Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Page / 7
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 9:48:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 9:49:30 AM EDT by HistoricArmsLLC]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Following the logic;

ATF in the FFL Newsletter states:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261463668/Atf-Newsletter-2009

If a pistol gripped shotgun is "NOT" a shotgun, under the NFA it is a Destructive Device if the bore is greater than 1/2".

Given the numbers currently in private hands either made that way factory (or by the owners) since 1968, enforcement at this point is no longer an option....

So since 1968 untold numbers of NFA firearms (Destructive Devices) have been in citizen hands and public safety was not impacted....Hmmm If there ever was proof that some NFA firearms need not be regulated under the NFA, there it is.

for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...


Um...cough, cough...You do know that the Street Sweeper and the USAS 12 are shotguns that ATF declared to be DD's....Right?
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 9:51:11 AM EDT
does this go for pistol grip with a stock too?
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 9:53:14 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RONINBUDO:
does this go for pistol grip with a stock too?
View Quote


https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2009-11.pdf
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 9:54:12 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Following the logic;

ATF in the FFL Newsletter states:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261463668/Atf-Newsletter-2009

If a pistol gripped shotgun is "NOT" a shotgun, under the NFA it is a Destructive Device if the bore is greater than 1/2".

Given the numbers currently in private hands either made that way factory (or by the owners) since 1968, enforcement at this point is no longer an option....

So since 1968 untold numbers of NFA firearms (Destructive Devices) have been in citizen hands and public safety was not impacted....Hmmm If there ever was proof that some NFA firearms need not be regulated under the NFA, there it is.

for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions


(f) Destructive device
The term "destructive device” means
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(A) bomb,
(B) grenade,
(C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces,
(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(E) mine, or
(F) similar device;
(2) 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; and
(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term "destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 10:11:13 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By williewvr:

Something tells me that everytime the NRA board sees this "reporter" that the only thing they say is "security".
The "press release" doesn't say anything, it implies a vast conspiracy with the political parties and the NRA.
I'll bet the author has so ideas about the grassy knoll and Russian mobsters buried in the back of his mind that he'll gladly share if given a chance.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By williewvr:
Originally Posted By chupacabras:
Originally Posted By Mossberg:
The Examiner article seems intentionally as vague as possible, in order to fuel as much wild speculation as possible.

But they have sources in the NRA. Secret sources.

Something tells me that everytime the NRA board sees this "reporter" that the only thing they say is "security".
The "press release" doesn't say anything, it implies a vast conspiracy with the political parties and the NRA.
I'll bet the author has so ideas about the grassy knoll and Russian mobsters buried in the back of his mind that he'll gladly share if given a chance.



You might want to do a little research on the author before making such statements.

I heard that several years ago he had some crazy conspiracy theory that the government was telling gun shops to illegally sell guns to suspected straw purchasers so that the straw purchasers would take them to Mexico. He even went so far as to claim that a Border Patrol agent was killed by one of those guns!

Man, he has all kinds of kooky theories!

Link Posted: 4/13/2015 10:28:59 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By notso:



You might want to do a little research on the author before making such statements.

I heard that several years ago he had some crazy conspiracy theory that the government was telling gun shops to illegally sell guns to suspected straw purchasers so that the straw purchasers would take them to Mexico. He even went so far as to claim that a Border Patrol agent was killed by one of those guns!

Man, he has all kinds of kooky theories!

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By notso:
Originally Posted By williewvr:
Originally Posted By chupacabras:
Originally Posted By Mossberg:
The Examiner article seems intentionally as vague as possible, in order to fuel as much wild speculation as possible.

But they have sources in the NRA. Secret sources.

Something tells me that everytime the NRA board sees this "reporter" that the only thing they say is "security".
The "press release" doesn't say anything, it implies a vast conspiracy with the political parties and the NRA.
I'll bet the author has so ideas about the grassy knoll and Russian mobsters buried in the back of his mind that he'll gladly share if given a chance.



You might want to do a little research on the author before making such statements.

I heard that several years ago he had some crazy conspiracy theory that the government was telling gun shops to illegally sell guns to suspected straw purchasers so that the straw purchasers would take them to Mexico. He even went so far as to claim that a Border Patrol agent was killed by one of those guns!

Man, he has all kinds of kooky theories!

i read his articles regularly. He seems to be trying to stay relevant.
As for breaking the BATFE story, well even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while.
Sipsey street is getting way more out on the fringes as time goes on. A friend said "losing a grip on reality" but I think they are trying to hard to find something to bring them the limelight again.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 11:26:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By williewvr:
i read his articles regularly. He seems to be trying to stay relevant.
As for breaking the BATFE story, well even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while.
Sipsey street is getting way more out on the fringes as time goes on. A friend said "losing a grip on reality" but I think they are trying to hard to find something to bring them the limelight again.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By williewvr:
Originally Posted By notso:
Originally Posted By williewvr:
Originally Posted By chupacabras:
Originally Posted By Mossberg:
The Examiner article seems intentionally as vague as possible, in order to fuel as much wild speculation as possible.

But they have sources in the NRA. Secret sources.

Something tells me that everytime the NRA board sees this "reporter" that the only thing they say is "security".
The "press release" doesn't say anything, it implies a vast conspiracy with the political parties and the NRA.
I'll bet the author has so ideas about the grassy knoll and Russian mobsters buried in the back of his mind that he'll gladly share if given a chance.



You might want to do a little research on the author before making such statements.

I heard that several years ago he had some crazy conspiracy theory that the government was telling gun shops to illegally sell guns to suspected straw purchasers so that the straw purchasers would take them to Mexico. He even went so far as to claim that a Border Patrol agent was killed by one of those guns!

Man, he has all kinds of kooky theories!

i read his articles regularly. He seems to be trying to stay relevant.
As for breaking the BATFE story, well even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while.
Sipsey street is getting way more out on the fringes as time goes on. A friend said "losing a grip on reality" but I think they are trying to hard to find something to bring them the limelight again.


So we are supposed to ignore his article on your say so...Because??? Because you read him regularly and feel we must ignore him???


Link Posted: 4/13/2015 11:32:43 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
So we are supposed to ignore his article on your say so...Because??? Because you read him regularly and feel we must ignore him???


View Quote


mostly because it has zero facts.

at this point this is as rock solid as Harry Reid talking about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

It may be true but there is nothing in that article but "secrets" and "insider sources" Your argument is, "they were right once, they must be right now." even though the only thing that appears to have happen recently is the 855 ban got absolutely demolished as soon as it was proposed.

Go twist your panties over something with some actual facts. 7N6
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 11:33:25 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/04/chris-cox-i-categorically-deny.html

Chris Cox goes on the record categorically denying everything....
View Quote



Well.....Chris Cox IS a good man and a solid patriot, he is the NA we need, I cannot see him endorsing this deal.


But there is no way I trust the NRA as an ORG...
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 11:33:30 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Murooka:


It wouldn't surprise me. Feels like the 90's again.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Murooka:
Originally Posted By BlueLogo:
Wait, you mean the NRA is selling us out, AGAIN? Say it isn't so.


It wouldn't surprise me. Feels like the 90's again.


What do you think happened in the 90's?
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 11:40:28 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


mostly because it has zero facts.

at this point this is as rock solid as Harry Reid talking about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

It may be true but there is nothing in that article but "secrets" and "insider sources" Your argument is, "they were right once, they must be right now." even though the only thing that appears to have happen recently is the 855 ban got absolutely demolished as soon as it was proposed.

Go twist your panties over something with some actual facts. 7N6
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
So we are supposed to ignore his article on your say so...Because??? Because you read him regularly and feel we must ignore him???




mostly because it has zero facts.

at this point this is as rock solid as Harry Reid talking about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

It may be true but there is nothing in that article but "secrets" and "insider sources" Your argument is, "they were right once, they must be right now." even though the only thing that appears to have happen recently is the 855 ban got absolutely demolished as soon as it was proposed.

Go twist your panties over something with some actual facts. 7N6



Factual story or not, hopefully it, and our reaction to it will put NRA on notice that we are paying attention and we will not allow any such shenanigans...

I'll take a 100 false alerts over 1 "WTF, how did we miss that one"
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 12:18:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


mostly because it has zero facts.

at this point this is as rock solid as Harry Reid talking about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

It may be true but there is nothing in that article but "secrets" and "insider sources" Your argument is, "they were right once, they must be right now." even though the only thing that appears to have happen recently is the 855 ban got absolutely demolished as soon as it was proposed.

Go twist your panties over something with some actual facts. 7N6
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
So we are supposed to ignore his article on your say so...Because??? Because you read him regularly and feel we must ignore him???




mostly because it has zero facts.

at this point this is as rock solid as Harry Reid talking about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

It may be true but there is nothing in that article but "secrets" and "insider sources" Your argument is, "they were right once, they must be right now." even though the only thing that appears to have happen recently is the 855 ban got absolutely demolished as soon as it was proposed.

Go twist your panties over something with some actual facts. 7N6


Wow...Just wow.

I never argued that.

Zero facts? The ATF classifications of "Pistol Gripped NON shotguns are not facts? Statutory law is not a fact? (Perhaps you are of the TL:DR crowd and never clicked on any links that were cited earlier in this discussion).

NRA involvement or not we are all directed by you to "Go twist our panties over something with some actual facts . 7N6".... I guess even asking that question offends you in some way?

Should I bow or something at your superior judgement? Or should we discuss the situation with involving pistol gripped shotguns not being shotguns by ATF?
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 12:21:36 PM EDT
I might have quoted you when referring to the "ZOMG NRA is selling us out because they are really gun banners making money."

If that garment does not fit you feel free to not wear it.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 12:50:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 12:51:58 PM EDT by mean_sartin]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Joe_Pennsy:


What do you think happened in the 90's?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Joe_Pennsy:
Originally Posted By Murooka:
Originally Posted By BlueLogo:
Wait, you mean the NRA is selling us out, AGAIN? Say it isn't so.


It wouldn't surprise me. Feels like the 90's again.


What do you think happened in the 90's?


Courtney Love released albums....... and nobody stopped her.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 1:00:01 PM EDT
The NRA and most if not all organizations such as the "Tea Party" start with great intentions and grass roots but soon get overtaken and sold out to scumbags making a paycheck. I have been a NRA supporter for many years but not anymore. I loved the idea of the "Tea Party" but look what that has gotten us... John Boehner WTF! The NRA has not done shit for us. Why are they not taking on these states in courts for all the unconstitutional laws being passed? They play games like politicians plain and simple.

AL
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 1:02:42 PM EDT
Any Other Weapon

BATFE has no authority to arbitrarily decide 26 inches is the cutoff
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 1:05:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 1:31:19 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:


Courtney Love released albums....... and nobody stopped her.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By Joe_Pennsy:
Originally Posted By Murooka:
Originally Posted By BlueLogo:
Wait, you mean the NRA is selling us out, AGAIN? Say it isn't so.


It wouldn't surprise me. Feels like the 90's again.


What do you think happened in the 90's?


Courtney Love released albums....... and nobody stopped her.


that's the real fucking tragedy here that no one is talking about
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 1:52:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:

And yet, a month ago....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot:
Originally Posted By whiskerz:
They could stretch armor piercing to easily include almost all center fire rifle ammunition . .


No, the law is based on the materials used for bullet construction, not performance.

And yet, a month ago....


By stretching the definition of "a core entirely made from..", to "a portion of the core entirely made from..."

Bullet construction not performance.

Link Posted: 4/13/2015 1:55:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Following the logic;

ATF in the FFL Newsletter states:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261463668/Atf-Newsletter-2009

If a pistol gripped shotgun is "NOT" a shotgun, under the NFA it is a Destructive Device if the bore is greater than 1/2".

Given the numbers currently in private hands either made that way factory (or by the owners) since 1968, enforcement at this point is no longer an option....

So since 1968 untold numbers of NFA firearms (Destructive Devices) have been in citizen hands and public safety was not impacted....Hmmm If there ever was proof that some NFA firearms need not be regulated under the NFA, there it is.

for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...


No, there is no requirement for rifling in the definition of a DD. Otherwise we could have mortars without needing stamps.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:03:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot:


By stretching the definition of "a core entirely made from..", to "a portion of the core entirely made from..."

Bullet construction not performance.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot:
Originally Posted By whiskerz:
They could stretch armor piercing to easily include almost all center fire rifle ammunition . .


No, the law is based on the materials used for bullet construction, not performance.

And yet, a month ago....


By stretching the definition of "a core entirely made from..", to "a portion of the core entirely made from..."

Bullet construction not performance.



Like these?



Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:10:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OhioLongRange:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Following the logic;

ATF in the FFL Newsletter states:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261463668/Atf-Newsletter-2009

If a pistol gripped shotgun is "NOT" a shotgun, under the NFA it is a Destructive Device if the bore is greater than 1/2".

Given the numbers currently in private hands either made that way factory (or by the owners) since 1968, enforcement at this point is no longer an option....

So since 1968 untold numbers of NFA firearms (Destructive Devices) have been in citizen hands and public safety was not impacted....Hmmm If there ever was proof that some NFA firearms need not be regulated under the NFA, there it is.

for it to be a DD it would have to have a rifled bore...


You're wrong. Large bore is large bore, exceptions are made on a case by case basis such as 12ga shotguns and 37mm flare/signal launchers. If rifling is what made a DD I'd have a lot more rocket launchers than I do now.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:17:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ost:
Oh yes, the "sporting" clause of the Constitution.
View Quote


after a long train of animals not being on my plate
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:22:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 2:23:56 PM EDT by qwerty4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mach:



How ever they want.

That is the point. "sporting purpose" changes with the winds.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
How do you measure "sporting purposes" anyway? What unit of measure?



How ever they want.

That is the point. "sporting purpose" changes with the winds.

Some on the NRA board don't believe an individual needs more than 5 rounds. If anyone believes the NRA isn't trading anything, I've got a bridge to sell you. We are only talking about "reasonable" gun control after all. Since when was sporting purposes a requirement for my 2nd amendment rights?

Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/04/ssi-exclusive-negotiating-rights-away.html

Sunday, April 12, 2015

SSI Exclusive: Negotiating Rights Away. Cynical Secret "Deal With The Devil" Confirmed. NRA, ATF& bi-partisan group of politicians agree to save ATF from itself and widen the definition of "sporting purposes." "A hole big enough to drive Diane Feinstein's limousine through."


From the press room of the NRA National Meeting, Nashville, TN: Sipsey Street Irregulars can now confirm the broad outlines of a story first disclosed two days ago by National Gun Rights Examiner columnist David Codrea. Last week, a secret deal involving the National Rifle Association lobbying arm and brokered by politicians of both national political parties was struck in Washington DC that would save the ATF from the political and legal consequences of its own regulatory errors. In the process, this deal would broaden the language of the 1968 Gun Control Act regarding "sporting purposes" and allow ATF to extract itself from the potentially catastrophic political damage of enforcing its arbitarry ruling that makes every owner of a pistol grip 12 Gauge shotgun like the Mossberg Cruiser a felon in possession of a "destructive device" subject to the penalties of the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- currently up to 10 years in federal prison and a quarter million dollar fine.

According to sources well-familiar with the legislative rationale and ever-changing amd even contradictory regulatory history of the ATF, this crisis for the agency was self-inflicted and precipitated by two legal cases wending their way through the federal courts in Texas and Pennsylvania. Said one, "The ATF doesn't dare reverse itself unilaterally once again on what does and does not constitute a shotgun 'destructive device.' They are frightened to death that either case may go to discovery and reveal their whole sorry rule-making mess." Said another, "There are people currently rotting in federal prison on NFA violations and others walking around scot-free. At some point, unless the Congress gives them the cover by changing the law, they are going to have to explain that in open court."

As explained by sources here and in the nation's capitol, the outlines of what one called "this cynical deal with the Devil" are as follows:

1. The ATF will be let off the hook by broadening the "sporting purposes" language and legislatively negating their own determination that millions of heretofore legal pistol-grip shotguns produced over the past decades by companies like Mossberg.

2. The NRA will get to claim credit for, as one source said, "riding in out of the storm on a white horse and claiming to have saved millions of firearm owners from federal prison, even though," he added, "everybody in the room with an IQ above room temperature understands that politically and legally there is no (expletive deleted) way that ATF can enforce this ruling on anybody. They can't and they won't . . so" he concluded, "the NRA will claim to have saved their members from a boogeyman that never really existed."

3. In return for allowing NRA to claim the credit, the Democrats demanded another ammunition import ban on "specialty ammunition," to include tracers. Some sources agreed that this last "gimme" was a "throwaway," in the words of one. "Look, their M.O. is to always demand more than they know they can get in to get the thing they really value. They'd like to get it but what they really covet is knocking a bigger hole in the Constitution by (widening the 'sporting purposes' language) . . . this deal will give them one big enough to drive Diane Feinstein's limousine through."

This reporter could get no one from NRA national leadership to go on or off the record to confirm this deal, but other sources familiar with the internal fallout of these revelations say that David Codrea's original story was "spot on," adding "they can't believe they were found out." Other sources in the nation's capitol indicate that the deal was intended to be kept secret until it could be attached as a innocuous rider at the last moment to a "must-pass" appropriations bill. Said one: "The plan was to pass it, claim victory on all sides, and pray that no one noticed the 'sporting purposes tweak.'"

He added: "What they're really frightened about is how you guys found out about this so soon. That's got them rattled." Added another, "they're looking for your sources and looking at each other and wondering who the snitch is." There is much behind-the-scenes speculation here as to how members of the NRA will react, what answers they will demand, and how these revelations will play into the Wayne LaPiere-Chris Cox rivalry for power. It is no secret to the insiders I talked to that there is little love lost between the two and much mutual suspicion of motives. Said one: "The key thing is, was this Cox's baby alone or did he get Wayne's signoff?" And, he added, "who's going to be manuevered into taking the blame for it?" Other sources tell this reporter that some very hard questions are going to be asked of Cox and LaPierre by board members in the coming days.

If so, that will be more reaction than that shown by the so-called "mainstream gun rights press" in evidence in the NRA pressroom. Since David Codrea's story broke two days ago, they have been, as near as this reporter could tell, studiously, deliberately incurious about the implications of these revelations. Copies of David's story have been distributed to them since it broke and most seem to have ignored it and few asked me any questions about it.

What reaction NRA leadership had to Codrea's original story could only be gleaned by second-hand sources, but one said that "what they're telling anybody who asks is that you're both crazy sonsabitches who are making this up. . . You two are not their favorite people right now." I asked another source, "Are they mad because the story is right, or mad because it's wrong." "They're mad," he said with a grin, "because it's right."

So, in the midst of non-denial denials and ad hominem attacks, we will continue to try to drill down to the truth as we can, this last day of the NRA national meeting of 2015.

Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:22:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 9divdoc:


after a long train of animals not being on my plate
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
Originally Posted By ost:
Oh yes, the "sporting" clause of the Constitution.


after a long train of animals not being on my plate


Evinces a design to reduce them under absolute starvation....

It is their right, It is their duty to throw of such hunger...

By being sporting while hunting food....
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:30:28 PM EDT
Guess its my duty to buy some just to piss off ATF
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:37:12 PM EDT
I got a reply from the NRA today:

Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA regarding recent negotiations between the National Rifle Association and the BATFE.

The NRA-ILA is not sure where this internet rumor started or by whom, but it is completely untrue. I have attached the NRA-ILA sign up for legislative alerts. This is the best way to stay informed of the legislative activity within the NRA-ILA. We will continue to fight for your 2nd Amendment rights day in and day out.
NRA-ILA Alert Sign Up
Respectfully,
Nick C

NRA-ILA Grassroots
800-392-8683
www.NRAILA.org
ILA-Contact@NRAHQ.org
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:41:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 2:42:36 PM EDT by southerngunner]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By polymorpheous:
I got a reply from the NRA today:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By polymorpheous:
I got a reply from the NRA today:

Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA regarding recent negotiations between the National Rifle Association and the BATFE.

The NRA-ILA is not sure where this internet rumor started or by whom, but it is completely untrue. I have attached the NRA-ILA sign up for legislative alerts. This is the best way to stay informed of the legislative activity within the NRA-ILA. We will continue to fight for your 2nd Amendment rights day in and day out.
NRA-ILA Alert Sign Up
Respectfully,
Nick C

NRA-ILA Grassroots
800-392-8683
www.NRAILA.org
ILA-Contact@NRAHQ.org

Wow, they didn't even look into it
Chris Cox knows who broke the story..... It is not that hard to find
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:44:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 2:53:48 PM EDT by southerngunner]
Edit
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:49:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 2:56:46 PM EDT by Sandit]
Southern, you might want to edit that link.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:50:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 2:56:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 3:01:58 PM EDT by southerngunner]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sandit:
Southern, you might want to edit that link.
View Quote

Fuck me… good catch, thanks


anyways you guys can use the link I had in the locked thread to contact the NRA

Let's not accuse them of anything just yet… lets just find out what's going on
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 3:00:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:

So we are supposed to ignore his article on your say so...Because??? Because you read him regularly and feel we must ignore him???


View Quote

Ignore it? No. Get other forms of verification? Yes. The guy hasn't had a major news story since Fast and Furious, the NRA has no reason to compromise with anyone right now, and the hit piece came right during the annual NRA meeting. The author admits that no one involved the supposed deal would talk to him, yet he claims he knows all the details. Something smells funny. Maybe it is the NRA but I don't think so. It's worth looking into and getting further confirmation. But to believe it out right and for people to cancel their memberships over one guys info is ridiculous.


Link Posted: 4/13/2015 3:01:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By southerngunner:

Fuck me… good catch


anyways you guys can use the link I had in the locked thread to contact the NRA

Let's not accuse them of anything just yet… lets just find out what's going on
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By southerngunner:
Originally Posted By Sandit:
Southern, you might want to edit that link.

Fuck me… good catch


anyways you guys can use the link I had in the locked thread to contact the NRA

Let's not accuse them of anything just yet… lets just find out what's going on
Behold, a Link.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 3:01:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Yeah someone is going need to bring more evidence for me to believe that.




Yep. This is setting off all sorts of BS Detectors.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 3:07:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JSmithXYY:
so per the article, there are a couple of guy's who are on trial in federal courts for NFA violations for possing like mossberg cruisers? And, the ATF realizes now that if these cases go forward that would either:
1. set a precedent of prosecution for non-stocked shotgun which would be problematic since there are millions of them.
2. force them to do something to the sporting purpose clause? What exactly?

The GCA is pretty clear that of guns w/ > .5" bore, only sporting shotguns are exempted, and a shotgun is elsewhere defines as either "w/ a shoulder stock" or "designed to be fired from the shoulder" So, yeah.

View Quote


No the cases that are mentioned that are making their way through the court system is the lawsuits for fully automatic rifles that were approved & then disapproved by the ATF. So those individuals filed suit against the Dept. of Justice & the ATF.

This has nothing to do with shotguns. It is about the ATF does not want the records of how many FA guns they approved, supposedly ignoring the law, & didn't for others.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 3:37:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 3:44:43 PM EDT
heard back from the NRA-ILA today after I sent them a stern "stop negotiating with the ATF!" email along with a link to the news story about it and they sent back this:

Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA regarding recent negotiations between the National Rifle Association and the BATFE.



The NRA-ILA is not sure where this internet rumor started or by whom, but it is completely untrue. I have attached the NRA-ILA sign up for legislative alerts. This is the best way to stay informed of the legislative activity within the NRA-ILA. We will continue to fight for your 2nd Amendment rights day in and day out.

NRA-ILA Alert Sign Up

Respectfully,

Nick C
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 3:54:06 PM EDT
Damn NAGRs.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 4:48:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 4:48:56 PM EDT by mean_sartin]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Damn NAGRs.
View Quote


People who annoy you, 10 seconds........go.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 5:29:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:


After some conversations I don't for one second believe the NRA is negotiating a deal.

I think the ATF has been caught with their pants down and the only way to fix it is for a new law to be created.

The only thing is congress is in no mood to give the anti-gunners anything and this whole deal is poised to blow the fuck up on them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Yeah someone is going need to bring more evidence for me to believe that.




Yep. This is setting off all sorts of BS Detectors.


After some conversations I don't for one second believe the NRA is negotiating a deal.

I think the ATF has been caught with their pants down and the only way to fix it is for a new law to be created.

The only thing is congress is in no mood to give the anti-gunners anything and this whole deal is poised to blow the fuck up on them.


That's what it's looking like.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 5:34:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:


People who annoy you, 10 seconds........go.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Damn NAGRs.


People who annoy you, 10 seconds........go.
Dudley Brown.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 5:40:50 PM EDT
I suppose it is possible someone set up Codrea/Vanderboegh (God knows they have their enemies), or they could really be onto something.

We'll know soon enough......
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 5:47:14 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By usjet:
I suppose it is possible someone set up Codrea/Vanderboegh (God knows they have their enemies), or they could really be onto something.

We'll know soon enough......
View Quote

Dudley played them.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 6:42:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 7:05:45 PM EDT by Monoz]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I think the ATF has been caught with their pants down and the only way to fix it is for a new law to be created.
View Quote


I looked to see if someone had posted an explanation of the ATF screw-up and didn't see it clearly explained anywhere. Sorry if this is a repeat, but here is what the situation appears to be.

First key point: "Pistol gripped shotguns" are not shotguns under the NFA due to not being designed to fire from the shoulder.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(d): The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.


Second key point: All weapons with barrels greater than one-half inch in diameter are destructive devices unless otherwise exempted.

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 which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;


Do you see the ATF screw-up yet?

The problem is that pistol-gripped shotguns have been sold for many years, but the ATF has just realized that NFA defines them as destructive devices. Why is this?

1: They have a barrel of more than one-half inch in diameter.
2: They cannot qualify for the sporting purpose exception in 5845(f)(2) since they are not "shotguns" (no shoulder stock).

It appears that back when ATF declared pistol gripped shotguns to not be "shotguns" nobody realized that would eliminate the destructive device exception. Apparently someone has now looked at this more closely and realized that all those Mossberg Cruisers and Pistol Gripped 870s are actually destructive devices and the ATF has no good way out of the situation. Hence, they are quietly looking for some legislative changes to the NFA to make the problem go away.
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 7:03:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Monoz:



I looked to see if someone had posted an explanation of the ATF screw-up and didn't see it clearly explained anywhere. Sorry if this is a repeat, but here is what the situation appears to be.

First key point: "Pistol gripped shotguns" are not shotguns under the NFA due to not being designed to fire from the shoulder.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(d): The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.



Second key point: All weapons with barrels greater than one-half inch in diameter are destructive devices unless otherwise exempted.

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 which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;


Do you see the ATF screw-up yet?

The problem is that pistol-gripped shotguns have been sold for many years, but the ATF has just realized that NFA defines them as destructive devices. Why is this?

1: They have a barrel of more than one-half inch in diameter.
2: They cannot qualify for the sporting purpose exception in 5845(f)(2) since they are not "shotguns" (no shoulder stock).

It appears that back when ATF declared pistol gripped shotguns to not be "shotguns" nobody realized that would eliminate the destructive device exception. Apparently someone has now looked at this more closely and realized that all those Mossberg Cruisers and Pistol Gripped 870s are actually destructive devices and the ATF has no good way out of the situation. Hence, they are quietly looking for some legislative changes to the NFA to make the problem go away.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Monoz:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I think the ATF has been caught with their pants down and the only way to fix it is for a new law to be created.


I looked to see if someone had posted an explanation of the ATF screw-up and didn't see it clearly explained anywhere. Sorry if this is a repeat, but here is what the situation appears to be.

First key point: "Pistol gripped shotguns" are not shotguns under the NFA due to not being designed to fire from the shoulder.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(d): The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.



Second key point: All weapons with barrels greater than one-half inch in diameter are destructive devices unless otherwise exempted.

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 which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;


Do you see the ATF screw-up yet?

The problem is that pistol-gripped shotguns have been sold for many years, but the ATF has just realized that NFA defines them as destructive devices. Why is this?

1: They have a barrel of more than one-half inch in diameter.
2: They cannot qualify for the sporting purpose exception in 5845(f)(2) since they are not "shotguns" (no shoulder stock).

It appears that back when ATF declared pistol gripped shotguns to not be "shotguns" nobody realized that would eliminate the destructive device exception. Apparently someone has now looked at this more closely and realized that all those Mossberg Cruisers and Pistol Gripped 870s are actually destructive devices and the ATF has no good way out of the situation. Hence, they are quietly looking for some legislative changes to the NFA to make the problem go away.


Could someone explain or give example of why they put shotgun shell in that regulation? When would a shot gun shell not just be considered ammunition for a shotgun?
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 7:38:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2015 7:40:08 PM EDT by MikeSearson]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Monoz:



I looked to see if someone had posted an explanation of the ATF screw-up and didn't see it clearly explained anywhere. Sorry if this is a repeat, but here is what the situation appears to be.

First key point: "Pistol gripped shotguns" are not shotguns under the NFA due to not being designed to fire from the shoulder.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(d): The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Monoz:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I think the ATF has been caught with their pants down and the only way to fix it is for a new law to be created.


I looked to see if someone had posted an explanation of the ATF screw-up and didn't see it clearly explained anywhere. Sorry if this is a repeat, but here is what the situation appears to be.

First key point: "Pistol gripped shotguns" are not shotguns under the NFA due to not being designed to fire from the shoulder.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(d): The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

Can't a pistol grip shotgun be "readily restored" to shoulder fire mode by replacing the pg with a butt stock?
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 7:41:01 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dcormier1:


Could someone explain or give example of why they put shotgun shell in that regulation? When would a shot gun shell not just be considered ammunition for a shotgun?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dcormier1:
Originally Posted By Monoz:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I think the ATF has been caught with their pants down and the only way to fix it is for a new law to be created.


I looked to see if someone had posted an explanation of the ATF screw-up and didn't see it clearly explained anywhere. Sorry if this is a repeat, but here is what the situation appears to be.

First key point: "Pistol gripped shotguns" are not shotguns under the NFA due to not being designed to fire from the shoulder.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(d): The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.



Second key point: All weapons with barrels greater than one-half inch in diameter are destructive devices unless otherwise exempted.

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 which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;


Do you see the ATF screw-up yet?

The problem is that pistol-gripped shotguns have been sold for many years, but the ATF has just realized that NFA defines them as destructive devices. Why is this?

1: They have a barrel of more than one-half inch in diameter.
2: They cannot qualify for the sporting purpose exception in 5845(f)(2) since they are not "shotguns" (no shoulder stock).

It appears that back when ATF declared pistol gripped shotguns to not be "shotguns" nobody realized that would eliminate the destructive device exception. Apparently someone has now looked at this more closely and realized that all those Mossberg Cruisers and Pistol Gripped 870s are actually destructive devices and the ATF has no good way out of the situation. Hence, they are quietly looking for some legislative changes to the NFA to make the problem go away.


Could someone explain or give example of why they put shotgun shell in that regulation? When would a shot gun shell not just be considered ammunition for a shotgun?

To ban flechettes, dragonsbreath, sgt sluggos, bolo rounds, shellcrackers, etc
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 7:51:25 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:


"Sporting purpose" is an affront to the 2A. It's on my list.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By RNB32:
The ATF is willing to cede some ground here to save face, and people won't let them. A great example of letting perfect be the enemy of good. News flash: you will never get rid of the "sporting purposes" test.


"Sporting purpose" is an affront to the 2A. It's on my list.

Yep. I've read the 2A hundreds of times, and have not yet seen the version that says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms for sporting purposes shall not be infringed.

and
Link Posted: 4/13/2015 7:55:27 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MikeSearson:

To ban flechettes, dragonsbreath, sgt sluggos, bolo rounds, shellcrackers, etc
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MikeSearson:
Originally Posted By dcormier1:
Originally Posted By Monoz:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I think the ATF has been caught with their pants down and the only way to fix it is for a new law to be created.


I looked to see if someone had posted an explanation of the ATF screw-up and didn't see it clearly explained anywhere. Sorry if this is a repeat, but here is what the situation appears to be.

First key point: "Pistol gripped shotguns" are not shotguns under the NFA due to not being designed to fire from the shoulder.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(d): The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.



Second key point: All weapons with barrels greater than one-half inch in diameter are destructive devices unless otherwise exempted.

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 which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;


Do you see the ATF screw-up yet?

The problem is that pistol-gripped shotguns have been sold for many years, but the ATF has just realized that NFA defines them as destructive devices. Why is this?

1: They have a barrel of more than one-half inch in diameter.
2: They cannot qualify for the sporting purpose exception in 5845(f)(2) since they are not "shotguns" (no shoulder stock).

It appears that back when ATF declared pistol gripped shotguns to not be "shotguns" nobody realized that would eliminate the destructive device exception. Apparently someone has now looked at this more closely and realized that all those Mossberg Cruisers and Pistol Gripped 870s are actually destructive devices and the ATF has no good way out of the situation. Hence, they are quietly looking for some legislative changes to the NFA to make the problem go away.


Could someone explain or give example of why they put shotgun shell in that regulation? When would a shot gun shell not just be considered ammunition for a shotgun?

To ban flechettes, dragonsbreath, sgt sluggos, bolo rounds, shellcrackers, etc


Those are banned? Could have swore I saw the flechette, bolo and dragons breath a few months ago for sale. But the DD says a weapon, and a shotgun shell would need a barrel to send its contents down range thus the barrel would be the weapon. Still confusing and yes I know, ATF doesn't need to make since and shit.
Page / 7
Top Top