Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Things I would like the ATF to clarify

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Arizona_Mike, Aug 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Arizona_Mike

    Arizona_Mike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,198
    The ATF has clarified a ton of things in the last 4 years, but I still have some questions.

    1. Given the 2009 ruling that PGO shotguns are firearms but not shotguns, what on earth keeps them (those over .50 cal) from being Destructive Devices (since the shotgun exception no longer applies) other than the ATF's unwillingness "to go there"? Perhaps this is a question better unasked.

    2. Given the 2009 ruling that PGO shotguns are firearms but not shotguns, do the recent rulings changing "one a rifle, always a rifle" to "first a rifle, always a rifle" (pistol or firearm can be configured as a rifle and changed back without being "made from a rifle") also means that a PGO could be converted to a shotgun and back?

    3. Would an integral silencer on a muzzle loader or a pre-1898 antique (both non-firearms) be acceptable in the same fashion some integral air gun silencers which have been marketed recently (Gamo Wisper, Stoeger X20)? This could be accomplished by permanently attacking the main body tube before adding internal parts (or even before completing the machining of the main body tube to accept the parts).

    Interesting thoughts . . .

    Mike
     
  2. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,546
    Location:
    Central PA
    Pulled from the other thread where we're discussing this:

    Probably because that would be a pointless battle, galactically unenforceable across a nation filled with those guns already in private hands, and so extremely hard to "sell" to anyone as an appropriate exercise of their power.

    It's not like they'd be sending a thousand or two letters to Akins Accelerator owners. They'd have to notify MILLIONS of private citizens, and quite a few LEO users as well and then try to get registration compliance and enforcement. It would be a total debacle and embarrassment. And then what? Try to force them to put on a full stock and throw the PG away? Or does that constitute destroying evidence of an illegal unregistered Title II firearm?

    Yeah, they don't want to "go there" -- AT ALL.

    That has always been ASSUMED. As several manufacturers have sold combo kits of shotguns with PG and standard stocks and a pair of barrels for years -- without being challenged in court like TC back in '92.

    Assumed isn't the same thing as stated, of course, but many things with law are what they are due to common use. If these things did NOT exist widely and the question was asked "can we?" -- the answer might well be "no." As they've been in common circulation for decades, in the hundreds of thousands or potentially millions, the matter becomes COMPLETELY un-actionable. The ATF couldn't try to make a stand on that if they got the nutty idea that they should. It would be like the Mayor of New Orleans walking down to the bank of the Mississippi and loudly ordering it to turn around and go the other way.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2013
  3. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,261
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    What 2009 "Ruling"?
    "Shotgun" was defined decades ago. Nothing happened in 2009 to change that definition.

    They are not DD's because the firearm expells a shotgun shell.

    Once you place a shoulder stock on a PGO, it is now a "Shotgun".......remove the shoulder stock and put a PGO doesn't change its "type" from "Other Firearm".
     
  4. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,542
    Location:
    Kentucky
    The USAS-12 ,Striker 12 and Street Sweeper also shot shotgun shells. Originally these were sold as a regular rifle over the counter.

    Then the BATF reclassified it as NFA because it didn't have a sporting purpose (according to the BATF). And then they had the amnesty for that and it closed May 1 2001.

    http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2001-1.html



    "Thus, although the classification of the three shotguns as NFA weapons
    was retroactive
    , the prospective application of the tax provisions allowed
    registration without payment of tax. ATF has contacted all purchasers
    of record of the shotguns to advise them of the classification of the
    weapons as destructive devices
    and that the weapons must be registered.
    ATF has registered approximately 8,200 of these weapons to date."
     
  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,546
    Location:
    Central PA
    No no. He's saying that the ATF changed the 4473 form to indicate that PGO shotguns (and stripped receivers, and belt-fed, stockless semi-autos, etc.) are "Firearms" -- not shotguns or rifles.

    So, a PGO is not technically a 'shotgun' in the eyes of the BATFE. Or, at least it isn't until you put a full stock on it to make it "designed or re-designed to be fired from the shoulder" as the wording of the NFA actually says.

    Well, that's at least part of the answer.

    The ATF's FAQ says this:

    But, if the device you're holding does not meet the legal definition of a "shotgun" how is it then able to be exempted?

    The law actually states:
    So, again, if the law says SHOTGUNS can be exempted, but this device ISN'T a shotgun, ... well, that's what Arizona Mike's hung up on. The fact that it "expels" a shotgun shell (or something like that) doesn't really define it as a "shotgun" because all PGOs do and they AREN'T "shotguns!"

    Say again? Once you put a full stock on a PGO, it is now a "shotgun." (That's the "redesigned" aspect.)

    Recently the ATF changed it's mind on the results of the old Thompson -vs.- US case and decided that as long as you start with a pistol (or a non-rifle "firearm") you can make it into a rifle and then back into a pistol at will. If it started as a RIFLE, you cannot do that without first registering it as a Title II weapon.

    What Mike is asking is, does that new understanding translate to PGO-style "firearms" as well as rifle-style "firearms."

    I'd say that since they are both "firearms" then how could it not?
     
  6. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,261
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    ATF only updated the 4473, they didn't change Federal law or ATF regulations. (and the update occured in 2008, not 2009)


    When a dealer logs in a PGO it's logged into my books as an "Other Firearm and listed on the 4473 as "pistol grip shotgun" oddly enough. (see Instructions to Que.18 on page 5 of the 4473)

    If that customer removes the PG, adds a shoulder stock and sells/trades/transfers that firearm to another dealer.........he'll log it into his books as a "shotgun". If he records it as an "Other" he's wrong.
     
  7. Arizona_Mike

    Arizona_Mike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,198
    I was referring to the changes announced in the 2009 newsletter. My understanding is that they added "firearm" for virgin receivers in 2008 but then put PGOs in that category in 2009.

    The 2009 newsletter warned that PGOs could not be sold to minors or residents of contiguous states as regular shotguns could.

    Mike
     
  8. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,546
    Location:
    Central PA
    Sure! Same as if someone buys an AR-15 receiver, builds it as a pistol, rebuilds it as a rifle, (and back and forth 37 times), and then sells it to a dealer in rifle configuration. The dealer logs it as a rifle. However, a new buyer wouldn't be breaking the law, or even the atf's interpretation of it, if he then rebuilds it into a pistol. Uninforcable. But I think we're getting off track.
     
  9. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,546
    Location:
    Central PA
    Right, because it isn't a "shotgun" in their eyes.

    I like to think of these little conundrums as just nails in the eventual coffin of the NFA and GCA. When enough judges acknowledge that these laws are arbitrary,capricious and unencorcable, as well as being pointless, they'll be struck down. Unfortunately, for now, few judges want to have to think about it.
     
  10. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,261
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    I'm 56............it won't happen in my lifetime.:cuss:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page