ATF Shotgun Study - Link Inside


PDA






TheDriver
January 27, 2011, 05:41 PM
http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

Finally posted. Note the presence of a Saiga shotgun and MD20 drum mag for said shotgun.

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF Shotgun Study - Link Inside" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Spec ops Grunt
January 27, 2011, 06:00 PM
:banghead::banghead::fire::fire:

Nautilus
January 27, 2011, 06:37 PM
For some reason my computer doesn't want to let me open a .pdf... Can somebody post up some cliff notes?

Balrog
January 27, 2011, 06:37 PM
A Saiga imported with a 5 round magazine would be OK then right? It has a standard stock, and no other illegal features.

If it is then altered by a company such as Tromix after entering the US, it should still be legal?

TheDriver
January 27, 2011, 06:53 PM
Balrog, yes, I think the Saiga is safe. And as long as it complies with 922r (post alteration) its legal. What concerns me is the possibility that the ATF gets into the business of "modability" of firearms - ie if they are able to take drum mags, etc.

Spec ops Grunt
January 27, 2011, 06:55 PM
Balrog, yes, I think the Saiga is safe. And as long as it complies with 922r (post alteration) its legal. What concerns me is the possibility that the ATF gets into the business of "modability" of firearms - ie if they are able to take drum mags, etc.

That ought to be out of their purview. Still, Saiga is moving up on my things to buy list.

52grain
January 27, 2011, 10:17 PM
Practical competitive shooting is not considered "sporting?"

Edit to add:
Sporting to me means that it can be done competitively. How is a shooting competition not considered sporting?

Kush
January 27, 2011, 10:33 PM
So its unsporting to have night sights, a rail longer than the receiver, a heavy gun, or a flashlight mounted to your gun. Who cares if its sporting or not, since when was the second amendment about sports. I also liked the part about the shotguns being to hard to maneuver for sports, yet some how not to hard for the military.

roadchoad
January 27, 2011, 10:39 PM
The "General Firearm Statutes by State" for Ohio are not in ORC 2923.11 as listed, and do not apply to the entire state. Everything they mention is specific to one city, Columbus. :banghead:

oneounceload
January 27, 2011, 10:39 PM
Where did it specifically mention Saiga? I must have missed it. It mentions, like the previous studies about certain specific features, not brand names.............

roadchoad
January 27, 2011, 10:52 PM
There is a pic of the saiga, and two pics of the drum. Oddly, they name the 4 other shotguns on the same page as the Saiga, but do not label the Saiga by name. Excluding search engines? It is not shown in it's importable config as well, another flaw in the doc.

Since the saiga is imported in sporting config, there's not much worry on this, right? What is the purpose of this study? I think there had to be some driving factor to spur the study. Are there other shotguns imported in a configuration not narrowly defined as "sporting"?

chiggerbyt
January 27, 2011, 10:58 PM
It's amazing to me that no one considered home defense back in 1968, 89,96,etc. etc or considers it in 2011 .
I would think a shotgun with a forward grip to be absolutely suitable for home defense. It enables the home "defender" to better conrol the shotgun.
Do we have to have a "Heller" decision for everything??? chig

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 27, 2011, 11:08 PM
What other shotguns are listed? Are they what was previously banned like the USAS 12 and Street Sweeper?

roadchoad
January 27, 2011, 11:18 PM
527, this document doesn't "ban" anything. The items you mention are still classified as DDs. This study states basically shotguns with any of the following features cannot be imported:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the
shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

DeepSouth
January 27, 2011, 11:24 PM
Interesting that their "study" didn't involve how often one of these shotguns is used in a crime.

Guess some facts don't matter.

pikid89
January 27, 2011, 11:58 PM
i wonder why saiga (or other brands) dont do like glock does
import the gun in a legal format using super cheap parts, then when they get here, change em up with American made parts and sell them as they were intended to be sold

Geneseo1911
January 28, 2011, 12:03 AM
It appears to me that this doesn't actually change anything. The surprisingly good news is that the ATF views tube and detachable box magazines as equal; they are only concerned with capacity, so this document doesn't bode as badly for the Saiga as we had feared.

It definitely highlights the ridiculousness of some of our laws, and the idiocy of our politicians. I especially liked the quote from Chris Dodd.

I was shocked that they actually mentioned possibly considering USPSA as a sporting purpose, although they decided it would need further study.

All in all not as bad as was feared when the news broke over the weekend. I guess the Prince Law guy is finally vindicated somewhat.

I will add that it is a little scary to see so much movement in the anti-gun world at one time. Nationally, it has been a pretty easy decade or so, but now we have ATF getting a new, anti-gun director and issuing "studies", rumors of the POTUS calling for new restrictions, and even prominent GOP elitists calling for magazine restrictions. Circle the wagons, folks. We need to build on our pro-gun gains in 2012.

ETA:
On the list of 10 "disqualifying features", one really stood out as odd to me:
(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the
shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

The other stuff is all evil features from AWB of old; what the heck do they have against rails? I mean, I think modern guns are way over-railed too, but why is having a convenient mounting spot for a light un-sporting?

armoredman
January 28, 2011, 01:08 AM
Beacuse you don't need an underbarrel flashlight to shoot skeet, and it's illegal to hunt at night. Self defense, as mentioned already, isn't "sporting".

RX-178
January 28, 2011, 01:21 AM
I would like to point out that despite the ATF study on importable features, this does NOT amend 922r in any way shape or form.

You wouldn't require compliance parts to install a rail on an imported shotgun.

DeepSouth
January 28, 2011, 09:55 AM
Beacuse you don't need an underbarrel flashlight to shoot skeet, and it's illegal to hunt at night. Self defense, as mentioned already, isn't "sporting".

No offence but I've never heard of anyone Coon hunting anytime other than night. Coyotes can be hunted at night in many states as well. There are many other animals that can be hunted at night if you live in the right state, here in AL were pretty much limited to Coon as far as I know.

rajb123
January 28, 2011, 10:25 AM
....this is like Uncle Sam defining a so-called assault rifle. ...if it is black and scarry looking, it must be an assault rifle so we need to ban it.

natman
January 28, 2011, 10:37 AM
No offence but I've never heard of anyone Coon hunting anytime other than night. Coyotes can be hunted at night in many states as well. There are many other animals that can be hunted at night if you live in the right state, here in AL were pretty much limited to Coon as far as I know.
I agree with you. BATF doesn't.

"Devices or optics that allow illumination of a target in low-light conditions are generally for military and law enforcement purposes and are not typically found on sporting shotguns because it is generally illegal to hunt at night."

Page 11.

BTR
January 28, 2011, 11:01 AM
Looks like pistol grips on shotguns are now "sporting"!

So, importers- starting bringing in the Saiga with the pistol grip!!!!!!!!!

Sebastian the Ibis
January 28, 2011, 11:05 AM
The BATFE wants written comments by May 1, 2011 (The communist holiday - Mayday, by the way). Does anyone know the efficacy of submitting a written response? And or, if it is better to have a response published somewhere?

ManBearPig
January 28, 2011, 12:24 PM
Saiga doesn't come with standard 5-shell mags, at least not when I bought mine. All I have is 10-shell mags for mine; now they have 12-shell mags. Never really wanted the drum.

henschman
January 28, 2011, 12:31 PM
Since the big dillema in Washington right now is where to cut the budget, I nominate the BATFE for first in line.

And we SO have got to get rid of that 1968 GCA and the other import restrictions.

Laws that restrict access to firearms that do not have a "sporting purpose" do not belong in a free society.

KBintheSLC
January 28, 2011, 01:19 PM
It is sort of a joke that a firearm must be described as a "sporting" arm in order to be imported. It is a blasphemous contradiction to the essence of the 2A. Furthermore, how is the Saiga any more deadly than any other weapon, if causing death is the intent of the individual?

ManBearPig
January 28, 2011, 01:32 PM
So does this mean they are going to end up forcing us Saiga owners to register them as Title 2 just like they did with Streetsweepers and the USAS-12?

SKILCZ
January 28, 2011, 01:44 PM
These ATF "studies" are so ridiculously stupid. We should eliminate the BATFE. There is no need for it. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are all legal, and we do not need to pay taxes to support these kinds of "studies" looking at aesthetic features of firearms for no reason when there is no evidence that gun control laws reduce violent crime.

TheDriver
January 28, 2011, 02:02 PM
Saiga doesn't come with standard 5-shell mags, at least not when I bought mine. All I have is 10-shell mags for mine; now they have 12-shell mags. Never really wanted the drum.

Your Saiga shotgun came with a 10 round factory mag?

ManBearPig
January 28, 2011, 02:22 PM
http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct766.aspx

Here's one that ships with both a 5-round and the newer 12-rounds. Maybe mine did also come with a 5-rounder with it, but it's been so long I don't remember because all I use are 10-rounders; ordered them in bulk way back when I bought the gun.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 28, 2011, 02:55 PM
It looks to me like the end result is you can still have your Tromix-converted Saiga, you'll just have to jump through the 922(r) hoops to make sure all the nasty parts are made here in the good ol' USA.

TheDriver
January 28, 2011, 03:59 PM
Here's one that ships with both a 5-round and the newer 12-rounds. Maybe mine did also come with a 5-rounder with it, but it's been so long I don't remember because all I use are 10-rounders; ordered them in bulk way back when I bought the gun.

In order for them to be legal they ship from Russia with no more than 5 round mags. After they are 922r compliant (like the one in the link) anything goes mag wise. Izzy makes 8 rounders but they are hard to get here.

ManBearPig
January 28, 2011, 04:13 PM
In order for them to be legal they ship from Russia with no more than 5 round mags. After they are 922r compliant (like the one in the link) anything goes mag wise. Izzy makes 8 rounders but they are hard to get here.

That's the site I got mine off of a few years ago. Looks like they've gone up about $300 since I got mine.

RX-178
January 28, 2011, 04:29 PM
And I'll say again since I really can't stress this enough, an ATF Study does NOT override 922r.

For instance, the Norinco trench gun with the bayonet lug /IS/ 922r compliant, but the ATF has banned it from importation under the sporting purposes clause.

But Norinco can ship the non-trench gun version, and ship the bayonet lug/heat shield separately, and it can be assembled by the importer once it arrives. Perfectly legal, because it is still 922r compliant (only one prohibited feature).

The whole study is basically a pointless exercise.


Edited to add: They're accepting comment by email from Jan 31 through May 31 2011. I fully intend to send an email, emphasizing the fact that their study on importability is in DIRECT conflict with existing federal law (922r) that clearly defines exactly what is, and what is not importable.

PLRinmypocket
January 28, 2011, 08:24 PM
Practical competitive shooting is not considered "sporting?"

Actually, it sounded like they were about to agree that it is now "sporting" but decided that this paper on shotguns was not the right place to do it. Hopefully there will be another study on sporting purposes that specifically recognizes the practical shooting sports.


It also surprised me that the ATF admits that "sporting purpose" is a changing definition, and what it meant years ago is not the same as now. So that means if you want more cool guns imported as "sporting arms", start using similar guns in practical shooting competitions. Once enough of them are used in general sporting competitions, the definition may encompass them.

oneounceload
January 28, 2011, 09:15 PM
Pics of a Saiga? Maybe I'm missing something - the ATF report I read in three forums and 6 threads never had pics - please provide a link

Geneseo1911
January 28, 2011, 11:12 PM
1ozload- flip to the very end of the .pdf (linked above) pg. 20 has examples of types of stocks, with a S-.410 & pg. 30 shows the MD-20 drum,

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 28, 2011, 11:24 PM
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);


God forbid that a foreign gun be hard to use! Thanks BATF, you've saved us from that horror.

PLRinmypocket
January 29, 2011, 11:22 AM
After re-reading the study, and reading some other forums about it, there is one thing that does seriously concern me.

It is not the ATF that decides what meets the sporting purposes definition, it is the Attorney General (Currently Eric Holder). So this study is just a suggestion to Eric as to what to consider as "sporting purpose".

Currently this study only addresses importation, but the Attorney General also decides on Destructive device classification of firearms with a bore diameter of greater than .5" (nearly all shotgun gages). So if the Attorney General uses the same definition of "sporting purpose" as laid out in this study to make Destructive Device determinations, then Every shotgun in the US, that does not pass the ATF's "sporting purpose" test in this study could be deemed an NFA regulated Destructive Device.

That means any shotgun larger than .410 that has greater than 5 round mag capacity, ability to accept a detachable magazine, or an accessory rail anywhere other than on the top could be NFA regulated soon.

It seems like this study was only the first step, next step comes from Eric Holder.....I sure hope I am wrong.

52grain
January 29, 2011, 12:01 PM
The BATFE wants written comments by May 1, 2011 (The communist holiday - Mayday, by the way). Does anyone know the efficacy of submitting a written response? And or, if it is better to have a response published somewhere?

I do not know how much stock the ATF places on comments from the public, but in general when considering new regulations, federal agencies have to keep the comments on file. I doubt that comments from one person would do much good, but would think that if they got enough comments on something that they got blatantly wrong (like hunting at night) they would be forced to respond. The ATF is implementing the '68 GCA so comments on how pointless the "sporting purpose" requirement is are not going to get anywhere. I believe that your comments (along with your name and address) are public records so behave accordingly.

If your representative or senators are generally favorable towards gun rights, I would recommend submitting comments to them as well. Congress could always make an attempt to amend the '68 GCA so you can feel free to submit all the comments you like about how pointless some of the requirements are.

If you do submit comments, please be a good ambassador for the gun community. It will not help our cause if we appear to be irresponsible or idiotic.

jakemartens
January 29, 2011, 12:09 PM
The other thing in this that I find concerning is this:

ATF Study on Importability of Certain Shotguns

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf


Don't think that if you do not shoot shot guns this doesn't affect you:


In particular, the working group examined participation in and popularity of practical shooting
events as governed by formal rules, such as those of the United States Practical Shooting
Association (USPSA) and International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC), to determine
whether it was appropriate to consider these events a “sporting purpose” under § 925(d)(3).
While the number of members reported for USPSA is similar to the membership for other
shotgun shooting organizations,
6 the working group ultimately determined that it was not
appropriate to use this shotgun study to determine whether practical shooting is “sporting” under
§ 925(d)(3). A change in ATF’s position on practical shooting has potential implications for rifle
and handgun classifications as well. Therefore, the working group believes that a more thorough
and complete assessment is necessary before ATF can consider practical shooting as a generally
recognized sporting purpose.
The working group agreed with the previous studies in that the activity known as “plinking” is
“primarily a pastime” and could not be considered a recognized sport for the purposes of


importation.7 Because almost any firearm can be used in that activity, such a broad reading of
“sporting purpose” would be contrary to the congressional intent in enacting section 925(d)(3).
For these reasons, the working group recommends that plinking not be considered a sporting
purpose. However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working
group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events

similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays

Justin
January 29, 2011, 12:21 PM
The ultimate point to this whole thing is just how fundamentally idiotic the "sporting purposes" clause is, especially in light of the Heller decision, which acknowledged a right to personal self defense with a firearm.

Amend the law to remove the "sporting purposes" clause, and a lot of this nonsense can be stopped at the source. Yeah, I know I'm dreaming.

Owen Sparks
January 30, 2011, 12:15 AM
Items 8 and 9 are really odd:

(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

What possible advantage would a heavy bulky shotgun be in resisting the government?

DM0217
January 30, 2011, 12:39 AM
Just vote 2012. Ban the BATFE. Repeal all laws restricting and infringing upon the 2nd Amendment. If you're gonna dream.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 30, 2011, 12:49 AM
Items 8 and 9 are really odd:

(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

What possible advantage would a heavy bulky shotgun be in resisting the government?


Scaring the politicians.

xcgates
January 30, 2011, 02:02 PM
I think a lot of what you have here is a good demonstration of what happens when you start letting the government try to define things. Moving targets, imprecise definitions that get interpreted in different ways depending on who reads them and when they read them.

One of my basic points of contention with those who feel the government should have control over most everything we (the citizenry in general) we do.

::EDIT::
FIVETWOSEVEN: I do like scaring the politicians, this (http://glennbeck.shop.musictoday.com/Product.aspx?pc=BXCT029) is one of the shirts I make a point to wear when forced to travel by air. I have another one that's also good that says: "KGB: Still Watching You" The sad part is I have had many people not know what the KGB was.

WardenWolf
January 30, 2011, 04:41 PM
"Plinking". Sounds like they're going to ban the import of virtually all semi-auto .22's.

pezo
February 1, 2011, 11:37 PM
I myself am still trying to figure out why "sporting purpose" has anything to do with the legalities of a firearms features. The 2nd amendment is about defense, its the basis of firearm ownership in this country. I could care less about sporting use out of a defensive arm. Defensive arms are what the 2nd amendment are about.:confused: NRA?

PLRinmypocket
February 1, 2011, 11:49 PM
:confused: NRA?

posted shortly after the study came out, from NRA-ILA:
Proposed Shotgun Import Ban Shows Need To Change Law (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6172)

Prince Yamato
February 1, 2011, 11:57 PM
I want to know how much this study cost in tax-payer dollars. It sounds like a wasteful intellectual exercise. Why didn't they just come out and post: "No more Norinco Trench Guns" on their webpage? That would have saved the (probably) million or so dollars they spent sitting around philosophizing about the sporting purpose of imported shotguns.

In all seriousness, can we dig up a cost report of this study?

Black Butte
February 2, 2011, 12:18 AM
The so-called "study" contains the quote:

"The working group agreed with the previous studies in that the activity known as 'plinking' is 'primarily a pastime' and could not be considered a recognized sport for the purposes of importation."

So now it seems that the liberal elements of the government are loathed to recognize plinking as a legitimate recreational activity. Wouldn't it be fun to give the anti-Second-Amendment crowd a taste of their own medicine by banning lattes and vegetarianism as unnecessary and therefore illegitimate indulgences.

merlinfire
February 2, 2011, 08:06 AM
"The working group agreed with the previous studies in that the activity known as 'plinking' is 'primarily a pastime' and could not be considered a recognized sport for the purposes of importation."

Baseball is our national pastime, an so I guess, not a sport.

Geneseo1911
February 2, 2011, 01:58 PM
Baseball is our national pastime, an so I guess, not a sport.

High capacity assault bats have been banned from importation for years. Only the players are imported.

GigaBuist
February 2, 2011, 05:19 PM
The 10lb weight limit is curious. I wonder how they arrived at that.

About the heaviest shotgun I've ever hefted was a BT-99. A single barrel dedicated trap gun in 12 gauge for those of you that don't frequent the shotgun section of the sports. Thing weighs a bit over 9lbs in some stock configurations.

I can't imagine it'd be hard to find a few, if not many, shotguns north of 10lbs that are obviously sport guns. I just can't seem to think of anything heavier than a BT-99.

Zanad
February 3, 2011, 09:50 PM
Quote:
Baseball is our national pastime, an so I guess, not a sport.


High capacity assault bats have been banned from importation for years. Only the players are imported.


what about short barreled bats?

52grain
February 4, 2011, 11:56 PM
I can't imagine it'd be hard to find a few, if not many, shotguns north of 10lbs that are obviously sport guns. I just can't seem to think of anything heavier than a BT-99.

What other high end trap guns can you think of? That would be where I would look. You wouldn't take something that heavy hunting. It's not at all uncommon for run of the mill modern 12 gauge over/unders (think something along the lines of a Citori Lightning) to weigh in between 8 and 8.5 lbs.

Some of the high end Beretta trap guns look very heavy but the weight is not listed on the website.

Krieghoff says that their K-80 trap guns weigh around 8.75 lbs.

Tactikewl
February 5, 2011, 06:33 PM
bahahahaha....... I expect lawyers and law makers to tear this apart. Just a fun factoid
"The largest commonly available gauge is 10 gauge (.0775 in. bore diameter)." From page one so far.. I am still reading... A bit off on their measurements

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF Shotgun Study - Link Inside" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!