[PLUG-TALK] Re: small shotgun?

[GLL]

: I'd be careful using this argument to make the point for handguns as
: defensive weapons.  (It might work with a small shotgun for home
: defense, though.)

Well written. But here's a new point: What's a 'small shotgun?' Any shotgun 
with a total overall length less than 26" or a barrel shorter than 18" is a 
Title-2, class-III (NFA regulated) weapon. Title-1 stuff means weapons you 
can buy at Walmart, or your local hardware store - typically 20ga up to 12ga, 
mostly configured for home and farm use: depredation, hunting, and sports 
such as trap and skeet shooting. Every once & a while you will see 

But for home-defense use, a barely-legal unit such as the Mossberg would be 
ideal. Question: What's your opinion (and others')  about using a legally 
registered class-III weapon for self defense? So, I go to a dealer, see a 
piece I like, pay for it, have a legal record cleaner than most hippies, go 
down to the sheriff's dept. chief of police, or the county judge, sign my ATF 
form-4's, get my fingers dirty on the FD-258,'s do the stupid 'yes I am a US 
Citizen form' (ATF 5330.20) pay $200 tax, wait 5 months or more, then pick it 
up from the dealer.

Now, is it any more legally dangerous for me to take the same legitimate 
action with the (legally registered) sawed-off shotgun than it would be with 
the Mossberg? If not, then perhaps we should be encouraging homeowners to get 
that 'small shotgun' -  followign all the legally loop-de-loops, of course. 
(and discouraging people from trading in or creating contraband weapons...)

: This is a "black swan" problem.  And, logically, you're absolutely
: correct.  But, the gun-banners have the gun-bearers beat with this
: argument.  The number of crimes that are unreasonable to commit if one
: doesn't have a gun (like robbing a bank using machetes or hunting
: knives) would go up.  And the gun-banners can argue: How many crimes
: would not be committed if guns were rare?

The counter argument here is that the outlaws who are already willing to break 
a number of state and federal laws by robbing a bank, procuring a stolen car, 
etc, - are not at all fazed by gun bans. Take a look at submachineguns. To 
get one legally, you have to live in a state where this right remains 
un-infringed, AND in a nice county, where your sherriff will sign for all 
your ATF & FBI stuff (mentioned above.) Bush Sr. banned any increase in the 
number of m.g.'s available for transfer among civilians (and who all thought 
R's were automaticaly pro-gun?) so the supply is fixed and prices have beat 
stocks. A silly little Mac-11 .380 costs close to $1500 (+tax) to buy (and 
wait for) to get it legally.

Meanwhile the criminal is going to buy a semi-auto and illegally modify it, 
(hack, hack, file, file) or have his shady buddy illegally import THE SAME 
DEVICE from a guy who paid $40 for it in South Africa and illegally runs it 
into the country with the druggies bringing their cargos into the Florida 
Keys. So the criminals will always have the firepower they need.

Full-auto drive-by's are evidence that even some of the most restrictive 
registration and transfer laws don't apply to criminals. So why burden the 
law-abiding populace with these laws if they don't work?

Did you know that there was abank job done in CANADA in the 70's in which the 
perps uses a sawed-off 20MM (!!!) to blow the hinges off the vault?!? They 
created a make-shif supressor out of a 55-gal oil drum (ooo, another 
class-iii violation in the US.) They were caught because even a supressed 
20MM was loud enough to draw attention to themselves.

- GLL


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Speed & Service Have Always Mattered @ http://www.ados.com