Wednesday, April 15, 2015

The legal dilemma posed by pistol-gripped shotguns

Every shotgun but the diminutive .410 has a bore greater than half an inch. The "sporting purpose" exemption doesn't apply, since that is limited to shotguns, and as we have seen, these firearms are not "shotguns" under the definitions of the NFA.


Anonymous said...

You would think that these regulations would be more bullet proof since they're supposed to be written by experts, right? Right!

Some years back in Florida, before we became a "shall issue" state a man was charged with carrying a concealed firearm in his vehicle. Turned out he walked because the "firearm" was a replica 1860 Army Colt. The definition of Firearm specified that a firearm would expel a projectile through the use of an explosive. The definition of Explosive in another law specifically exempted black powder. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, a black powder .44 cap and ball pistol was not a firearm. Never mind that it was one of the most powerful handguns made before the advent of the .44 Magnum.

Shoulder thing that goes up indeed.

Anonymous said...

See why I pay no attention to these stupid rules .... all laws and void

Anonymous said...

You may have 'God given Rights' ... until we felonize!


Anonymous said...

Shotguns are arms. Pump, auto loaders, poly, wood, stock or pistol grip is truly NOT GERMANE.

It is no answer to say "we can ban handguns because we allow shotguns". The power to decide on a case by case basis is specifically removed from all three branches of government via straight forward enumeration. Certain policy choices must necessarily be removed from the table of debate because of that enumeration.

I am at a loss -as I was during the 855 humdrum- why it is folks want to argue about a moot point. Why argue about what is or isn't "qualified" by the "sporting purpose" when we should all be screaming from the mountain tops that "sporting purpose" ITSELF isn't valid to begin with!
Ok, fair enough, pointing out the idiocy "sporting purpose" creates he's merit but that debate creates the "compromise" window where they get to keep their false premise while Fudds declare victory - again.

Exemption point of order. All kinds of arms are declared illegal, then, exemptions are offered (making certain arms no longer illegal). Folks, THAT is the Constitution TURNED UPSIDE DOWN! Government doesn't have the authority to ban arms!!!! Not keeping and not bearing! Certain uses outside defense and abuses yes, but not owning and carrying.

We will NEVER stop the usurpation of rights until we stop beating around the bush and instead narrow it down to the bare nitty gritty. Either the Constitution means exactly what it says OR it doesn't.

It's time for everyone to choose which side of that crystal clear choice they are on. No more waffling!!

Anonymous said...

Quite a few states got burned by jumping on the "over .50 cal" "ban" wagon only to get reams of nasty mail from The North - South Skirmish Association and others.

.58 cal Springfield?

.577 Enfield?

Meanwhile Ronnie Barrett brought out his .416 Barrett.

Under .50 Cal? Check!

Still able to punch holes in Di-Fi's limo? Check!

The good news is that many of our adversaries don't really think things through. They are controlled by feelings.

The bad news is one or two Chuckie "Da Weasel" Schumer's can cause a lot of damage.

Jimmy the Saint said...

@"Either the Constitution means exactly what it says OR it doesn't. "

As a practical matter, it means what those with the power and will to enforce their interpretation of it say it means. No more, no less, and subject to change at their whim (or, of course, their replacement).

Anonymous said...

"... it means what those with the power and will to enforce their interpretation of it say it means ..."

Roger that!

Once upon a time, that was the collective will of the American people. Perhaps we will see something like that again. But currently things are being run by the "free stuff" folks.

Sgt Stryker said...

I have an idea....
Let's just start a "new" country.
We'll call it "The Old United States of America".
We'll have a Constitution and every CITIZEN will be guaranteed their rights afforded by that
document....the one written in 1787.
Of course, we'll have to figure out a new procedure to decide what the words in that document meant when it was written.
The continuation of the Black Robed hooligans just won't do.