Jump to content

How do you think this impacts the Benelli M4


dprichard

Recommended Posts

I read through it. It reiterates how imported weapons can be brought in. It establishes features that detract from sporting purposes. It outlines how 3 gun and combat shooting competition isn't a sporting purpose in their eyes.

 

Example, a Benelli could never be imported with the collapsible stock that functions or a mag tube that accepts more than 5 rounds. It also indicates that any weapon with side or bottom mounted picatinny rails are NOGO.

 

There are some suspect rulings such as receiver widths. My guess is they're trying to ban a specific set or shotguns that might otherwise be adapted to comply.

 

Bottom line is, comply with the 922 laws and you can do as you please assuming you don't live in a commie state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO speaking as someone who works for two branches of govt:

1 - I believe the president promised to root out agencies which are wasteful in the state of the union address. Clearly the ATF is trying to replicate court's job and make/interpret laws. They should summarily be shut down as a duplicate effort. Redirect their funds to drug rehabilitation for a greater effect and close some prisons with the additional cost savings.

2 - Given long guns were .85% of all firearms fatalities in 2009. Why are they wasting time on long guns? How are there not more important issues, e.g go figure out how IDE's are still getting into Afghanistan? How is this not fraud, waste and abuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are a bit late on this and No Saigas are not getting banned. I didnt read the link but its the same FUD as other sites probably. They took some new shotgun pistol at the SHOT show and are after the old style trench shotgun with bayonet.

That stupid Saiga rummor cause a big price increase on them for no reason at all. Just a stupid internet rumor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder how many tax dollars went into that study?

 

Wonder how many tax dollars were wasted on that study? All of em. :D

 

I have to say, I really am not anti government and I think it has it's place (Gun control not being part of that). My biggest beef with this report is the utter ignorance and bias shown throughout. You can tell the people involved think that gun owners are stupid. I mean, seriously. If you can add a flashlight to a shotgun it should be LEO or military only? So if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I grab my shotgun I shouldn't be able to shine a light at the bad guy before blasting willy nilly with my shotty in a house with a wife and kids? You also have more potential of scaring away an intruder just walking around in your house with a shotty with a flashlight versus walking around with a baseball bat flipping lights on. As far as mounting optics, I don't even need to go into why being able to aim my weapon more efficiently is important. It just doesn't make any sense. I think these things make owning a shotgun and protecting yourself and your family in your home easier and safer. Maybe they just put out reports like this to seem like they are doing something to justify their jobs. Who knows, but my 8th grader could have made better, more reasonable arguments than the arguments in this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are "telescoping, or collapsible stocks" not particularly suited for sporting purposes? Adjustable length of pull is absolutely suited for sporting purposes in shotguns given that top-level competitors have stocks custom fitted to their bodies. The less wealthy of us would prefer to have adjustable length of pull because we cannot afford to purchase custom-fitted stocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are "telescoping, or collapsible stocks" not particularly suited for sporting purposes? Adjustable length of pull is absolutely suited for sporting purposes in shotguns given that top-level competitors have stocks custom fitted to their bodies. The less wealthy of us would prefer to have adjustable length of pull because we cannot afford to purchase custom-fitted stocks.

 

 

Agreed, having the same gun with a collapsing stock so both me (6'1") and my girlfriend (5'4") can comfortably use it. Should only be a right for the ultra rich.. :mad:

I think that was reasoned by the typical educated elite who's never shot a weapon. So instead we have to buy two weapons. (oops I guess that shot that theory about reducing guns, pun intended)

 

Not to mention that the overall length still has to be 26 inches!!! It doesn't make it more or less concealable or lethal than current federal limits outside of a registered SBS (so how is this not passing a law through additional regulation?)

 

Further I know a few hunters that for the walk in appreciate the ability to loose 6 inches off their back. (they could probably stand to loose 6 inches off their stomach too but that's a different story :) ) Poking holes in the not sporting bit.

 

This is really up there with the media industry trying to ban every new product that comes down the line because it scares them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...