11 replies [Last post]
groovy mike's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 03/19/2009
Posts: 2484
New ATF report on "assault weapon" shotguns

 

According to the ATF, if your 12 gauge weighs more than 10 pounds or has a flashlight attached to it, that may make your shotgun an “assault weapon” with no “sporting use” according to the ATF.  See the report in the link below to read their reasoning for yourself.  Just when I thought these guys were beginning to gett a clue….

 

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

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2363
shotgun

Yeah I've seen that before.  Wondered about it a few times.  That's the Federal Government for you.  They waste so much time passing useless laws and applying the wrong definitions to certain things.  I guess those 2.5 extra lbs on a shotgun can really cause some massive carnage eh?  Does it say anything about the gun being "black" in finish?  You know "black" traditionally signifies evil, so any black gun can't be a good thing, it's gotta be more dangerous, right?  Don't even get me started on that flashlight stuff.  God forbid any responsible well-grounded lawful individual should actually "see" and "identify" a potential threat first before they shoot in the dark for defensive reasons. Confused

groovy mike's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 03/19/2009
Posts: 2484
Yep!

WesternHunter wrote:

Yeah I've seen that before.  Wondered about it a few times.  That's the Federal Government for you.  They waste so much time passing useless laws and applying the wrong definitions to certain things.  I guess those 2.5 extra lbs on a shotgun can really cause some massive carnage eh?  Does it say anything about the gun being "black" in finish?  You know "black" traditionally signifies evil, so any black gun can't be a good thing, it's gotta be more dangerous, right?  Don't even get me started on that flashlight stuff.  God forbid any responsible well-grounded lawful individual should actually "see" and "identify" a potential threat first before they shoot in the dark for defensive reasons. Confused

You are making way too much sense.  You are clearly not part of the government!

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
ATF

I'd really like somebody to show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about "sporting purpose."  In fact, I'd like them to show me where any of the founding fathers discussed the 2nd Amendment as anything other than personal protection, national defense, and protection against tyranny.   Based on how the 2nd Amendment is written and all of the recorded opinions of its intent by those who enacted it, "assault weapons" have more Constitutional protection than those intended for hunting.

If we allow the "sporting purpose" argument to become part of the American paradigm, the next push will be to argue that there's no legitimate reason for hunting since we have such a ready supply of food.

groovy mike's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 03/19/2009
Posts: 2484
right

expatriate wrote:

I'd really like somebody to show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about "sporting purpose."  In fact, I'd like them to show me where any of the founding fathers discussed the 2nd Amendment as anything other than personal protection, national defense, and protection against tyranny.   Based on how the 2nd Amendment is written and all of the recorded opinions of its intent by those who enacted it, "assault weapons" have more Constitutional protection than those intended for hunting.

If we allow the "sporting purpose" argument to become part of the American paradigm, the next push will be to argue that there's no legitimate reason for hunting since we have such a ready supply of food.

 

Exactly right. 

Chuck-n-Alaska's picture
Offline
Location: Southcentral Alaska
Joined: 04/26/2007
Posts: 222
These idiots should re-read the Miller decision

expatriate wrote:

I'd really like somebody to show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about "sporting purpose."  In fact, I'd like them to show me where any of the founding fathers discussed the 2nd Amendment as anything other than personal protection, national defense, and protection against tyranny.   Based on how the 2nd Amendment is written and all of the recorded opinions of its intent by those who enacted it, "assault weapons" have more Constitutional protection than those intended for hunting.

If we allow the "sporting purpose" argument to become part of the American paradigm, the next push will be to argue that there's no legitimate reason for hunting since we have such a ready supply of food.

These idiots should re-read Miller. Miller was nailed because the SCOTUS ruled his sawed off shotgun did not have a military value.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2363
sporting arms

I agree completely.  There is far too much "sporting" verbage being used in regards to the 2nd Amendment Rights.  In fact it is clear that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to keep and bear arms that would be more practical for battlefield use.  As time goes by and technology changes, the types of arms required for practical battlefield use also change.  I am absolutley certain that the founding fathers who wrote the 2nd were bright enough and forward-thinking enough to know that we would not be using single shot blackpowder muzzle loaders for defense (national or personal) two or three hundred years down the road.  It's all about having matching firepower, or a slight advantage if you can.  It's about using what's practical for defense as the technology is available.  Why should we expect a civilian home owner to be restricted to a plugged long barrel sporting 12 ga shotgun for defense when short barreled shotgun equiped with an extended magazine and wepons light is far more practical to meet a threat where that threat is likely well equiped.  The lawful citizen should have the advantage.  My argument is: are the lives of soldiers or lawmen any more valuable than your and mine to where they have more of a right to better weaponry than we.  No!! Not at all.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
They are defining "sporting"

They are defining "sporting" shotguns for the purposes of granting or denying import permits.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
ATF

True, Bit.  But it's a short leap from there to domestic policies.  It's noteworthy that previous administrations included competitive shooting events and plinking as "sporting."  However, this regime clearly doesn't, and it's chilling to read the thing and see government declaring what's a legitimate sport.  Go one Amendment up, and ask, "Would it be acceptable for government to decide what's a legitimate religion?"  Should we ban yarmulkes because there's no "Christian purpose?"

Frankly, I feel like a peasant hearing my king tell me what privileges I can have in my life.  Will he grant me a boon and allow me this privilege?  Apparently not.  To me, it goes beyond the 2nd Amendment and reflects the Nanny State mentality of these guys -- we all need government to make all of our decisions for us, because we're all incapable of doing so ourselves.  Thomas Jefferson said a key question of the American Experiment that made it unique in history was whether men could govern themselves.  Apparently, the Democrat answer to that question is NO.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2363
True

expatriate wrote:

True, Bit.  But it's a short leap from there to domestic policies.  It's noteworthy that previous administrations included competitive shooting events and plinking as "sporting."  However, this regime clearly doesn't, and it's chilling to read the thing and see government declaring what's a legitimate sport.  Go one Amendment up, and ask, "Would it be acceptable for government to decide what's a legitimate religion?"  Should we ban yarmulkes because there's no "Christian purpose?"

Frankly, I feel like a peasant hearing my king tell me what privileges I can have in my life.  Will he grant me a boon and allow me this privilege?  Apparently not.  To me, it goes beyond the 2nd Amendment and reflects the Nanny State mentality of these guys -- we all need government to make all of our decisions for us, because we're all incapable of doing so ourselves.  Thomas Jefferson said a key question of the American Experiment that made it unique in history was whether men could govern themselves.  Apparently, the Democrat answer to that question is NO.

 

All very true!!  Unfortunately it's nothing new in this counrty. This government-control business has been happening to us under our noses in some form or another going back 200 years.  I even recall watching an old black & white movie made in the late '40s or early '50s that addressed this type of stuff with the American people and American society in general.  It stated how Americans are going to lose their freedoms and unkowingly adopt communism if they don't wake up and take notice.  This control needs to stop.

Chuck-n-Alaska's picture
Offline
Location: Southcentral Alaska
Joined: 04/26/2007
Posts: 222
Already do

expatriate wrote:

 Go one Amendment up, and ask, "Would it be acceptable for government to decide what's a legitimate religion?"  

They already do try to get a religious exemption for anything without belonging to a 501c3 church. The fed do not recognize any church that doesn't have a 501c3 filed with the IRS.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Neanderthal AKr-47 Assult RockCritter101/25/2013 16:54 pm
H.R. 6257 Another "Assault" Weapon Banbitmasher507/29/2008 19:18 pm
Assault weapons ban down for the countbitmasher409/17/2004 21:40 pm
Media assault on the 2nd amendmentWhelland009/05/2007 08:51 am
Never Give an InchCVC402/22/2007 06:00 am