The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has just released its “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns.” Here’s what it’s about:
The purpose of this study is to establish criteria that [ATF] will use to determine the importability of certain shotguns under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).
Like what?
Under one [category] the Attorney General shall approve applications for importation when the firearms are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes (the “sporting purposes test”).
And there’s an important catch, defined in previous “studies”:
“[T]he ability to accept a detachable large capacity magazine originally designed and produced for a military assault weapon should be added to the list of disqualifying military configuration features…”
Yeah, but plenty of people use semi-auto firearms recreationally and competitively. No problem, right?
Uh...not exactly:
[T]he scope of “sporting purposes” did not include all lawful activity, but was limited to traditional sports such as hunting, skeet shooting, and trap shooting. This effectively narrowed the universe of firearms considered by each study because a larger number of firearms are “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to a sporting purpose” if plinking and police or military-style practical shooting competitions are also included as a “sporting purpose.”
So now the fedgov presumes the power to be the final arbiter of “authorized sports”? Really? Did they just invent that power for themselves out of thin air, while the Republic was sleeping?
As they say in TV commercials, “But wait, there’s more”:
ATF recognized that no similar studies had been completed to determine the sporting suitability of shotguns.
Nothing escapes the eye of Sauron…and that’s where we are today. Go ahead and read the study, because I’m not going to go through its details here. I’d like instead to look at the origins of “sporting purposes,” or what our friends at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership call “Nazi strategy summed up in two words”:
This "sporting use" strategy was used before. The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test. Section 25(1) of that Law proclaimed: "It is forbidden to manufacture ... and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled -- beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities -- ..." Section 21 of the Nazi Law (and its enforcing regulations) employed the "sporting use" exception also where they permitted licensed persons to carry "firearms, designed for -- and usually used for -- the hunting of fair game."
A popular bumper sticker slogan is correct when it asserts “The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting” (although I would argue the Ninth is). And that’s where the infamous U.S. v Miller decision, also concerning shotguns, comes into play:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to thepreservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Disregard for a moment that the only reason there was an “absence of any evidence” was because:
[N]o attorney appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue the Miller/Layton side of the case, nor was a written argument submitted in their behalf. In fact, in a telegram sent to the Supreme Court from Arkansas, Miller’s attorney Paul Gutensohn suggested that the case be decided only on the evidence presented by the other side — the U.S. government. This suggestion was gross malpractice. The fact that the case was actually decided based only on the federal government's brief and oral argument was a gross miscarriage of justice.
The sporting purposes/militia suitability fraud gives the government cover for the perfect Catch-22 pincer strategy/squeeze play: You can’t have this gun because it has military characteristics. And you can’t have this gun because it doesn’t have military characteristics.
How does the line go?
Heads we win, tails you lose.
“Shall not be infringed?” Ha!
From the new ATF study:
All interested persons may submit comments on this study.
Comments may be submitted by e-mail 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.
Please take a few moments to send them your candid thoughts.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc. (Also note “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
Damned if I do and damned if I don't. Damned if I will be.
The ATF just keeps going one more bridge too far.
My actual "candid thoughts" would likely get me jail time... but I don't think any of them would be surprised, or motivated to do anything but what they're already doing.
It's past time for letters and pleading. Molon labe
I believe your right but I sent them a comment any way
I'll tell you what "sporting purposes" have to do with the Second Amendment: They are the common justification for VIOLATING that law. Anyone who can read can see that the reasons to own and to carry guns, at least the reasons mentioned in the Second Amendment, have ONLY to do with staying free and safe from attack by The State and other thugs.
Miller is a dead issue. The courts now use Heller as binding precedent, in which Scalia flatly lies about the Miller decision. Furthermore, the decision from Miller was no affirmation of the NFA, but a remand to the original jurisdiction for further argument, where the surviving defendant, Frank Layton, (Miller having been murdered under mysterious circumstances), obligingly pled guilty in exchange for probation, a plea he and Miller tried to enter when first indicted. Sound like a set up? The court deals with the conflict between Miller and Heller by refusing to even recognize the question. See Hamblen v. United States, second petition for writ of certiorari.
There's a quote I've heard attributed to Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, but have not been able to verify as being his words. Whoever said them, they're spot-on, and definitely relevant to the topic at hand:
"The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear sporting goods."
Sending input to the ATF is going to have what influence? They have shown themselves to have no integrity, no morals, no respect for the law they claim to uphold, and no respect for the Americans they supposedly serve. An outfit with no redeeming qualities is hardly going to have a epiphany because I point out that they are doing something contrary to the Constitution or any other truth. I liken it to scolding pirates after the ship is taken. I know David, that you stick to the moral high ground, and advocate peaceful, lawful dissent. We are on a collision course with our own govt. and they are not going to be dissuaded from their rapacious power grabbing by a few well placed words.
You don't have to say "please" Sean. Perhaps you could ask if any of these types of firearms will turn up in "Project Gunwalker"...
Worse, if you send anything remotely resembling a patriotic response to the ATF, you're likely to end up on a watch list, or worse...
Put yourself proudly on that watchlist. Maybe if enough of us do and they see the sheer numbers they are facing, it will give them pause to consider the wisdom of continued prodding.
A secondary objective for the regulars and royal marines who moved on Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775 was the execution of arrest warrants issued for Samuel Adams and John Hancock who were known to be in the area. They had somehow "end(ed) up on a watch list, or worse". So go ahead. Get yourself on "some list". Many of us are. I don't mind being in the tradition of men like Hancock and Adams one bit. You shouldn't either.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
I am a gun owner and really for no other purpose than I happen to have collect a few of them over my lifetime. Mostly hunting rifles and shotguns left around from my father and a couple of pistols I have purchased that I enjoy shooting at the range on occasion. I am not a gun activist by any means but I believe wholeheartedly in the second amendment and firmly believe that the very instant that the state gets all your guns you can kiss your liberty goodbye and life in this country will never be the same again.
Don't worry about the government "getting all the guns". They cannot and will not.
Life not being the same in America is nothing to fret over - life with personal responsibility and without fraudsters, banksters, liars, and murderers in "public service" would certainly be a better quality of life.
IF you'd like to keep them you might want to consider becoming a gun activist.
Just sayin'
This comes to mind from the movie with Steve Martin, "The Jerk."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUQkbXWwJhQ
Uru, you are already on "The List".
The advanced firearms today that are legal are being made illegal for one simple reason. That reason being for control of the citizens by government. This is done in the name of safety for the armed enforcement tax feeders. Which in the raw truth, no longer are the armed enforcement tax feeders being paid to, "serve and protect" but to control. The cat is out of the bag for all to see.
I will have to be careful with my comments to ATF. Since I hold a FFL i could possibly be audited. I survived one audit. I hope I never have to go through that again.
Disgusting.
You DO realize that what you just said was "I'm not going to exercise my rights as a citizen because I'm afraid that- if I do- they'll retaliate and make my life more complicated." -- right?
Is there a better definition of tyranny, or a better example?
Ever consider what will happen to your business if nobody challenges them?
Ever consider that they can't economic-waco EVERYBODY, and hence you're making it easier for them to retaliate against others who still possess the pair G*d gave 'em?
But heck - not your problem, right?
DD
Gentlemen, we must all hang together, else we will surely hang separately! -- Benjamin Franklin
The Miller case is widely misunderstood. First, Miller had not been convicted of this crime, because the original judge threw the case out of court (twice!) as prima facie violating the Second Amendment. Second, the fact that there was no one to present evidence on behalf of Miller and Layton is a red herring: the case before the Supremes was an appeal, and therefore reviewed matters of procedure, not new evidence (and no old evidence existed). Third -- and most importantly -- the Supreme Court did NOT rule that certain weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment! They ruled that the original judge had to go back and actually hold a trial, so that evidence could be considered to answer the question of whether these guns were or were not useful to a militia. And this trial was never actually held, because Miller was found dead just before the ruling came out. So in fact the people who have told us that the Supreme Court ruled in Miller that machine guns aren't protected by the Second Amendment ARE LYING. Anybody who reads the actual ruling will see this for himself.
i don't see where this article claims new info couldn't be introduced--seems what he links to t says pretty much what you're saying--reversed and remanded. But it's not a straw man argument to say that the info the Supremes had didn't recognize militia suitability. Not sure what it is about this that you find so objectionable, and it looks like you just commented with what you assumed it was about before thoroughly reading the Puckett article.
For any one who fears being on a “list” with the ATF, you already are. If you ever bought a firearm from a business that has closed, they are required to surrender their records, so you're on the list. If you ever bought a firearm and went through the NICS background check, you're on the list.
In Pennsylvania, dealers use the PICS (Pennsylvania Instant Check). The “Only Ones” are supposed to destroy any record of the PICS request but it was discovered that they were not. A law suit was filed and the court ordered the records destroyed as per law. In this day of computers, I seriously doubt that the records were destroyed. Somewhere there is an external hard drive with all of the PICS information stored.
As for the “US vs Miller” decision, what nobody talks about is that the court ruled against the possession of a short barreled shotgun (I guess the court never heard of the “trench guns” of World War I) because it was not part of the “ordinary military equipment”. That interpretation would allow any citizen to “keep and bear arms” which ARE part of “ordinary military equipment”. So why are we restricted from owning “ordinary military equipment”? Look it up and think about it.
I read somewhere that several of the SCOTUS justices that sat on the Miller case had served as Army officers in WW I where there was extensive use made of "short barreled shotguns": primarily Winchester M97 and M12 trench guns. What the court was saying wasn't that there was no evidence of such use or that they were not personally aware of any, but that neither side in the case had presented that evidence before the court, and that they therefore could not use it in their ruling. Over the years Miller, one of the worst decisions ever by SCOTUS, became something of a grab bag which everyone twisted beyond recognition to find the meaning they needed to support their own preconceived opinion of what the law should be. In the process, "shall not be infringed" was ignored and or trampled by most of them.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Clarification to the uninformed re: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
No evidence was ever presented by either party regarding "trench guns" or "coach guns", which means that the court COULD NOT rule on the issue. No "judicial notice" means that there is nothing in either the pleading, or the court evidence. Period. It does not mean that there were no facts available to an inquisitive judge, just that they were not a part of the only brief filed (GOV's), intentionally...
This came up last week in a firearm message board I participate in.
Funny, I didn't realize weapons needed a sporting purpose to be legally owned in the United States.
OH WAIT...THEY DON'T
The text basically reads that the military can have the stuff because they need it, but everybody else can't because it doesn't serve a sporting purpose. Since when did any firearms need a sporting purpose to be legally owned? I seem to remember a quote that I can't find right now. It basically says when the government can have things that the rest of the populace cant, that's tyranny. Something to think about.
Did I read that correctly? "if gun-rights advocates want to arm themselves against the American people"?
Kaufman does not appear to be any friend of liberty. I researched him and found one of his other comments: "It's interesting to see US gun dealers and Sout (sic) American drug cartels referred to as if they were seperate (sic) groups." Sick.
Kaufmann has a psychotic hatred and obsession with Christians and Republicans/Conservatives, and everything they stand for, such as the right to bear arms, which I'm sure brought him to your blog. He can and does post the most vile and violent of harassment. He travels the blogs here spewing his hate, as you have witnessed. You will find the same throughout the examiner site.
Please do copy and REPORT his violent, threatening, objectionable and/or inappropriate posts, and then simply delete him without acknowledgment. If enough examiner writers do this, perhaps the problem will be resolved.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.."
Amendment II "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."
[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]
“What do ‘sporting purposes’ have to do with Second Amendment?”
Excellent Question.
Answer = “Whatever those in the government say it does, that is, until someone objects.”
Q = “Can those in FedGov enact a law to ban the importation of whatever those within it decide to ban?”
Obvious answer is “Yes, of course.”
Q = “Can those in FedGov enact a law to ban U.S. manufacture of any device, and sales and possession of any device by persons not in government, and exempt those in government from whatever law is enacted?”
Answer, “Yes.”
Q = “If persons in any agency of FedGov, alter whatever rules, codes, regulations or etc. currently exist, or write new rules, codes, regulations or etc. which in effect become the writing of laws outside of the scope of their authority, then it’s the responsibility of those in the FedCong to respond accordingly, striking the rules, codes, regs or etc. and disciplining those in violation as necessary.”
Q = “Can those in the FedCong be trusted to respond accordingly?”
Answer, “No.”
In fact, FedGov, has been in violation of the prohibitive law written against any act of infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms via the IIA since the 1920’s, and with rare exceptions, the majority of firearms codes enacted on the Federal level are prohibited via the IIA, and under law, Constitutionally null and void.
Q = “Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United State guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms?”
Answer. “No.”
Q = Regarding the IIA to the Constitution of the United States:- “Is there such a status as a ‘Constitutional Right’ or ‘Constitutionally guaranteed Right’ of the people to keep and bear arms?”
Answer “No.”
The Second Amendment does not grant, confer, award or afford any ’Right’. It 1) cites common knowledge and wisdom gained from experience, 2) declares a ‘Right’ which predates and preexisted not only the establishment of the Federal government, but every form of American government 3 ) specifies as law, that said Right ’shall not be infringed’.
That’s ‘shall not be infringed’ by those within or acting on behalf of the Federal government.
As a law specifying further restrictions on those few limited powers afforded to the newly-formed Federal government , ’shall not be infringed’ is as all-encompassing and powerful a statement as can be made.
Those representatives of their respective States with provisions in their own State Constitutions specifying the keeping and bearing of arms by the Citizens of that State to be a 'Right'
who voted to enact ‘gun control acts’ on the Federal level, did, in fact, violate the terms and agreements in TWO Constitutions.
Both that of their own State and the prohibitive law written via the IIA in the Constitution of the United States.
Open to correction…
Since the term ‘sporting purposes’ is nowhere to be found in the declarations of the Rights of the Citizens as contained in any State Constitution, that particular term appears to be essentially one contrived for use by those in FedGov.
Several State Constitutions do use the word ’recreation’ and the term ‘recreational use‘ in their provisions, which is obviously quite different from what those in FedGov are attempting to use.
As a pertinent aside…
If challenged to provide the most significant purposes for the prohibitive law written specifically against those in the Federal government via the IIA:-
one would be as that of a general deterrent against the Federal government reverting to the natural state of all governments, which is tyranny and despotism.
Another would be as some security against the potential for a military overthrow of the civilian government.
Certainly the ultimate purpose intended by this particular prohibition on powers afforded to those in the Federal government would be that of avoiding an otherwise entirely unnecessary repetition of American history on a matter once quite well settled.
And, yet, all we do is continue to piss and moan only.
What I find interesting is that the NRA is now calling for a change in the 68GCA redefining or removing the term “Sporting Purposes”
While I applaud the NRA for their recent alert on the subject, I hope it doesn’t come at the cost of some other liberty in a compromise deal.
I am flatly against demonizing people that suffer from mental illness as a life long prohibition of gun ownership.
There’s something about the government stealing guns under the color law that completely rubs me the wrong way.
I remember history; Native Americans were called crazy/mentally ill after they were liquored up. Jews were called mentally ill for the first 1/3 of the 20th century for all sorts of reasons. The Nazis called any one that disagreed with them mentally ill and it seems like the practice continues today by anti-gunners for people that want their 2A rights.
I would rather live with the threat of terrorism or the estranged gunman than lose any more of my rights
There was also the systematic misuse of the USSR's mental health hospitals, starting with the Stalin regime, as a weapon to control and/or to intimidate their internal dissent. Some of the "wolves" and "sheep" in our society will try to say that such behavior could never happen here, but we've already seen Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano imply that all returning war vets could have PTSD and should therefore be considered "prohibited persons" because they might become the next Timothy McVeigh.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Maybe I'll use my tax return to buy that carbine I've been drooling over.
Exactly what part of "Shall not be infringed" do they not understand? Since the initiation of the globalist agenda pre-20th century, made blatantly obvious in both 1934 and 1968, those firearms most suitable to the reasoning behind that recognition of rights, not the granting of it but the recognition of it by the 2A, have been removed by the government. Again, those firearms most suited to the purpose of the 2A. Need there be more said?
The prohibition against those with mental illness is not only wrong, it's idiotic.
Do we REALLY want to discourage people from seeking needed help for fear of being stripped of their rights??!!
Current law prohibits ownership by those ADJUDICATED ill, or involuntarily committed. - IOW against their will. If they're sick enough to require that, prohibition's OK IMHO, SO LONG AS it's a prohibition that only applies while they're so debilitated.
Once the crisis is passed however, rights should be restored.
Lifelong punishment for illness is disgusting and reprehensible.
DD
I'm sure I'm not alone, I've personally avoided treatment for depression for fear of losing 2A rights.
That is sick.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!