Posted on 04/16/2015 1:49:06 PM PDT by marktwain
Edited on 04/16/2015 1:58:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The problem, as I understand it, is for a modern firearm with a bore over 1/2 inch to not be defined as a destructive device. It must be either a shotgun or a rifle.
The definition of a shotgun states it’s shoulder fired.
So pistol gripped shotguns, except 410’s, are now destructive devices.
As for the law, the statutes as I know them were posted above in post #14. All of the articles about this in recent days have failed to address those statutes with any sort of clarification beyond "if it has a pistol grip."
That's what I'm getting out of these recent articles but that is contrary to the statutes you posted. I'm beginning to think that both the ATF and the NRA are deliberately confusing the issue.
I’m with you on that. I’ve got a pistol grip for my Win1200. I’ve used it when it was my truck gun.
I don’t know where all of this hoopla is going.
I stopped trusting the NRA long ago.
The point is that there are many contradictory rulings made by the BATF over the decades. They had over 300 cubic feet of uncategorized, unscanned, not in a database rulings in the late 1990’s. The amount is sure to have grown over the years.
They took the “easy” route by just making up rulings as they went along, with virtually no concern for what they had done before, in previous rulings.
Now there are several lawsuits, based on rulings that they have done with regards to trusts and the 1986 law that they interpreted in a number of ways.
They are terrified of the likely discovery, which has a good chance of all those previous rulings being scanned and categorized into a searchable database.
When that happens, it is almost certain for the current regulatory scheme to fall apart. It never really made any sense, and now, after Heller, it is required by the Constitution to make some sense.
That is why this is coming to a head and is important.
I hear that loud and clear. I've been a Life Member since '86 and I won't surrender that so that they can continue to count me as a member when they do lobby for the right thing. But they haven't gotten another penny from me in about two decades.
I now belong to GOA and RMGO to give my voice a stronger presence in DC and here in CO.
Doesn’t Dudley Brown put you off?
RMGO is effective so I ignore the fact that Dudley is a douche and that I still get numerous whiny email solicitations per week.
I get an email from him at least daily. I keep thinking I will wind a free gun but no luck so far.
I joined for a while after the NRA fried my butt, but Dudley rubs my fur backwards.
Thanks! Maybe he’s worse than I gave him credit for. When the author of that claims that the Dems feel regret now I have to take that with a grain of salt. Having read a number of Salazar’s past statements it’s hard to think of him as reasonable at all. I have no doubt that DeGette and a number of other Dem’s only regret is in losing political clout.
Roger that
and Illinois doesn't require complete concealed.
“Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded handgun
carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed
from view of the public or on or about a person within a
vehicle.”
I guess that clarifies things for IL but the main issue here is what FedMob law is or is not and what the ATF will or will not do. This story has been bubbling for several days now and I haven’t read anything yet that clears away the fog.
Sporting purposes,,,
Yep, sporting...
Sorry. I should have qualified.
It really doesn’t clarify for Illinois.
I was wondering if it creates a loophole at the state level, to conceal carry what would now be considered a pistol?
I can only speculate that IL is not going to interpret in favor of that.
Ping for your information
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.