Obama gun ban? Not so outrageous now

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by JTJ, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,677
    390
    83
    Posted: February 03, 2011
    10:45 pm Eastern


    After more than two years of relative quiet regarding gun-control issues, the Obama administration, through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, has begun laying the groundwork for a massive gun ban.

    Last week the ATF released a "study" discussing the suitability of certain "non-sporting" shotguns for importation and sale in the U.S. The "study" suggests that shotguns with military-type features are not suitable for sporting purposes and therefore do not qualify for legal importation.

    Unfortunately this "sporting purpose" language appears in several places in federal gun laws. These laws have been used successfully to ban several specific styles of shotguns in the past – not just banned from import or banned from sale, but banned from possession without special government permission and taxes.

    The Armsel Striker and its various derivatives, for example, were little-known, repeating, 12-gauge shotguns capable of firing 12 shots as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. In 1994 the ATF declared that these shotguns and their clones were not suitable for sporting purposes.

    The National Firearms Act, or NFA, and Gun Control Act, or GCA, say that, with the exception of shotguns that are generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, any firearm with a bore greater than one half inch is a "destructive device." A destructive device, or DD, is restricted almost exactly like a machinegun. To own one you must undergo a background investigation and get the permission of your local chief law enforcement official and also pay a special $200 transfer tax.

    By declaring that the Striker was not suitable for sporting purposes, ATF removed the guns from the shotgun exception, automatically relegating them to DD status. People who already owned these guns were given a window during which they were required to register them, destroy them or turn them over to ATF.

    With this new ATF "study," the Obama administration appears to be lining up dominoes in preparation to knock more down. As ATF pointed out in their reclassification of the Striker, the "sporting purpose" language in the NFA and GCA is virtually identical to the definition of destructive device, and therefore reclassifying a gun to a DD for import purposes also reclassifies it for GCA and NFA purposes.

    While the telegraphed message from ATF is, "Prepare for new import restrictions on military looking shotguns," the message gun owners and respecters of the Constitution should be hearing is, "ATF is about to ban military-looking shotguns!"

    Any such ban will be retroactive and could require all current owners of any shotgun on the ban list to go through all of the investigation and permitting processes and pay the $200 tax if they wish to keep the guns, though it is likely that they would wave the tax to help encourage compliance.

    By re-opening this Pandora's Box of "sporting purpose" tests for shotguns, ATF could easily trip into the issue of "pistol-grip" shotguns as well. Shotguns with no shoulder stock but only a pistol grip have become very popular home defense and wilderness utility firearms.

    Over a decade ago ATF relabeled these guns as "pistol-grip firearms" rather than shotguns, because under the legal definition in both the GCA and NFA a shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder and these guns are clearly not. So even though the actions and capabilities are the same, because the shoulder stock is removed, the official ATF classification of these firearms is no longer "shotgun." This is particularly significant in light of the direction ATF is going with their "study," because if shotguns with pistol-grips and no shoulder stock are not "shotguns," then they are by default, under the definitions of NFA and GCA and the logic of ATF, "destructive devices."

    Reclassifying a few thousand Striker and similar shotguns is one thing. Reclassifying the several hundred thousand military-look shotguns likely to fall under the pending import ban would be a pretty massive undertaking. But reclassifying and dealing with all of the paperwork and necessary enforcement action for the millions of pistol-grip shotguns would be completely impossible without something akin to martial law.

    The conclusion of all of this ATF posturing and preparation is hard to predict, and it could take years for it all to play out, but in the meantime ATF and the Obama administration have successfully instigated a new consumer rush for military-looking shotguns in anticipation of a ban and dramatically increased prices.

    For over two years gun owners and rights advocates have been ridiculed and denigrated by the press and pundits for demonstrating an irrational and baseless fear that Barack Obama was going to "take away their guns." These ever so reasonable and rational journalists and commentators would virtually roll their eyes as they reported on the crazy paranoia fueling record gun sales. They would go on to repeat comments from Obama during the campaign and as president expressing his belief in, and support for, the Second Amendment. Some would even dredge up a clip of Vice President Joe Biden declaring that his running mate wasn't going to take peoples' guns – including Biden's own Berretta shotgun.

    What was most astounding about these reports was how the talking heads would often segue directly into a story about the Brady Campaign Against Guns being frustrated that Obama had failed to live up to campaign promises to restore the Clinton ban on "assault weapons."

    Apparently, to the media, "taking away your guns" is an all-or-nothing matter. They seem to think that gun owners and supporters of liberty would only have reason for concern if the president and Congress were trying to take away all guns from everyone (except, of course, government enforcers) and that banning "assault weapons" or "cheap handguns" or private transfers of firearms does not constitute "taking your guns away."


    Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His writing can regularly be seen in Shotgun News and Front Sight magazines as well as here on WorldNetDaily.
     
  2. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    This is starting to piss me off!! :mad:
     

  3. mrm14

    mrm14 Active Member

    2,706
    4
    38
    So where does that leave me with a Super X-2 Practical Tactical 9 round shotgun that I bought years ago for HD? Not a pistol grip configuration as I have no use for them. Never thought that this gun would be an issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  4. fixxer

    fixxer New Member

    188
    0
    0
    Yeah, me too. :mad: Why have we not kicked this guys *** all over Washington for unconstitutional mandating of healthcare? Now he thinks he's able to capatilize on the sick actions of a psychotic killer, pull agency strings and toss the 2nd amendment out the window. Voting season can't come soon enough for me. I wonder what his re-election campain motto is gonna be? Probably "Change... The Constitution"
     
  5. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    There are sporting reasons for shottys that hold multiple rounds (more than 3) in either pump or semi-auto. Anyone like to shoot clays? Who's that guy who does the shows where he takes out 8+ hand thrown clays without reloading? Tom Knapp?
     
  6. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    Yeah, and sometimes nothing is more fun then cutting a tree down with pure firepower. It doesnt hurt anyone and involves outside and fun.. thats enough definition to be a sporting purpose to me :rolleyes:

    I dont care what the government classifies as a sporting purpose and what isnt. I dont own my guns for a sporting purpose, i own my guns for self defence, and sporting purposes secondarily. I will give them my bullets though, I am keeping the casings.
     
  7. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    There is not one GD thing in the 2A that mentions weapons for sporting purposes! The language is inappropriate justification for the banning of any firearm.

    When will this STOP!:mad:

    It's time a regular Joe runs for office and cleand house, literally!!
     
  8. Jay

    Jay New Member

    736
    0
    0
    Preaching to the choir. Tell it to your elected officials..... they're the ones who will vote yes or no. I send emails, and make phone calls quite often. It's the only way to get their attention.
     
  9. Mark F

    Mark F New Member Supporter

    2,918
    0
    0
    That's correct... *****ing here is pointless. You have to contact your Representatives, NOW. Not after you lose your guns.
     
  10. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    Well apparently they did not get the message in 10'. :mad: Lets see what happens when they push this **** hard for the 2yrs the Obamadingdong has left and we'll see some more "hope and change" in 12'. :cool:
     
  11. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    9,663
    4
    0
    I'm getting tired of all this crap. Can't we just clean house?
     
  12. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    Hell, I gottem! So, if and when this POS legislation does pass, like I said before....."Come on and gettem!" :mad:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. DarinCraft

    DarinCraft New Member

    1,159
    0
    0
    Sounds like they're taking some lessons from CA. The part that is the most disturbing you know aside from the government overstepping their bounds and changing the Constitution is the fact they found a way to not grandfather what is already out there through bureaucratic red tape.
     
  14. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    1,601
    0
    0
    What pisses me off is that they don't have the BALLS to try to pass outright legislation on this, I am sure it's because they know it'll never pass! They have to go through BATFE(CES). To make regulations, no voting required.

    Come to think of it, I cannot come up with ONE single Federal Government Agency/Acronym, that can do ANYTHING competently.

    I am wondering where they plan on getting the funds to make this work, ya know they'll be coming up with more depts and whatnot to handle paper work, legwork, blah-blah-blah. It's gonna cost a friggin fortune! As if we have lots of money to spend.

    IMO, we need to get rid of the alphabet soup style of government, IRS,TSA, BATFE, and the other three thousand of 'em.
     
  15. DarinCraft

    DarinCraft New Member

    1,159
    0
    0
    I'll get right on that. I'll hire fifteen employees and assistances for each of them to come up with a focus group. They will prepare a report that will be used to create a committee who will oversee the writing on the permits needed to study the best way to handle this situation. They will then prepare a report that will be forwarded to me and we can start figuring out how we create an agency called the Committee On Managing Public Law Enforcement Teams, Exemplifying the Bettering of the States (C.O.M.P.L.E.T.E. B.S.) and they can investigate the necessity of each governmental agency.:D:p
     
  16. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,202
    257
    83
    Obama and his bunch can get away with this crap because there is a "sporting purposes" clause in the GCA of 1968. It allows the ATF to declare that certain firearms are not suitable for "sporting purposes".

    This ain't the first time that administrations have gotten away with this kind of underhanded crap. Reagan did it, Bush I did it and Clinton did it.

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

    It is a sad damn commentary that those critters in the US congress who claim to support our right to bear arms have allowed administrations to determine that certain guns do not meet so called "sporting purposes". Republicans ran everything for years and they never did one damn thing for us: They could have changed or eliminated the GCA of 1968.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2011
  17. Laufer

    Laufer New Member

    243
    0
    0
    Interesting. Maybe more shotgun owners will look twice before they pass by some Saiga Combat Shotguns (.410, 20, 12).

    On a different note, who gained the most benefit during the so-called $care back in late '08-early '09?
    It will happen again in the next few years.

    Maybe the scalpers are the only ones who benefit, like some jerks here in Memphis who bought up most of the Large Rifle Primers, then took them to the gun shows?
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  18. Tomoko

    Tomoko New Member

    31
    0
    0
    I'm so sick of him and stupid dumb *** wife telling this country what they should and shouldn't do I just want them to shut the phuck up.