Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 1/31/2011 7:41:59 PM EDT
Listen up folks. I agree that the whole thing is unconstitutional. I agree that it needs to be taken to court and stricken down.

Derailing every attempt to counter the current ATF proposal on the importation of Saigas because they don't meet the sporting purpose test with post after post saying the exact same thing is completely unhelpful and counterproductive.

The ATF enforces the law (unfortunately in this case it has to interpret the law, but it's still the law.)

The ATF can NOT just simply ignore the law.

We can't do anything about the sporting purpose clause RIGHT NOW. The ONLY thing we can do is to try and put together coherent, logical arguments to counter the ATF's bullshit interpretation of the law.

If you're not going to offer anything to these discussions beyond a knee-jerk "It's unconstitutional!" Then you're just contributing noise.

Please. Stop.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 7:42:51 PM EDT
This thread has no apparent sporting purpose.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 7:44:45 PM EDT
I would like a nice 28ga Parker for my sporting purposes.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 7:50:04 PM EDT
but but... its unconstitutional damnit!
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 7:50:38 PM EDT
It's the law, but the ATF doesn't have to interpret "sporting purpose" as it is doing so now. It's taking an absurd position regarding what "sporting" means.

Thus, the source of the frustration is two fold:
1.) The ATF's interpretation of "sporting" is driven by its hostility to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, it attributes absurd meanings to "sporting."
2.) The clause is unconstitutional.

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 7:51:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 7:51:22 PM EDT by Seraph]
5/10. Needs more F-bombs.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 8:23:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 8:24:18 PM EDT by Rugerlvr]

Originally Posted By Flindelaaf:
It's the law, but the ATF doesn't have to interpret "sporting purpose" as it is doing so now. It's taking an absurd position regarding what "sporting" means.

Thus, the source of the frustration is two fold:
1.) The ATF's interpretation of "sporting" is driven by its hostility to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, it attributes absurd meanings to "sporting."
2.) The clause is unconstitutional.


Number 1, we can do something about. Number 2, we can't, at least not in time for this proposal to take effect. So what are we gonna do about the former? Several requests for help forming arguments for a response to the ATF, on this board, have been posted, and two out of three of all replies, are "It's Unconstitutional!"

I hate to be a nattering nabob, but if we can't set aside that fight for another day, we're going to lose these Saigas, and anything else resembling them.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:19:25 PM EDT
Most folks likely can't post what they'd really like to. I know I can't. Jerking off with lawyers and political chicanery isn't very satisfying.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:28:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rugerlvr:

Originally Posted By Flindelaaf:
It's the law, but the ATF doesn't have to interpret "sporting purpose" as it is doing so now. It's taking an absurd position regarding what "sporting" means.

Thus, the source of the frustration is two fold:
1.) The ATF's interpretation of "sporting" is driven by its hostility to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, it attributes absurd meanings to "sporting."
2.) The clause is unconstitutional.


Number 1, we can do something about. Number 2, we can't, at least not in time for this proposal to take effect. So what are we gonna do about the former? Several requests for help forming arguments for a response to the ATF, on this board, have been posted, and two out of three of all replies, are "It's Unconstitutional!"

I hate to be a nattering nabob, but if we can't set aside that fight for another day, we're going to lose these Saigas, and anything else resembling them.


You're right ,
Yelling it's unconstitutional is a poor defense, you need to back it up.
Maybe we could for the comment period show these firearms in three-gun,used for hunting, etc.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:33:22 PM EDT
As I see it, most came from the factory with a conventional stock, most probably out of this fear. Does a pistol-gripped shotgun diminish its "sporting" utility? This is easily proved.

Sure, federal (and international) migratory bird hunting regulations limit hunting with a 2 round magazine (3 shots total) but in many states, hunting game species isn't limited to 3 rounds. Texas, for example, has no magazine limits for non-migratory birds or game animals. Squirrel? Certainly. Feral hogs? Hunting these with a drum-magazine shotgun with buckshot is quite practical.

The BATFE is in a bind since Mossberg came out with a pistol-gripped semi-auto shotgun, model 82540. Sure, 5 shot magazine but that is 3 more than federal migratory bird limits. And certainly someone can come up with a detachable magazine for it.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:33:41 PM EDT
A Ruger lover talking about "sporting use" firearms...how un-ironic!

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:42:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 10:51:51 PM EDT by Searcherfortruth]
It's unconstitutional! Here's my sporting guns.

Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:50:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunnerpalace:

Maybe we could for the comment period show these firearms in three-gun

That is the question ATF completely DUCKED in their ruling...

'Is multi-gun and 'Practical Shooting' a sport?'

Their answer: 'We don't know if it's a sport, or paramilitary training - we will have to do another study on that subject'

Anyone care to guess what they're going to decide?

I don't think they will consider it a 'sport'.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:51:14 PM EDT
Stupid Question: If the sporting clause did get dropped (I agree it's B.S.), (in the law's perspective) what would keep all shotguns over 0.5" bore diameter from being considered DD's, single-shots & all?

Sorry if this question's been driven into the ground. I haven't really been following the other threads too closely. (They seemed too repetitive )
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 10:54:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rugerlvr:

The ATF can NOT just simply ignore the law.


Sure they can, they do it all the time...
Link Posted: 2/1/2011 6:40:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2011 6:48:02 AM EDT by Rugerlvr]

Originally Posted By RVAguy:
A Ruger lover talking about "sporting use" firearms...how un-ironic!


I didn't become a Rugerlvr until after Bill Ruger was six feet under. Thank-you-very-much.

Yet another snarky response which doesn't contribute anything.
Link Posted: 2/1/2011 6:42:00 AM EDT
Regulatory agencies get their "interpretations" from the Executive branch don't they?

Perhaps we need to elect a different Executive in 2012?
Link Posted: 2/1/2011 6:49:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FreeFloater:
Regulatory agencies get their "interpretations" from the Executive branch don't they?

Perhaps we need to elect a different Executive in 2012?

Sorry, not going to help keep the Saigas from being import-banned.
Top Top