In some states they are, and I don't think any of those can be imported.

If one was to accidentally shoulder a factory PGO shotgun while firing it, would that 'designed, redesigned, made or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder' absolve the PGO Shotgun from being classified as DD under NFA?

Excellent explanation but I am not sure what they are going to do about it.

"....the recent negotioations between the NRA and BATFE..."


Wut.

The BATFE doesn't want the NFA monkeyed around with.

The definitions in the NFA were last amended in 1986.

If the BATFE were to ask Congress for a legislative remedy for this (PGO guns) they would upset people on both sides of the gun debate.

I think we should send the ATF Tech branch a letter asking clarity on this issue.

It has to have a butt stock first, right?

shotguns fuck yeah

Much worse. Think of the gunstore chatter. "The ATF is going to ban all shotguns..."

Buy this 870 now for 5,000 probably the last time you can get one!

The War on Guns: "It's Complete Bull****"

Screen names?



 

I did nazi this coming

Excellent explanation!

What I do know is that both ATF and NRA was aware of this in 2009....I know because I personally briefed a NRA/ILA attorney on precisely what you posted.  I do NOT know if there was any "negotiations" with ATF...It doesn't work that way.   It is entirely possible that members of congress contacted the NRA and they (members of congress) may negotiated, sought input or whatever from ATF, DOJ, etc.

I do know there was a discovery of essentially what you posted by several members of congress in the last 2-3 weeks.  I suspect they thought it better for political reasons to seek a quiet fix....Kind of late for that.

My suggestion is we stop debating who knew what when and who negotiated with whom for the moment and concentrate on how this issue will be dealt with by Congress and DOJ.

Do we shape the narrative or do we wait for someone else to?

Start banging pots and pans with the NRA and all other 2A organizations and ask them to get out in front of this with a solution we choose.

The alternative is wait for someone else to craft a solution and play "guess what orifice I'm going to stick this in" with it.

Do we have any rough estimates about how many PGO shotguns are out on the market now? I know they were aware of the problem back when they changed the 4473 to add an "Other Firearm" description several years ago, but obviously they've been on the market for significantly longer than that.

It's larger than that....Numbers would include any shotgun that any owner installed a pistol grip as well as any sent from the factory with a PGO (Pistol Grip Only) since 1968.  

Essentially every pistol gripped shotgun in existence currently (with a bore diameter greater than .5 inch).

It would also impact any registered AOW that has a bore diameter greater than .5 inch, as it is statutorily a Destructive Device.

I just recognized who the OP is.

That alone makes me believe there is more to this story.  

Would it really include shotguns that originally shipped with as shoulder stock and later had a PG added?  The ATF interprets the NFA along the lines of "once an X always an X".  Once it had shipped with a shoulder stock it would statutorily be a "shotgun", just temporarily in another configuration.  As a "shotgun" it could qualify for a DD exception.  I think they only place ATF is really stuck is factory-shipped PGOs (IMHO).



The most neutral way to fix this (without scoring a bunch of political brownie points for anyone) might be to simply strike "except a shotgun or shotgun shell" and replace with "weapon" in 5845(f), so that it read like this:

26 U.S.C. § 5845(f): The term “destructive device” means .. any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell weapon which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;

However, I'm highly cynical and I think this problem is going to be used as an excuse to go fuck with other things; like trusts or the Hughes Amendment.



Sometimes everything posted on GD is inane drivel, sometimes it isn't.

Please enlighten us !!!

Monoz,

"Would it really include shotguns that originally shipped with as shoulder stock and later had a PG added? The ATF interprets the NFA along the lines of "once an X always an X". Once it had shipped with a shoulder stock it would statutorily be a "shotgun", just temporarily in another configuration. As a "shotgun" it could qualify for a DD exception. I think they only place ATF is really stuck is factory-shipped PGOs (IMHO)."

In order to answer that I point to the ATF Open letter on Wrist Braces to answer: ATF Open letter on the subject

If merely shouldering a wrist brace "re-designs" the host firearm into an NFA firearm, how is removing one part and replacing it with another not "re-designing" given the current ATF interpretations on the subject.    You don't see the ATF claiming that removing a shoulder stock and replacing it with a pistol grip so that it is no longer "designed to be fired from the shoulder".....?  

Respectfully, I would bet good money that a white paper at ATF already exists on this subject...

Just google Historic Arms LLC.

This is a man who knows of what he speaks.

Ahh yes.

While j agree with your sentiment as to "if" that scrutiny to the Brace ruling is a legal ruling.

We should be nonallowing variations in law on basis of obviously scrutinize terms that are contradicive of themselves (being certain ruling of interpretive law)  so as to further muddy the water, but yet re-establish the ludicrousness of these arbitrary laws & rule making & demand their removal.

The ATF & their rule making on the "remaking" of something from something else is not based on reality. The issue of "remaking" was an open letter mind you, not an official ruling.

Let's use a rifle.... Let's say I purchased the "Rifle with the intent to never shoulder it" OK so right away I meet their criteria of a redesign.... In regards to the letter on the brace, so I go home & never fire it, maybe I do, it doesn't't matter as my intent is supposedly what mattes... I remove the stock & tube & replace it with a buffer tube only & change the barrel... I, according to their letter "Technically" don't have a rifle, I redesigned it into a pistol. But they will Enforce it as I have built a SBR...

BUT WAIT! They say "Once a Rifle, always a Rifle."
But but what about this "redesign" nonsense?

Let's follow their logic here...

I can purchase something with a given "Intent" that determines it's classification.
I can build some thing that has a Stock so it is "intended" to be fired with two hands but  until it is "Fully Assembled" it is classified as "Other"... That depending on either:
a) my intent
b) the parts use to assemble it are either a "Stock" or not
c) barrel is over 16" with a COAL of 26"
d)if barrel is less than 16" it is an SBR
The last two are "Law" that determines intent by assembly....

I have "Technically made an SBR if I put a short barrel on it, even if I don't have a stock on it...

When you compare the logics, of law, to these "opinions" we find contradictions.

You can buy gallons of milk to bathe in, rather than drink, but that doesn't make it water...it make it Your taking a bath in cow nipple excretion.

Now we have to ask ourselves, selves: Why are we even talking about "Tweeking" the NFA when it could be history in the near future?....Hmmmm... Interesting.

It is right next to the word "muskets".

I acknowledge your point.

Playing devil's advocate a little longer; reading the NFA closely I see that the word "redesign" is applied to the definition of rifles, shotguns, smooth bore pistols, non-weapons, and antiques.  "Redesign" is used differently for antiques than for the other four classes.


I'm not going to pretend the ATF is logical or consistent in their policies, but their open letter on the wrist brace relies on the language that provides for a pistol being "redesigned" into a rifle or shotgun. I've never seen (but perhaps I've overlooked) anything from the ATF that suggests they recognize a rifle or shotgun being "redesigned" into a pistol.  It appears that for the purpose of the NFA they treat the above transitions as the only ones possible.  So, if a consumer purchases a shoulder-stocked statutory "shotgun" and replaces the shoulder stock with a pistol grip, the question is what would the ATF consider it to be "redesigned" into?

Waronguns: Pieces of a Puzzle Matter


WarOnGuns: Another Piece of the Puzzle
More at link.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/04/the_legal_dilem.php

The legal dilemma posed by pistol-gripped shotguns

Posted by David Hardy · 14 April 2015 05:57 PM

"Interesting issue ... and here I'm referring to shotguns which were originally made with a rear pistol grip in place of a buttstock.

Under the Gun Control Act, the issue seems simple: they are pistols. Very big pistols, but pistols. Thus they have been treated, and sold in large numbers over quite a few years.

The National Firearms Act, however, poses a problem. Under it, they are not shotguns, since the definition of "shotgun" includes "designed to be fired from the shoulder." 26 U.S.C. §5845(f).

The problem is posed by a different part of the NFA, created when it was amended in 1968. Those amendments created a class of firearms designated "destructive devices," and really aimed at artillery pieces. As you might expect, these were VERY tightly regulated, nevermind that criminal use of artillery wasn't exactly a big problem.

Under the NFA, "The term "destructive device" means .. any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes..." 26 U.S.C.§5845(d).

Every shotgun but the diminutive .410 has a bore greater than half an inch. The "sporting purpose" exemption doesn't apply, since that is limited to shotguns, and as we have seen, these firearms are not "shotguns" under the definitions of the NFA.

The situation as it stands is thus: BATF must never have realized that these firearms are NFA "destructive devices," and as a result thousands, if not millions, are in private possession of persons who bought them legitimately over the counter, with no reason to suspect that there was anything legally amiss."

Oh, Bama.  Try calling Mossberg to order a 14" front end.   You may have luck as a LEO, but they've halted all civilian sales of them.



 

Why is it so hard for some people to admit that the NRA has never given a shit about anything that is not a fud gun, especially the NFA sector? They have sold out that sector time and again by using it as the sacrificial lamb for their repeated "compromises" on the various aspects of the gun control fight. This shocks me not at all, and is why I will give the other progun groups every penny I can and never give them a dime.

And it sounds like some of his sources are not NRA haters, but people inside the NRA that do not agree with the position of compromise with the ATF over our rights.

Because what you said is not true.

Maybe you can convince the Avilas to make a NAGR icon for you.

If I was reading that, I'd think that it means that the Secretary at the time, says that shotguns (all shotguns) are particularly suitable for sporting purposes, not that each secretary down the line gets to make individual micro decisions.

Sure its true.

Whatever a 'fud gun' is.

That might make sense if it was written by the Secretary, but it was written by congress in the same section if law where they define shotgunn
shotguns as being designed to shoot from the shoulder.

That could easily be interpreted the other way.

Predictable responses from NRA supporters. So what exactly has the NRA done to protect NFA weapons and keep the ATF from adding normal guns to the NFA, or banning guns that were legal originally but by arbitrary date become illegal?

What have you done Dudley?

You have to send him $25 for him to tell you because it's illegal otherwise.

Locally I am quite active with a local legislator and attorney/author in the fight for pro-gun bills and gun rights. But I am not a national organization milking money out  of people who foolishly believe that they support all gun rights.


These were in reply to Ted Kennedy playing up on his brother's death.

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts."  —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)

"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)


They pushed for stronger background checks as part of HR 297 that would not have kept the Virginia Tech shooter from getting guns, but punished the law abiding.

They do not support Constitutional carry "In the name of safety, any person who carries or is exempted from having a CCW permit should be required to have some form of firearm training." [emphasis theirs] http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=268 (Posted on their website, exactly as above, on February 25, 2002)

They supported the 1000" firearms exclusionary zone. "We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud." NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999

They sure are big on compromising a fundamental right and not doing much to push back proposed legislation. Oh, except the recent M855 ban which was purely political since it is the best selling rifle in the US.

They will never get a dime of my money.

Straight out of NAGgeR

Really? Got a link?

And they do not get a dime from me. I had never been to their site until I looked up what NAGR was. Either way, that is straight from the NRA mouth, but the NRA boot lickers will always find a way to justify compromise.

ANd for the record, Dudley Brown HATEs the attorney I work for and his friend Curt Oda. Nice try though.

NRA supported the 1968 GCA.  NRA tried no less than 5 times to derail the Miller/Heller case.  

With that being said, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that there are people out there that are trying to undermine our Rights for their image, money or whatever.  Be thankful there are people like Len Savage at Historic Arms, Nolo, Heller, and others that are taking up the fight and shoving reality in some very uncomfortable places on the opposition.  

Right now, the important thing is to find a resolution to this issue.  Given the games being played, Sporting Purpose needs to go away.  Will it?  If ATF is smart, that is what they'll push for.  They'll save face and minimize damage by doing so.  They could do other things but I see quite a few of those other things making matters worse for ATF.  There is a lot moving on a lot of different fronts and ATF has lost any control they may have had on any of these situations.  It's only going to get worse for them. too.  They need to stop playing the stupid fucking games and fix the shit they messed up without all this compromise and infringing on Rights bullshit they've played in the past.  

ATF has played fast and loose with laws, CFR's and everything else they touch.  They're going to get burned by it and so is everyone else that has had a hand in helping them.  If the NRA is involved in these shenanigans, then they'll get burned too.  If members of Congress were, we'll find out who and we'll light them up as well...  Will it make a difference?  Who knows but ATF better understand something and they better fucking understand it well.  As a matter of fact, the whole Government can listen to this.  They like watching us, but they better fucking realize, we're watching them.  We're taking notes and we know more than they realize.  We have a map and a shovel and we can start digging whenever we want.  ATF better ask itself, do they want us digging up all of those skeletons?  The more they play this shit, the more we're inclined to pull ghosts out of the ground.  

Don't make me get my back hoe....

dude, yes

Why wait?  

My bad

Nagger spammed the living shit out of that a few years ago, but it traces back to keepandbeararms.com. Doesn't matter as it's cherry-picked bullshit. Anyway, you stated:

"Why is it so hard for some people to admit that the NRA has never given a shit about anything that is not a fud gun"

Which hasn't been true- if it ever was- for decades. The NRA fought AGAINST the onslaught of bans we faced from the 19 fucking 70's.   There were attempts at assault weapon bans, magazine bans, handgun bans, waiting periods, and a plethora of local, state, and federal regulations, all focused on killing gun rights. The NRA has been fighting a multi-front war for decades, while various asshole groups like NAGR and GOA, sit on the sidelines doing jack fucking shit. Big deal, they don't "compromise". THey also do nothing.

I want an ATF that regulates guns the way the FAA regulates aviation (they actually promote aviation), the FDA regulates drugs (they actually promote innovation in medicine), and the Federal Reserve regulates banks (whoo-hoo free money!)

Why the hell isn't the ATF lobbying for an "affordable guns act" to help promote gun ownership?  Why isn't a constitutionally recognized fundamental right being subsidized to the extent that housing, education, and health care are (none of which are constitutionally protected rights).  What the hell is wrong here?

[/sarcasm off]

We have a board member here on arfcom.

Let's see if we can get the truth from him.

Txl