Add A Pistol Grip And It's Not A Shotgun

[koveras225]

2nd does not have a sporting clause however the gce68 does i believe.

The sporting clause in the GCA only applies to imports AFAIK. There is another 'sporting purposes' clause in the Destructive Device definition though that allows for an exception for shotguns. That was the one used to rule that the USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns as destructive devices.

Regardless, neither one really applies to this particular situation.

 

[indykid]

Actually everything applies to this particular situation because they are all unconstitutional. The letter of the law leaves no question that there is no sporting clause or purpose, no barrel length, no overall length, no number of rounds per trigger pull, no anything other than the simple language that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe if a firearm owner had to be felt up like a passenger trying to get on an airplane each time we bought a firearm, we would get angry enough to put an end to this.

 

[koveras225]

Actually everything applies to this particular situation because they are all unconstitutional. The letter of the law leaves no question that there is no sporting clause or purpose, no barrel length, no overall length, no number of rounds per trigger pull, no anything other than the simple language that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe if a firearm owner had to be felt up like a passenger trying to get on an airplane each time we bought a firearm, we would get angry enough to put an end to this.

You've quite thoroughly confused the letter of the law with the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The intent of the 2nd Amendment might be that there should be no sporting purposes clause, barrel/overall length restriction, etc... But the letter of the law is very clear in that those restrictions do in fact exist. Saying that they don't simply because you, along with myself and many others, believe them to be unconstitutional doesn't change that.

They are all there, contained in chapter 44 of title 18 and chapter 53 of title 26 of the United States Code, and until they are repealed or struck down as unconstitutional they are the letter of the law.

 

[indykid]

I am not saying they don't exist, I am saying they shouldn't exist. I am not saying to violate those rules using the constitution as an excuse, I am saying it is about time we had a word with our elected officials to have these rules repealed.

 

[PatriotPride]

I am not saying they don't exist, I am saying they shouldn't exist. I am not saying to violate those rules using the constitution as an excuse, I am saying it is about time we had a word with our elected officials to have these rules repealed.

Since when is using the Constitution an "excuse"?

 

[Prometheus]

Actually everything applies to this particular situation because they are all unconstitutional. The letter of the law leaves no question that there is no sporting clause or purpose, no barrel length, no overall length, no number of rounds per trigger pull, no anything other than the simple language that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe if a firearm owner had to be felt up like a passenger trying to get on an airplane each time we bought a firearm, we would get angry enough to put an end to this.

QFT!

You've quite thoroughly confused the letter of the law with the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The intent of the 2nd Amendment might be that there should be no sporting purposes clause, barrel/overall length restriction, etc... But the letter of the law is very clear in that those restrictions do in fact exist. Saying that they don't simply because you, along with myself and many others, believe them to be unconstitutional doesn't change that.

They are all there, contained in chapter 44 of title 18 and chapter 53 of title 26 of the United States Code, and until they are repealed or struck down as unconstitutional they are the letter of the law.

The USC is subservient to the Constitution. The Constitution is the superior document. Back when the courts were still influenced and in the day of the Founders, they ruled that ANY law in conflict with the Constitution were null and void.

I matters not that you or some other idiot in a black robe or a code office think the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

It is treason.

We need to take our country back from the traitors.

 

[koveras225]

The USC is subservient to the Constitution. The Constitution is the superior document. Back when the courts were still influenced and in the day of the Founders, they ruled that ANY law in conflict with the Constitution were null and void.

I matters not that you or some other idiot in a black robe or a code office think the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

It is treason.

We need to take our country back from the traitors.

The USC may be subservient to the Constitution, but believing a law to be unconstitutional does not automatically negate it. Regardless of what any of us think about any specific law, until it is legally recognized as being unconstitutional it remains in full effect. And the consequences of disobeying any such law are no less than if it were to be constitutional.

Not only that, but personal attacks, stamping your feet, and yelling "It's unconstitutional!" contributes absolutely nothing of value to the topic. It does nothing but alienate your allies and confuse those that are not familiar with constitutional law nor the law(s) that may be in question.

Like I said before, the intent of the law and the letter of the law are two entirely different things. And until you can prove and/or enforce the intent, you sure better be following the letter.

This whole topic would be better served if those going on about constitutionality would present, in a clear and logical fashion, how the question of constitutionality could be approached and used in regards to the subject at hand.

I do happen to agree that the laws are unconstitutional though... But I really don't appreciate being called an idiot.

 

[Astrocreep]

To answer the original question, pistol grip shotguns are now considered Destructive Devices per ATF regulation.

Anyone with one of these is now an unconvicted/undiscovered felon.

All of this controversy came up after some alert people put together this ATF FFL newsletter from 11-2009:
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ffl-newsletter-2009-11.pdf

With this recent ATF Ruling 95-3:
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atfruling.95-3.txt
and USC Title 26:
United States Code: Title 26,5845. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

And this letter to Len Savage from the ATF last month:
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/testttt20001.pdf


Since the newsletter says "A firearm with a pistol grip in lieu of the shoulder stock is
not designed to be fired from the shoulder and, therefore,
is not a shotgun."

And
The Ruling 95-3 says:
(f) Destructive device. --The term "destructive device" means
* * * (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 or his delegate finds
is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting
purposes . . .'


And
The letter says that Len Savage's pistol grip 12ga is not a 'firearm' per NFA...


The result is that since pistol grip shotguns are not 'shotguns' (since 11-2009), and they have a bore larger than 1/2", they are now Destructive Devices and require a $200.00 maker tax with the accompanying paperwork.

EVERYONE who possesses one of these now is in violation of federal law.

The ATF did not do this by accident.



My hope is that they actually try to confiscate/prosecute some poor guys on this one so that public opposition to the ATF will grow. This could very well be the biggest mistake ATF has EVER made. This has the potential to be much, much larger than the Olofson debacle.

Hopefully, the end result will be enough people raking their congressmen over the coals to get the ATF abolished. Failing that, get new director Andrew Traver out along with 100% of the leadership.

We cannot allow a federal law enforcement agency with as much power as the ATF to create law by fiat and ruin lives because they hate guns and gun owners.




**Interestingly enough, Len Savage is the same guy that had his firearm arrested (you read that right) by the ATF in January 2009. Sheer lunacy and intentional dishonesty under oath from the ATF.
Read the story:
Arrested development in Georgia gun case - National gun rights | Examiner.com

The ATF needs some serious reformation.

 

[koveras225]

To answer the original question, pistol grip shotguns are now considered Destructive Devices per ATF regulation.

This isn't entirely correct. While it may be the only definition left that they meet, they have not yet been declared Destructive Devices. In your references to Len Savage's letter you mention that the ATF stated that Len Savage's pistol-grip shotgun is not a firearm per the NFA. Destructive Devices are included in the NFA's definition of a firearm. This would indicate to me that the ATF has not considered the question of them being destructive devices and will more than likely take no action until that question is officially resolved.

The ATF did not do this by accident.

My hope is that they actually try to confiscate/prosecute some poor guys on this one so that public opposition to the ATF will grow. This could very well be the biggest mistake ATF has EVER made. This has the potential to be much, much larger than the Olofson debacle.

The ATF didn't do this on purpose either, they simply backed themselves into a corner through multiple related determinations that have been based fairly solidly on existing law. What has happened is nothing more than that a certain firearm configuration managed to fall through the cracks and 76 years later someone finally realized it. Blaming the ATF for this one is akin to shooting the messenger.

The real culprits here are those that wrote the NFA and its various amendments. We should be focusing on the bad law that created this situation rather than going after the ATF for finally stumbling into a hole that's existed for the better part of the last century. We have more than enough dirt to use against the ATF, we're better off calling this one as it is and going after the source rather than attempting to find some reason why the whole thing is the ATF's fault.

 

[Htrailblazer]

If the a shotgun with a pistol grip with out a stock is a "destructive device", how could Gander Mountain sell the Mosberg 500 cruiser. Same as the mariner one in this thread. I saw one at the Greenwood store for sale 2 weeks ago.

 

[Astrocreep]

koveras225 you are correct. The DD designation is a 'process of elimination' determination, yet it is ultimately what we're dealing with.

However, their regulations are intentionally vague so that they may apply them however they wish.

The NFA needs to go. So does GCA86, among others.


Htrailblazer, they can sell them because this concept is a relatively new one. The ATF hasn't chosen to push this new regulatory issue and not many people are aware of it. I imagine there will be a storm when/if the owners, manufacturers, and vendors start getting stomped on...