North Texas Daily

The poor implications of Shockwave legalization

The poor implications of Shockwave legalization

The poor implications of Shockwave legalization
July 10
19:21 2017

If you were to pick up a copy of the “Tactical Weapons magazine this month, you would find the image of a man in police gear holding two massive guns. This is the Mossberg 590 Shockwave – a gun with a 14-inch barrel and a pistol grip – and I was surprised to find out these guns were recently legalized in Texas. Anyone from age 18 and up will soon be able to buy them over the counter without the months of wait time and tax stamps you would encounter purchasing a normal shotgun.

I should make it clear that I’m no gun aficionado. I can’t rattle off comparison models of the Shockwave, or give an in-depth analysis as to how it’s unsurprising this gun is legal. Many Americans are probably in the same boat as I am though, and are continuously surprised that practically any gun is still legal in the U.S.

While less households own guns than they did two years ago, according to NPR, and more background checks are being implemented, the nation still has the “most firearms per capita in the world.” According to CBS News, you are 10 times more likely to get shot in America than most developed countries, and our gun-related suicide rates are 8 times higher than those of other countries.

This past week at a gender reveal party for a couple’s baby, eight people were injured and a mother was murdered by two gunmen, according to United Press International. The mother throwing the party lost her baby.

So when instances like this occur, how do guns like the Mossberg 590 Shockwave get to be legal? Companies find loopholes, and Texas governors continue supporting as many pro-gun bills as they can. Last month, the Texas legislature proceeded to pass seven different pro-gun bills and block five anti-gun bills, according to the Institute for Legislative Action.

Gov. Greg Abbott signed two of these into law: one lowering the cost to obtain a License to Carry, and the other being Texas House Bill 1819. This bill removes silencers “from National Firearms Act requirements,” and is what made the 590 Shockwave legal.

When manufacturing the 590 Shockwave, Mossberg sent a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to ask how their gun could be qualified. According to U.S. law, a “shotgun” is roughly defined as a gun meant to be fired from the shoulder with shotgun shells. Since the 590 Shockwave is meant to be fired from the hip, the Bureau sent Mossberg a letter back stating yes, the 590 Shockwave is a “firearm” according to the Gun Control Act, but not by the National Firearms Act.

When we go back to HB 1819, section 46.05 states any gun that is “otherwise not subject to that registration requirement” by the NFA is protected under the bill. Therefore, the Mossberg 590 Shockwave is protected and will be available to purchase at your local gun store on September 1.

Now Tim Stetzer, the author of the “Tactical Weapons” article, explains the 590 Shockwave is a close-range gun. He states it is “for up-close-and-personal use in your house or around your vehicle.” He repeats this sentiment again in the conclusion, saying although the gun will probably sell a lot for its novelty, we shouldn’t “dismiss the utility of a short, easily maneuverable shotgun for use inside the home or workplace, or in and around vehicles.”

Excuse me? Where exactly is this guy working? Where does he expect people to work and utilize a close-range firearm? The 590 Shockwave is definitely not the type of gun for hunting, so the question remains for those who don’t buy guns: what exactly are they supposed to be used for, and how is that more important than the lives being lost?

The Mossberg 590 Shockwave is only the first of its kind, and if Texas governors get their way, you won’t even have to own an LTC in the first place, as insinuated by Texas House Bill 1911. New guns are endlessly manufactured and legislatures continue supporting them. This is our America: land of the free, home of the gun.

Featured Illustration: Samuel Wiggins

About Author

Amanda Dycus

Amanda Dycus

Related Articles


  1. Fuzz954
    Fuzz954 July 11, 14:03

    “This bill removes silencers “from National Firearms Act requirements,” and is what made the 590 Shockwave legal.”

    This is factually incorrect. That bill addressed the legality of suppressors only. The classification of the firearm in question is the result of long standing definitions within the national firearms act.

    Reply to this comment
  2. Texas Irregular
    Texas Irregular July 11, 14:51

    “I should make it clear that I’m no gun aficionado”
    …and it shows in this ridiculous article.
    “Anyone from age 18 and up will soon be able to buy them over the counter without the months of wait time and tax stamps you would encounter purchasing a normal shotgun.” your so called normal shotguns do not require tax stamps and months of wait time. Shotguns are sold the same as any firearm. Do the required 4473 form, pay and walk out the same day, in as little as 10 minutes. I’d figure you’d be more worried about those shotguns as they are only 4 inches longer yet can carry more ammunition.
    You dismiss Tim Stetzer as a nut but what magazine does he write for? Tactical Weapons, a magazine catering to Law Enforcement and those interested in the particular weapons the magazine is named.
    Stick to issues you know and avoid leftist hyperbole of doom.

    Reply to this comment
  3. Cal S.
    Cal S. July 11, 15:05

    Sorry, you lost me at “Without the months of wait time and tax stamps you would encounter purchasing a normal shotgun”, because that’s false. A “normal shotgun” is not subject to the taxation and registration requirements of the NFA and would therefore not require the taxes or months’ long wait that you claim. Yes, ‘anyone’ 18+ can walk out of any gun store with a ‘normal shotgun’ in less than an hour.

    You may not be a ‘gun aficionado’, but it would be helpful if you’d just do a little up-front research. Like, 10 minutes on Google or something. I know that’s asking a lot from modern media, who for reasons known only to themselves cling desperately to their ignorance in this age of information, but you might give it a try.

    Reply to this comment
  4. Ketchman
    Ketchman July 11, 17:12

    Amanda If you do not understand the need and usage of a close rangr shotgun for home and possibly workplace protection, depending on the wotkplace, then picture this: the shotgun that you have available when your house or business is broken into and you are IN that home or business, was designed for shooting geese and has a 26 inch barrel and is very cumbersome to attempt to bring on target on the close confines of your bedroom or dining room because of the furniture. Remember that 26″ barrel sticks out in front of the receiver and the buttstock of the gun making it effectivly 4+ feet long. Try swinging that length quickly and quietly around your house with it to your shoulder and think how quickly could it be brought to bear against an intruder bent on harming you or your family. A family member has called yhe police but average response time is over 4-6 minutes. A short shotgun of this length can be used extrememly effectivly in confining quarters for your and your families protection. No sense dieing because you could not get your long barreled shotgun into action in time because the barrel got hung up in a chair when your tried to turn around as your assailant rushes you. This weapom is meant purely for self defense, period, just like most handguns.
    I wonder if you will even read this or if I am typing this out for nothing.

    Reply to this comment
  5. Rich
    Rich July 11, 22:05

    This article is so riddled with errors it’s embarrassing. You don’t need a tax stamp to purchase a shotgun. Silencers have nothing to do with the Mossberg 590. The shockwave is classed as an AOW (any other weapon); and on and on. Bless your heart, if you’re going to write an article an least research the subject.

    Reply to this comment
    • Gun Store Owner
      Gun Store Owner August 18, 18:59

      The Shockwave is a ‘firearm’, not an AOW. AOWs, like suppressors, short-barreled rifles & shotguns which require a $200 tax stamp, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 but require only a $5 tax stamp. The Shockwave fires shotgun shells but is merely a long-barreled handgun which the U.S. and Texas governments classify as a ‘firearm’.

      Reply to this comment
  6. Alan
    Alan July 12, 07:10

    “I should make it clear that I’m no gun aficionado.’ You are also misinformed. Except in states that exercise a prior restraint on your 2nd amendment rights like MA, CA, NJ, NY, an IL. There are no wait times, no tax stamps, and no special permits required to buy a normal shotgun. The CBS statistic you quote has been debunked over and over again. I could go on and on correcting you mistakes but the response would be longer than your “article”.

    Reply to this comment
  7. BryanLL
    BryanLL July 12, 08:20

    Answer to the writers questions. It’s intended use is home and/or self defense.

    It is more important than the lives bieng lost because the lives being lost are typically individuals that are in the act of committing felonies.

    As far as immocent lives being lost, consider this. Why don’t we outlaw cars because iinnocent people die in traffic accidents?

    Reply to this comment
  8. normal shotgun
    normal shotgun July 12, 09:23

    It is clear from your first paragraph that you know absolutely nothing about firearms or the federal regulations restricting them. Your opinion piece is a waste of time.

    Reply to this comment
  9. JimInHouston
    JimInHouston July 12, 09:34

    So, you have NO evidence that this weapon is uniquely dangerous. Your only objection is that it frightens you.

    Sorry, your fears do not get to dictate other peoples’ rights.

    Reply to this comment
  10. jim smith
    jim smith July 12, 09:56

    Re: ” The 590 Shockwave is definitely not the type of gun for hunting…what exactly are they supposed to be used for”

    The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting or home defense. Its purpose is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights – specifically “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons and the militia was equally matched with the regulars. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or prevent a “misconstruction or abuse, of the government’s powers” – so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who – for whatever reason – don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. The problem is history has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.

    Reply to this comment
  11. C
    C July 12, 10:16

    The author of this article apparently has never herd of self defense or the second amendment.

    Reply to this comment
  12. Blsm
    Blsm July 12, 11:15

    And explain to me how all those antigun laws are being enforced? Have you read a newspaper lately? How many times have you read that a noncriminal violated a gun law? Answer never. CRIMINALS are who you should be worried about. Good honest citizens obey antigun laws…criminals don’t and never will. Criminals already have short shotguns.

    Reply to this comment
  13. fsilber
    fsilber July 12, 11:57

    Tim Selzer: “we shouldn’t dismiss the utility of a short, easily maneuverable shotgun for use inside the home or workplace, or in and around vehicles.”

    Amanda Dycus: “Excuse me? Where exactly is this guy working? Where does he expect people to work and utilize a close-range firearm?”

    A good example would be a convenience store. Some took the name “stop-and-shop” — but others ironically changed that to “stop-and-rob.” So a weapon like this might be useful to the owner of any cash business that tends to attract armed robbers. (But they should practice. I don’t imagine a compact weapon so powerful would be easy to shoot.)

    Reply to this comment
  14. BJH
    BJH July 12, 14:15

    “[S]urprised that practically any gun is still legal in the U.S.[?]”

    You shouldn’t be. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, all arms “in common use” that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia” and/or are “any part of the ordinary military equipment” are those within the ambit of Second Amendment protection.

    Additionally, the Miller Court ruled that “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

    Please note: The criterion for Second Amendment protection is not firearms’ suitability for ‘sporting purposes’, it is for MILITIA UTILITY. As such, any arm that can reasonably be used in a militia setting is protected.

    Reply to this comment
  15. FiftycalTX
    FiftycalTX July 12, 14:49

    Po’widdle snowflake. Don’t know why anybody would “need” one of them nasty ole’ gunz? Well, first GENIUS, you don’t need a $200 tax stamp for a “Normal shotgun”. And the “shockwave” and any other shotgun is a great gun for home protection. Don’t like it? THEN DO NOT BUY ONE! And it’s called the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the “bill of needs”. And snowflake, did you know people with licenses to carry can be in YOUR CLASSROOM right now? Along with more than 1 MILLION LTC holders in Texas? Do you know that for every time you see a COP, 15 people with LTC’s have passed you by? Oh, and you don’t even NEED A LTC to have a handgun in your car LEGALLY? So snowflake, if you are afraid of them nasty gunz, you got a lot more to worry about than a “shockwave”. Of course if you don’t try to rob, rape, murder or assault womeone else, you don’t have anything to worry about from a good guy with a gun.

    Reply to this comment
  16. jack burton
    jack burton July 12, 17:31

    Young Amanda sounds much like a five year old on her first tricycle attempting to discuss winning NASCAR race strategy. She’s heard a few words she can repeat from the adults but she really has no clue as to the meaning of them. And she expects people who actually understand the words and meanings to take her seriously.

    Reply to this comment
  17. Byronio
    Byronio July 12, 17:48

    Ms Dycus- you have significant facts wrong in your political opinion piece. I doubt this comment will be published so I will be brief:
    1-you dont have to wait months and get tax stamps to buy a normal shotgun;
    2- silencers were NOT removed from NFA requirements: the law was changed to allow eligible citizens to buy one without a formality of a signature of the Chief of Police/Sheriff where one lives, but still requires a background check, lengthy (approaching 1 year) ATF processing, and payment of a $200 tax per NFA item.
    I understand you hate guns, fine. Your case would be more effective if you did basic research.

    Reply to this comment
  18. OregonTom
    OregonTom July 12, 18:05

    “Anyone from age 18 and up will soon be able to buy them over the counter without the months of wait time and tax stamps you would encounter purchasing a normal shotgun.”

    Normal shotgun? Wait time? Tax Stamp? “Normal shotguns” are not NFA controlled items. You go down to the gun store, gets your background check, pays your money, and it’s yours.

    “I should make it clear that I’m no gun aficionado”

    You just make that crystal clear.

    “Since the 590 Shockwave is meant to be fired from the hip….”

    Please fire a Shockwave after placing it up against your hip. Post a photo of the large purple bruise that results. That’s Mossberg’s ideal of a pistol grip. Not to be placed against any part of the body.

    “Excuse me? Where exactly is this guy working?”

    Why do some people have such trouble with the idea of self-defense? Think Jewelry store, Pawn shop, even Charlie Hebdo.

    Reply to this comment
  19. jaye
    jaye July 12, 22:13

    The fallacy here is an NFA item vs a non-NFA firearm. When the National Firearms Act of 1934 was being debated, the initial draft included ALL handguns. The writer of this legislation thought that if handguns were prohibited, then criminals would cut the stocks and barrels off of shotguns and rifles, thus they were included, too.

    But handguns were ultimately removed from the act during debate on the bill, which renders the restrictions on short-barrel rifles and shotguns MEANINGLESS!

    Further, the technical wording of the NFA is such that it’s a crime to cut off a barrel of a rifle or shotgun, but it’s not illegal to MAKE a handgun. The wording makes it a restricted item if it (in this case) fires a shotshell, has a barrel less than 16″ AND has an overall length less than 26″. Put a standard pistol grip and an 18-1/2″ barrel and you have a “cruiser”. Shorten the barrel and you’re still OK, as long as you proportionally lengthen the grip – AND make it as a pistol, (technically an AOW) and NOT a cut down shotgun.

    These have been LEGAL by federal law all along, all TX did was remove their more restrictive state version.

    BTW, NONE of this affects criminals – they don’t obey the law anyway. They use pistols, which they steal, and conceal without permits. And if they can’t get pistols, they cut down shotguns and make them (much) less than 26″ long. It kind of goes with the definition (criminal = does not obey the law – like that one against murder).

    Reply to this comment
  20. RetiredDetective1018
    RetiredDetective1018 July 13, 06:39

    Ooh that gun is scary looking. i don’t think people should be allowed to have scary looking guns. That is about as rational an thoughtful as this article.

    Reply to this comment
  21. Alan
    Alan July 13, 06:47

    Maybe we should have a wait time and tax stamps required for every “news” article in order to check the facts and make sure it is accurate. There is no reason the 1st amendment should be treated any different than the 2nd.

    Reply to this comment
  22. Infidel762x51
    Infidel762x51 July 14, 08:47

    What are the implication of poor journalism?

    Reply to this comment
  23. tieshan
    tieshan July 14, 20:55

    Dearest Columnist…you should know better in the land of Ted Cruz and Trump that the mere mention of guns from a perceived liberal such as yourself will cause all sorts of faulty neural connections from the “don’t take my guns away” crowd.

    Every single one of these folks used the time tested Texas way of expressing their disagreement with you; insult and sheer noise.

    They’ve seen too many Wyatt Earp movies and all secretly believe in a previous life they were Marshall Dillon’s deputy.

    Did you notice not one NOT ONE directly addressed your statistics on guns deaths, suicides etc…?

    Probably because the NRA has no talking point for it.

    The only number gun lovers know is the one they hide behind…ie the beloved, greatly misunderstood 2nd amendment.

    That’s what people uncomfortable with logic do; they simply run and hide behind the nearest talking point the NRA has created.

    You are wasting your time with these people. You cannot argue with people that do not understand history. Even the Wild West had towns that prohibited guns being worn in town and it was strictly enforced.

    Today’s generation is all armed to the teeth waiting for the next Redcoat invasion to happen.

    You must stop hinting that guns are “bad” in America. Guns are not “bad”. You want to start a debate write a column on taxing the living hell out of the bullets…even bad guys need bullets and the money it takes to get them.

    Reply to this comment
  24. Gfoll
    Gfoll July 15, 14:40

    Fake News!

    Reply to this comment
  25. The Amazing Ancap
    The Amazing Ancap July 16, 05:05

    Yeah, I bought a shotgun in like 20 minutes the day before the election. It ain’t hard and it shouldn’t be. I have a house to protect, and I sleep better knowing I have a gun in my closet than a kitchen knife on my night stand.

    Furthermore, bringing up suicide-by-firearm is a ridiculous argument against them. A person can and will kill themselves if they’re so inclined. If somebody is already suffering that much, I’d rather they have the ability to end it quickly than by strangulation or bleeding out (both of which sound like torturous ways to go). My point being, they didn’t suddenly become suicidal due to the presence of the gun, and the gun isn’t the only reason nobody was able to stop them. Try coming home to your brother in the bathtub with both his wrists slit and tell me guns have anything to do with it.

    Reply to this comment
  26. ender098
    ender098 April 27, 03:45

    “According to CBS News, you are 10 times more likely to get shot in America than most developed countries, and our gun-related suicide rates are 8 times higher than those of other countries.” And America is the ONLY Nation where our right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. Because of this right we DO have more guns and because we have more guns, we have more gun violence. But by the same token, if Jamaica banned cars, would you be surprised in 10 years to find that the US had more car fatalities because we had more cars? Of course not. What about “if you have a gun in the house your odds of being injured by a gun go up substantially”? Well, if I have anything in the house that is capable of causing me harm, doesn’t that increase my odds of being hurt by said thing as opposed to NOT having one in my house?

    Reply to this comment
  27. Max
    Max October 21, 20:29

    There have been many others to eloquently reply to you and correct your numerous errors. So I’m going to take the low ground here and just simply say “fuck you!”

    My rights are not predicated upon your perceived need.

    Reply to this comment
  28. WayoftheWarrior
    WayoftheWarrior May 23, 02:27

    Amanda Dycus, people like you are the reason why our nation’s forefathers wrote the second ammendment into the constitution, second only to the right of free speech. Your failure to learn world history and apply it to your everyday life is precisely why we NEED the right to keep AND bear arms which are current to the world around us. It has zero to do with hunting and 100% to do with a person’s, society’s, and nation’s people’s ability to adequately protect themselves from any threat to their other rights. If you can’t understand that, then get out of the public spotlight. You must understand that in history past, people like yourself who didn’t see the need to remain armed and defensible have ALWAYS been conquered by somebody else. ALWAYS. You cannot name one nation or society that disarmed and did not suffer conquest by someone because like a unicorn, no such thing exists. The shockwave classification is a godsend for our government because it proves that there are people in the BATFE that still understand that you can’t rule based on emotion in the same way that you are writing from it. We are a logical society, evolved from countless generations of both learned and experienced suffering. Such suffering is what brought us to being a constitutional democracy with rights such as the second ammendment. You’d be wise to educate yourself on the importance of this, rather than assuming the universe is some utopian playground for you to prance around in. It’s not. We do our best to make it better, but ultimately, it falls on the individual to do what’s right. Knowing there are consequences for our actions is what keeps us from making rash decisions, similar to knowing that anyone around you can defend their self against any threat. It’s a basic human right to be able to defend one’s self, but you clearly don’t appreciate it. This has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with staying alive and unconquered. Respect that long enough, and you might just see the light and the reasons why we have the rights we have. I wish you the best. Gun ownership is a responsibility not to be treated lightly or tread upon.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Click here to cancel reply.

The Roundup

<script id="mcjs">!function(c,h,i,m,p){m=c.createElement(h),p=c.getElementsByTagName(h)[0],m.async=1,m.src=i,p.parentNode.insertBefore(m,p)}(document,"script","");</script>

Search Bar

Sidebar Thumbnails Ad

Sidebar Bottom Block Ad

Flytedesk Ad