It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BATFE Wants To Ban Importation Of “Military” Style Shotguns

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:56 PM

BATFE Wants To Ban Importation Of “Military” Style Shotguns

Brian McCombie for Gun Digest Jan 31, 2011

A report just released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns,” has proposed that, “military shotguns, or shotguns with common military features that are unsuitable for traditional shotgun sports” be prohibited from importation.

The NRA's argument concerns the exclusion of defense purposes in considering such a ban, rather than just the suitability or adaptability to "sporting purposes"

Under current federal firearms law concerning imports, the Attorney General has to first approve the importation of any firearm “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” The problem with that? As the NRA explained, “This ‘sporting purposes’ test was imposed by the Gun Control Act in 1968, a time when the right to self-defense with a firearm was not as widely respected by the courts as it is today.”...

...the Second Amendment—as the Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller — protects our right to keep and bear arms for defense,...

I'll admit, I'm sort of on the fence with this. On the one hand, I see it as an infringement on our right to "keep and bear arms". On the other, my "isolationist" side comes out and I see it as an economic advantage to our domestic firearms manufacturers, to ban imports.

I know this will probably just turn into another "you Americans are just a bunch of gun-loving nuts" thread, but I wanted to address the issue from the standpoint of 2nd Amendment protection vs. economic advantage.

Considering who currently holds the position of Attorney General, I'd bet on the ban being approved.

For those interested, the article includes this link to the ATF study.
edit on 3-2-2011 by WTFover because: hyperlink error

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:07 PM
I must agree, my first thought, even though I am a strong supporter of the 2nd, was GOOD, Less competition for our US manufactures.

But, it is an infringement.

Hard call., but I think I will come down on this side of : NO INFRINGEMENT WHAT SO EVER !

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:12 PM
Do I actually have to say it?
The second has nothing whatsoever to do with "hunting or sporting purposes".
the second amendment to the constitution is a law.
We are a republic under the rule of "law".
Not the rule of"men".

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by 46ACE

I apologize for being confused, but are you saying defense is the only thing that gives us the right to arm ourselves?

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:18 PM
military bases of a shotgun to provide fast effective and accurate... deadly force!!!!!

when someone enters my home with the goal to harm me or my family how do i want to respond

FAST, EFFECTIVE,ACCURATE , AND DEADLY FORCE to protect my family and home......

stupid law wishers.... leave me to my freedom of choice in what i defend my home with

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:21 PM
Can't have the sheep armed with the same equipment we have now can we???

Honestly, that's all this is about and we all know it if we choose to.
The Military/Government doesn't want a population as well armed as they are in the event of a revolution.
Kinda hard to revolt when you have the dumbed down version of all of the firearms that your military does. Not to mention all of the other cool stuff they get and we only get to read about in magazines.

They will have us believe that we are a threat to ourselves and it is for our safety that citizens are not allowed to own fully automatic assault rifles. NO...... it's for their safety!!!!! It's going to be hard enough for them to take our guns from us without us having military grade shotguns much less fully automatic assault rifles.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:27 PM
Given the recent popularity of that type of gun, can you come up with another reason why certain quarters may want to have these cheap, low quality guns restricted? I can think of a couple, pirivate industry: Mossberg, Remington, etc.

I think it is a great idea to ban them. These guns are basically sold for self-defense. They should be of decent quality such that you woulld stake your life on it. They may look fine, be outragiously cheap and be based on something like the old trench guns of WWI, but who knows? Wanna gamble with your life?

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by Aliensun

Some of these guns are here and working great. I have shot a H&R that was imported. After 300 rounds of 2.75" Winchester, Centurion, Federal, and Hornady it showed no signs of advanced wear. I would trust my life to it without a problem.

I see this as good for the US gun makers in a way. In helps them ensure the market. I see it as bad for us though. The Obama state department decided not to allow the reimportation of thousands of military surplus M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rifles last year. They told South Korea to "dispose of them."

I think what we are seeing here is a back door attempt at banning certain weapons. What can not be achieved through congress will be achieved through bureaucratic manipulation. If you can't pass the AWB law just make it so that distributors can't import them. It will limit the market and drive up cost on domestic production. That will cut back on the ability, of some Americans, to buy them. It isn't a complete ban but it is a manipulation of the market to achieve similar results.

On a side note. The NRA is about 43 years late and a dollar short on this one. They supported the 1968 law that stipulated "sporting use." Some of the restrictions they asked for were considerred so extreme congress even balked at them. The NRA is too busy chasing corporate money and courting washed up conservatives (Newt Gingrich) to even respond to what their members want them to fight for.

What they are talking about here is a lot like the original AWB. They are basing the decision on cosmetic things. If it has a pistiol grip instead of a stock, a pistol grip on the pump, how many accessory rails and where they are located, and flash suppresors. A simple and traditional pump shotgun can be imported. H&R imports their entire line of Pardner pump shot guns from China.

edit on 4-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:55 PM
Some of the most destructive, innovative, and lethal shotguns are made right here in the USA.

In direct contravention to the Geneva Conventions, I carried a .12 guage sawed-off "combat loss" US Army Winchester Model 12 in combat that had been tricked out by an Army Master gunsmith.

I have to say, if riots come to the US like in Egypt, I hope to hell the first place the rioters cover up is the damned BATF.

These guys have zero intelligence, zero Constitutional authority, zero common sense, and are nothing more than a group of bureaucrats who are wannabe military - who manage to dress up in black combat gear - and still get their asses kicked by little groups such as Branch Davidians.

These clowns have no business getting into what types of shotguns we import.

They were bored, had no Christians lately to assault, and thought up this dumbass thing.

Only in America folks.

Come to think of it, before the war, Himmler was a damned pig farmer.

Just think of what these clowns would be doing in real life if not for the BATF!

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:24 PM
The use of guns for "sporting" activities is a red herring. Of course people have the right to keep and bear arms for "sporting" activities, but when it comes to the debate on the regulation and banning of fire arms, it is almost always the side advocating regulation and banning that speak to the "sporting" activities of gun owners, as if we the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves, not just from common criminals, hoodlums, and thugs, but from tyrannical governments, including and especially our own.

When taken in the context of defending oneself from tyrannical governments, it is not just guns that become necessary to keep and bear, in this modern age, it would seem to be most prudent to keep and bear ballistic missiles and even a nuclear arsenal. How terrifying is that? Of course, that I believe is the most salient point of the 2nd Amendment, even if it is not express, but merely implicit. Whatever "right" a nations military has to weapons, the people have, and if the people have no right to nuclear weapons or biological weapons, then neither do their military's.

It is rare, if ever, that someone arguing that all guns should be banned will agree that this includes the guns that government use, and I have never seen someone arguing that guns should be banned begin their argument with the understanding that we have a very serious problem of nuclear and biological weapons amassed across the world in the hands of governments that are flat out criminal. What I am saying is that most people who argue for the banning of guns seemingly have no problems with their own government not only keeping guns, but nuclear and biological weapons as well. These people are not pacifists, they are not Utopian peace mongers, they are sycophants of tyranny, and they have taken their lessons from Sun Tzu, Von Clauswitz and other military strategists, and understand that the first thing one wants to do when engaging the enemy, is to disarm them.

In a nation where the ownership of guns has been a long held and cherished right, when people begin arguing that these gun owners should have their guns taken away from them, it should be no doubt how these gun owners are viewed, and that is as the enemy.

I am a writer, and have lived by the firm belief that the pen is mightier than the sword, and I do not like guns. I have never owned a gun. I hope to God I never have to own a gun. This doesn't mean I believe guns should be banned. On the contrary, I fully understand why guns are necessary, and in this day age, that necessity sure as hell ain't because of "sporting" activities.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:34 PM
To me the shooting of violent criminals IS a sporting use.

If they are armed shooting them with a military style shotgun is doing the public a service as its unlikely they will ever bother anyone else again,

Criminals become non criminals real quick after getting blown away with a couple rounds of 12 gage 00 buckshot.
They also likely will be worm food.

We would not want them to suffer now would we.

Anyone ever heard of a criminal that was hit with a couple rounds of 12 gage 00 buckshot that is still a criminal.

new topics

top topics


log in