Why the hell would we give the atf the power to make the rules?
    Last edited by All American Nightmare; 02-09-2011 at 12:00 PM.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    Where in the RKBA does it say sporting purpose? Why the hell would we give the atf the power to make the rules?
    Boy did you just ask a loaded question.

    The sporting use goes back to the beginning of federal gun control. When the Feds decided to regulate firearms and restricted the sale of Machine Guns, Short Barrel Shotguns/Rifles, etc.....

    There were court challenges. The Feds argued the Sporting Use side of it as well as the normal interstate commerce BS and surprisingly, that was never addressed in the cases. It was just accepted by both sides and the cases were decided on other issues.

    We sort of lost that on default.

    That's a very abbreviated answer. Best to research it and read the cases yourself. (See how I got around the cite rule)
    Last edited by peter nap; 02-09-2011 at 12:15 PM.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Boy did you just ask a loaded question.

    The sporting use goes back to the beginning of federal gun control. When the Feds decided to regulate firearms and restricted the sale of Machine Guns, Short Barrel Shotguns/Rifles, etc.....

    There were court challenges. The Feds argued the Sporting Use side of it as well as the normal interstate commerce BS and surprisingly, that was never addressed in the cases. It was just accepted by both sides and the cases were decided on other issues.

    We sort of lost that on default.

    That's a very abbreviated answer. Best to research it and read the cases yourself. (See how I got around the cite rule)
    It's very tempting to ask you if you have any cites to support this .....but I won't.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Boy did you just ask a loaded question.

    The sporting use goes back to the beginning of federal gun control. When the Feds decided to regulate firearms and restricted the sale of Machine Guns, Short Barrel Shotguns/Rifles, etc.....

    There were court challenges. The Feds argued the Sporting Use side of it as well as the normal interstate commerce BS and surprisingly, that was never addressed in the cases. It was just accepted by both sides and the cases were decided on other issues.

    We sort of lost that on default.

    That's a very abbreviated answer. Best to research it and read the cases yourself. (See how I got around the cite rule)
    Do I need to get a backhoe?

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    Do I need to get a backhoe?
    Pretty much.
    Look at the Heller decision and go back in big steps. You'll find that much of the early gun control was never disputed.
    One thing to note about the sporting issue is that in the beginning, full auto was used for working guns.

    When sales slumped for the Thompson, it was market for farmers to use as ranch guns.
    Last edited by peter nap; 02-09-2011 at 02:35 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Pretty much.
    Look at the Heller decision and go back in big steps. You'll find that much of the early gun control was never disputed.
    One thing to note about the sporting issue is that in the beginning, full auto was used for working guns.

    When sales slumped for the Thompson, it was market for farmers to use as ranch guns.
    When I searched, I could not find any case law. With the way, things are in SCOTUS it might be a gamble to get a ruling now, However things might get worse too.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    When I searched, I could not find any case law. With the way, things are in SCOTUS it might be a gamble to get a ruling now, However things might get worse too.
    You missed my point...which isn't hard to understand since I didn't explain it.
    Federal gun control goes way beyond 1968. The Sporting Use benchmark was used when they first started to yank Machine Guns and other evil weapons off the shelves.

    That method of determining if a firearm is constitutional was never challenged. That was my point. It was accepted for some stupid reason.

    In 68 it was included in the GCA bill because that was what they used as an acid test before. Even though guns like the Marbels Game Getter were extremely popular, someone pulled the 18" length for shotguns out of their hiney and decided that was the shortest shotgun that Sporting use would bear.

    The wording is in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    United States Code: Title 18,921. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

    (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 [/COLOR]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.
    Last edited by peter nap; 02-09-2011 at 05:18 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    211

    The Comment Period IS OPEN UNTIL FEB 14 ** THERE IS STILL TIME!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanns40 View Post
    Our "friends" at ATF are soliciting comments on their proposed rule making scheme to limit importation of shotguns with certain features. Gunleaders.com has determined that some of ATF's criteria for NOT meeting sporting purposes just happen to violate the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), which affects the Wounded Warriors Shooting Program as well as Disabled Vets who shoot shotgun as well as disabled civilians.

    Further, the unintended consequences of such a ban; reclassification of existing shotguns as Class 111 or outright ban, higher prices for "made in America" only types etc. would eliminate an entire class of shooters.

    We need activists to go to: http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/01/commenting-on-the-atf-shotgun-importability-study/. All the facts are there along with ATF's email address.

    You can cut and paste all the salient points. We have until 5/1/11 to comment. Also, Call Webb's and Warner's office and ask why they aren't leading the charge to stop this.

    Senator Webb: 202-224-4024
    Email: http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

    Senator Warner: 202-224-2023
    Email: http://warner.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?p=ContactPage

    Congress gave ATF this rule making authority and they can tell them to stop, especially when they are violating Federal law.

    Our "friends" at ATF are soliciting comments on their proposed rule making scheme to limit importation of shotguns with certain features. Gunleaders.com has determined that some of ATF's criteria for NOT meeting sporting purposes just happen to violate the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), which affects the Wounded Warriors Shooting Program as well as Disabled Vets who shoot shotgun as well as disabled civilians.

    Further, the unintended consequences of such a ban; reclassification of existing shotguns as Class 111 or outright ban, higher prices for "made in America" only types etc. would eliminate an entire class of shooters.

    We need activists to go to: http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/01/commenting-on-the-atf-shotgun-importability-study/. All the facts are there along with ATF's email address.

    We have until 5/1/11. Contact your Congressman & Senator and tell them ATF is violating Federal Law and must stop.

    Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input?

    Read the full story only from Gunleaders.com AND click on the embedded links for some interesting info:

    http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/
    Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input?

    Read the full story only from Gunleaders.com AND click on the embedded links for some interesting info:

    http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/
    Why would the comment period be extended beyond the generous 2.5 weeks they originally gave us for public input? (Sarcasm dripping)

    Read the full story only from Gunleaders.com AND be sure and click on the embedded links for some interesting info:

    http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/
    We have not been able to verify this, though it was reported in the Washington Post, but the comment period for ATF's rifle registration program may well have been extended until 2/14/11. This, it appears, because Mayor Bloomberg and MAIG didn't get their comments in, in time. See full story here: http://www.gunleaders.com/blog/2011/02/06/why-was-the-atf-multi-rifle-sale-registration-comment-period-extended/

    We need gun owners to really take up the slack. If you've commented, great. If you haven't, please, we need you to NOW. The email address and suggested comments are below. Please remember to sign your name. We can't afford to let Bloomberg or anyone else beat us on numbers.


    Send your comments to barbara.terrell@atf.gov or fax them to (202) 648-9640
    A reprint of our suggested comments linked above:

    I am writing to oppose the so called emergency regulation to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE as described in FR Doc. 2010-31761 from the 12/17/2010 Federal Register. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf
    This regulation is both illegal and unnecessary. Further there is no justification for any "emergency" implementation as reported by the Washington Post:
    White House delayed rule meant to stop gun flow to Mexico, Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2010, On-line edition:
    ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html ).
    * The regulation proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.
    * "FFL" holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(7).
    * The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of "certain types of firearms" as proposed. Because of this the regulation as proposed is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. 926(a). "No such rule or regulation . may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established."
    There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of "information collection" is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.
    This regulatory action should not be approved.
    I've edited the above comments to reflect the update - repeating the latest - The comment period is open until Feb. 14.

Posting Permissions

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