Since BATF is "studying" practical shotguns...

[dcloudy777]

BEnos thread about BATF study

Maybe this means we should be putting on as many shotgun matches as possible this year. Practically any facility that does action pistol could do a shotgun match. If you shoot at an IDPA/USPSA club that doesn't do a shotgun match, try to talk them into at least one! Share clay stands and steel, lend a buddy a or two a shotgun, make the entry fee cheap, make rules accommodating to anyone, do whatever it takes. Record the results, show the feds how many people participate. How many people could we get to shoot at least one match with a practical shotgun this year? 1,000? 10,000? More?

DanO

[SinistralRifleman]

The only thing that would be of benefit is to have more Saigas used.

Detach mag fed shotguns are uncommon because of import restrictions and domestic manufacturers being scared of a DD ruling

because they are uncommon they are relegated to open division

because they are in open division only few people use them for 3 gun (relatively speaking)

because few people use them for 3 gun BATF states in this letter that it is hard to say if enough are being used to justify sporting use status (part of the argument).

If the Gun Control Act of 1968 hadn't happened, and then the 1989 import restrictions, everyone would be using mag fed shotguns today, and there would be a lot better more refined designs.

Edited January 31, 2011 by SinistralRifleman

[Charles Bond]

The first person to use an AR receiver to build a shotgun upper with mags that work will have more orders than they can build 24/7. If someone would get a 20 gauge to work in such a manner, that would make Saiga's a distant memory.

[twodownzero]

The BATF has already stated publicly that competition in a "military or police" style competition does not constitute a "sporting purpose."

The solution is that we need to push for Congress to change the law to remove the BATF's regulatory power for good.

[SinistralRifleman]

The BATF has already stated publicly that competition in a "military or police" style competition does not constitute a "sporting purpose."

Yeah...in 1989. This recent document admits that sporting purposes can evolve over time and that it might be possible for USPSA/3Gun to be considered sporting purposes. You should read it in its entirety. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=121918

[VegasSean]

I've shot with enough military and police shooters, and they're the first ones to scream that IPSC isn't "military- or police-style"!

[bbbean]

The BATF has already stated publicly that competition in a "military or police" style competition does not constitute a "sporting purpose."

Yeah...in 1989. This recent document admits that sporting purposes can evolve over time and that it might be possible for USPSA/3Gun to be considered sporting purposes. You should read it in its entirety. http://www.brianenos...howtopic=121918

We have til May 1 to submit comments. My letter's on it's way.

[Justin]

The solution is that we need to push for Congress to change the law to remove the BATF's regulatory power for good.

I'd be happy with congress passing a simple law repealing the "sporting purposes" bit of the Gun Control Act.

Or a lawyer being willing to challenge the whole "sporting purposes" thing in light of the Heller case ruling that self defense is a completely acceptable reason for having a firearm.

[spanky]

You guys are arguing under the false belief that the ATF actually uses logic as a basis for it's decisions.

[twodownzero]

You guys are arguing under the false belief that the ATF actually uses logic as a basis for it's decisions.

I'm not. I'm arguing that it should be irrelevant, because it violates the separation of powers for an executive office to tell us what the law prohibits and doesn't, because that is the role of a legislature.

The ATF should not have the power to change the law by regulation, rendering what was previously perfectly permissible conduct into a criminal act.

The constitutional implications of continuing to allow this abuse of our rights are many, and go beyond just the second amendment arguments. The one good thing that may come of this is that if they use this power stupidly to ban Saigas, a court may finally find that the pendulum has swung way too far.

If you're a Saiga owner, prepare to become a plaintiff, and if there's a ruling, we should all make sure we find a public interest legal organization that'd sue on your behalf.

[SinistralRifleman]

Or a lawyer being willing to challenge the whole "sporting purposes" thing in light of the Heller case ruling that self defense is a completely acceptable reason for having a firearm.

Wont work, the court will rule congress still has the right to regulate international commerce and that since guns can still be made domestically, that isn't a substantial infringement. Remember the sporting purpose aspect of the GCA was made to protect domestic manufacturers. Changing the law is the only way to do it; or convince them USPSA/3 Gun is a sporting purpose.

Edited February 1, 2011 by SinistralRifleman

[davidwiz]

You guys are arguing under the false belief that the ATF actually uses logic as a basis for it's decisions.

I'm not. I'm arguing that it should be irrelevant, because it violates the separation of powers for an executive office to tell us what the law prohibits and doesn't, because that is the role of a legislature.

The ATF should not have the power to change the law by regulation, rendering what was previously perfectly permissible conduct into a criminal act.

The constitutional implications of continuing to allow this abuse of our rights are many, and go beyond just the second amendment arguments. The one good thing that may come of this is that if they use this power stupidly to ban Saigas, a court may finally find that the pendulum has swung way too far.

Congress delegated that authority to the BATF. Same way Congress gave other gov't agencies the power to enact regulations (such as the FCC, FTC, etc.).

The Administrative Procedures Act is helpful to read.

[Charles Bond]

Congress delegated that authority to the BATF. Same way Congress gave other gov't agencies the power to enact regulations (such as the FCC, FTC, etc.).

The Administrative Procedures Act is helpful to read.

Congress actually delegated it to the Attorney General under the Gun Control Act of 1969. I feel comfortable in saying that that Congress never dreamed of the positions which BATF under the Attorney General would subsequently take when this grant of power was made.