Commenting on the ATF sporting purposes shotgun study

ATF is soliciting comments on their study to restrict importation of shotguns with certain features.  Comments will be accepted from 01/31/2011 - 05/01/2011 and may be emailed to: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , or faxed to (202) 648-9601.  All comments must include a name and mailing address.  We encourage all firearms owners to comment on this study.  We suggest the following to use as a starting point.  More on the ATF shotgun importability study.  We need only look to ATF history to get an idea what their intentions are with this current “study”.

Please TAKE ACTION NOW and feel free to copy & paste, expand upon & socialize these suggested comments to all concerned gun owners:


The conclusion of the ATF study on the "importability of certain shotguns" is based on a flawed interpretation of 'sporting purposes' using outdated information, incomplete data and stands in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution as upheld in the 1939 US v. Miller Supreme Court decision, and 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision.

The study identifies 10 features which through a "working group" they recommend any shotgun with any of the identified features be barred from importation. Many of the features identified:  integrated rails, light enhancing devices, forward pistol grips, collapsing/folding or telescoping stocks are in 'common use' on various firearms, rifles & shotguns today.  'In common use' was first mentioned in Miller, then reiterated in both Heller & the subsequent McDonald Supreme Court decisions protecting the individual right to keep and bear firearms for self defense. These features being in common use not just for military, law enforcement and personal protection have also found a niche in the sporting community and are practically ubiquitous in some applications. Briefly:



Additionally, many of these features facilitate the shooting sports participation of disabled Americans across the country. Depriving the market of shotguns with features which enables a person with a visual or muscular/skeletal impairment to participate in the shooting sports, is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and more importantly is a despicable attempt at preventing a protected minority in our society from enjoying the shooting sports.  Included in this group is the Wounded Warrior 3 gun shooting team.

The study in many places indicated a need to evaluate 'sporting purposes' and declines to address what exactly qualifies as sporting.  The study concludes that though USPSA has comparable membership to many organizations it does not 'qualify as sporting' under the current interpretation. Indeed, at 19,000 cited members USPSA dwarfs the membership of the USA Curling society which despite only having 13,000 members is an Olympic sport.  This shows that ATF needs to re-investigate the definition of 'sporting purposes' for the use in determining importability of firearms.  Because ATF uses not just questionable, but flawed logic in their study, ATF needs to reconstitute the "working group" to examine 'sporting purposes' in the post-Heller, post-McDonald light as well as with the understanding that practical & action competition shooting sports need also be considered.

In summary, this study should be shelved until 'sporting purposes' is redefined to include a more modern and truthful definition inclusive of action / competition shooting disciplines and the study needs to recognize that any one or even several of the features identified in the study do not disqualify a shotgun or other firearm for importation, that certain features which may be more common in military / militia context do enhance the ability of disabled citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and prohibiting them from importation would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and that some of these same features are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and reiterated via the Supreme Court rulings in Miller, Heller & McDonald.


Your name

Your mailing address