Nope, Zero Will Not Back Gun Control

azmastablasta

New member
I could just swear I heard someone being adamant that we have nothing to fear regarding zero and gun control. IIRC that someone was from SC.

Friday, May 25, 2012

ATF Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns
Posted on January 27, 2011 by Ammoland
Tags:ATF|BATFE|Firearms Importers|SAGA|Shot Guns

ATF Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns
“ATF concludes that USPSA and ISPC events are not considered “sporting purpose” at this time. - AmmoLand”


Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- ATF announces the publication of the Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns. To obtain comments from the affected industry, ATF will be accepting comments January 31, 2011, through May 1, 2011, at shotgunstudy@atf.gov

Brief Summary:

Firearm Features
In reviewing the shotguns used for those activities classified as sporting purposes, the working group examined State hunting laws, rules, and guidelines for shooting competitions and shooting organizations; industry advertisements and literature; scholarly and historical publications; and statistics on participation in the respective shooting sports.

Following this review, the working group determined that certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes.

These features include:

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

Although the features listed above do not represent an exhaustive list of possible shotgun features, designs or characteristics, the working group determined that shotguns with any one of these features are most appropriate for military or law enforcement use. Therefore, shotguns containing any of these features are not particularly suitable for nor readily adaptable to generally recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap, sporting clay, and skeet shooting. Each of these features and an analysis of each of the determinations are included within the main body of the report.

The purpose of this study is to establish criteria that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will use to determine the importability of certain shotguns under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/01/27/atf-study-on-the-importability-of-certain-shotguns/#ixzz1wEntNwfi
 
They can establish whatever standards they choose when it comes to importation...Go back to the "Saturday Night Special" act of 1968....
 
while they can't change the law, the law allows them to amdinistratively decide that certain guns don't qualify and that allows them to ban their importation.

We went through this crap during the clinton years.
 
idiot-control.jpg
 
Quote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Quote: Although the features listed above do not represent an exhaustive list of possible shotgun features, designs or characteristics, the working group determined that shotguns with any one of these features are most appropriate for military or law enforcement use. Therefore, shotguns containing any of these features are not particularly suitable for nor readily adaptable to generally recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap, sporting clay, and skeet shooting. Each of these features and an analysis of each of the determinations are included within the main body of the report.


Where in the he[[ does the 2nd Amendment say anything about hunting or sporting use being a criteria for firearm ownership?

Furthermore, if you recall the "Assault Weapon" ban required three of the cosmetic features to meet the AW criteria; the noose has tightened significantly regarding this sorty against the 2nd Amendment by virtue of the fact that, under this attempt, only one of the "forbidden" criteria need be present in order to ban the firearm.

Originally Posted By: AzmastablastaI could just swear I heard someone being adamant that we have nothing to fear regarding zero and gun control. IIRC that someone was from SC.


You remember correctly, blasta:


Originally Posted By: HunterBear71http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2198880


Originally Posted By: HunterBear71A tiny bit alarmist.

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Why would an organization dominated by staunch conservatives spread alarmist rhetoric about a liberal administration? This administration hasn't attacked gun rights but we are supposed to believe that they are poised to begin gun grabbing during a second term.

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71No...I do not believe Obama will try to infringe on our 2cnd amendment rights.

BUT.....perhaps he is beginning to see the light a bit:

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71This is just an administrative review, correct? I mean, they can't actually change the law or change the guidelines for importation?

Regards,
hm
 
Only from the perspective of the "Control" crowd...The Second Amendment does protect the right to "Bear Arms" but leaves the prohibition of type open...

If pushed, it could be interpreted to only Shotguns, or Rifles, or Handguns...Administratively, the regulation is still open to control...Only the Right To Bear is protected....not the type or use...

I know that we would all like to have "Total" freedom of choice in what we "Bear"...But that is not the case by the wording of the 2nd Amendment...
 
I see your point OT and agree that this is the assumption under which they work. However, Our forefathers whole heartedly believed that the Government had no powers except those "specifically" spelled out in the Constitution. While it grants Americans the right to bear, it grants no power for the government to apply any restrictions. Like many Constitutional scholars, I believe the Gun Control Act of 1968 is also unconstitutional.Here is an interesting take, sort of The Constitution For Dummies."

CONGRESS’ ENUMERATED POWERS

A Primer in Constitutional Law

By Publius Huldah

1. With the U.S. Constitution, We The People created the federal government. It is our “creature”, and has no powers other than those We granted to it in The Constitution.

Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), says re “constitution”:

…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.

If you, dear Reader, will study this paper and read the Constitution, you will know more about it than most State & federal judges, most law professors & lawyers, most who spout off on TV & radio, and just about anybody in Congress. And you will certainly know more than anyone currently occupying any office in the executive branch of the federal government.

2. The federal government * has three branches: Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch (Congress) & lists its powers; Article II creates the executive branch & lists its powers; and Article III creates the judicial branch & lists its powers.

In this paper, we will consider only the enumerated powers of Congress. But the powers of the other two branches are likewise strictly limited and enumerated.

3. Congress is NOT authorized to pass any law on any subject just because a majority in Congress think the law is a good idea! Instead, the areas in which Congress is authorized to act are strictly limited and defined (“enumerated”). Article I, § 8, grants to Congress the powers:

(1) To lay certain taxes;

(2) To pay the debts of the United States;

(3) To declare war and make rules of warfare, to raise and support armies and a navy and to make rules governing the military forces; to call forth the militia for certain purposes, and to make rules governing the militia;

(4) To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the States, and with the Indian Tribes;

(5) To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization;

(6) To establish uniform Laws on Bankruptcies;

(7) To coin money and regulate the value thereof;

(8) To fix the standard of Weights and Measures;

(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting;

(10) To establish post offices and post roads;

(11) To issue patents and copyrights;

(12) To create courts inferior to the supreme court; and

(13) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Laws of Nations.

Other provisions of the Constitution grant Congress powers to make laws regarding:

(14) An enumeration of the population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes (Art. I, § 2, cl. 3);

(15) Elections of Senators & Representatives (Art. I, §4, cl. 1) and their pay (Art. I, § 6);

(16) After 1808, to prohibit importation of slaves (Art. I, § 9, cl. 1); **

(17) A restricted power to suspend Writs of Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2);

(18) To revise and control imposts or duties on imports or exports which may be laid by States (Art. I, § 10, cl. 2 &3)

(19) A restricted power to declare the punishment of Treason (Art. III, §3, cl. 2);

(20) Implementation of the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, §1); and,

(21) Procedures for amendments to The Constitution (Art. V).

The 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, & 26th Amendments grant additional powers to Congress respecting civil rights & voting rights, the public debt [lawfully incurred], income tax, successions to vacated offices, dates of assembly, and appointment of representatives from the D.C.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to exercise throughout the States these and only these powers!

4. Two provisions of the Constitution grant to Congress broad legislative powers over specifically defined geographical areas:

a) Article I, §8, next to last clause, grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation” over the following geographically tiny areas: the seat of the government of the United States (not to exceed 10 square miles), forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and the like. As James Madison said in Federalist No. 43 at 2., it is necessary for the government of the United States to have “complete authority” at the seat of government, and over forts, magazines, etc. established by the federal government.

b) Article IV, §3, cl. 2 grants to Congress power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States (as opposed to property belonging to individual states). As these territories became States, Congress’ powers under this Article were terminated.

5. Thus, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to bail out financial institutions, businesses, and homeowners who don’t pay their mortgages; NO AUTHORITY to take control of our health care; NO AUTHORITY to pass laws denying secret ballots to employees who are solicited for membership by labor unions; NO AUTHORITY to take away your IRA’s and other retirement accounts, NO AUTHORITY to pass laws respecting energy consumption or “emissions”, education, housing, etc., etc., etc.

Therefore, the laws which Congress has passed on such topics are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by The Constitution. We the People did not give such powers to Congress when we ordained & established the Constitution, created the Congress, and listed its 21 enumerated powers. And these powers are not granted to Congress in any of the Amendments.

6. If you look at The List of powers We granted to Congress, you will see that Congress’ legislative powers fall into three categories:

a) International commerce and war;

b) Domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy law, a [limited] power over interstate commerce, and mail delivery. Congress also has the power to establish lower federal courts and make rules for naturalization.

c) Protection of civil and voting rights.

That’s about it! All other powers are retained by the States or the People!

7. You ask, “How can Congress make all these laws if they are unconstitutional? How can what you say be true?”

Congress gets away with it because We are ignorant of what our Constitution says; and We have been indoctrinated into believing that Congress can do whatever they want!

But consider Prohibition: During 1919 everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages! So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

8. But during the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), all three branches of the federal government abandoned the Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” programs; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court ruled (generally 5 to 4) that these programs were unconstitutional as outside the legislative powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving FDR’s programs (5 to 4).

9. Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution! Instead, they teach decisions of the FDR-dominated Supreme Court which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that three clauses, the “general welfare” clause, the “interstate commerce” clause and the “necessary & proper” clause, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

10. “Well”, you ask, “what about ‘the general welfare clause’? Doesn’t that give Congress power to pass any law on any subject as long as it is for the ‘general Welfare of the United States’ “? NO, IT DOES NOT!

First, you must learn what “welfare” meant when the Constitution was ratified: “Welfare” as used in the Preamble & in Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, meant

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government (Webster’s, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), added a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when new meanings are substituted for original meanings?

Second, James Madison addresses this precise issue in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras): Madison points out that the first paragraph of Art. I, §8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. So, yes! The powers of Congress really are restricted to those listed hereinabove.

OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace & prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society & civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited & restricted in what it was given power to do!

11. “OK”, you say, “but what about ‘the commerce clause‘ (Art. I, §8, cl. 3)? Doesn’t that give Congress power to pass laws on any subject which ‘affects’ ‘interstate commerce’ “? NO, IT DOES NOT! In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th paras), Alexander Hamilton & James Madison explain the purpose of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. That’s what it does, Folks; and until the mid-1930’s and FDR’s “New Deal”, this was widely understood. ***

12.”Well, then”, you say, “doesn’t the ‘necessary & proper’ clause’ ["elastic clause" or "sweeping clause" ] (Art. I, §8, last clause) allow Congress to make any laws which the people in Congress think are ‘necessary & proper’?” NO, IT DOES NOT! Alexander Hamilton says the clause merely gives to Congress a power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 4th para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy. (Federalist No. 33, 4th para). James Madison agrees with Hamilton’s explanation. (Federalist No. 44, 10th-17th paras). In other words, the clause simply permits the execution of powers already declared and granted. Hamilton & Madison are clear that no additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

13. The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So! If a power is not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government; and if the States are not prohibited (as by Art. I, § 10) from exercising that power; then that power is retained by the States or by The People. And WE are “The People”!

14. Our Framers insisted repeatedly that Congress is restricted to its enumerated powers. James Madison says in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 39 (14th para):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects.

and in Federalist No. 14 (8th para):

…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…

15. In all its recent legislation, Congress ratchets up its concerted pattern of lawless usurpations. The executive branch and the federal courts approve it. Such is the essence of tyranny. They are “ruling” without our consent, and hence the federal government is now illegitimate.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/
 
I don't see any reference to sporting uses, or hunting. I do see one to the militia, which makes me think that weapons suited to their use by the militia would be the most protected.

Funny thing is, back in the 1930's the USSC thought the same thing when they ruled that sawed off shotguns weren't protected as the defendent failed to show that they served any such purpose.
 
Here's the latest from the top--

In Reversal, Army Bans High-Performance Rifle Mags

May 25, 2012

Military.com| by Matthew Cox
21
Add a Comment
PMAG polymer M4 magazine

The Army has ordered that soldiers may use only government-issued magazines with their M4 carbines, a move that effectively bans one of the most dependable and widely used commercial-made magazines on today’s battlefield.

The past decade of war has spawned a wave of innovation in the commercial soldier weapons and equipment market. As a result, trigger-pullers in the Army, Marines and various service special operations communities now go to war armed with commercially designed kit that’s been tested under the most extreme combat conditions.

Near the top of such advancements is the PMAG polymer M4 magazine, introduced by Magpul Industries Corp. in 2007. Its rugged design has made it as one of the top performers in the small-arms accessory arena, according to combat veterans who credit the PMAG with drastically improving the reliability of the M4.

Despite the success of the PMAG, Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a “safety of use message” in April that placed it, and all other polymer magazines, on an unauthorized list.

The message did not single out PMAGs, but instead authorizes only the use of Army-issued aluminum magazines. The message offers little explanation for the new policy except to state that “Units are only authorized to use the Army-authorized magazines listed in the technical manuals.” Nor does it say what Army units should now do with the millions of dollars’ worth of PMAGs they’ve purchased over the years.

Magpul officials have been reluctant to comment on the issue. Robert Vidrine, vice president of marketing and sales, said the company found out about TACOM’s message only after it was released to the field.

The decision has left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

“This just follows a long line of the Army, and military in general, not listening to the troops about equipment and weaponry,” said one Army infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

“The PMAG is a great product … lightweight and durable. I have seen numerous special ops teams from all services pass through here, and they all use PMAGs. Also, a large amount of Marine infantry here use PMAGS, including their Force Recon elements.”

TACOM officials said the message was issued because of “numerous reports that Army units are using unauthorized magazines,” TACOM spokesman Eric Emerton said in a written response to questions from Military.com. Emerton added that only “authorized NSNs have ever been included in the technical manuals. Just because an item has an NSN, does not mean the Army is an authorized user.”

This seems to be a complete policy reversal, since PMAGs are standard issue with the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and they have been routinely issued to infantry units before war-zone deployments.

Soldiers from B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, had been issued PMAGs before deploying to Afghanistan in 2009. On Oct. 3 of that year, they fought off a bold enemy attack on Combat Outpost Keating that lasted for more than six hours and left eight Americans dead. Some soldiers fired up to 40 PMAGs from their M4s without a single stoppage.

Militay.com asked TACOM officials if the Army had discovered any problems with PMAGs that would warrant the ban on their use. TACOM officials would not answer the question and instead passed it off to Program Executive Office Soldier on Thursday evening before the four-day Memorial Day weekend.

TACOM’s message authorizes soldiers to use the Army’s improved magazine, which PEO Soldier developed after the M4 finished last against three other carbines in a 2007 reliability test. The “dust test” revealed that 27 percent of the M4’s stoppages were magazine related.

The improved magazine uses a redesigned “follower,” the part that sits on the magazine’s internal spring and feeds the rounds into the M4’s upper receiver. The new tan-colored follower features an extended rear leg and modified bullet protrusion for improved round stacking and orientation. The self-leveling/anti-tilt follower reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants, PEO Soldier officials maintain. Soldiers are also authorized to use Army magazines with the older, green follower until they are all replaced, the message states.

Military.com asked the Army if the improved magazine can outperform the PMAG, but a response wasn’t received by press time.

The same infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan had this to say about the new and improved magazine:

“Like any magazine, they work great when they are brand new and haven’t been drug through the dirt and mud. I haven’t noticed much of a difference between these tan followers and the older green ones. After some time training up for the 'Stan, the same issues started to occur: double feeds, rounds not feeding correctly so on and so on. While it seems to occur about half as often, it’s still not a great solution.

“The magazines still get bent at the opening and are still prone to getting crushed in the middle. I haven’t seen any issues like this with the PMAG due to the polymer casing. I have seen an empty PMAG get run over by a MaxPro [vehicle] and operated flawlessly later that week when we tested it at the range. Last time I saw this happen to a standard issue magazine, it was scrap metal after that.”
Add Your Comment:
Visit the Discussion Forum

Unbelievable!
 
Back
Top