ATF Seeks Ban on Shotguns: Over 5 Rounds - Page 3
Create Post
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 60
  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Conch View Post
    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.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Conch View Post
    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.



  2. #32
    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

    The Proud, The Few, The Constitutional Marine

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by irpat54 View Post
    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.


  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by advanced View Post
    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.


    The Proud, The Few, The Constitutional Marine

  5. #35
    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,


    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.



  6. #36
    Conch, but I think you've had too much koolaid.

    Last edited by FoxtrotOscar; 05-30-12 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Deleted non topic language...

  7. #37
    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.


  8. #38
    Squad Leader Free Member The DUKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    binghamton
    Posts
    1,134
    Credits
    20,093
    Savings
    0
    Images
    3
    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"

    Duke

  9. #39
    I would much rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6.


  10. #40
    Squad Leader Free Member The DUKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    binghamton
    Posts
    1,134
    Credits
    20,093
    Savings
    0
    Images
    3
    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!"


    Duke

  11. #41
    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:

    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. In fact, those findings are the opposite of what reality has demonstrated.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    Some therefore claim that the Second Amendment is simply wrong and should be ignored.

    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.


    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.”


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


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

    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.

    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 skewed study.

    Respectfully submitted,


  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by The DUKE View Post
    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?


  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by The DUKE View Post
    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

    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.


  14. #44
    m4super-300x300.jpg
    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.



  15. #45
    Squad Leader Free Member The DUKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    binghamton
    Posts
    1,134
    Credits
    20,093
    Savings
    0
    Images
    3
    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.

    Duke

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts