Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: ATF to accept public comments prior to outlawing shotguns

  1. #1

    ATF to accept public comments prior to outlawing shotguns

    Terribly big of them to "accept public comments" before they usurp consitutionally protected {"protected", NOT "granted"} rights.

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is taking a rare step of allowing public comments prior to issuing a decision on a study that could result in outlawing certain types of shotguns currently available to citizens.

    The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.
    Full article here: � ATF to accept public comments prior to outlawing shotguns Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    What has the Supreme Court said previously on the topic?
    In US v Miller... the Supreme Court said:
    “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
    So... the existing ruling on the books disallowed a class of shotgun specifically due to its *lack* of military applicability, and now the ATF hopes to disallow all shotguns that DO have potential military application.

    If both tests are applied, then the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear all shotguns that do not fit into either of the following classes:

    -a- Those that *would* be useful in a military setting

    -b- Those that *would NOT* be useful in a military setting

    To all who think this doesn't affect them because they don't like guns anyway...
    Bear in mind the second amendment is 10% of the Bill of Rights. If one amendment is invalidated thru "interpretations" that whittle it down to effective non-existence... the other 9 are subject to the same treatment.

    We've already seen recent assaults on free speech and the right to seek redress of grievances of our elected officials. Per an innocuously named bill passed this year, the Secret Service can decide your *words* of protest within proximity to an official with Secret Service protection are a felony.

    We've seen assaults on freedom of religion, with the administration going toe-to-toe with Catholics to say that notwithstanding their religious beliefs they *MUST* provide insurance that includes medical services that violate their basic religious tenets.

    We've seen assaults the right of citizens to due process. Apparently we can now be imprisoned or even assassinated if the president says so... without benefit of trial. [All in the interest of National Security of course.]

    The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits certain uses of Federal military troops on US soil against the citizenry... but military drones are soon to be allowed overhead. Apparently the distinction between tools of war vs civilian tools isnt applied the same way when the government decides to push the envelope. The list goes on.

    The US public is the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water...
    ...and because we've failed to voice stringent concern about prior federal over-reaching... the heat is being turned up so fast even the mildest among us should be starting to notice.

    As one of the founding fathers phrased it...

    Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. ~ Benjamin Franklin
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    New York
    A saw-off shotgun doesn't have too much military use. But one of these sure look like they would come in handy.

    The SUPER-SHORTY is currently being used by various law enforcement agencies and military units worldwide.
    Shorty Shotguns (A.O.W.) | Class III Firearms Dealer

  3. #3
    The whole ATF and shotgun deal is over a year old.
    Yet sites bring it up like it is a new thing.

  4. #4
    So is the Fast and Furious scandal... but unlike a fine wine, blatant attempts to subvert the constitution don't get more palatable with age.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  5. #5
    Have to disagree.
    Shotguns and the various offshoots have nothing to do with the constitution.
    Big difference between the right to bear arms and the type of arms to bear.

    That said, the best home defense weapon is really a short barrel shotgun.

  6. #6
    Don't forget that Eric Holder has stated that the 2nd Amendment does not grant citizens the right to own firearms. He does not seem to understand that a militia is not the military. he should look up the definition. It has not changed in 200+ years.

    Also, when Obummer was a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago (he never was a law professor -- there is a big difference), he frequently referred to the Constitution as "deeply flawed." It is a bit strange that someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution would quickly dismantle it if he had the opportunity, but that appears to be what he had in mind with "hope and change."

    If you think they have assaulted our Constitutional rights (mostly unsuccessfully) during the first term, wait until you see the damage they can do during a second term now that they have plenty of practice and nothing to lose.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Oh, I keep up with those two anti-Americans....check my blog.
    Say What?

    Speaking of liberals and gun free zone.
    Funny how those liberal cities that want guns outlawed, won't get rid of their police departments!
    Instead spending money on swat units, etc etc etc

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts