Courtesy Franklin Armory

See our earlier post regarding the ATF’s ruling as to the legal status of Franklin Armory’s Reformation here. The federal gun regulators have decreed that the Reformation, with its straight grooves, is something called a GCA/SBS…a short-barreled shotgun regulated under the Gun Control Act rather than the National Firearms Act.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

  1. Straight grooves that do not impart spin? Fires a bullet not a bunch of pellets?

    Sounds a whole bunch closer to a musket than anything else.

    • The red coats loved confiscating muskets. Satisfaction won’t be had until you look like a Palestinian throwing rocks. Long game is totally disarming the slaves.

  2. Soo…does this mean I can still contemplate purchasing an upper receiver to get around CA’s onerous AW laws, or is it all moot now? Not quite sure where this leaves Californians…

      • Way ahead of you on the parts.

        My question above, however, is in regards to how this new ATF designation might affect CADOJ in their quest to support the Second Amendment look for new ways to prohibit more guns from the good citizens of the DPRK.

    • Biatec – “If you need paperwork or registration of any kind it defeats the entire purpose.”

      PRECISELY, as it turns a right into a privilege. Which even s.c.o.t.u.s. agreed with at one time:

      If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.–Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court. 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

      • The Shuttlesworth case was a about a permit to peacefully assemble. I agree with the premise but unfortunately 2A is treated differently than our other rights id love to see carry permits needin to pay tax stamps challenged directly and it go away.

          • Matt Williams – “Shuttlesworth said that the right to assemble may be regulated.”

            That’s funny, because THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND declares that it shall not be abridged:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            Webster’s 1828:

            Abridged

            ABRIDG’ED, participle passive Made shorter; epitomized; reduced to a smaller compass; lessened; deprived.

            F*CK what the court opines, I’ll stick with THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

            Does anybody even see that these traitors in our government are doing nothing more than providing plausible excuses for violating our rights? And that the idiot sheeple just lap up their usurpation and tyranny?

            MEN DIED TO SECURE THOSE RIGHTS FOR US. Does that mean anything to anyone?

        • Ton E – “The Shuttlesworth case was a about a permit to peacefully assemble. I agree with the premise but unfortunately 2A is treated differently than our other rights id love to see carry permits needin to pay tax stamps challenged directly and it go away.”

          While I understand your point, I must respectfully disagree. A right, is a right, is a right. And this, regardless of how the appointed, elected and hired servants in our governments claim differently. We hired these treasonous freaks to “secure the[se] blessings of liberty” to us. Not to tell us what our own rights are, or how they are to be exercised. Legally, in the true Constitutional sense, we can only be punished for the abuse of criminally misuse of our rights. Not for the mere exercise of them.

        • Ton E – The ONLY caveat in our right to assemble is that it is done “peacefully”. And that is the Constitutional FACT, whether the court agrees with it or not. They are not permitted to opine our rights away, as they have taken a solemn oath to “uphold and defend” them. Anything they ‘opine’ to the contrary is utterly meaningless.

        • David,

          You’re very confused. Your conception of rights simply is not compatible with either English common law, the Founders’ intent, or substantive due process.

          • Matt Williams – “David,

            “You’re very confused. Your conception of rights simply is not compatible with either English common law, the Founders’ intent, or substantive due process.”

            No, Matt, it’s quite obvious that it is >you< that hasn't the faintest concept of our intended system.

            First of all, Matt, the English 'common law' was NOT intended to be part of our intended system. As is quite clearly shown here:

            "To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject “to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.” They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself."—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No 84, Independent Journal, Wednesday, July 16, Saturday, July 26, Saturday, August 9, 1788.

            And Mr. Madison makes a conclusive argument against the use of the common law by the courts in regard to our rights in the Report of 1800 here:

            Common law not established
            http://www.shall-not-be-infringed.org/original-intent/common-law-not-established/

            And as far as the founders intent goes. Perhaps you should take a look at my (3rd) website before making even more of a fool out of yourself:
            http://www.shall-not-be-infringed.org

            Care to comment further, Matt?

        • As I wrote, Dave, you’re very confused. The sources you cite, aside from the one you wrote yourself, simply don’t support your conclusion.

          • Matt Williams –

            “As I wrote, Dave, you’re very confused. The sources you cite, aside from the one you wrote yourself, simply don’t support your conclusion.”

            No traitor, actually they most certainly do. And I, unlike you, have the factual evidence to back them up. So you can take your ASSumptions and cram them back where the sun don’t shine. OK, punk?

        • “No traitor, actually they most certainly do. And I, unlike you, have the factual evidence to back them up. So you can take your ASSumptions and cram them back where the sun don’t shine. OK, punk?”

          No, you’re a misinformed mouthbreather, with a badly written webpage, err…three badly written webpages, apparently, and no clue what he’s talking about.

          • Matt Williams – “No, you’re a misinformed mouthbreather, with a badly written webpage, err…three badly written webpages, apparently, and no clue what he’s talking about.”

            Not even close, traitor. Has any of your research ever been before the U.S Supreme Court? MINE HAS. In fact it was one of my discoveries that helped overturn the treasonous Miller, you imbecile. So go spew your infantile garbage somewhere else, traitor.

          • Ton E – “I agree with you but in practice 2A is treated differently whether we like it or not. I’m there with you with it being wrong but the Shuttlesworth case doesn’t get us to the goal of ending government permission to exercise our right to bear arms.”

            One of my ploys has been to throw scotus’ decisions back in their own faces. In addition to awakening our fellow citizens regarding the actual truth concerning our rights. And the only logical way that I can see to do that it to hit them with historical facts. Because there is no way they can refute history.

        • @E. David Quammen I agree with you but in practice 2A is treated differently whether we like it or not. I’m there with you with it being wrong but the Shuttlesworth case doesn’t get us to the goal of ending government permission to exercise our right to bear arms.

      • “…Which even s.c.o.t.u.s. agreed with at one time…”

        Like I told my ex-wife, “You don’t need all them damn periods”!

        Taint no-one on SCOTUS needs no periods either.

    • Hi Commie Troll,

      Trump had jack shit to do with this. If you would prefer your slot in a Gulag, feel free to not vote or vote Demokkkommie. From the rantings of the local commitard, it’s very clear.

      The left wants to kill you and take your shit. No meaningful reform will happen in this country so long as the left hasn’t been dealt with… permanently.

      I’m a fan of Roman Republic style proscriptions. Outlaw the party, set a bounty on all the former party leadership, dead or alive.

      • If he had nothing to do with this then he doesn’t control the ATF and it’s director and he’s just a powerless phantom. Or he’s the POTUS and head of the executive branch and his desires regarding the ATF’s actions matter and this is right up his alley along with red flags.
        I remember a recent head of the Navy who was shtcnnd for his actions. Where’s the reigning in of this ATF leader? His pick for director is a fudd who just got stopped by the Senate for being pro gun control. Tell us how that shouldn’t be laid at Trump’s feet.
        And everyone who finds fault with Trump’s leadership isn’t a commie, sjw or never trumpr

        • Right now is not the time to change horses. We are on the brink of civil war. We either back Trump or we get ready to start getting in the cattle cars. Trump may not be perfect, but at least he’s not batshit insane the way the Demokkkommie party has become.

        • I’m not saying vote for Fauxcohontas just that it’s his administration and we should let him know when we’re not happy. Squeaky wheels and what not.

      • Trump is a failed, impeached amoral miserable son of a bitch. He is also anti-gun as evidenced by his Bump Stock Ban. The only reason he has not gone full tilt on gun control is he’s no idiot, he knows he needs the votes and the campaign donations.

        The only thing useful about Trump is the Federalist Society pulls his strings on judicial appointments. Which is something that could have happened with a list of pro-Second Amendment Republicans.

        • Trump has committed no crime. They basically impeached him over non-crimes. “Obstruction of Congress” is the executive branch’s job. It falls under “checks and balances”. “Abuse of power” is defined so meaninglessly that Obama could have been impeached 30 times over as could any other president in US history. They basically defined it as “did something we don’t 100% agree with”. Oh, and they haven’t actually impeached him yet. Pelosi knows that once she passes the articles to the Senate and makes it official, her party is done.

        • Most pols are amoral. The impeachment is a joke. If you believe in this government in general you should be concerned with how it was conducted and how they refuse to even send it to the Senate for trial. This wasn’t even lying over a bj if that’s a standard.

        • “The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

          Why was the ICA necessary?
          Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.”

        • Wa wa wa! Trump this trump that! All I do is cry about trump! Wa wa wa!

          What you need, is a fucking diaper change.

        • I read a lot of you fucktards here:

          “But but but Trump is anti gun.”

          That may be.

          Yet… he’s still the most pro gun and pro constitution president this nation has had in 100 years.

          That, quite simply, speaks to just *how bad* the establishment is.

          If you idiots think that bumpstocks are an appropriate reason to turn on Trump and support that same establishment, well… you’re simply idiotic, or you’ve been pro establishment from the get go.

          So, go fuck yourself.

          Trump 2020. Keep America Great.

        • Typical statist. As such, someone with your level of retardation should not be permitted to walk freely in public. You aught to be detained and re educated for your own good and public safety.

        • Your list of “pro 2A Republicans” would all have lost to Hillary, don’t forget. Hell, most of them lost to Trump.

        • “Yet… he’s still the most pro gun and pro constitution president this nation has had in 100 years…”

          Holy God when did they let you off the short bus

    • You still don’t understand why Trump won and you never will. Have fun screaming at the sky for another four years.

  6. While I despise AFT for their illegal antics, I equally despise the Reformation. If I want an inaccurate key hole maker, I would just through the bullets.

  7. Interesting. Now suppose Reformation owners sent in forms requesting to move their GCA/SBSs across state lines. To make a 50-state tour. And kept up the filing of application forms. ATF would be quite busy rubber-stamping and returning the forms to Reformation owners. They would drown in their own paperwork.

    Eventually, ATF would be forced to ask Congress to “reform” (sorry; I couldn’t resist the pun) the GCA to deal with the requirement that SBSs have advance approval before being moved across state lines.

    Congress could refuse; of course.

    Then, aggrieved Reformation owners could file suit claiming that their right to travel with their firearms is being infringed upon. And, that such an infringement is without any rational basis; i.e., it doesn’t meet even the rational basis standard of justification.

    How is it that the Reformation – traveling across state lines – is any more of a threat to public safety than a long-barreled gun making such a journey? How is it that an NFA SBS traveling across state lines is any more of a threat?

    It might be acceptable to impose the paperwork requirement but ONLY IF ATF can keep up with the paperwork. But it can’t! Moreover, it WON’T. It has no intention of using its limited resources to process requests to move SBSs (NFA or GCA) across state lines.

    Such litigation might compel SCOTUS to crack-down on lower courts rubber-stamping the Constitutionality of gun laws on the lowest standards of scrutiny: rational basis test.

    That would kick the Circuit courts to claim that they are applying “Intermediate” scrutiny to find the paperwork law to be Constitutional. That, then, would put more pressure on SCOTUS to crack-down on lower courts rubber-stamping on “Intermediate” scrutiny.

    What’s the real issue to raise here? The technology of the Reformation isn’t necessarily interesting. What is interesting is the tangled web of laws that govern various firearm types. If we can keep the courts wrestling with how to justify their decisions to find such laws to be Constitutional then eventually we ought to be able to persuade SCOTUS to start striking such laws down because they are nonsense; because they are contemptuous of the lower courts’ duty to apply the appropriate degree of scrutiny to 2A laws.

    • I doubt scotus would even hear the case. If ATF sought relief from Congress it wouldn’t be to make any gun owner’s life easier even indirectly. If they make people wait more than a year for a stamp and have no problem short staffing departments that serve the public why would they care? The courts haven’t done much for people in blue states wanting carry permits so why would they differ with this? I don’t see the courts wrestling with much but the NYC case. Maybe that will change but I doubt it

    • Even if the atf could keep up with the paper work, it would not be acceptable. Why should we need to file any paper work or wait on some overpaid jackass to approve us to drive across a state line with property we already own?

      • I can see the logic here. I am certain that many, many times a person who has lived in one state for many decades with his NFA device without any problems, but has gone completely postal once he travels to another state. Makes perfect sense??? Total sarc

  8. I hear a lot about the explosives division being top notch experts. I’d pull them out of the BATFE, combine them with the FBI.

    The remainder of the BATF_ serves no useful purpose, should be defunded, disbanded and the establishing law repealed.

    • “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
      -Richard Henry Lee

    • the first letter in BATFE stands for “Bureau”, something which specializes in “Bureaucracy”

      everything else is an after-thought.

  9. If I had one of these non firearms. Id tell the ATF and big Fires to F!@#$%^&*off.
    Id keep it and wait for the courts.
    Even then Id still keep it.
    Any thing Ive bought that was/is legal at the time Im keeping it no matter who or what they do.
    Only way they get it back is 100% compensation………………………………..maybe.

  10. I honestly think that the fear of something like this is why we didn’t see bigger companies jump on the “not an SBR” wagon when the Reformation was announced. Ruger, Springfield, Smith & Wesson, etc., could have easily put a similar weapon like this out on the market at a fraction of the cost, but they wanted to see if this would actually hold up or if it would get dog piled by beurocratic BS.

    • Actually Franklin Armory patenting the non-twisting grooves, and just being a smooth bore actually DOES make it an SBS under the GCA. Not to say someone couldn’t have come up with a third option (rounded ridges in a squeeze bore perhaps) but that would require R&D rather than just copying the design, and therefore cost more than just the tooling. Would another company have invested in that were it not for the risk of ATF (and Fires) rewriting an 8-decade old act of Congress with a letter (not to mention the very definition of “smooth”)? Maybe. We have no way to know. Your point about the chilling effect of an agency of appointees engaging in the unlimited exercise of a power which is exclusive to Congress (if anyone has the power at all), still stands. Certainly Franklin wouldn’t have invested in this line of products had they recieved a verifiable message from the future warning them of this outcome. But it’s not quite as simple as “everyone could have made one but nobody did” either.

  11. 18 USC 921(a)(5) explicitly defines a shotgun. BATFE, as a part of the Executive branch, prohibited from expanding on such clearly stated definitions enacted into law. This is yet another example of BATFE blatantly attempting to administratively rewrite federal law.
    Any competent jurist would strike this down as only Congress is granted the power to modify existing law or create new law.

  12. I told you they shouldn’t have sued NJ for the right to sell that in that state. You really think this is coincidence that this occurs after they filed that lawsuit?

    I think NJ went to the ATF, hey what are you doing here. We denied this and they are suing us…look at this again…and now a new ATF ruling.

    Greed helps no one. In this case one companies greed to get a market share in one state had now now screwed it up for the other 49. Great job FA!!!!!

    • Wrong. Greed helps everyone. It’s the mover of capitalism and the main reason why (some) people do more than just barely enough to fulfill their basic needs. Nothing wrong with greed.
      – “I will take risk and work my ass off if I get rewarded for my efforts.”

      Now envy is a terrible thing. Socialism is based on envy.
      -“How dare you to have more then I do? There ought to be a law to take it away from you and give it to the less fortunate (me)!”

        • It is a sin in view of your god. I don’t subscribe to your particular religion, so whatever you consider a sin applies only to you and your co-believers, not to me.

        • Well, “Someone,” greed isn’t a sin in my religion. Greed is my God and you are wrong to criticize it. Pipe down.

          Boy, moral relativism is fun!

        • Actually, Someone, I’m on board with your original statement.

          The great thing about capitalism is that what we often call greed — the universal human desire for personal wealth and ease of living — actually does create more prosperity for everyone, because nobody can accumulate wealth without the labor of a lot of other people.

          The key point that makes capitalism a good thing and not a bad thing is that the labor of everyone involved needs to be profitable and willingly provided.

          True greed is still a deadly sin: think slavery, sweatshops, and robber barons. If there is a God, those people are definitely bound for eternal torment.

        • Who says greed is one of the seven deadly sins? I think you have greed confused with liberalism. Now, THERE is a deadly sin!

    • Blaming FA for unconstitutional regulations on our RTKBA and bureaucratic flip-flopping machinations of the ATF? Nice going!

    • Lol I hear locksmiths were the number one buyers. I think most people already know how accurate it is. There are plenty of videos out there. Although I think it sucks I appreciate the attempt to work around the stupid laws. It sucking is also why I don’t think the community is going to get real worked up over this.

      • We should get upset though. Not because the gun isn’t trash. It is, and I wouldn’t take one for free (well, I guess I’d swap the barrel and buffer and get a pistol with a BFS trigger out of the deal — but I digress.) We should get upset because ATF just rewrote an 80 year old act of Congress with a letter. And redefined “smooth” as a plain language term in the process. If this is allowed to stand, what’s to stop them from then redefining the word “sporting” and banning all shotguns as destructive devices? Absolutely nothing, that’s what.

        • In the old days when you “blew a tranny” it meant an expensive trip to the repair shop.

          Nowadays…..

        • @mercury you’re right about the ATF arbitrarily redefining terms. They’ve been doing that crap consistently for years and dismantling them and the nfa is still something everyone doesn’t get behind. Not enough people give a damn.
          I’m surprised the retardation… Oops I mean Reformation isn’t an assassin’s gun of choice. Imagine all the coroners telling cops to look for a gun that shoots rectangular bullets.

          @Sisted Twister “You need to upgrade that tranny.” Words not spoken in modern garages.

  14. I think the purpose of the 20,000 illegal guns laws are to confuse the American Citizens and trick them into becoming felons, thus making them not able to exercise their 2nd Amendment. The radicals can not seem to get the 2nd Abolished, so they will go the route of getting the citizens abolished.

  15. I think the purpose of the 20,000 illegal guns laws are to confuse the American Citizens and trick them into becoming felons, thus making them not able to exercise their 2nd Amendment. The radicals can not seem to get the 2nd Abolished, so they will go the route of getting the citizens abolished. Long live the 2nd Amendment.

  16. Is there an editor who can spell on the staff? The Armory is Franklin, not “Frankin” as spelled in the headline.

  17. Just “ANOTHER” DOJ/BATFE RE-WRITE of Congresses written intent. Last time it was the Definition of Machinegun in order to outlaw bump fire devices type stocks/trigger devices.
    This time they are going to write something TOTALLY NEW that Congerss did not include in the language of the Law. In Fact DOJ/BATFE is writing “this new Law” including Fines and Incarceration punishments for violations!

    Every time Agencies with “Administrative Oversight and Enforcement exceed their Constitutional vested Authority without Accountability: is one step closer to Agencies writing more (like now) Restrictions and Bans on firearms and accessories.

    TOTAL BULLSHIT!!! How long before the Feds do the same thing with the Mossy and Rem 12ga Shorties to GCA SBSs? How about those “pistols w/braces” becoming GCA SBRs? Not long I suspect!

Comments are closed.