Fast and loose at the ATF

[one-eyed fat man]

New class of firearm you should know about, ATF "approves" Short barrel NON-shotgun!

This gets really interesting! There is some pointed discussion on CleanUpATF.org

In my judgment, ATF's October 27, 2010, letter, is a cynical, primitive attempt to bait Mr. Savage into spending a lot of money to manufacture, sell and distribute a product ATF has just authorized as a perfectly legal Title I firearm that is not subject to the NFA, knowing full well that (1) the firearm is, in fact, legally a Destructive Device and could be nothing other than a Destructive Device, and (2) should Mr. Savage actually manufacture, sell and distribute the "submitted firearm," ATF would have only to sit back for a year or so, lick its chops, and then send Mr. Savage a "reconsideration" letter notifying him that, in fact, well, ATF "reconsidered" the October 27, 2010, letter, and has decided that the "submitted firearm" is the Destructive Device that it always was. Doing that would render virtually all of the firearms Mr. Savage manufactured to be contraband, and require that all those sold or distributed be tracked down and seized and forfeited, or destroyed, an action that would certainly affect Mr. Savage's business and reputation (it could bankrupt him, and people would be reluctant to buy anything else from him).

Some may recall Mr. Savage's name from the Olofson case where he was an "expert" witness for the defense. Savage designs NFA-related items. This one enables the owner of a lawful NFA firearm to convert it to a different caliber. BATFE originally ruled that the item was not a firearm, let alone an NFA one; it was a conversion kit. After Len gave some expert testimony in several cases against the agency, it reversed its ruling and held that the kit was an NFA firearm. Now it's pursuing forfeiture of it. Here's the warrant for its arrest!!!!

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
VS .
ONE HISTORIC ARMS MODEL 54RCCS
"7 .62X54R CALIBER CONVERSION
SYSTEM" MACHINE GUN, SERIAL NO . V1, :
Defendant .

There seems to be little doubt that the ATF is about to try to screw with Mr. Savage again. Even ATF agents are incredulous at the tranparency of the vendetta.

"The ATF Chief Counsel and his retinue, who no doubt concocted that preposterous original letter in the vain hopes that Mr. Savage would be dumb enough to fall for its legally defective counsel, will probably chuckle, knowing full well they will not be held accountable, and thus will fathom the full depths of their necrotic joke."

[Hoyt]

1. Having looked at this "destructive device," I'm glad the ATF is screwing with this guy.

The gun is clearly pandering to those who get off carrying destructive devices in public.

[X_Digger]

2. You are happy with a regulatory agency being able to make up the rules as they go along?

That says more about you than it does about them.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

6. So the end justified the means, eh?

Rather than say something like, "the rules should be such that so and so can't be carried..", you'll leave it up to a government agency to be arbitrary and capricious.

I'm sure that attitude will never come back to bite you on the ass for something you feel strongly about.

:sarcasm:

[jazzhound]

8. Your choice of words loudly broadcasts your lack of

objectivity.

(*gun nuts*)

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

17. Who is this arbiter of 'need'? You? n/t

[Hoyt]

24. Apparently you think the arbiter should be those obsessed with destructive weapons.

Just expressing my opinion, like everyone else here. Further, I think if we showed the public at large photos of such destructive weapons and asked them if folks should be permitted to carry them in public -- most would emphatically say "no."

[X_Digger]

26. When has 'need' or popularity been the criteria for civil rights?

I'm sure that if you showed the public in 1950 photos of black men dating white women -- most would emphatically say "no" to that, too.

[Hoyt]

42. Another lame attempt at equating carrying destructive devices (guns) with the civil rights movement.

I was surprised the first time, but not anymore.

[X_Digger]

44. What part of 'keep and bear' don't you understand? n/t

[Hoyt]

47. I don't understand why you guys leave out the "well regulated militia" part. Well actually I do.

Because you ain't in a "well regulated" militia, therefore the right to bear arms doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Besides, that right doesn't include such destructive devices as this.

[X_Digger]

48. Here, just for you..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "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." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."**

(footnotes removed)

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

Short barreled shotguns would actually fit in with your concept- they were used as trench sweepers in WW I.

eta: I wondered how long it would take you to get to the 'well-regulated' canard. Just so you know, you're in a shrinking minority with that opinion-

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx


Since you seem to think that public opinion should determine what's a right, it would seem that you're on the wrong end of this one.

[Hoyt]

49. So we should define "arms" as those existing 200 years ago. Enjoy packing your muzzle loader.

You ain't "well regulated." But, thanks for trying. BTW -- I've seen that lots of time. Besides, most people have never read the entire 2nd Amendment. They know only what the NRA and those who want a gun in every waistband tell them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Enjoy expressing your opinions with a quill pen or a hand-cranked press

Protip: Never serve a dish you wouldn't care to eat...

Also, I seem to have overlooked "those who want a gun in every waistband". Do point them out for us, eh?



Protip 2:The fact that you haven't used a cliche before doesn't mean that we haven't seen it before.

I do like your economy of style, however. Three fallacies in six sentences is nowhere near the record, but it still isn't bad.

[Hoyt]

52. Them were the days. Folks weren't falling all over themselves to acquire the latest WMD to tuck in

their pants, strap to their leg, or whatever.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Some people owned their own warships back then. And crew-served artillery

John Hancock, he of the large signature (and perhaps the richest man in America at the time) owned and fought several armed
sloops. One of the standard methods of warfare back then was loading your cannons with scrap metal or canister shot for
antipersonnel use.

Glad to know that you're down with the practice- With a couple of culverins or brass Napoleons loaded with the right stuff, you could say "Get off my lawn!" and make it stick.

Since you deem 18th Century weapons acceptable, you of course won't mind if people armed themselves with this:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=199709&mesg_id=199771


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

...It was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 pounds (4.5 kg), which made it the same basic size and weight as other muskets of the time. It fired a .51 caliber ball<1> at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. Contemporary regulations of 1788 required each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, to be equipped with three reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 20 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes. Equipment not carried attached to the rifle was held in a special leather knapsack. It was also required to keep the leather gaskets of the reservoir moist in order to maintain a good seal and prevent leakage. <2>

The air reservoir was in the club-shaped butt. With a full air reservoir, the Girandoni Air Rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 150 yards on a full load. The power declined as the air reservoir was emptied <3>.

History and Use

The Girandoni Air Rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs themselves proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, and were always in short supply....

Sounds like The Paintball Gun From Hell. I'd love to have a modern version...

[Hoyt]

57. Or stuff a blunderbuss down one's pants.

I have to admit that I enjoyed reading about the Girandoni Air Rifle.

[Euromutt]

59. Another nail in the coffin of the term "WMD"

If there is any way to make the term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" more meaningless than to use it as if it were interchangeable with "weapon," I don't know what it is.

Admittedly, you're in good company, Hoyt: Donna Dees-Thomases (founder of the soi-disant Million Mom March), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich have all described so-called "assault weapons" as "weapons of mass destruction," and even my former boss Kofi Annan, in one of his less brilliant moments, termed small arms in general "weapons of mass destruction in slow motion."

The whole point of a term like "weapon of mass destruction" is that it refers to a weapon system that can cause widespread damage and/or mass casualties using comparatively small amounts of material and manpower in a single application. For example, the "physics package" of the W80 warhead (designed for use in BGM-109A Tomahawk, AGM-86 and AGM-129 cruise missiles) weighs ~132 kilos (291 pounds) but can yield a destructive force equivalent to that of 150,000 metric tons of TNT. Biological weapons, because they consist of replicating entities (bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al.), can theoretically inflict casualties indefinitely with an initial deployment of a few grams of agent. For example, in late 1941, a 40-man detachment from Japan's Unit 731 air-dropped fleas infected with bubonic plague on the Chinese city of Changde, resulting in an estimated 7,600 Chinese dead from infection over the following months. In an enclosed space, a fairly small amount of hydrogen cyanide can kill quite a large number of people, as the Germans demonstrated in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Majdanek and Sachsenhausen. Hell, one of the main reasons the Germans adopted gas chambers as the primary method of extermination was because shooting proved too time-consuming, manpower-intensive and costly in ammunition.

If you start watering the term "weapon of mass destruction" down to where it means any weapon used the process of inflicting a large amount of damage, regardless of the amount of manpower and number of weapons involved, potentially anything is a weapon of mass destruction. The Rwandan genocide resulted in the deaths of some 800,000-1.17 million people in less than three months, mostly inflicted using machetes. "Mass destruction," certainly, but does that make the machete a "weapon of mass destruction"? Well, hardly, considering that in preparation for the genocide, the organizers imported some 581,000 machetes, which means the number of dead per machete was on average 2, at the very most. While the results of the Rwandan genocide might fairly be termed "mass destruction," they required the participation of certainly tens of thousands, and probably hundreds of thousands, of people to achieve. Similarly, the problem with former Sec-Gen Annan's characterization of small arms as "weapons of mass destruction in slow motion" is that the death toll inflicted using small arms involves a thousands upon thousands of weapons, wielded by thousands upon thousands of people.

Well, it's hardly surprising that Lake Superior State University added "weapon of mass destruction" to its List of Words and Phrases Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-Use, Over-Use and General Uselessness (http://www.lssu.edu/banished/) as far back as 2003.

[Hoopla Phil]

62. Thank you for that post.

You put a bit of time and effort typing all that up and I appreciate it very much. Like you, I am very concerned with the "WMD" term being bandied about when it's use is not appropriate. A true WMD is an awful thing and to mis-apply that term only lessens the gravity of what it really is and what they really do.

Thank you

[Hoyt]

64. Maybe you can coin a new 3-letter term for the weapons gun toters find so appealing.

You know, the Rambo mimicking things people caress in the privacy of their homes, and can tuck down their trousers to walk around in public parks, churches, etc., armed just in case somebody jumps out from behind a bush.

Besides, I only had three spaces. If I had more space, I would have come up with something more derisive for those who are promoting the mass arming of citizens in public.

[benEzra]

65. I've got just the term for you: G-U-N.

A 12-gauge shotgun, of any barrel length, is not a "weapon of mass destruction" by any reasonable definition. When somebody makes a shotgun that can destroy a city center with one shot, I'll change my mind.

But like I said, you're the only one in this thread who is obsessed with this gun as a carry weapon. IMO it's interesting, and would be *almost* as deadly at very close range as a single-shot 12-gauge bird gun, but as a CCW it isn't nearly as practical as something like this:

the Rambo mimicking things people caress in the privacy of their homes, and can tuck down their trousers to walk around in public parks, churches, etc., armed just in case somebody jumps out from behind a bush.

That's kind of funny, considering that "Rambo" was before a lot of our times (IIRC I was just a kid when Rambo was a big meme, and I wasn't old enough to see the movies). But from stills I've seen, Rambo carried a belt-fed M60 or somesuch and a big knife, right? Short-barrel 12-gauges are from old Westerns and 1920's detective movies, not Vietnam flicks.

And somehow, I don't see Rambo carrying a "Lady Smith", but I suppose you're the Rambo expert, not me...

[Katya Mullethov]

66. This gun of Rambo . One ,Two ,or Three ?

These will not fit in your pants .

[Euromutt]

70. Instead of trying to be derisive, you might try to understand the topic

Once again, I quote the ATF's letter to Mr. Savage:

Pursuant to the NFA, the term "any other weapon" is defined, in part, as "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive..." Please note that if the submitted firearm is concealed on a person, the following classification may change.

Note in particular that last sentence; if someone were to conceal the weapon in question on his person, it would by dint of that very fact become an "AOW," that is, a firearm of which the manufacture, transfer and possession is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934! Besides, the letter also states the weapon "has an overall length of approximately 26¼ inches." It's unclear to me how anyone is supposed to "tuck <that> down their trousers," at least without walking with a severe limp. Which is, incidentally, why the rule of thumb is that any firearm that is a) designed to be used with two hands, and b) 26" or less in overall length, falls under the NFA.

And since you persist in making this personal by ascribing certain desires to what you call "gun toters," I'm going to have to address that. I, for one, think Mr. Savage's design is utterly pointless, and there is absolutely no reason I would want to possess one. I think a pistol grip-equipped shotgun (sans stock) can't be very accurate and is mostly likely to hurt your wrist. Moreover, Mr. Savage's design seems to be nothing more than a Mossberg 500 "Cruiser" 6-shot (item #50440; see here http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=5§ion=products and scroll right through the models) with the barrel cut down by 1½" (from 18½" to 17") and ported. If you wanted a gun like this (and I reiterate that I do not), you could sidestep the whole NFA business by buying the original Mossberg gun.

As for the gratuitous Rambo reference, I would point out that Rambo's weapons of choice in Rambo: First Blood Part II, Rambo III and Rambo were a large knife, and a compound bow, custom made by Hoyt Archery (http://www.hoyt.com/)! Isn't that a remarkable coincidence? Why, I might be forgiven for speculating that you picked your user name out of a desire to mimic Rambo, and are simply projecting your guilty secret onto others.

And as benEzra pointed out, "gun" has three letters, as does "arm" (as "the right of the people to keep and bear"), "gat" and "rod." Bottom line is, we're still talking about a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun here, not Castle Bravo.

[Glassunion]

71. +3.78541178

[X_Digger]

55. Feel free to address what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said, or some red herring. n/t

[benEzra]

28. Looking up and down this thread, I see exactly one person obsessed with this weapon.

This thread is about whether or not an ATF letter and associated actions represent a lame attempt at a reprisal for unfriendly court testimony, or whether it just represents an arguable misinterpretation of the National Firearms Act by the agency.

The thread is NOT about whether or not a short-barreled 12-gauge would make a good CCW or HD firearm (IMO, it wouldn't), although stockless 12-gauges with 18" barrels instead of 16.5" are quite common and go back a century or so. But they're not CCW guns; PGO's are mostly purchased as boat/RV/camping guns, though I personally think the lack of a stock seriously impairs their defensive utility.

And I will reiterate that it is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that is saying these should be treated like ordinary civilian firearms (Title 1) rather than restricted Title 2 weapons.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

12. You got it exactly backwards.

The BATFE declared it LEGAL and subject to only Title 1 restrictions, even though it seems on its face to fall under the much stricter Title 2 provisions of the NFA (those that regulate howitzers, bombs, actual AK-47's and other automatic weapons, etc.).

The speculation is that that someone is trying to sucker this guy into sinking a bunch of investment capital into producing a gun that they can later reclassify as Title 2, thereby causing him much financial harm, and that this is being done in retribution for prior testimony against ATF's position in various Federal cases.

[jazzhound]

34. Extremely interesting.

The speculation is that that someone is trying to sucker this guy into sinking a bunch of investment capital into producing a gun that they can later reclassify as Title 2, thereby causing him much financial harm, and that this is being done in retribution for prior testimony against ATF's position in various Federal cases.

When it comes to gun "control" proponents and the ATF no level of cunning or underhanded behavior would surprise me.

[PavePusher]

37. It just struck me...

that perhaps (hopefully) Mr. Savage and co. may be working to set up the BATFE to get slapped around in the courts for their lack of integrity and consistancy. Hey, I can dream....

[jazzhound]

53. I like the manner in which you dream!!

:thumbsup:

[pipoman]

3. So you approve of the .gov

using it's unlimited resources to lie to people making inquiry of legality, then prosecuting them when they act as they were told by the .gov they could act legally? How extremely progressive of you.

[Hoyt]

5. Progressive? Yea sure, arming folks with destructive weapons is really "progressive."

[X_Digger]

7. So you don't care what means the government uses, as long as it's for a goal you endorse?

Is that about the size of it?

[jazzhound]

10. Let's try an honest rephrasing of your sentence and see

how it sounds, shall we?

Yea sure, arming law-abiding folks with destructive weapons which they will be extremely unlikely to use in a criminal manner is really "progressive."

Works for me. More civil rights for a class of people extremely unlikely* to abuse those rights sounds progressive to me.

* As backed up by government stats.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

18. The more you talk, the more you show your true colors.. please continue.

So you assert that there are many folks who get a "rise" from firearms, do you?

[Hoyt]

19. I guess you/others covet something like that for "security" purposes. Cracking me up.

[X_Digger]

21. Don't doge, please elaborate on your previous comment.

We're all waiting with bated breath.

[jazzhound]

33. Your cracking us up too, since you are clearly

oblivious to the fact that your "style" of argumentation helps to convince lurkers that gun "control" proponents have no game.

Thanks for doing your part in helping to defeat gun "control"!

You have made it clear that you base your sentiments on those "gun nuts" that you know. Well........that's a very small statistical sample --- and only a complete fool would find it a credible sample. (deleted post)

You have also stated that you are not trying to be objective. Lurkers must have been shaking their heads at that one (post since deleted for cause by mods) though it came as no surprise to the RKBA supporters here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. I must say you're doing fine work as self-appointed Zampolit of Firearms.

I hope the NRA sends you a nice card and gift basket this holiday season, as you've done a great job of providing material for them...

[Hoyt]

23. Don't think the NRA -- the grandaddy of all lobbying organizations -- will be doing that.

The NRA will be too busy cozing up to the new Republicans in Washington seeking approval for more such destructive weapons to feed the needs/desires of the membership.

[benEzra]

13. Ummm, the ATF is the one that (falsely?) said it isn't a destructive device...

and the speculation seems to be that this was done to try to set the guy up for a fall, if I'm following the argument right. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. They did it before.

If you look at the weapon in question, it's a "sawed-off" shotgun. Now in the "pole-vaulting over mouse turds" sense of distinctions, the fact that barrel was made that length and not literally the result of someone taking a hacksaw to a Mossberg you could argue it is not a sawed-off shotgun because it was not sawn.

But ATF’s lack of scientific testing standards and an inclination to make inept rulings affect all those who actually are trying to comply with the law. I also believe that the majority of this trouble has been caused by ATF attorneys, NOT THE BULK OF ATF FOLKS AND TECHNICIANS WHO WORK AS HARD AND DILIGENTLY AS THEY KNOW HOW, AND IN MY VIEW ARE VICTIMIZED BY ATF ATTORNEYS AS MUCH AS CITIZENS ARE VICTIMIZED BY THE LACK OF NOTICE OF WHAT IS COMING FROM ATF.

My impression is that some ATF technicians have been told what "conclusions" they will "find." As such, I believe these situations have resulted from mismanagement by top ATF executives.

[Glassunion]

25. They should change their name...

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and String.

[Euromutt]

35. The term is "destructive device"

It should be noted that the weapon under discussion is a bog-standard 12-gauge pump-action shotgun; two things set it apart from other weapons in this category, to wit its short (17") barrel and the pistol grip that replaces the stock. It is, therefore, no more "destructive" than any other 12-gauge pump, such as those commonly used to hunt waterfowl or upland birds.

But that's beside the point of this discussion. It's not about whether or not Mr. Savage's design should be legal to manufacture, transfer and possess without NFA paperwork; it's about whether the ATF should have the ability to decide that it does not after first having told Mr. Savage that it does.

[Euromutt]

32. Way to miss the point; this is about the rule of law

The "screwing with this guy" in this case does not consist of the ATF telling him he can't manufacture this shotgun.
It consists of the ATF currently telling him he can when--almost certainly--it is actually the ATF's opinion that he can't, but they're waiting to spring that little surprise on him only after he's started manufacturing these guns.

The issue at hand here is the rule of law being threatened by the ATF's capriciousness. If they want to tell Mr. Savage "we think your modified shotgun qualifies as a 'destructive device' and will not let you legally manufacture it," at least he would know where he stands. But when the ATF tells him, "yeah, go ahead" and then "reconsiders" its position a few months down the line and shuts him down, private citizens and companies simply don't know where they stand. That's precisely the sort of arbitrariness that the rule of law is supposed to prevent.

[Hoyt]

36. Ah, they are just having some fun with a fool who wants approval for his destructive "device" . . .

which is designed to pique the interest of supposedly law-abiding gun owners. Who buys junk like that? Oh, I forgot -- so-called gun enthusiasts.

Truthfully, I think Mr. Savage -- love the name -- should read the law, cases, etc., and make his own conclusions. Unfortunately, Mr. Savage probably knows there is a big market for this type of gun among so-called law-abiding enthusiasts.

[PavePusher]

38. You insinuate that all gun owners are incipient criminals.

Evidence or a retraction would be in order.

[Euromutt]

40. The executive branch of government does not get to "have some fun" at citizens' expense

The ATF has been granted power to decide whether or not a specific design of firearm falls within the definition of "destructive device" for the purposes of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Mr. Savage shouldn't have to "make his own conclusions"; when he asks the opinion of the ATF concerning whether his design would be legal or not, he is entitled to an honest and unambiguous answer. If the maxim that "ignorance of the law is no defense" is to hold, it follows that no government agency can be allowed to mislead (let alone knowingly) a person who wants to know what the law is.

[Hoyt]

41. Actually, that is not uncommon among government agencies.

For example, those in the health care field ask the OIG, Health and Human Services for advisory opinions on legal issues all the time. They get an answer much like what you see here. Truthfully, only the courts and Congress can decide definitively. You get the same from the FTC and other agencies.

The ATF is not the judicial system, nor Congress. They aren't getting singled out. They are simply advising this fool who wants to make a buck off those who get a kick out of destructive devices that he better think twice. Personally, I think a better response from the ATF would have been: "Mr. Savage, why the heck do you want to sell/manufacture such a destructive device that can be carried in public? If it ain't illegal, it is certainly immoral."

[Euromutt]

43. The ATF is a little different from the OIG HHS and FTC

Under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, it's the ATF that gets to determine how a specific model of firearm fits into the classification of "Title I" weapons: "handgun," "rifle" or "shotgun"; or "Title II" weapons: "machine gun," "short-barreled rifle," "short-barreled shotgun," "any other weapon" and the amorphous "destructive device." Unlike most executive agencies, the ATF can't give a legal opinion with the caveat "that's what we think, but ultimately it's not our call" because it is their call. In this case, it is the ATF's call whether or not Mr. Savage's design is a "destructive device" or an "any other weapon" (AOW) and therefore restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And right now, they are emphatically not "advising this fool <...> that he better think twice"; they're telling him that his design is not subject to restrictions on manufacture, transfer and possession under the NFA. They're essentially telling him to go right ahead. From the ATF's letter (http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/testttt20001.pdf):

After examination, we have determined that, although it is a firearm subject to the Gun Control Act (1968), it is not a "firearm" as defined by the NFA.

It's fairly obvious to the casual observer who has at least a passing familiarity with the NFA, however, that Mr. Savage's design can readily meet the criteria commonly applied by the ATF to class a weapon as a "Destructive Device" (being a firearm with a bore over 0.5" in diameter not suited to a "sporting purpose") or an AOW (being a shotgun originally manufactured with a stockless pistol grip and a barrel under 18" in length). Thus, the ATF would have good cause to class Savage's design as either, so why are they telling him they think it's not a "Title II" weapon?

The suspicion is that the ATF is deliberately misleading Mr. Savage and that, at some future date, it will reverse its earlier decision and declare his design to be a Title II weapon after all, and nail him for an offense that wasn't an offense when he committed it, and which the ATF had previously told him wasn't an offense. In effect, the ATF will have committed entrapment; if not de jure, at least de facto. And as noted in this thread, it wouldn't be the first time the ATF pulled such a stunt.

You can sling ad hominems at Mr. Savage and his prospective clientele (of whom I am not one, incidentally) all week, but that does not justify the ATF deliberately misleading Savage at this juncture (assuming that is what they're doing).

[X_Digger]

46. Courts and congress do not 'decide definitively' however.

Unlike the IRS, for instance, whose tax code (aka 'the rules') is modified by congress, the ATF has unilateral power to make these decisions, and courts defer to this agency when prosecuting people for violations.

For the FTC (or other government agencies for that matter), you get the opportunity to challenge a government employee's interpretation of the rules. Not so with the ATF.

[PavePusher]

51. Now you claim the mantle of arbiter of immorality.

Megalomania looms...

[one-eyed fat man]

72. Your claim is incorrect.

"They are simply advising this fool who wants to make a buck off those who get a kick out of destructive devices that he better think twice."

They are telling Mr. Savage that his proposed firearm is perfectly legal to make as far as they are concerned.

Do you get that? They are saying that the short-barreled shotgun in the picture is not a short-barreled shotgun as defined by the NFA but that it is still a firearm under GCA '68.

One more time, he asked what is the legal status of a firearm in the sample he provided them. The Firearms Technology Branch had the thing IN THEIR HANDS and in their lab for testing and IN WRITING stated it was NOT a short-barreled shotgun as defined by the NFA.

They did not tell him to think twice, reconsider or anything along that line. The closest they came to that was to state "...the classification was based on the item as submitted..." and that if he intended to make any changes to submit "future prototypes for our review."

So you are either badly mistaken in your hasty reading the ATF's letter or you have deliberately distorted what they said. In some circles that might be considered a hyperbole, an exaggeration done for effect. Someone not as sophisticated as you might simply call it a LIE.

[one-eyed fat man]

45. Set aside for the moment the commodity.

Why do you think a regulatory agency of the government should be asked for a ruling on legality and be able to give a deliberately deceptive answer in the hopes to entrap or inconvenience someone later?

Do you wholeheartedly celebrate such a policy for all government agencies?

Or do you reserve such accolades for those government agencies who are screwing with those you disagree?

Is your unremitting hatred for guns and their owners so unreasoning that you simply say, "Jedem das Seine?" You certainly and have repeatedly voiced your opinion here that you see nothing wrong with the government lying to its citizens as long as the victims are also the objects of your scorn.

Secondly, as it comes to sawed off shotguns, you and possibly one other poster here must be the only ones so hapless and mechanically inept. Do you think that any criminal who wants one, with at least the mechanical aptitude of an eggplant, couldn't run down to Home Depot, buy a hacksaw for ten bucks and make his own?

So, admit it, you really do think work will set us free?

[one-eyed fat man]

63. Why don't you try that tactic with the IRS?

"........read the law, cases, etc., and make his own conclusions."

Now, do you think that if you ask the IRS a direct question they should be able to provide a deceptive response, then prosecute those who relied on their instructions?

This is precisely the position you are espousing.

Would you tolerate that attitude from the FAA? An aircraft manufacturer asks a direct question for guidance on an airworthiness issue and they give him a deceptive response.

You only are taking your position because the victims of the government malfeasance are people you hate.

As you pointed out, you are not going to be objective. You have your prejudices and nothing will dissuade you. You have made your position abundantly clear. Persecution of those you have deemed deserving is perfectly acceptable, nay, commendable.

[Katya Mullethov]

67. But the IRS operates exactly like that

They are incestuous sisters .

I would venture most of it is simply incompetence , repeated mistakes made because it simply doesn't matter what they do or don't do . But there is a lot of outright fraud obfuscated by and masquerading as incompetence .

When I finally capitulate to the counter rotating grindstones of taxation and inflation , I am hooking up with those cats . As it sits now , I am of no use to keep and no loss to destroy .

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Here is another one to watch

As they claim to have a couple of approval letters from Technical Branch for their AR15 bumpstock..... just like Bill Akins . I strongly suspect it is merely a publicity stunt , but time will tell .
http://www.right2bearammo.com/

[one-eyed fat man]

15. The ATF can be hard to pin down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=345954&mesg_id=346002

The flip flop on whether or not a bootlace is a machinegun or not is only one of the most notable. The biggest problem is the Firearms Technology Branch has no clear cut guidelines as to what constitutes a machinegun. A hand-cranked Gatling gun is not a machine gun, while a malfunctioning double barrel shotgun is! The lunacy does not end with machineguns. A permanently attached silencer on an air rifle is legal, but a silencer for a paint-ball gun is not. Now this idiot ruling on the shotgun.

As a result Mr. Savage's testimony in the Olufson case, the ATF took him to federal court in Atlanta (United States of America vs. One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS “7.62X54R Caliber Conversion System” Machine Gun, Serial No. V1,” After initially ruling that the conversion was not a "firearm", the ATF extracted retribution by "reevaluating" the device. Now the “upper” was ruled to be a machine gun, in part, because ATF technicians could get it to fire full auto by equipping it with plastic ties, chains and various other devices. It didn’t matter that videotaped testing of several other devices that ATF doesn’t even classify as “firearms” can, by being equipped with the same plastic ties, chains and various other devices, demonstrated that these other devices could also be made to fire full auto; and that these “uppers” are not subject to the NFA. Nor was it apparently germane to the issue that said technicians "fired" their Rube Goldberg lash-up remotely from behind cover in case their creation exploded in their faces.

Hell, you can fire a 90mm tank gun round by holding a 16 penny nail to the primer and smacking it with a claw hammer. Is there a shooter or gunsmith so monumentally dense that he would argue that every carpenter's tool belt be registered as a Destructive Device? You know in your heart that no competent technician would make those claims; it takes a law degree! That crap came from the Office of Chief Counsel!

Andy Traver should find himself right at home with such a sack of sleazy liars!

[Katya Mullethov]

29. Would you testify under oath that statement was 100% correct ?

Even if you knew it were only 50 or 60 % correct ?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&biw=1126&bih=641&q=batf+institutional+perjury&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=batf+institutional+perjury&gs_rfai=&fp=d1130564c93b4a66

You arent allowed that luxury my monocular friend .

[one-eyed fat man]

30. You are correct.

You and I are not allowed the luxury of perjury by policy.

That the ATF always testifies that the NFA registry is accurate under oath, despite documented cases that prove otherwise.

One particularly damning case involved J. Curtis Earl, an Arizona collector who back in the 60's bought MGM's entire studio collection. ATF agents had decended upon his house and began stacking up machine guns that the NFA Branch assured them were not in the registry.

Once the the ATF discovered that Mr. Earl's attorney had all the original Form 4's with tax stamps affixed documenting the registration of each and every gun the NFA Branch claimed had no records, matters were quietly settled and guns returned. Malfeasance of that magnitude was something the ATF was loathe to have paraded before a Federal judge.

[oneshooter]

31. Don't forget that the registry is not for "proof of ownership". n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

56. interesting point

"Can a party acquire title to stolen property sufficient to defeat the rights of the registered owner? If so, can the same government which mandates registration and which maintains the central registry of such property acquire such title to stolen property when it has actual knowledge of the registered owner?"

Short story, a legally registered 1904 Maxim gun is stolen from a New Jersey VFW Post during remodeling.

Years later, this exceedingly rare gun turns up in the museum at the West Point military Academy.

The gun is listed by serial number in the NFA registry as belonging to the Plaintiff, who, armed with his registration certificate, sues the Army to get his gun back.

The ATF argues the registry was never intended to return stolen property to its lawful owners. (That should give lie to those posters here who proselytize the benefits of registration.)

Please re read that. A lawyer for the Federal government, argued in front of a Federal judge, the registry of NFA firearms WAS NEVER INTENDED to reunite owners with their stolen property.

The Federal Judge rules the owner of the stolen property has no standing to sue for the return of his property. By the simple expedient of ruling that the Plaintiff has no standing, the judge also ensure the case can never be revived or appealed.

So, evidently, if the government has possession of stolen property long enough it gains title to it because it says so. The very same government that issued the registration also issues the court order saying he has no right ask for it back.

Or let's put it in simple English, and answer me this:

How long does something have to be stolen before the original owner has no claim the property?

No doubt if a certain Klugscheißer were hooked to electrodes they would evince his glee at the government playing down and dirty with some veteran's souvenir an exemplary abuse of power.

Wheaton vs. Caldera, et al

[oneshooter]

58. Thank you, I knew of the case but not of those involved. n/t

[Euromutt]

60. Just imagine if the defendant in that case had been a non-governmental entity...

I cannot believe that it is purely coincidental that the ATF took such a ludicrous position in a case in which its taking that position was crucial to the U.S. Military Academy getting to keep its shiny, irreplaceable-but-unfortunately-not-registered-to-it museum exhibit.

It strikes me the ATF's move was motivated by another federal agency's greed; it was ill-advised and short-sighted, and I hope that at some juncture, it will come round to bite them in the ass, e.g. when a sufficiently large number of members of Congress starts asking why we have the NFA registry anyway.

[one-eyed fat man]

61. More of the back story

The Maxim gun was recovered and held for decades by the Raritan, New Jersey PD before being turned over to the Army. When the case came up there was a lot of finger pointing back and forth over the police department's apparent inability to determine who the "rightful owner" was.

It would be a real stretch to argue that there is a police agency so incompetent, so provincial, or so isolated that it would be unaware of the NFA registry. Nevertheless, the city of Raritan argued that it had no way to determine who the rightful owner of the gun was, despite having the police report of it's theft. Apparently, this was an isolated case of institutional incompetence, as not a single detective, not a single prosecutor, no one, ran the gun's numbers through NCIC, the FBI or ATF databases, or even knew such a thing was possible!

The ATF argued variously that the New Jersey PD had never asked for a trace or that the Form 4 was a tax return and as such they were prohibited from revealing the owner's name. This is a blatant falsehood as ATF Field offices have routinely sent notices to local law enforcement whenever an NFA firearm is processed through their region. Their final stance became that the registry was never intended to reunite rightful owners with their recovered stolen property.

Couple these events with demands from gun control groups that the police destroy all guns which come into their possession, regardless of the circumstances, once they are no longer needed as evidence one has to view askance at those beating the drum for registration. While touting all the alleged benefits of a registration scheme, one they harp on is it being used to return recovered stolen property. At the same time they are lobbying for policies like those in New Jersey and Pennsylvania where even those guns where the rightful owner was innocent of wrong doing gets victimized twice. First by the criminal who perpetrated the theft and secondly by the authorities who destroy his recovered property.

[Katya Mullethov]

68. I turn around twice and there's another one !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6v7fuF1F0s

These cats got a love note from Technical Branch as well . I wish them well .

[Katya Mullethov]

69. And if you hurry

You can watch the chain of evidence float up to about a 1000 feet before it starts angling off on a slight sea breeze .

Escondido Bomb House Fire
http://interactive.foxnews.com/livestream/live.html?chanId=2

[Katya Mullethov]

73. The FAA is battin' a 1000 too

Missing airplanes data has FAA forcing owners to submit information again

Missing airplanes ownership information has the Federal Aviation Administration scrambling to get identification records updated. The missing airplanes ownership documentation could lead to criminal and national security threats.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1210/Missing-airplanes-data-has-FAA-forcing-owners-to-submit-information-again

Hell , if you can do it with airplanes .......

[one-eyed fat man]

74. That has more to do with revenue

As of now, the registration is a one time thing for as long as you own the airplane. There is also a triennial report you make to the Feds as to the aircraft's status. They mail you a card, you fill it out and send it back.

If they were really concerned about airplanes whose owner might have died, even the dimmest bureuacratic drone might have the idea to first check out the folks who didn't return a card.

Nope, this NEW system is about FEES. By making everyone re-register every three years there will be more work for the clerks in Oklahoma City. Someone will have to underwrite this paper shuffling pandemic.

Suppose you were curious who owned an airplane? Suppose you wanted to fake an N-number on an airplane of similar make and model how tough do you think that would be in the age of point and click?

FAA REGISTRY

Suppose you wanted to know who was flying in and out of your local airport? Maybe you are an incurable busybody and curious where your neighbor goes in his airplane?

Flight Aware

So tell me again all this breathless crap about security risks?

Anyone still naive enough not to realize its just another way to justifying raising fees and collecting them more often?

[DissedByBush]

27. Should the AFT reverse

Mr. Spencer should be criminally liable for fraud, or at least full reimbursement to Mr. Savage of all damages.

[Euromutt]

39. The problem with the ATF is that it's one big violation of the separation of powers

Between the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ATF in effect has the power to decide whether a specific design of firearm is legal to manufacture or import, the power to enforce its own decisions, and the power to arbitrarily reverse earlier decisions. In exercising these powers, it is not subject to any meaningful oversight by either Congress or the federal judiciary, and the impression I get is that the tendency on the part of the judiciary, when faced with a legal challenge to an ATF ruling, is to po-facedly state that the law permits the ATF to do what it's doing, refusing to consider whether those legal provisions might not be of dubious constitutionality vis-à-vis the separation of powers and arbitrariness of enforcement.

Now let me state that I don't have a problem with the ATF existing; we want to make it difficult for the criminally inclined to acquire firearms, and that means there needs to be an enforcement agency. What I have a problem with is that the rules the ATF enforces are, to a large extent, made up by the ATF itself, and that it is able to make up and change these rules at whim. At a minimum, it strikes me that when the ATF issues a written opinion in response to a query from a private entity, that opinion should be binding to some extent; e.g. the person who received the opinion should be rendered immune from retroactive prosecution, and be granted any additional licenses required to continue his activity automatically and free of charge. Similarly, any party who purchased a copy of the item in question in the interim should be issued free of charge with any and all paperwork required to legally possess the item in question (e.g. a $200 tax stamp); if the new classification causes it to fall afoul of state law, the owner should be granted the time and paperwork necessary to transfer it out of state, and a tax stamp for the transferee so that he doesn't have to eat the loss himself.