Friday, November 19, 2010

"This whole (Pistol Grip Shotgun) Destructive Device issue is easily the hugest single regulatory f-ckup in the history of ATF."

I received this email from a fellow who has studied the internal workings of the ATF for many years:

-----Original Message-----
From: (Redacted)
To: Mike Vanderboegh, et. al. (Redacted)
Sent: Thu, Nov 18, 2010
Subject: SAR and pistol grip shotguns

(Redacted) said somebody told him to check out the latest SAR (Small Arms Review) for some stuff on "Pistol Grip Firearms." From what I can see (attached), the only thing is what amounts to a copy of the 2009 FFL Newsletter information. No analysis, just straight This Is What ATF Says.

This whole Destructive Device issue is easily the hugest single regulatory fuckup in the history of ATF. The only other fuckup that even comes minimally close, and really not hardly at all, is that double-barreled sawed-off shotguns that were at least 12" but less than 18" in length had a $1 transfer tax (rather than $200) from 1938 to 1954 because the language to provide a $1 tax for the Marble's Game Getter Gun included the phrase "two attached barrels," so it by mistake also applied to certain sawed-off shotguns. The Congress let that one rock along for some 16 years. But since there was the registration requirement, which people didn't like, there was probably not wide manufacture of sawed-off shotguns, given the $200 "making" tax and manufacturer's license fees.

While President Obama and some of his retinue may want to bite off the "Pistol Grip Firearm"/Destructive Device issue and ram it home, it is difficult for me to think that the supporting bureaucracy or bureaucracies are or would be at all happy about that, because they are the face the public will see, and the public will hate them. One thing all LE, be it federal, state or local, HATES are laws that can't be enforced. There a millions of "Pistol Grip Firearms" in the hands of millions of law-abiding people who will NOT understand why the Government has suddenly made all those guns illegal. They will see it for what it is, an attempt to round up guns and disarm people, and render them vulnerable in their homes. Think of all the people who own shotguns of all kinds for defensive reasons, because they don't like handguns or deem them effective or because they think their kids are going to mess with them. A shotgun is a time-honored firearm that has legitimate sporting and defense purposes. . .

(T)onight I talked with an old friend (who knows nothing about guns; I tried to explain the pistol grip shotgun issue to her, and she said; "A shotgun is like a .22, correct?"). But I put it in King's English and she glommed onto it immediately, as only women can.

"The Government is all about being in control," she said. "The Government wants to control what kinds of cars we drive, what kinds of tomatoes we eat, where we can grow food --- now they're trying to make it harder for people to buy and own guns. They don't like the idea of people having guns, because guns are used to overthrow governments, and could be used to overthrow them."

She also thinks "Obama is highly intelligent, and he's doing this on purpose, he knows exactly what he's doing. If he can't get the Congress to take people's guns away, he'll get the agencies to do it."


This is from straight Middle America. From somebody who could give a care less about guns. She sees a broader picture, and the pistol-grip shotgun issue as one more piece of evidence.


Defender said...

They've yelled "Shark!" in the kiddie pool this time.
A commenter on another site, sounding somewhat panicked, said "If they enforce this, I'll put the shoulder stock back on mine and sell it."
I don't think he quite gets it yet. If he can put the shoulder stock on it, he can keep it ... a little while longer, at least, and still be a law- (and arbitrary-regulation-) abiding citizen. Anyway, the point of the exercise is that he no longer have it. He loses.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how they're going to explain this one.

Bad Cyborg said...

Taylor H said...
"I wonder how they're going to explain this one.

Explain?? Freaking EXPLAIN, Taylor??? To whom? Who is going to call them on the carpet? A bunch of freshmen congresscritters??? The RINOs who've been there long enough to have settled in??? DEMOCRATS????

And just supposing they actually DO get their ears pinned back. So? BATFE is NOT going away. In fact in the nigh-on-to 235 years of this country's existence has ANY federal agency actually gone away? I don't mean absorbed into another, larger agency; I mean actually been disestablished? Has one? EVER?

Bad Cyborg X

PHXIIIper said...

Ha! I plan on going to buy one this weekend for this very same reason...

I will purposely keep the grip on there.

Molon frickin' Labe I say!

Dedicated_Dad said...

Defender said...
...If he can put the shoulder stock on it, he can keep it ...

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong -- PLEASE DO!!

It's my understanding that doing so would *not* change its status, and MIGHT subject the owner to some rather more serious charges.

Example: AK/AR/Etc "pistols."

IF their barrels are under 16 inches, THE VERY INSTANT you mate a shoulder-stock to them (without pre-applying for permission and paying the "making" tax) they *INSTANTLY* become "short barreled rifles" and subject you to penalties including a long stretch in Federal PMITA prison.

The *ONLY* difference is that it's now got a shoulder-stock.

Likewise, a "pistol" can only be made from a bare receiver which has never been assembled into a long-gun.

Then there's the whole "constructive possession" issue - wherein if one has the pieces which can be assembled in some illegal configuration, it doesn't matter whether he's ever actually put them together.

The simple fact of his possession of the pieces is enough to make him guilty in the eyes of the gun-cops.

More than one poor, dumb sap is sitting in the aforementioned PMITA prison for thinking that intent would be required, or that he was OK so long as he didn't put the pieces together.

BAck on topic, no matter what he did with it, the sales/manufacturer-data tied to the firearm would show it as a "pistol-gripped firearm."

Attempting to change it would - at best - fail the paperwork-test. At worst? Well... I'm sure Bubba will like you just fine...


Anonymous said...

Mike-You've inspired me to purchase one of these. Thanks.
III in Defiance

TJIC said...

Hey there - I'm coming to the party late, and am trying to figure out what exactly the F-up is. I've read back through previous posts, but I'm still missing something.

I'd love it if you could do a short post saying "the BATF promulgated policy X, which clearly contradicts policy Y, and has implication Z for the gov, and implication Z' for the people ... and I expect resolution R to the whole mess."

Thanks in advance!

Dennis308 said...

Anon 2:53AM, I agree and will be doing the same.


Anonymous said...

I have an integrated shoulder stock with a pistol grip.

Would that be considered illegal

Anonymous said...

Does this mean that MILSPEC 590s with a handguard and bayonet lug are "non-sporting" also? And the next iteration for 'non-sporting" being the Persuaders with 8-shot magazines, after all, waterfowl hunting requires 3-shot capacity, and the long magazine tube prevents afixing a "sporting" barrel. It's not hard to see what the ATF Einsatzgruppen plan to do with this.

Anonymous said...

This is tantamount to confiscation.

If this gets implemented, then gun dealers should shred or burn all the 4473s they have: They won't have their licenses much longer anyway because the goons will revoke them, so why make it easier for the bastards.