• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ATF to Reclassify Semi-Automatics and Large Mags?

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Here is the story.

I know this was theorized in 2010 about small arms ammo; but is more of a reality today for firearms?

If it takes place.....What can be done to rectify it?
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Was quackery then, is quackery now.

I don't even consider the "if it takes place" for such outlandish claims. Why bother?
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
You're right, it's not a matter of "if takes place", it's when.

Yep, all one has to do is research Obama's past Executive Orders to realize that he has no care for the Constitution, nor will he be stopped from attempting to legislate without approval of Congress.
 

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
i so enjoy the hype over quote: According to Snyder and other gun ownership advocates, ... unquote or the nondescript comment quote ...various groups and individuals have discussed the anti-gun owner proclivities of the current administration. unquote. and the article continues ad nausm w/this rehash of emotional the wolf is coming BS...

that seemingly inteligent ppl read and put stock this rubbish of 'other advocates, or various groups and individuals' is discerning might as well believe in the national enquirer type tabloids and their SENSATIONALIZATISM!!

wabbit
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
i so enjoy the hype over quote: According to Snyder and other gun ownership advocates, ... unquote or the nondescript comment quote ...various groups and individuals have discussed the anti-gun owner proclivities of the current administration. unquote. and the article continues ad nausm w/this rehash of emotional the wolf is coming BS...

that seemingly inteligent ppl read and put stock this rubbish of 'other advocates, or various groups and individuals' is discerning might as well believe in the national enquirer type tabloids and their SENSATIONALIZATISM!!

wabbit

It's an Op-Ed piece, what did you expect.

So are saying it won't/can't happen? Explain.
 

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
It's an Op-Ed piece, what did you expect. So are saying it won't/can't happen? Explain.


fortune teller.png

truly...where is your critical thinking skills mate...

sorry chasing after men w/an oil lamp looking for an honest man has made me a bit of a cynic over the years...

wabbit

ps: if i could predict the future, i would align myself w/the power ball tomorrow night!!
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
It's an Op-Ed piece, what did you expect.

So are saying it won't/can't happen? Explain.

Well anything can happen. The government has proven many times that it does not have much concern for the rule of law.

That being said......

In order to be reclassified (under the current statute) as a destructive device the bore would need to have a diameter greater than one half inch.

I was not able to find anything that would allow magazines to be classified as a destructive device unless the magazine is used for a destructive device.

The term "destructive device" is defined in part as......

....any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of a explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary or his delegate finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes......

(Of course it is my opinion that the statute is completely null and void but that is not really the point of this discussion)

EDIT: 26 USC 5845
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
It's an Op-Ed piece, what did you expect.

So are saying it won't/can't happen? Explain.

Can the ATF or the administration physically issue an order with a combination of letters that happens to re-class semi autos as Title II weapons?

sure.

Is such an order enforcable if challenged in court?

different story.

Title Two weapons are specifically defined in law

(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
Too specific to claim a semi-auto meets this category
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
Again, not applicable
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
Most ARs and AK clones have long enough barrels
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
See above
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
To be addressed later in the post
(6) a machinegun;
Again, the definition contained in this chapter precludes classing a semi-auto rifle in this category
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
N/A
(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
Will address later in post

So without a new statute how will they define a semi-auto rifle with certain cosmetic features as a Title Two weapon?

Destructive device is
(f) Destructive device
The term “destructive device” means
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(A) bomb,
(B) grenade,
(C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces,
(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(E) mine, or
(F) similar device;
(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

Nothing in this can reasonably be construed as to ban an AR-style rifle or any other military style weapon unless it has a bore over .50 caliber and no suitable sporting purpose. the "sporting purpose test" allows the ATF to class weapons that are otherwise banned to be acceptable, not the ban any gun they dislike. So for instance under the "Sporting use" clause at the end of the last cite weapons banned such as .600 Nitro express or a 12 gauge shotgun, or a .577 Tyranosaur which meet the definition of "destructive device" can be exempted because the bloods aren't out on gangsta safari with their .600 Nitro. It's actually kind of stupid because the big safari guns are all exempted from the DD requirement becuase they're made to kill large game, but .55 Boys is on the no-no list because it was made to kill tanks, even though its less powerful then several legal rounds. but i'm going OT. point is an "AWB" cannot be justified on this statute.

AOWs have a long definition, but I think you can't class them as an AOW either, anyway I'm certain the brady campaign will be thrilled if an AR is classed as an AOW and you have to pay a whopping $5 fee to transfer them becuase the ATF makes up some BS definition to put them there, but I don't see it happening.

so no, I don't think it will happen with current law.
 

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
Well anything can happen. The government has proven many times that it does not have much concern for the rule of law.

That being said......

In order to be reclassified (under the current statute) as a destructive device the bore would need to have a diameter greater than one half inch.

I was not able to find anything that would allow magazines to be classified as a destructive device unless the magazine is used for a destructive device.

The term "destructive device" is defined in part as......

....any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of a explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary or his delegate finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes......
(Of course it is my opinion that the statute is completely null and void but that is not really the point of this discussion)

well it is an impressive definition you provided...but could you put a cite to your post to lend credibility to your definition otherwise it might have well come from a bathroom wall...(me thinks rule 5 is in play mate)

wabbit

ps: tough to chat w/o everyone being on the same page

pps: huzza for what EMN stated in his last post!!
 
Last edited:

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
well it is an impressive definition you provided...but could you put a cite to your post to lend credibility to your definition otherwise it might have well come from a bathroom wall...(me thinks rule 5 is in play mate)

wabbit

ps: tough to chat w/o everyone being on the same page

pps: huzza for what EMN stated in his last post!!

Section 5845 of title 26.

The cite was easily found in the link the OP provided. However you are right, I should have posted it in my post as well.
 
Last edited:

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
thanks mate...context is everything...as for being in the OP's 'the sky is falling' article, i am sorry couldn't get through it.

wabbit

ps guess my fortune telling skills are lacking as i didn't get the red powerball jackpot...sigh
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
thanks mate...context is everything...as for being in the OP's 'the sky is falling' article, i am sorry couldn't get through it.

wabbit

ps guess my fortune telling skills are lacking as i didn't get the red powerball jackpot...sigh

So, my guess is you didn't read the article, based upon your comments.

Which brings me back to the original question asked of you...especially now that several have offered up their opinion, do you think it can't happen? Why/Explain?
 
Top