No more Saiga shotguns?

[Skyyr]

No I won't because the law does not specify pistols, rifles or shotguns. It specifies firearms. 925(d) posted above states all imported firearms must be sporting. Pistols are firearms, see how that works?

Actually, I do. I just spent about 20 minutes reading through the entirety of 925 and I'll eat crow on that one. I've read bits and pieces, but I've always seen it in reference to the defining/explaining of 922, not as a standalone.

My apologies.

[HK51Fan]

Ok, OK.....I'm cringing as I write this, but I haven't heard anything about any new Saiga's coming in! Has anyone heard anything are these things toast?

Does anyone out there know of or have a Saiga 12 they would be willing to sell in the 600.00 range?


Thanks

[platoonDaddy]

[QUOTE=HK51Fan;947448

Does anyone out there know of or have a Saiga 12 they would be willing to sell in the 600.00 range?


Thanks[/QUOTE]

http://www.copshopmd.com/The_Cop_Shop/Homepage.html

Cop Shop in Baltimore selling them for $550.

[HK51Fan]

http://www.copshopmd.com/The_Cop_Shop/Homepage.html

Cop Shop in Baltimore selling them for $550.

Called them and they told me they've been out of them for almost a month!?

Thanks for trying

[.45fmjoe]

"The Attorney General and ATF are not limited to these factors and therefore may consider any other factor determined to be relevant in making this determination."

All firearms imported (for civilian use) must meet "sporting" requirements. ADDITIONALLY, semi auto rifles and shotguns cannot be made in a non-importable configuration with more than ten imported parts on the 922r list.

Any change in the way the ATF determines sporting suitability can affect the importation of ANY firearm, pistol, rifle, or shotgun.



I doubt we will see any AK's imported in the near future, even "neutered" of evil features. No way to get around the fact the AK was designed for military use.

"The fact that a firearm or feature was initially designed for military or tactical applications, including offensive or defensive combat, may indicate that it is not a sporting firearm."

I seriously doubt that. I understand what you're saying, but I still seriously doubt it.

[scottryan]

I seriously doubt that. I understand what you're saying, but I still seriously doubt it.

You want to bet money on that? Like the type of money these guns will be worth if a ban comes?

[SilentType]

There are essentially two sets of Federal Laws. The first set is found in the United States Code (USC) and is the codification of Congressional Acts that have been signed into law by the President. The sporting puposes clause was part of the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA) and is codified under title 18 of the USC.

The US Supreme Court has held when terms in a statute are left undefined for purposes of enforcement a federal regulatory agency like the US Patent and Trade Office or the ATF can define those terms to give the law effect. This is where the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)comes into play. The CFR is where the ATF will be able to codify restriction on imported shotguns to give force to the "sporting purposes" clause. The CFR is where agencies like the ATF codify their rules that in turn determine what is and what is not a violation of the USC. So basically Congress doesn't do its job and the ATF are allowed to do it for them to honor their "intent."

The "sporting purposes" clause in the GCA is most likely in the wake of Heller now unconstitutional. Heller was clear and so was MacDonald that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of defense. The sporting purposes clause denies all citizens "defensive firearms" based solely on the government's determination that they can only have guns suited for a "sporting purpose." Unfortunately the most difficult part of defeating such a clause in the courts is to obtain standing.

The ATF is what it is a government regulatory agency that exist for the sole purpose of regulating firearms. So it's not shock that when given the opportunity to author a new regulation they will do so to make themselves relevant and justify their existence. The real villians here is the Congress for a) allowing the GCA to pass, and b) for going for decades without amending the GCA to repeal or at least define the "sporting purposes" clause. During the 2008 Presidential Election John McCain was asked about the "sporting purposes" clause and had no idea what it was so it's not even on their radar screen.

This is the problem with an all powerful and ever growing Federal Government. Bureaucrats are paid to be bureaucrats and they will continue to further and further restrict our rights, because all they do all day is sit in their DC offices looking at ways to "organize" things better. This places us into tight little confines of regulations that you need to have a JD to navigate.

[Irish]

I didn't read through the whole thread so I'm not sure if it was posted already but here's the ATF's official document on the matter.

[tarugs]

I didn't read through the whole thread so I'm not sure if it was posted already but here's the ATF's official document on the matter.

Thanks for posting the official document.

[Iraqgunz]

In the wake of Heller and MacDonald I have to wonder why all of the pro-2A groups do not come together and challenge the sporting purposes crap in the 1968 GCA?

One would think that would be a logical step. In addition to the fact that this would be the time to do it before any new(er) Supreme Court judges could be appointed under President Obama whoever comes next.