ATF To Ban Tactical Shotguns?

Interestingly enough, I could not find my reply in that PDF; this makes me wonder how much they may have cherry-picked.
 
The other interesting thing is that I didn't see a single response in support of banning. In 516 pages of responses, I have a hard time that not a single person supports BATFE's study/ban. It seems more likely that they don't see any need to publish the information on those that support them.
 
Its not just the ATF gentlemen., its the power who sits on the throne right now pushing very hard while not appearing to be in the background with the 2012 elections coming up., its not really that far off. Ever heard of appeasing your base?
 
All federal regulatory agencies post comments to proposed rule changes on line. They have done this for at least ten years.
 
thallub, while I've never heard of this, I'll take your word for it.

Even so, it would have been nice if they'd mentioned that in their request for emails on the topic. And they should definitely not publish contact information without express consent. (It would be a violation of Federal policy for them to publish similar information about their own employees; Privacy Act stuff.)

Of course, I don't recommend submitting anything to a public forum (or government agency) that I wouldn't wish to admit to at a later time, so if they were to publish my response, it wouldn't bother me.
 
why do they even bother soliciting comments. They're just going to do whatever the hell they want anyway. They could receive 100,000,000 of the most eloquent comments ever penned, and it wouldn't matter a damn bit. Good grief.
 
It appears the ATF has published a 516-page PDF containing all of the commentary it received regarding the shotgun study - inclduing the names, email addresses, telephone numbers, physical addresses, etc. of those who sent comments in.
Click to expand...

Oddly it does not contain either of the two emails I sent in regards to this matter... or maybe I have confused this matter with another one but I still think this holds true.

I guess they didnt like me questioning their motives (political vs constitutional) and they didnt like me impeaching them for not living to the oaths many government employess are required to make.


Here is a very slightly modified version (full name removed at signature) of the shorter one.

Dear ATF:

I am a retired military member and as a part of duty to my country I swore to protect and uphold the constitution and to protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I suspect being officers of your governmental agency that you were also required to swear a similar oath. So as a courtesy reminder I am including the Second Amendment below which I would like to ask you to read aloud to every member present, verbatim.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I would like to ask all of you to define what "shall not be infringed" means to you in plain english.... To many Americans your proposed regulations concerning banning the importation of shotguns is a clear transgression and infringes on our constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Further your proposed regulations will not stop one single unlawful entity from performing any unlawful actions as by definition criminals do not obey laws. The end result of your proposed regulation will only affect law abiding citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms and your proposed shotgun importation ban is contrary to the long standing traditional values of this nation.

So I ask each of you, where does your proposed taking away of freedoms stop? How much will be enough to satisfy your agency and how do you weight that against the very oath you personally took to defend this countries constitution? Are you not betraying the very ideals that give purpose to your agency?

You have a moral obligation to stop this regulation and to re-evaluate the values of your institution and see if they still serve this nations constitution or if they serve a political purpose that is contrary to the good, and the will of the people of this nation, and clearly against the intent of the founders of our country as clearly expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Firearms are some of the most highly regulated possessions in our land and yet are the only personal possession specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights so what does that tell you about the importance of firearms to our nations founders? Please explain to me how your proposed regulation protects the one personal possession mentioned in the Bill of Rights? It is repugnant to the very ideals of the founding fathers that your Agency and its officers would even have considered such regulation.

Stop this proposed regulation now and put some serious thought into the oath you swore... Are you upholding the oath or your political beliefs? The regulation will change nothing for criminals, only for good and honest people who will be yet further limited in what firearms they can possess.

Thank you

BGutzman
 
Last edited:
Dear ATF:

I am a retired military member and as a part of duty to my country I swore to protect and uphold the constitution and to protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I suspect being officers of your governmental agency that you were also required to swear a similar oath. So as a courtesy reminder I am including the Second Amendment below which I would like to ask you to read aloud to every member present, verbatim.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I would like to ask all of you to define what "shall not be infringed" means to you in plain english.... To many Americans your proposed regulations concerning banning the importation of shotguns is a clear transgression and infringes on our constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Further your proposed regulations will not stop one single unlawful entity from performing any unlawful actions as by definition criminals do not obey laws. The end result of your proposed regulation will only affect law abiding citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms and your proposed shotgun importation ban is contrary to the long standing traditional values of this nation.

So I ask each of you, where does your proposed taking away of freedoms stop? How much will be enough to satisfy your agency and how do you weight that against the very oath you personally took to defend this countries constitution? Are you not betraying the very ideals that give purpose to your agency?

You have a moral obligation to stop this regulation and to re-evaluate the values of your institution and see if they still serve this nations constitution or if they serve a political purpose that is contrary to the good, and the will of the people of this nation, and clearly against the intent of the founders of our country as clearly expressed in the Bill of Rights.

Firearms are some of the most highly regulated possessions in our land and yet are the only personal possession specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights so what does that tell you about the importance of firearms to our nations founders? Please explain to me how your proposed regulation protects the one personal possession mentioned in the Bill of Rights? It is repugnant to the very ideals of the founding fathers that your Agency and its officers would even have considered such regulation.

Stop this proposed regulation now and put some serious thought into the oath you swore... Are you upholding the oath or your political beliefs? The regulation will change nothing for criminals, only for good and honest people who will be yet further limited in what firearms they can possess.

Thank you

BGutzman
Click to expand...


Amen. Thanks for posting that. It's logical, and passionate responses like these that I think will make a difference.
 
OK Sports Fans .....

On Friday, the President signed “Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/Science (CJS) and Transportation/Housing/Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bills” into law.

Why should you take note of this? Because in a little noticed section, that has passed completely under the radar of just about everyone, is this little gem:

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.​

Read more about it here: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/19/little-noticed-provision-kills-atf-shotgun-ban-plans/
 
Too bad this law was not in effect in 1984 and in 1986 when the president at the time banned two shotguns from import, citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. This was the first time a long gun was banned from import. This set a precedent that was cited by two later presidents when they banned long guns from import.
 
Al Norris said:
Read more about it here: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/19/l...gun-ban-plans/
Click to expand...

Good news! Thanks for sharing it with us.

thallub said:
Too bad this law was not in effect in 1984 and in 1986 when the president at the time banned two shotguns from import, citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. This was the first time a long gun was banned from import.
Click to expand...

What shotguns are you thinking of? The only previous examples I can think of are the USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns, all of which were banned by ATF Rulings 94-1, 94-2 in 1994. And even in 1984, it certainly wouldn't have been the first time a long gun was banned from import since one of the major points of the 1968 Gun Control Act was to remove military surplus rifles from importation (an issue which was fixed by the 1986 FOPA).
 
Nice little tidbit in there. Thanks for letting us know, Al.

(tinfoil hat time)...

But if somebody does this on their own time as a freebie, they could still ban them? :D:p
 
And even in 1984, it certainly wouldn't have been the first time a long gun was banned from import since one of the major points of the 1968 Gun Control Act was to remove military surplus rifles from importation (an issue which was fixed by the 1986 FOPA).
Click to expand...

No long guns were banned from import under the "sporting purposes" clause of the the GCA until 1984. Underline is mine.

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/importban-kf.htm

The 1968 Gun Control Act states specifically that the act had no intention of "plac[ing] any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity . . ." It was not until 1984 that this open-ended definition was more narrowly applied to only certain sporting activities, such as hunting and organized marksmanship.

In 1984, the "sporting purposes" test was specifically applied to rifles and shotguns. The firearm in question was a South African riot control shotgun. The importer, pursuant to the statute requirements, indicated that the weapon fit "sporting purposes" due to its "suitability for police/combat style competitions." ATF denied the license.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
thallub said:
No long guns were banned from import under the "sporting purposes" clause of the the GCA until 1984. Underline is mine.
Click to expand...

There were plenty of long guns banned by the 1968 GCA long before 1984, otherwise they wouldn't have had the sporting purposes test to begin with. It wasn't until FOPA loosened up the restrictions on milsurps in 1986 that many of the rifles we now take for granted became available. Now 1984 may be the first time ATF officially declared that " "suitability for police/combat style competitions" was not a "sporting purpose" under the act. I'd have to do some research; but it looks like Sen. Craig's staff is mistaken if they believe 1984 is the first time a long gun was barred from import into the United States under the sporting purposes clause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top