cc Marisa Torres
date Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM
subject Comment on 925(d)(3)
To Whom It May Concern:
In so far as any firearm can be used for the purpose of target shooting and general recreational shooting, I feel that any firearm, shotgun or otherwise, automatically passes the “sporting suitability test.”
On the list of items that you find incompatible with a firearm having a “sporting purpose,” Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks; bayonet lugs; flash suppressors; grenade-launcher mounts; integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel); and forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand all provide primarily COSMETIC value to the weapon in question. They no more make a weapon more or less suitable for “sporting purposes” than painting a station wagon “Ferarri Red” makes it an exotic race car.
In the matter of magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine; while the weapon in question will have a larger magazine capacity than some other designs, having said additional does not make the weapon any more or less inherently dangerous than a weapon with a single shot. Excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller); or excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth) would actually serve to make the weapon LESS likely to ever be used in a crime, as it can effect the ability for concealment. It’s much easier to hide a VW Bug than it is a school bus.
Concerning light enhancing devices; so far as I know this is meant to include Night Vision scopes or sights, which are prohibited by other statutes.
I am absolutely against using these standards to stop the importation of shotguns, rifles, handguns, carbines, or any other firearm.
My opinion is that existing laws need to be enforced in the matter of prosecuting criminals who use a firearm, or any other weapon down to a paperclip, to the MAXIMUM extent of the law.
Jerod J. Husvar
Rootstown, OH 44272