search
top

ATF on Shotgun Guidelines

The ATF has issued a response to the public comments it received on their original 2011 guidance on the importability of shotguns. Their response is best summed up thusly:

We have listened to your concerns, and have decided to summarily dismiss them. But you may have a point with those forward pistol groups, so we’ll give on that.

21 Responses to “ATF on Shotgun Guidelines”

  1. JDRush says:

    So the ‘shoulder thing that goes up’ is still on the list. And they still discriminate against those of shorter stature by not allowing adjustable stocks.

  2. Alpheus says:

    I’m still bothered that an unaccountable, unelected, law-enforcing agency has the power to both create law, and to enforce it, without Congressional vote, or Presidential signature.

    • Sebastian says:

      They didn’t create the law, Congress did. Congress invented the sporting purposes language in the Gun Control Act.

      But If the courts worked the way they were supposed to, they would declare the statute vague, and tell Congress it had to be more specific as to the meaning of “Sporting Purposes.” They would argue the vagueness delegated Congress’ lawmaking power to the executive branch, which is not permitted. As the non-delegation doctrine stands now, Congress can write sloppy laws that it allows to be interpreted or re-interpreted by agencies

      • Brad says:

        “… If the courts worked the way they were supposed to, they would declare the statute vague, and tell Congress it had to be more specific as to the meaning of “Sporting Purposes.”… ”

        And that action could only be pre-DC v Heller. After DC v Heller the courts should have to rule that the 1968 GCA and it’s “sporting purpose” test is blatantly unconstitutional and violates the 2nd Amendment. The Feds can not ban weapons useful for self-defense.

        This most recent ATF ruling which bans shotgun importation will only speed the day when the law is finally overturned by the courts.

  3. Kevin says:

    Interesting that they didn’t even bother to discuss feral hog hunting, which is most often conducted at night.

  4. Erin Palette says:

    Please bear with me as I often have trouble cutting through the BS of political speech, but how does this ruling affect aftermarket add-ons? I ask because I don’t see a whole lot of shotguns coming with flashlights or 6-point stocks as standard equipment.

    • Sebastian says:

      That’s generally covered under 18 USC 922(r):

      http://home.comcast.net/~navy87guy/home/922r.html

      • Erin Palette says:

        I’m seeing lots of mentions of “semiauto” on that page. I assume my pump-action Mossberg, then, is 100% kosher?

        • Robert says:

          Yes, however 922(r) only applies to imported firearms. Firearms made in the US, like the Mossberg, aren’t covered by it, so even if the Mossberg WAS a semi-auto, it could have all the “non-sporting purposes” parts and be just fine, so long as it complied with the National Firearms Act of 1932 (not be full auto, barrel longer than 18″, overall length of 26″, etc).

          • Erin Palette says:

            Aren’t covered by it YET. We all know how federal regulations love to creep in once they’ve got a slimy tentacle in the door, all under the name of “precedent”…

            • Harold says:

              No, the regulations have to fit within the letter of the law and the ones relevant here, to non-imported guns, are I believe pretty clear.

              No doubt due to the NFA being passed in 1933, I suspect before unconstitutional delegation really set into Congressional law making (e.g. the NIRA/blue eagle NRA—I was recently annoyed by seeing the blue eagle on the cover of a scan of an old pulp magazine).

              Precedent is more relevant to interpreting the laws, and it’s going in our favor with Heller and McDonald and subsequent lower court rulings.

          • Diomed says:

            922(r) applies to all shotguns and semiauto rifles assembled or imported after the cutoff. If it’s in a non-importable configuration, it can’t have more than ten evil foreign parts on it, regardless of where the receiver was made. This is an unfortunately common misconception.

            So, to answer Miss Palette’s question, yes, your Mossberg is subject to 922(r) if it’s in a non-importable configuration. This is not a real concern, though, since there are few if any foreign-made parts for Mossbergs on the list of evil parts.

  5. Ian Argent says:

    Warn a person when it’s a pdf link; some of us are on mobile OS…

  6. Old NFO says:

    Once again the public input is ignored… That is becoming a REAL pattern lately (like the last three years)

  7. Carl from Chicago says:

    ATF claims they are bound by fed law via a via sporting purposes.

    In light of F&F, that argument is flatly laughable.

  8. Spade says:

    I like how 3-gun and related aren’t sporting purposes because shut up.

    • Sebastian says:

      Yeah… that’s basically the gist isn’t it?

      • Erin Palette says:

        I thought it was an unspoken “We really, Really, REALLY don’t want civilians to learn tactical training, because we can’t control them and that frightens us.”

      • Brad says:

        By ATF logic Olympic Pistol target shooting is not a sport because only a small number of people participate! Good grief.

        All high end sports tends to have lower participation rates because of the cost and time needed to be competitive. But the ATF twisted logic imposes a standard that the higher end that a shooting sport is, the less it is a “sporting purpose” because participation rates are lower!

  9. Fred says:

    Does this mean that I need to buy a SAIGA ASAP?

    • snoopycomputer says:

      It means if you can, startup a business building “Saigas” right here in the USA, you’d be the only game in town selling a highly desirable shotgun.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. More ATF Nonsense - Shotguns and Sporting » - [...] h/t: PA Gun Blog [...]
top