ATF banning guns by changing definitions

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by 45nut, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    click here

    Banning Guns by Changing Definitions, Part 4

    Posted by Beregond (Profile)

    Monday, April 18th at 7:00AM EDT
    No Comments

    Recommenders: Leon H. Wolf, cmndr45

    The Obama administration is seeking to limit the importation of some shotguns via rulings made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF.) ATF has issued a “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” which provides the logical underpinnings for a ban of some weapons. In Part 1 we looked at how the ATF defined “sporting purpose” to exclude the popular action and practical shooting sports. In Part 2 we saw how several features that would cause an imported shotgun to be banned are useful in home defense. In Part 3 we looked at how the unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968, which introduced the “sporting purpose” test for importation, came to be. In this final installation we’ll look at the implications of the current study on pistols, rifles, and domestic shotguns.

    The Supreme court decisions in District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v Chicago moved the earth under the feet of the ATF. The decisions clearly established that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, it can be exercised for any lawful purpose, and that it applies to the states. This negates many of the firearms related parts of the ATF’s job. But like any good bureaucracy, ATF has its’ fingers in its’ ears and is shouting “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” while planning how to overcome this setback. Apparently the ATF’s plan is to say “The Supremes told DC, and told the states, but they didn’t tell ME! Besides, the ruling says that there is space for some regulation!” The current study certainly foreshadows some regulation.

    Before the Heller and McDonald cases were decided it could plausibly (if incorrectly) be argued that the “sporting purpose” test that is applied to imports, and was part of the justification for the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban, was regulating a privilege and thus legal. That is no longer the case. The ATF is laying the groundwork to restrict what is undeniably a right. This goes beyond simple government overreach to the realm of violating the oaths of office for those involved.

    But it’s not just imports that are in the crosshairs, as Jeff Knox points out in The Knox Update:

    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 (NFA), 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 Eric Holder) finds that certain shotguns are not importable because they are unsuitable for sporting purposes he must then explain why virtually identical guns, with the 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?

    One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at guns and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that any ONE item on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, and the gun is banned.

    So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”

    In other words, this report lays the groundwork to impose by regulatory fiat an entirely unconstitutional gun ban more draconian than the Clinton gun ban that expired in 2004, and bypasses Congress and the Constitution to do so. It needs to be stopped now. The ATF is accepting comments on the report until the end of April, 2011. I urge you to comment, and to send a copy of your comments to your congressional representatives.

    * Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
    * By fax to (202)648-9601.Faxed comments may not exceed 5 pages.
    * All comments must include name and mailing address.

    This is not just an issue for gun owners. This is an issue of the Obama administration overreaching, and violating the Constitution in the process. Restricting our rights by regulatory fiat should concern every American.

    Thought you'd want to know folks.
  2. Python

    Python Former Guest

    Apr 9, 2011
    If it's deemed necessary to contact our congressional representatives to "oppose" this kind of crap (anything unconstitutional), we're already screwed. If their oath to defend the Constitution is worthless, so will any effort to remind them be worthless. People just don't get it, or they just don't want to get it. Everything comes to an end sooner or later. In this case it's later, but it is as inevitable as is the NWO that requires it to be so.

  3. carver

    carver Moderator Supporting Member

    And this is the problem that we live with. Lieing, cheating, stealing Elected Officials that serve no one but themselves! Reminding them of their sworn duties would be a waste of energy!
  4. Python

    Python Former Guest

    Apr 9, 2011
  5. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Jun 30, 2005
    Ther "comment period" is still open.......>MW
  6. stitch1870

    stitch1870 New Member

    Oct 10, 2010
    Dallas, Tx
    Good afternoon to all, just got an email from a private FFL me and my father are familiar with, contents of the email are that this bs ban has been passed. Don't know as of yet if there will be a time limit to it like the '94 AW ban.
  7. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2007
    Heart Of Texas
    Here we go again...:mad:
  8. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Feb 8, 2011
    Land of Lincoln
    If you're in the market, better 'bite the bullet' and get it now.

    Can't believe it - we went deep sea fishing again last night, and as usual took all our guns and ammo in case we were accosted by pirates. Big wave hit and everything fell overboard.

    Third time that's happened...
  9. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2007
    Heart Of Texas
    bummer... ;)
  10. gunmad

    gunmad New Member

    Apr 19, 2011
    Corinth Maine
    As i have been saying time to send them all packing there bag and leave the gun laws alone. it was wrote that way then and the founding fathers would word it the same today. it was wrote that way so we could defend ourself from a take over. yes when wrote the army had muskets just like us now they got bigger arms and so do we it's still a fair fight.
  11. Python

    Python Former Guest

    Apr 9, 2011
    Dream on.
  12. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2007
    Heart Of Texas
    No it isnt a fair fight, but thats no reason to lay down and allow these things to happen. The problem is all these "but im just 1 person, whats my vote count" kinda people that allow these laws to be passed by doing nothing and hoping someone else will stand up and take care of it.

    What so many folks dont get is all those "just one persons" add up very quickly and if everyone would do their part and at the very least, get out there and vote. things could be a little different...

    My point here is, If youre one that doesnt vote because you think its a waste of time, then youve forfieted your right to complain about the problem.

    Many hands make light work fellas. If every like minded 2nd ammendment supporter in America would stand together, I believe we could stop these things from happening.
  13. Python

    Python Former Guest

    Apr 9, 2011
    Of course it would make a difference, even a little difference if everyone voted, but it's never been that way and it's never going to be that way. Americans have always been a day late and a dollar short. There will always be those who make things happen (10%), those who watch things happen (30%), and those who don't know what happened (70%). And people will always complain, regardless. America didn't get into the situation it's in because Americans are smart, and America won't get out of this situation because Americans are smart. And just in case you haven't noticed, even when people do vote, the will of the people is reversed by the LIBERAL judges. The worlds changing and America is changing right along with it, there's no going back, it just doesn't work that way.
  14. permafrost

    permafrost Active Member

    Feb 24, 2010
    Oklahoma, USA
    If it ever comes to it, it will be a matter of belief. The militia in Lexington knew they were up against the most powerful, best trained, best army in the world. They knew a lot would die. But they had a belief so strong that they were willing to risk their lives and likely die for that belief. FREEDOM From Tyranny! We would be totally out classed and outgunned, but every man must hold at least one belief in his live so dear that he is willing to risk his life to defend it. Otherwise, I don't think you're really alive. That will be our strength, just as it was at Lexington. With our numbers and the right mind set, we could prevail! FREEDOM!
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011
  15. Python

    Python Former Guest

    Apr 9, 2011
    To compare anything today with anything a couple hundred years ago is just plain foolishness. And as for Americas belief's and mindset today, and what their willing to live and die for? Be assured that the mindset, beliefs, and value system of Americans today has absolutely nothing in common with anything of any generation past. With our numbers and mindset today we couldn't even boycott Disneyland, or fill 1% of the pews in church on Sunday. Rambo was Hollywood foolishness, George Armstrong Custer was reality. Dream on.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Hannity - Will banning guns benefit Mexico? Feb 27, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd Amendment "No Obstacle" to Banning Automatic Weapons Oct 16, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Banning of self defence/7th US Circuit Jun 4, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Speaking of banning by tax regulation (long) Apr 19, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Would banning firearms... Aug 21, 2007