ATF Proposes Restrictions on Importation of Shotguns

B

Bartholomew Roberts

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

This is apparently the big post SHOT 2011 news regarding imported shotguns. The ATF has decided that the same "sporting purposes" nonsense that has been used to restrict import of rifles and pistols needs to be more broadly applied to shotguns.

Accordingly, they have commissioned this study to identify "non-sporting" features that will be sufficient to ban a shotgun for import. The study is open for comment by the public until May 2011 and of yet, there is no proposed regulation to implement this ban.

A couple of thoughts pop into mind:

1. If you have a desire to purchase an imported shotgun with any of the banned features, now if probably the time to do it (assuming the panic buying doesn't get too crazy - which it probably will)

2. Based on a quick look at 18 USC 922(r), it looks like this will cover shotguns banned from import - meaning that there will be a whole new set of rules, US made parts etc for imported shotguns after this I imagine

3. If you don't want to see this happen, take advantage of the commentary period to point out to ATF where they are wrong and the practical problems some of their determinations may cause.
 
Could you expand please on how we could take advantage of the commentary period? IOW, how do we comment? Any suggestions on format of the comment?
 
This isn't a big surprise to me. I can't recall the brand, but have seen pictures of a 14 round defensive shotgun being developed overseas. When I saw the pictures, I thought of the Street Sweeper and how it was banned for being "not suitable for sporting purposes".
 
Could you expand please on how we could take advantage of the commentary period? IOW, how do we comment? Any suggestions on format of the comment?
Click to expand...

It is right there on Page 1 of the study:

"All interested person may submit comments on this study. Comments may be submitted by email to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to 202-648-9601. Faxed comments may not exceed 5 pages. All comments must include name and mailing address. ATF encourages submission of comments no later than May 1, 2011."

As far as format, I would read the study and point out to ATF flaws in their reasoning. For example, they state that hunting with a shotgun at night is illegal in most states and ergo lights on a shotgun serve no sporting purpose - however, here in Texas, hunting wild pigs with a light is legal because they are considered nuisance animals and Texans are encouraged to kill them any way they can.

Racoon hunting is another popular nighttime hunting activity as well.
 
I looked over the list, and I note a few things I've said elsewhere:

1) The Saiga-12, which is the subject of all the hullabaloo over this, seems to be unaffected by this. If they stick with that feature list, the S12, as imported, has none of those things.

2) The reproductions of the old 1897 trench gun have a bayonet lug, so they'd be out.

3) There's really no provision for a parts count like with a rifle and section 922r if your imported shotgun is nonsporting. Since just about any Saiga conversion would pretty much have the owner using enough US parts to cover it, this isn't likely to be an issue if our guns aren't grandfathered.

4) It looks like the ATF expended many words defining their "sporting purpose" and explaining why some activities are sporting and some are not. I wonder if they realize that sporting purpose clause is becoming an extremely thin reed (especially considering the large number of sports that aren't hunting or clay games that use tactical-type shotguns), and they may need to revisit that. However, as they note, doing so for shotguns means doing so for rifles and pistols, and I don't see them being eager to open that can of worms. They may not be able to avoid it with the right court case though.
 
My big concern is that it is a short step from saying imported shotguns with these features are non-sporting to making the same determination for domestic shotgun. I'll have to brush up on my firearms law; but IIRC anything with a bore over 0.50" has to have a sporting purpose to not be classified under the NFA.
 
Gun Control in Motion, again

Much of what I've read from this article appears to be mostly subjective interpretation and selective use of semantics perhaps to generate a biased interpretation of what is considered "sporting." In fact most if not all firearms originated from "martial" use eventually being applied to hunting purposes. Take for example the Pistol Gripped shotgun for turkey hunting. Instead I believe the focus should be placed on adherence to current law or enforcement rather than having a government entity deciding what a law abiding citizen considers "sporting." Does the most recent FBI crime/data reports not indicate a sustained drop in crime? That in fact restricting guns has a bigger effect on legal use and perhaps commerce while criminal activity by criminals is perpetuated with weapons stolen, obtained or altered "illegally" to begin with???

Am I the only one concerned that restricting my gun rights infringes on my ability to protect my family from any crime domestically or from foreign terrorists/drug cartels? Or that police cannot possibly be present at every crime scene to protect? That a well armed society is a detriment, deterrent to foreign enemies of our culture???

Isn't this quite obvious, or are we getting complacent once again?
Support our NRA!
 
I'm down to page 12 on the study and I'm getting sick to my stomach and will not be finishing. I guess that makes me a poor source of criticism on the apper since I can’t give a full educated opinion of it, but hey, that’s life.
 
I just came across this ATF report and wanted to share it.

As some of you may know, ATF proposed the above criteria. During the comment period, they received some 21,000 comments on the proposed criteria. Before any such criteria could be enacted, the House managed to slip a provision into an appropriations bill which forbid ATF from using any funds to forbid the import of a shotgun for sporting purposes if ATF hadn't already prohibited such import.

On July 2012, ATF issued this report addressing the comments and adopting the criteria going forward: http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/july-2012-importability-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

The high points are:
1. 3-gun is not a sport, and even if it were, we will compare it to hunting rather than other sanctioned firearms sports or else our bias might be obvious.

2. Pistol grips help disabled people so they are OK. An integrated rail helps attach pistol grips, so they are also OK. Everything else on the list is forbidden and we won't even dignify valid criticisms of those choices with a response.

3. We're not banning anything. We are just restricting importation. Not a word said about how sporting purposes criteria also affects domestic shotguns.

I thought this response would let people know how their comments were received as well as emphasize the importance in commenting on proposed regulation 41P - the comment period for which ends December 9th.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The high points are:
1. 3-gun is not a sport, and even if it were, we will compare it to hunting rather than other sanctioned firearms sports or else our bias might be obvious.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the BATFE also does not consider practical shooting (IPSC/IDPA) or cowboy action shooting to be a "sport." Essentially, all the BATFE seems to recognize as sport shooting is traditional, bullseye competition (whether it be handguns or rifles), and trap and skeet. Never mind that IPSC is recognized as a sanctioned sport even in many countries that are a lot less firearms friendly than the U.S. (purportedly) is.
 
Not to restate my obvious point but does calling certain guns 'modern sporting rifles' seem like a good idea? Not when the government defines sport.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Not to restate my obvious point but does calling certain guns 'modern sporting rifles' seem like a good idea? Not when the government defines sport.
Click to expand...
It still beats "military style killing machine" by a country mile ...
 
Not to divert but to avoid the lethal nature of firearms is to surrender to the antis.

The shotgun regs seem to be trying to make the point. Guns are for sports and sports are controlled.

If guns are for sports then there is no reason that they not be registered and kept locked up at the gun club to be checked out for practice,matches and/or hunting.
 
If guns are for sports then there is no reason that they not be registered and kept locked up at the gun club to be checked out for practice,matches and/or hunting.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
We need are ridiculously straight-forward, unambiguous SCOTUS ruling that clears up the "sporting purposes" BS.


Unfortunately, I can't see that happening in my lifetime. They just don't have the [eggs] to write an opinion for or against it.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Not to divert but to avoid the lethal nature of firearms is to surrender to the antis.

The shotgun regs seem to be trying to make the point. Guns are for sports and sports are controlled.

If guns are for sports then there is no reason that they not be registered and kept locked up at the gun club to be checked out for practice,matches and/or hunting.
Click to expand...
Not much of a diversion at all.

The Supreme Court won't allow .gov agencies to write new laws, but they will allow those same agencies to regulate us into oblivion. What we see coming out of the BATFE is just more "creeping incrementalism." We are the frogs, and we're already in the pot. The .gov is just raising the water temperature incrementally rather than dumping us in after the pot has started boiling.

In addition to being "creeping incrementalism," it's also part of the divide and conquer approach. [Insert obligatory "First they came for ..." quotation.]
 
In addition to being "creeping incrementalism," it's also part of the divide and conquer approach.
Click to expand...
Politically, that was the whole post-Newtown media push. They tried to reassure us that they weren't coming for our hunting guns. They dressed a few folks up in camo skeet vests and claimed those were the reasonable gun owners. Anyone else was a tobacco-drooling militia nut who wasn't being reasonable.

They tried this in the mid-1990's as well. If they could divide the gun culture and turn the reasonable folks against the unreasonable ones, they thought they'd win. The problem is, their stereotyping ended up insulting many mainstream gun owners.

The 41P proposal is indicative of the new approach. They've realized they can go around the legislature and simply punish us through regulatory modifications. The worst part? They're right to an extent. Stuff like this is much harder to fight. Legislation can be opposed because a politician may see his job as being on the line. However, regulatory changes are usually made by appointees who have no such fears. While we have escaped out-and-out bans and sweeping changes, this administration still has the tools to cause us serious harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top