ATF Seeks Ban on Shotguns: Over 5 Rounds

[MOS4429]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is inviting public comments on its new rule regarding shotguns. It plans to ban them.

There will be a ban on imports. (Note: watch prices rise on those already in the USA.)

The basis of this ban will be the guns’ semi-automatic status. It the magazine has more than five rounds, the weapon will be banned.

Why? Because the BATF designates these as “military.”

http://visiontoamerica.org/10000/atf-seeks-ban-on-shotguns-over-5-rounds/

[irpat54]

it is starting,, but the progressives love it,, they are slowly creeping in bans on tings here and there and soon all weapons will be banned,,

[The DUKE]

Doe's anyone reading or about to read this thread know where we got our illustrious current gun laws???

[DanM]

Doe's anyone reading or about to read this thread know where we got our illustrious current gun laws???

Here............... http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/

[The DUKE]

Thanks DanM,
but I was refering to the original gun laws they crammed down our throats like obahamacare 3 years ago,
go back bout 30 more and you'll find what I'm talking about,
I'm not looking to info on them ,
I know them,
I was simply posing the query to see if were all on the same page with respect to the draconian gun laws we've allowed to go down in the great land of the free home of the brave,
right under our noses for the past 60 years or so.

[Conch]

Good, they should be banned. The only ones who should have guns in this country are the Police, the Border Patrol, the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces.

The Second Amendment today is too misconstrued from what the Founding Fathers intended.

[The DUKE]

Now I know its true,
"YOU ARE A TROLL"
like you would know anything about it,
whippersnapper.
you troll in and out of the threads to see whats going on and then you strike with more of your vitriolic banter to get something going in the direction you want the thread to go.
konk,
that's sad.

[Conch]

Now I know its true,
"YOU ARE A TROLL"
like you would know anything about it,
whippersnapper.
you troll in and out of the threads to see whats going on and then you strike with more of your vitriolic banter to get something going in the direction you want the thread to go.
konk,
that's sad.

Hahahaha I'm suddenly a troll because I don't believe that guns should be legal, which is a view held by millions of Americans actually, not just me. .... ok, real smart logic you got there Duke.

and dude, seriously, what the Hell is a whippersnapper?

[irpat54]

Hahahaha I'm suddenly a troll because I don't believe that guns should be legal, which is a view held by millions of Americans actually, not just me. .... ok, real smart logic you got there Duke.

and dude, seriously, what the Hell is a whippersnapper?

talk about a moronic statement,, all guns should be illegal???,, the bigot speaks more idiocy,, wow you sure don't know the constitution or why the second amendment was put in there,,,, wow,,,

[Conch]

talk about a moronic statement,, all guns should be illegal???,, the bigot speaks more idiocy,, wow you sure don't know the constitution or why the second amendment was put in there,,,, wow,,,

How's that peyote?

[awbrown1462]

hey Conch come and try to take my guns away and see what happens, here we have stand your ground law and I do not have to retreat either

[Conch]

hey Conch come and try to take my guns away and see what happens, here we have stand your ground law and I do not have to retreat either

Dude, I live in Key West.... which believe it or not, is still a part of Florida.... therefore we have Stand your Ground law here too.... and who the Hell said I want to take your stupid ass guns away from you, I just said I think there should be very very strict gun control.

But remember, you and others have the right to bear arms, but your right to bear arms ends at my front door. I don't allow anyone to enter my apartment with a gun.

[m14ed]

not needed

[irpat54]

Dude, I live in Key West.... which believe it or not, is still a part of Florida.... therefore we have Stand your Ground law here too.... and who the Hell said I want to take your stupid ass guns away from you, I just said I think there should be very very strict gun control.

But remember, you and others have the right to bear arms, but your right to bear arms ends at my front door. I don't allow anyone to enter my apartment with a gun.
wow the bigot can't even remember what he said from one time to the next,,so let me refresh you bigoted mind,,okay,,
you said,,,

The only ones who should have guns in this country are the Police, the Border Patrol, the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces.
what does that imply,,,bigot,,

[Old Marine]

If you haven't hit whatever you are shooting at by the fifth round, you have a real problem.

[Apache]

Sure----
Ban weapons so only the criminals will have them !

If it comes to that all you LIBS will be the first ones down the tubes.

Didn't have all the supposed weapons problems 20 yrs ago did we ?

Had even fewer 50 years ago-----HMMMM

[Luke0402]

Obviously you didn't read the rules of the site Ed. No personal attacks. And it's even sadder that the mods allow it. If anyone must be gay, it's some of you since you are so obsessed with gays. Sad bunch of right wing homophobes. You sound like you'd fit in real well with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church Ed.

[thewookie]

Good, they should be banned. The only ones who should have guns in this country are the Police, the Border Patrol, the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces.

The Second Amendment today is too misconstrued from what the Founding Fathers intended.

WHAAAAAAT?

Are you on meds?

Our forefathers knew that people could be shot with guns, this is not a 21st century innovation.

And banning semi-auto's isn't the answer either, watch this -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ

With only LEO and military with gun access you are talking about a police state, is that what you really want here in this great nation, where so many have given their lives so freely to keep it a free nation?

Let me try to educate you just a little here. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

Mexico has very strict gun ownership laws, from what I understand. I wonder how it's working out there?

[MOS4429]

Mike, good, sound reasoned post. Thanks.

[Luke0402]

It's downright pitiful that you have to resort to personal attacks against a picture of someone just because they disagree with you and the mode allow it. Pitiful.

[thewookie]

Conch - I can't help but think you remind me of Rosie ;)


"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."
-Rosie O'Donnell



Semper Fi :banana:

[MOS4429]

If you haven't hit whatever you are shooting at by the fifth round, you have a real problem.


Willie, I agree.

Of course, every situation is unique. There can be more than one aggressor; they may have optimal cover and concealment; and now days some bad guys take aggressive dogs with them, i.e., pitbulls, and you had better shoot until you see no movement.

Personally, I keep 3 rounds in my shotgun for intruders, not because I believe I am a great shot, but I just haven't taken out the spacer that allows 5 and 1 in the chamber.

[irpat54]

It's downright pitiful that you have to resort to personal attacks against a picture of someone just because they disagree with you and the mode allow it. Pitiful.
relatively new here aren't you sir,,,, believe it or not there are limits,, and so far there has been much worse said against a loveable person like me,,okay stop laughing,,, then anything said in this thread,,,,lol

[ChuckH]

It's downright pitiful that you have to resort to personal attacks against a picture of someone just because they disagree with you and the mode allow it. Pitiful.

LT,
Instead of complaining about the few mods that are trying to keep order here, why don't you lead by example?
Your just as guilty as the rest of those who are bashing.

[MOS4429]

What did they intend? <br />
<br />
What people are taught today they intended is a far cry different from what they did intend. <br />
<br />
When the U.S. Constitution was written, there was much debate over whether or...

[FoxtrotOscar]

Mexico has very strict gun ownership laws, from what I understand. I wonder how it's working out there?


About as well as it is in Chicago.....

[FoxtrotOscar]

Enough of the crap, stay on topic...

Nuff said...!!!

[MOS4429]

What did they intend? <br />
<br />
What people are taught today they intended is a far cry different from what they did intend. <br />
<br />
When the U.S. Constitution was written, there was much debate over whether or...

[MOS4429]

Obviously you didn't read the rules of the site Ed. No personal attacks. And it's even sadder that the mods allow it. If anyone must be gay, it's some of you since you are so obsessed with gays. Sad bunch of right wing homophobes. You sound like you'd fit in real well with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church Ed.

Lieutenant, your post is off topic.

But since you chose to go off topic with respect to "personal attacks," please review what you said.

You chastise Marines for their alleged "personal attacks," and in the next sentence what do you do? You state, "If anyone must be gay, it's some of you..." and then you state, "...Sad bunch of right wing homophobes. You sound like..." and you do exactly what it is you are censuring these men for.

As a First Lieutenant of Marines, understand that more will be learned by what is caught than by what is taught. Interpretation: Leading by example will communicate the strongest message you intend to convey.

[Hammer]

Let me weigh in on this topic! You want my guns? Come on, and you'd better bring a possee with you. As far as the piece of proposed legislation on shotguns? Bring it on as well. You've got a snowballs chance in hell of it passing or not being ruled unconstitutional. I have several shotguns that hold more than five shells including one shotgun with a drum.

That aside; you trespass or without an invitation on my property; I'm coming to you, and hell's coming with me. I'm well aware of the stand your ground law; and this REAL MARINE will enforce it.


LT., nothing personal, but this forum is not Pass Road in Gulfport/Biloxi; north Biloxi; or Keesler AFB; you're in the real world; you need to deal with reality.

[ameriken]

and who the Hell said I want to take your stupid ass guns away from you, I just said I think there should be very very strict gun control.


Blake, you specifically said guns should be banned and implied that only law enforcement agencies and military should have guns. Based on what you said, if AWBrown or anyone else is not in law enforcement or the military, then it is true that you want to take them away.

That is hugely different than 'very strict gun control.'


Good, they should be banned. The only ones who should have guns in this country are the Police, the Border Patrol, the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces.

[irpat54]

i know that with the attitudes of some liberal,, not all but a good share of them and some repub. to a lesser amount,, that they are trying to sneak in the back door and little by little just like all regulations are

[advanced]

i know that with the attitudes of some liberal,, not all but a good share of them and some repub. to a lesser amount,, that they are trying to sneak in the back door and little by little just like all regulations are

Once again no attacks, you should not be talking about sneaking in the back door with conk around.

On Topic: On Nov 30th, 1966 I took an oath to defend our constitution from all enemies both foreign and "domestic." As a Marine I was programed to enforce that oath which I believe I did extremely well and effectively. I took that oath again as a cop, which I also did well.

That program has never been taken out and is still running. That program has nothing to do with talking polite pc bs to our enemies, it is about taking out our enemies by whatever means is necessary - if you get my drift.

Unless some here have forgotten as Marines we were trained to use our brains and as such just because some agency passes a pseudo law does not make it constitutional. If you remember, our oaths involve following "All LAWFUL Orders."

And for the luke's and conk's out there, whenever ya'll talk about the millions that think like ya'll, remember there are a lot more that think like we do.

[irpat54]

Once again no attacks, you should not be talking about sneaking in the back door with conk around.

On Topic: On Nov 30th, 1966 I took an oath to defend our constitution from all enemies both foreign and "domestic." As a Marine I was programed to enforce that oath which I believe I did extremely well and effectively. I took that oath again as a cop, which I also did well.

That program has never been taken out and is still running. That program has nothing to do with talking polite pc bs to our enemies, it is about taking out our enemies by whatever means is necessary - if you get my drift.

Unless some here have forgotten as Marines we were trained to use our brains and as such just because some agency passes a pseudo law does not make it constitutional. If you remember, our oaths involve following "All LAWFUL Orders."

And for the luke's and conk's out there, whenever ya'll talk about the millions that think like ya'll, remember there are a lot more that think like we do.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[MOS4429]

Because public comment is invited, please read below who to contact and suggested things to say.

Many believe the public comment is just a formality that is ignored, I always say that is exactly what they want us to believe to we remain silent. "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."

Read on...

While ATF and the Obama administration are doubtlessly planning to dismiss any comments in opposition to their plans, a strong showing of opposition can help to stiffen the spines of members of Congress, and a poor showing will absolutely be pointed to as proof that people support expanded importation bans.

Comments need not be complicated or extensive, but they do need to be clearly opposed to expanding import bans and, most importantly, they must be submitted in a timely fashion. Intending to send a comment, but never actually getting around to it, does no one any good. The comment period is open now through the end of April. Comments can be submitted via email to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to (202) 648-9601.

Below is a sample comment you can paraphrase or simply cut and paste into your own email:

Subject: I Oppose Further Restrictions on Shotgun Imports.
I strongly oppose further restrictions on the importation of shotguns and disagree with the findings in the ATF shotgun study.
The constitutional authority for import restrictions based on a vague “Sporting Purpose Test” is highly suspect in light of the recent Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions and their previous decision in Miller.

Under the definitions contained in this study, virtually all pump-action and semi-auto shotguns would be banned because all of them are capable of accepting a magazine – box or tube – capable of holding more than 5 rounds. This and other characteristics determined to be “military” in the study are utilitarian and often significantly enhance a gun’s usefulness, particularly for people with disabilities. Denying access to certain designs or features can effectively serve to disarm (for personal defense and sporting purposes) vast numbers of disabled veterans and others with disabilities resulting in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

There are a variety of popular and growing sports which utilize shotguns with “military” features. These guns are dominant in USPSA, IDPA, IPSC and other popular shooting sports. Refusing to recognize these sports as they relate to shotguns based on the implications such recognition might have on rifle and pistol importability is disingenuous at best.

Applying import restrictions does little more than increase costs and complicate compliance for U.S. shooters and gun owners. Foreign manufacturers remove features and adapt their firearms to comply with U.S. import restrictions, and then U.S. shooters reapply the removed features and modify the firearms back to the desired, original configurations, which can be expensive and legally complicated for U.S. gun owners. Failing to comply with obscure provisions of the laws related to applying after-market features and accessories to imported firearms can result in unintended violation of felony provisions which carrying serious penalties.

ATF should shelve all plans to implement any of the findings of this study.

Respectfully submitted,
<!-- AD HEADING #0000001 --><!-- AD TAG #0000001 -->
Everyone who cares about overreaching government bureaucracy should immediately send an email to shotgunstudy@atf.gov including the above points. Cutting and pasting from this article is fine. Participation is much more important than originality or eloquence.

One of the most important things about this ATF “study” and proposed shotgun importation ban is that it lays the groundwork for much broader, general shotgun restrictions. Importation is not the only place where federal gun laws apply this unconstitutional “sporting purpose test”; it is also found in the National Firearms Act, the laws dealing with machineguns and destructive devices.

Under the NFA, any firearm with a bore greater than .5 inch is a “destructive device” in the same category as mortars and Howitzers. The only exception is for “shotguns which the secretary finds are generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.”

If the secretary (in this case Attorney General Erik Holder) finds that certain styles or types of shotguns, or shotguns with certain features, are not importable because they are unsuitable for sporting purposes, he must then explain why virtually identical guns with those same features are considered suitable for sporting purposes with regard to the NFA. How can he declare them non-sporting on the one hand and not declare identical guns as non-sporting on the other? There can be no doubt that the Brady Bunch and other gun control zealots will be asking that question loudly if ATF and Holder move forward with current import restriction plans.

If these proposed rules for shotgun importation are not stopped now, virtually every pump-action and semi-auto shotgun in existence could be banned – not just from importation, but from possession or transfer. The guns would fall under the same harsh restrictions currently applicable to machineguns.

Please do not delay taking action on this. Your voice matters. Send your comments to shotgunstudy@atf.gov and cc your email to both of your U.S. senators and your representative. Please also add info@FirearmsCoalition.org in your cc so we can get an idea of how much response is being generated.

[jowimc90]

Conch, but I think you've had too much koolaid.

[MunkyVsRobot]

I think it is silly to ban firearms. Why do I carry? Because a police officer is too heavy to carry around. Besides why should you restrict the right to free law abiding citizens? Those who illegally carry firearms will still have them so stripping the right from some one lawfully carrying one just limits his/her ability to protect themselves.

The only change it would make is if someone is going to break into someone's house is they will know full well that the person on the other side does not have a loaded firearm either hidden away or lying in wait behind the door. How well is it working for them in the other countries or even states with harsh firearm laws? New York, Illinois, hell England.

[The DUKE]

Conk,
Its not about the "what you believe",
my post didn't have anything to say about what you believe,
its the way you present it to the forum at large,
there's no saying you cant be impassioned about it,
there's no rules saying you gotta be politically correct in your speech,
hell there ain't any rules that say you gotta use proper english,
please before you blow a gasket,
go back and re-read what I said,
its pretty clear,
you didn't come on with a idea,
thought,
or comment,
you came in with both hands blazing to get the response you got,
so what's your issue about I don't like what you believe in about,
ever hear the one about
"a first impression never gets a second chance?"
you really could learn a thing or two about wisdom,
and not letting your mouth run away with your thoughts.
I don't know you from Adam,
but you always seem to be on the attack,
never lets discuss different ways of seeing this issue, its always,
"ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK"
That's no good son,
for one thing it'll burn you out before your time,
not to mention grey hair and ulcers at a young age.
You gotta remember one thing if your a real grunt,
"DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL ****Z, and "ITS ALL SMALL ****Z",
and a fav of mine learned through the many moons on this rock,
the reason I don't have grey hair and ulcers is because I know when to say
"I JUST DON'T GIVE A F-V-C-K"

[MunkyVsRobot]

I would much rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6.

[The DUKE]

Referral: Dr. John Lott "MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME"
This is a very good read for anyone who can tolerate the amount of data he refers to in it,
however with that said,
I thought it was an excellent eyeopener,
this is a fifteen year study on the gun control issue all the way down to the city level.

And for my money I wholeheartedly believe that cliche's should be left to the flighty ones which there are more than enough of today,
however this rings true to a fault,

"GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT ABOUT CONTROL!"

[MOS4429]

Just sent my letter to shotgunstudy@atf.gov with a cc to info@FirearmsCoalition.org.

Feel free to copy and paste and send your own.

To Whom It May Concern:
</SPAN></SPAN>
I Oppose Further Restrictions on Shotgun Imports.</SPAN></SPAN>

I strongly oppose further restrictions on the importation of shotguns and disagree with the findings in the ATF shotgun study. In fact, those findings are the opposite of what reality has demonstrated.</SPAN></SPAN>

The constitutional authority for import restrictions based on a vague “Sporting Purpose Test” is highly suspect in light of the recent Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions and their previous decision in Miller.</SPAN></SPAN>

Also, the 2</SPAN>nd</SPAN> Amendment was not put in place for the purpose of owning firearms strictly for “Sporting Purposes.” That is a modern misinterpretation. </SPAN></SPAN>

Under the definitions contained in this study, virtually all pump-action and semi-auto shotguns would be banned because all of them are capable of accepting a magazine – box or tube – capable of holding more than 5 rounds. This and other characteristics determined to be “military” in the study are utilitarian and often significantly enhance a gun’s usefulness, particularly for people with disabilities. Denying access to certain designs or features can effectively serve to disarm (for personal defense and sporting purposes) vast numbers of disabled veterans and others with disabilities resulting in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.</SPAN></SPAN>

The Second Amendment to the Constitution (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”) has been a focal point of recent debates, and according to critics, the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment has apparently caused all the violence in American. </SPAN></SPAN>
Some therefore claim that the Second Amendment is simply wrong and should be ignored.</SPAN></SPAN>

Others argue that it actually means something different from what it says-that “the right to keep and bear arms” is a right guaranteed to the collective military rather than to individual citizens.</SPAN></SPAN>

In the recent federal case United States v.Emerson, federal judge Sam Cummings was called on to investigate these issues. Utilizing a practice which is unusual for many in today’s judiciary, Judge Cummings wisely followed the guidance of James Wilson, signer of the Constitution and original Supreme Court Justice, who long ago advised: “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” Therefore, rather than relying on the opinions of today’s ivory tower professors, Judge Cummings examined the writings of George Washington, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Noah Webster, James Madison, and a number of others. He found Patrick Henry’s declaration that “The great object is that every man be armed….[and] that everyone who is able may have a gun,” as well as Samuel Adams’ pronouncement that the Constitution “be never construed to authorize Congress….to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”</SPAN></SPAN>

After completing his thorough examination, Judge Cummings issued a strong, unequivocal ruling which upheld the original intent of the Second Amendment!</SPAN></SPAN>

This ATF shotgun restriction flies in the face of such ruling, not to mention the Second Amendment itself!</SPAN></SPAN>

And the ATF “military feature” is a complete red herring. I have a hat that is camo just like the Marines wear. Therefore, should not the ATF ban my hat for “military features”? What about my combat boots in my closet, or John Wayne can opener? After all, I may hurt myself with such a device. The “military feature” argument has one purpose, and that purpose takes direct aim at carving away a freedom preserved under the Second Amendment.</SPAN></SPAN>

Applying import restrictions does little more than increase costs and complicate compliance for U.S. shooters and gun owners. Foreign manufacturers remove features and adapt their firearms to comply with U.S. import restrictions, and then U.S. shooters reapply the removed features and modify the firearms back to the desired, original configurations, which can be expensive and legally complicated for U.S. gun owners. Failing to comply with obscure provisions of the laws related to applying after-market features and accessories to imported firearms can result in unintended violation of felony provisions which carrying serious penalties.</SPAN></SPAN>

ATF should shelve all plans to implement any of the findings of this skewed study.</SPAN></SPAN>

Respectfully submitted,</SPAN></SPAN>

[ameriken]

I don't know you from Adam,
but you always seem to be on the attack,
never lets discuss different ways of seeing this issue, its always,
"ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK"


In all fairness, in this particular thread all he did was state his opinion and you called him a troll. How does that make him the attacker?

[ameriken]

Referral: Dr. John Lott "MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME"

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws


<tbody>
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/dotclear.gif

</tbody>
Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on.

"Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car
accidents than from accidents involving guns.

Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?

Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.

Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is:

Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

[FoxtrotOscar]

22030
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has proposed new rules to ban the importation of certain types of shotguns. The unprecedented move seeks to ban the import of “tactical shotguns” from law abiding citizens as well as shotguns that can be modified for tactical use.

Nearly all shotguns produced today can be modified for tactical use however the proposal does not clarify what “tactical” or “use” is. This comes just after new regulations that will place frequent buyers of high powered rifles who live in border states on a watch list.
Owners of firearms around the country are outraged at the new legislation which they say further infringes upon their right to bear arms which is protected by the Second Amendment. Since the legislation is so vague it might just do that.

Many of you who have been to a sporting goods store can see how readily available shotguns are and a quick check of most isles and you will find many accessories to make that shotgun better adapted for home defense. Imports of those shotguns which can be adapted for “tactical” use and possibly their parts would be banned.

Texas Congressman John Carter is trying to stop the ATF’s new rules with an amendment that would block most of the ATF’s new rules.

Many feel that the ATF is trying to push through these new rules to try and divert some of the criticism from their failed investigation into the flow of illegal arms into Mexico. During that investigation the ATF supplied more weapons to the drug cartels than they seized or prevented from reaching them. It prompted harsh criticism that called for the head, Ken Melson, to leave his post.


It’s a shame that law abiding citizens must pay the price for the Government’s mistake but that seems to be the hot trend recently. Hopefully many other states will voice their anger over this proposed legislation that wouldn’t do anything but hurt American businesses and further invalidate the Constitution.

[The DUKE]

American,
in ALL fairness it seems like every post he lite's up is on the attack,
if I'm mistaken and please feel free to correct me if I am,
he hit that post with a highly vitriolic assault on the senses with respect to the sense as far as that can go with electronic email,
my opine of the initial hit was one of attack,
not hey they got the right idea,,
what do you think ,
or hey whats up with this I think there on the right tract,
no it was attack attack attack with that first statement about no one should have guns only cops and military,
for crying out loud with all the banter on this site about who's this weeks current runner up for Adolf Hitler impersonations,
that sure fits the bill ,
no guns for any civilians ,
only legally enforced police,
such as ghestapo, brownshirts, SS,
what? you tell me,
re-read that post and tell me it wasn't hit first ask questions later.

[DWG]

Join and support the NRA!; A million voices are heard by the politicians much more than an individual. Remember New Orleans when the "authorities" forcibly disarmed lawful citizens and Australia where the "authorities" incrementally disarmed an entire nation. Let's not let it happen here. I don't always agree with the NRA, but without them we would really be screwed.

BTW; has anyone vetted that alleged Lt.? If this is what the Corps has come to I am greatly concerned with its' future.

[irpat54]

Join and support the NRA!; A million voices are heard by the politicians much more than an individual. Remember New Orleans when the "authorities" forcibly disarmed lawful citizens and Australia where the "authorities" incrementally disarmed an entire nation. Let's not let it happen here. I don't always agree with the NRA, but without them we would really be screwed.

BTW; has anyone vetted that alleged Lt.? If this is what the Corps has come to I am greatly concerned with its' future.
good point:thumbup:

[MOS4429]

BTW; has anyone vetted that alleged Lt.? If this is what the Corps has come to I am greatly concerned with its' future.

In the War Room last night. Haven't checked this a.m.

[ameriken]

Is there any other recent news on this? The most recent I found about it was this from January 2012:


Blocked funding for ATF's planned shotgun import ban already paying dividends (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838373/posts)

<small> St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/blocked-funding-for-atf-s-planned-shotgun-import-ban-already-paying-dividends) | 25 January, 2012 |

Kurt Hofmann </small>

<small>Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:57:33 PM by marktwain (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Emarktwain/)</small>

Last November, the "Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/Science and Transportation/Housing/Urban Development Appropriations bills" omnnibus was signed into law. One provision of that law blocks funding for a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) plan to ban the importation of certain shotguns, based on their not being sufficiently suited to "sporting purposes." From AmmoLand.com:

SEC. 541. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to deny, or fail to act on, an application for the importation of any model of shotgun if– (1) all other requirements of law with respect to the proposed importation are met; and (2) no application for the importation of such model of shotgun, in the same configuration, had been denied by the Attorney General prior to January 1, 2011, on the basis that the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.


We have talked about this insidious BATFE plot before.

Particularly offensive was the BATFE's proposal to not only exploit the heinous "sporting purposes" requirement to justify gun bans, but to simply ignore sports of their choosing:


Further, both studies concluded that the scope of “sporting purposes” did not include all lawful activity, but was limited to traditional sports such as hunting, skeet shooting, and trap shooting.


The obvious motive here was to get around the fact that sports like 3-Gun are built around just the kinds of politically incorrect guns that the BATFE had hoped to ban. National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea puts it this way:


So now the fedgov presumes the power to be the final arbiter of “authorized sports”?

For now, though, the BATFE has been thwarted. This year's SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade) show, just wrapped

[FoxtrotOscar]

Every law abiding household should have one...

22040

[FistFu68]

:beer: When they Outlaw Gun's only Outlaws will have Gun's :beer: :iwo:

[m14ed]

It's downright pitiful that you have to resort to personal attacks against a picture of someone just because they disagree with you and the mode allow it. Pitiful.

Lieutenant

the shame of it is that what i had quoted along with his picture was a lot more flamable than what is shown with it.

Suffice it to say please ,99.44% of the time,, Conch posts as a troll
Intentionally to cause ass rash.

Getting to where i dont appreciate our todays "Professional Military" UNLESS THEY"RE GRUNTS.

whiney assed kids brag about duty in an air conditioned control tower,
give me a break...

Sorry if im off the thread on this,
Gentlemen

[irpat54]

Every law abiding household should have one...

22040

i like it,,and i agree,,to quot Mr. T,,, "I pity the fool" who breaks in a house and this gets put in there face,,,

[MunkyVsRobot]

Join and support the NRA!; A million voices are heard by the politicians much more than an individual. Remember New Orleans when the "authorities" forcibly disarmed lawful citizens and Australia where the "authorities" incrementally disarmed an entire nation. Let's not let it happen here. I don't always agree with the NRA, but without them we would really be screwed.

BTW; has anyone vetted that alleged Lt.? If this is what the Corps has come to I am greatly concerned with its' future.

While I agree with joining the NRA but I also disagree.. They do tend to have their own agenda that they push. They support some gun bills while they dont support others.


Example my home state New Hampshire there was a bill to go permitless conceal carry. Which I am definately for, but they would not support the bill because it was limiting the rights of minors some how. My thoughts is WTF are minors doing and or needing to conceal firearms? They dont they should have supported it thats retarded. But it is good to join A group to help protect the 2nd amendment rights while we still have them.

[irpat54]

While I agree with joining the NRA but I also disagree.. They do tend to have their own agenda that they push. They support some gun bills while they dont support others.


Example my home state New Hampshire there was a bill to go permitless conceal carry. Which I am definately for, but they would not support the bill because it was limiting the rights of minors some how. My thoughts is WTF are minors doing and or needing to conceal firearms? They dont they should have supported it thats retarded. But it is good to join A group to help protect the 2nd amendment rights while we still have them.
i believe they were against a rider that was placed on the bill,,or i might be thinking of another bill,,

[DWG]

When they Outlaw Gun's only Outlaws will have Gun's

Why do I see you as the "frito bandito" border bandit?;) Big ol' sombrero, M1 Garand, brace of 1911 .45s;

Pancho FistFu68!!! Time comes I'll join your band,LOL!:yes:

[Gail P]

That's right! If you can't aim and hit what you want (DRT) then you won't be allowed to pee in my bathroom.

[irpat54]

That's right! If you can't aim and hit what you want (DRT) then you won't be allowed to pee in my bathroom.

lol:thumbup:

[The DUKE]

Rumor Control--We Give You the Truth About the Shotgun Ban

Posted on June 1, 2012



<tbody>







</tbody>


NRA-ILA has received many inquiries about blog posts concerning a proposed shotgun import ban, and about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' solicitation of public comments about this issue.

While this outrageous proposal clearly and convincingly demonstrates the Obama administration's anti-gun agenda, it is not breaking news; the comment period expired more than a year ago (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/5/nra-files-comments-opposing-shotgun-imp.aspx?s=importability&st=&ps=). NRA filed extensive comments (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ShotgunBanCommenttoBATFE_FINAL.pdf) opposing the ban. In addition, an appropriations amendment to block the new ban became law (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7180) in November.

We encourage all gun owners who are concerned about this issue to sign up to get the latest news from NRA-ILA (https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/secure/stay-informed.aspx) today!

[The DUKE]

<hgroup> KNOX GUN-RIGHTS REPORT

Cops gun down man for legally carrying firearm

Jeff Knox explains how irrational fear led to police-sanctioned murder

<time datetime="2012-06-02T21:58:32+00:00" pubdate="" class="updated">Published: 21 hours ago</time> </hgroup> http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/images/authors/wnd@firearmscoalition.org.jpg by Jeff Knox (http://www.wnd.com/author/wnd-1/)Email (wnd@firearmscoalition.org) | Archive (http://www.wnd.com/author/wnd-1/) Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition (http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun-down-man-for-legally-carrying-firearm/www.FirearmsCoalition.org).


Erik Scott was a West Point graduate who went on to serve honorably in the Army, get his MBA from Duke and establish a lucrative career in real estate and as a sales rep for a medical device company. He was 38 years old when he was gunned down in 2010 in the portico of a Las Vegas area Costco store by officers from the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. While it was 7 bullets from the only people we’re supposed to trust with guns that snuffed out Erik Scott’s life, what really killed him was an irrational fear of firearms – hoplophobia.
Scott and his girlfriend had been shopping in the Costco, but had been asked to leave when an employee spotted Scott’s lawfully carried handgun. Scott had inadvertently exposed the gun when he squatted down to inspect some merchandise. He informed the employee that he was legally carrying the gun and was in possession of a valid Nevada concealed weapons permit, but was informed that Costco has a policy against carrying firearms in their stores.

A brief argument ensued, some raised voices and obvious frustration on Scott’s part, but witnesses said it didn’t seem like a big deal. They saw nothing particularly threatening about the incident or the clean-cut, good looking young man. The store manager who had spoken with Scott seemed satisfied by Scott’s reassurance that he was a legal firearm carrier and would be finished with his shopping in a few minutes. But a store Loss Prevention Officer called the police and reported that an armed man was behaving erratically in the store.
That report, based on irrational fear, and perhaps some personal envy, triggered events which quickly spiraled out of control. It seems that the fear factor was taken up a notch with each description of the story to the point that responding officers believed they were going into a violent hostage situation with a heavily armed and dangerous Green Beret.
Las Vegas MPD responded with a city-wide alert, street closures, helicopter support and deployment of a Mobile Command Center. The first officers on the scene arrived as Costco employees were following telephone instructions from the police to calmly evacuate the store.
As Scott and his girlfriend fell in with other patrons flowing out of the exit door, the Loss Prevention Officer who started the whole mess pointed toward Scott and a police officer at the door suddenly began yelling “Stop! I said Stop! Drop the gun! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!”
He fired these conflicting commands in quick succession giving Scott no opportunity to comply with any of them and then fired two rounds at Scott’s chest. As the officer began yelling and Scott realized he was the subject of the commands, he turned, lifting his hands, and apparently tried to follow the legal requirement to immediately inform an officer that he was an armed weapons permit holder, but he didn’t have time.
The officer’s frantic orders lasted for a slow count of 3 and were immediately followed by the two gunshots, a momentary pause, and a volley of several more shots. There was no pause or hesitation between the commands and the shots. The first round struck Erik Scott in the heart, the second hit his right thigh. As he collapsed to the ground, two other officers fired 5 more shots into his back. Numerous witnesses reported that they saw Scott turn and declare that he was a permit holder. Many said they could see both of his hands and that he made no threatening move. All agreed that the only gun they saw was the one in Scott’s waistband on his right hip.
Other witnesses reported that they saw Scott’s body removed by EMTs and saw nothing on the ground except blood and a cell phone, or sun glasses. EMTs reported that they removed Scott’s gun and holster from the waistband of his jeans in the ambulance and that they saw no other gun, yet, after police broke into Scott’s apartment and confiscated the firearms there, the story came out that Scott was carrying two guns that day.
A picture of the second gun, on the ground near a cell phone, after the blood on the pavement had been cleaned up, is the “proof” that Scott had two guns and pulled one on MPD officers. The store’s video surveillance system inexplicably malfunctioned for the several seconds of the shooting.
A coroner’s inquest concluded that the shooting was justified, just as a similar inquest had concluded that the gunning down of an unarmed, small-time pot dealer in his apartment a short time before the Scott shooting was ruled to be justified. Just as such coroner’s inquests have concluded that officer involved shootings were justified in 199 out of 200 incidents since 1976.
Erik Scott’s family has strongly contested the conclusions of the coroner’s inquest and the entire inquest process. They succeeded in getting some changes made to that process, but those changes have been held up by suits from the police union.
The Scotts filed a wrongful death suit in federal court, but recently dropped that effort, convinced that they had no hope of winning with the system stacked against them.
Erik Scott’s father, a former Air Force flight test engineer and writer for the prestigious aerospace magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology, has painted a sympathetic, fictionalized portrait of Erik and the events of that day as part of a new novel he is offering in serialized form at ThePermit.blogspot.com (http://thePermit.blogspot.com) in hopes of maintaining awareness of Erik’s tragic death and bringing attention to corruption within the justice system and government of Las Vegas.
The police have a difficult job. They are put in positions and asked to do things that most of us would run away from, but authority and power must be tempered with responsibility and accountability. For decades lawmakers and courts have built up walls of protection around police and other government workers. It is critical that these public servants be protected from frivolous suits and baseless harassment, but they must be held accountable for their actions and investigations into their activities must be beyond reproach. That is not the case currently.
When one person’s irrational fear of a peacefully armed man can result in that man being gunned down by police with no consequences for anyone except the victim and his friends and family, something is terribly, terribly wrong. Hoplophobia killed Erik Scott and a corrupt system allowed his accusers and executioners get away with it.