Collins Introduces Bill To Eliminate Unconstitutional Sporting Purpose Distinction

[Zoogster]

dc dalton said:

After re-reading the bill several times you really do have to wonder if it would help gun owners or hurt them.

That is also a good point.
I see legislators quickly fixing the shotgun issue. Passing legislation that removes shotguns or currently exempt or legal shotguns from the scope of the NFA Destructive Device category.
However it would remove the ability of the ATF to give arbitrary cartridge exemptions for things that would otherwise not become legal as long as the Destructive Device legislation and .50 bore diameter legislation is in place.


Then we couldn't get things like .959 JDJ exempted.
Now consider how practical it is to hunt with a .959 JDJ, and how it managed to obtain an exemption. "Sporting" being interpreted to mean hunting and not including actual firearm sports like competitive shooting.
Do you see legislators arbitrarily exempting something like the .959 JDJ for hunting if you removed the ability of the ATF to do so?
No, it would just have remained illegal.

This legislation would remove thier ability to create such exemptions, but would leave the NFA destructive device legislation in place right? So shotguns would likely be quick fixed, after all governments would prefer citizens use shotguns over rifles. But we would lose the ability to come up with new cartridges over .50 bore diameter and try to obtain sporting exemption.

 

[Sam1911]

No, it would just have remained illegal.

Not illegal, just a registered Title II item.

But how many folks does that affect, vs. the number of shotgunners out there? I think I'd be willing to see this get the national outcry and review of all NFA issues which would be very likely to happen once millions of shotguns were suddenly un-exempted.

By the time a few friendly-to-us lawmakers were done crafting the new shotgun exemption, I wouldn't be surprised if SBRs, SBSs, and silencers weren't written out of the NFA as well! I'd like to at least have the discussion on the national stage.

 

[dc dalton]

Not illegal, just a registered Title II item.

But how many folks does that affect, vs. the number of shotgunners out there? I think I'd be willing to see this get the national outcry and review of all NFA issues which would be very likely to happen once millions of shotguns were suddenly un-exempted.

By the time a few friendly-to-us lawmakers were done crafting the new shotgun exemption, I wouldn't be surprised if SBRs, SBSs, and silencers weren't written out of the NFA as well! I'd like to at least have the discussion on the national stage.

To your last sentence .... from your lips to the legislators ears!

NFA was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the roaring 20s and people like Bonnie and Clyde. These type firearms are now mostly investments (why oh WHY did I not buy a few back in the early 80s when I had the chance)

 

[Sam1911]

NFA was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the roaring 20s and people like Bonnie and Clyde. These type firearms are now mostly investments (why oh WHY did I not buy a few back in the early 80s when I had the chance)

Well, remember that NFA doesn't just mean investment-type full autos.

It also means short-barreled rifles and shotguns, which can still be had for not much more money than "normal" models because the NFA registry for them was never closed. (Same with silencers.)

But the inclusion of those items in NFA was, essentially, an accident. The original draft of the NFA included handguns and all concealable firearms. SBR/SBS was included so folks wouldn't be able to lawfully get around what was an effective ban on handguns by simply cutting down other legal guns. VERY fortunately, handguns were stricken from the NFA before it was adopted, but the "orphan" clauses about firearms "made from" rifle and shotguns was forgotten and left in place.

It's an embarrassment and should be corrected. Unfortunately generations of folks (even dedicated shooters) have fallen into the trap of believing that these restricted weapons must be somehow more dangerous than their full-length brethren, so there's social inertia that keeps folks from demanding their removal from the legal restrictions on things like machine guns and bombs. After all, if anyone wants to make a movie or story character seem ESPECIALLY DEADLY, they simply give him a "sawed-off shotgun" and he's instantly the one-man equivalent of a Marine heavy weapons platoon.

 

[dc dalton]

Well, remember that NFA doesn't just mean investment-type full autos.

It also means short-barreled rifles and shotguns, which can still be had for not much more money than "normal" models because the NFA registry for them was never closed. (Same with silencers.)

But the inclusion of those items in NFA was, essentially, an accident. The original draft of the NFA included handguns and all concealable firearms. SBR/SBS was included so folks wouldn't be able to lawfully get around what was an effective ban on handguns by simply cutting down other legal guns. VERY fortunately, handguns were stricken from the NFA before it was adopted, but the "orphan" clauses about firearms "made from" rifle and shotguns was forgotten and left in place.

It's an embarrassment and should be corrected. Unfortunately generations of folks (even dedicated shooters) have fallen into the trap of believing that these restricted weapons must be somehow more dangerous than their full-length brethren, so there's social inertia that keeps folks from demanding their removal from the legal restrictions on things like machine guns and bombs. After all, if anyone wants to make a movie or story character seem ESPECIALLY DEADLY, they simply give him a "sawed-off shotgun" and he's instantly the one-man equivalent of a Marine heavy weapons platoon.

Yes I realize that, I actually own an SBR Krinkov.

I do agree though it's a joke they are included in NFA, I never understood why SBR and even suppressors were included.

 

[Midwest]

Yes I realize that, I actually own an SBR Krinkov.

I do agree though it's a joke they are included in NFA, I never understood why SBR and even suppressors were included.

It was meant to discourage poaching deer during the Great Depression.

" Poachers were using silencers to quietly harvest game in order to feed their families."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100707214407AAoU0Fr

 

[Sam1911]

It was meant to discourage poaching deer during the Great Depression.

" Poachers were using silencers to quietly harvest game in order to feed their families."

Certainly is as likely as anything else, I suppose. Though I do have to question how many desperately poor poachers went out and purchased firearm suppressors...but even if true ...

And the chorus replies, "THIS IS A MATTER FOR FEDERAL LAW, WHY?"

 

[Midwest]

Certainly is as likely as anything else, I suppose. Though I do have to question how many desperately poor poachers went out and purchased firearm suppressors...but even if true ...

And the chorus replies, "THIS IS A MATTER FOR FEDERAL LAW, WHY?"

Perhaps they fabricated suppressors using commonly available items during the Great Depression. Perhaps in those days, all the hunters could afford was the ammo.

EDIT: I found information on the history of silencers.

http://www.silencerco.com/?section=Education&page=History

"Over years of development, Maxim developed a fairly effective silencer that was largely popular and sold commercially in local hardware stores for $3.25 per unit."

"After many cases involving gun silencers in criminal activity (such as poaching, mob crimes, and robberies), law enforcement agencies started looking at ways to ban silencers."

 

[JTHunter]

Two questions:

There is an abbreviation used here I haven't seen before - NFA. What does it mean?

What about single-shot BP rifles that are .54 caliber? Are they "destructive devices"?

 

[Sam1911]

NFA = "National Firearms Act" -- the nation's first federal gun control Law, passed in 1934. It is the legislation that makes full autos, short barreled rifles, silencers, and a few other things illegal without federal registration. (And a $200 tax.)

Black powder rifles are generally considered antiques or replicas of antiques and are thus not subject to federal gun control law. So a .54 or .58 flintlock or percussion rifle (or an inline!) are not technically firearms. They can be sold person-to-person across state lines, shipped through the mail, etc.

 

[BigG]

"THIS IS A MATTER FOR FEDERAL LAW, WHY?"

I think because the busybodies like to insert the thin edge of the wedge every place they can so they can have "control." Simple as that. They want to be boss.

 

[clutch]

Popvox link: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr2277

Let your Reps know you support this bill.

They want too much information to post. I tried to find the NSA button to fill in my info but it wasn't an option.

 

[tyeo098]

They want too much information to post. I tried to find the NSA button to fill in my info but it wasn't an option.

Popvox is one of the BEST sites out there for contacting your reps.

Lots of THRers use it. Its legit.

 

[guitarguy314]

Way cool!

 

[harrygunner]

When you're corralling critters, you need to make sure they have no other way to go.

What if our government "corrects" this by codifying "Sporting Purposes" instead of adopting this noble bill.?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

What's the chance of this passing?
.

 

[Old Fuff]

What's the chance of this passing?

Very slim. At least before the 2014, and maybe 2016 elections. I don't see it getting out of a Senate Committee, and the president would likely veto it in a stand-alone bill.

 

[mdauben]

"Over years of development, Maxim developed a fairly effective silencer that was largely popular and sold commercially in local hardware stores for $3.25 per unit."

Keep in mind that at the time, this would have been one-two day's wages for many people, assuming they were working at all. If you are scrounging pennies to buy cartridges to susistence hunt, I'm not sure you are going to splurge on a silencer, too.

"After many cases involving gun silencers in criminal activity (such as poaching, mob crimes, and robberies), law enforcement agencies started looking at ways to ban silencers."

Yes, just like lots of crimes are committed with "assault weapons" these days.

 

[MtnCreek]

Keep in mind that at the time, this would have been one-two day's wages for many people, assuming they were working at all.

Or over a weeks pay. I have my great grandfather's log book showing where he paid some loggers and mill workers $0.35 / day.

FWIW, hunting in GA w/ a suppressor was not passed due to fears about poaching (which is already illegal...), but you can hunt w/ a crossbow... I guess a crossbow is not near as sinister as a suppressor.