Sporting Purposes


PDA






novaDAK
September 12, 2007, 07:51 PM
:confused:Where and when did this term come about?

Has anyone ever challanged it (as the 2nd amendment doesn't mention a 'darn' thing about "sporting" or hunting.

It just says "Arms"

So why do the politicians think that this doesn't mean all Arms? It's not specific, so what gives them the right to further restrict it? I do believe that that is called "infringement" which is verbally prohibited in the 2nd.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sporting Purposes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
September 12, 2007, 07:55 PM
Where and when did this term come about?


GCA of 1968.

Has anyone ever challanged it

There have been a few bills introduced to repeal it the "sporting purposes" clause. The most recent I know of is H.R. 1096 introduced this session. I believe there have been some cases about whether a given firearm qualifies for "sporting purposes", but I don't know of any legal challenges to the "sporting purposes" clause directly.

DoubleTapDrew
September 12, 2007, 08:25 PM
It was "borrowed" from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 and stuck in the GCA of 1968. :uhoh:

In GCA '68 the government required that in almost all cases only dealers could send and receive firearms across state lines. This ended "mail order" sales of firearms by law abiding persons who are not licensed dealers. GCA '68 hits you even harder. Congress gave federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C., the power to decide what kinds of firearms you can own. The framers of GCA '68 borrowed an idea -- that certain firearms are "hunting weapons" -- from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, "sporting purpose," was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA '68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so.
Whole Article Here (http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm)


It didn't work out too well for the Jews as you probably know.

Back during the Miller case they wanted to prove that it (short barreled shotgun) wasn't a military weapon and thus not protected by the 2A. Then they flip around in '68 and say no, you can't have military weapons, only sporting weapons. Maybe next time they'll be generous and let us have air powered weapons.

novaDAK
September 12, 2007, 09:57 PM
I don't get how they think they can permit or allow us to have only certain guns. The 2A states "Arms." not hunting rifles or non-military guns.

rant over...for now :)

ROMAK IV
September 12, 2007, 10:54 PM
It's at the discretion of the Attorney General of the United States, and only applies to imported firearms. It's clearly unconstitutional, but it seems we will never be rid of it. All it would take, on the other hand, to nulify it would be for the Ag to change the designation, which is why Bush ISN'T that gun friendly!

MudPuppy
September 12, 2007, 11:09 PM
I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: 'Freedom of assembly' and 'freedom of speech' and so forth. Of course, they don't allow them to have those things, but they're in there in the constitution. But I began to wonder about the other constitutions -- everyone has one -- and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple -- that's why you don't notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference. All those other constitutions are documents that say, 'We, the government, allow the people the following rights,' and our Constitution says 'We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.' We give our permission to government to do the things that it does. And that's the whole story of the difference -- why we're unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we're going to overcome.

An awful lot of people have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, from enemies foreign and domestic. Between this, flagrant disregard of the reasonable search, imminent domain, and interstate commerce (10th), you've got to wonder when the elected criminals that think they're running the show will be gently reminded that this land is our land.

Standing Wolf
September 12, 2007, 11:12 PM
Well, heck. I dunno. Overthrowing tyrants couldn't be an olympic event?

Black Adder LXX
September 12, 2007, 11:20 PM
I thought the rule of constitutional law had ended in favor of case law so the folks in power don't have to worry about twhat that 'radical document' says...

LaEscopeta
September 13, 2007, 10:37 AM
Back during the Miller case they wanted to prove that it (short barreled shotgun) wasn't a military weapon and thus not protected by the 2A.Well, the “they” in the Miller case was the Supreme Court, a different “they” from the Congress who passed the GCA of 1968 and different from the Executive branch that enforces the GCA 68. And I think we can be in favor of the part of the Miller decision that states the 2cd amendment is about citizens keeping and bearing their own arms for the common defense.

The “sporting purposes” parts of the GCA 68 and the NFA 34 does not prevent citizens from keeping and bearing arms. GCA 68 bans the importation of firearms with more than 10 foreign made parts that the Attorney General determines are not particularly suited for “sporting purposes.” NFA 34 requires taxes and paper work (de facto registration) on certain firearms not meeting the “sporting purposes” determination.

I don’t think an argument can be made that the sporting purposes clauses has any real effect on the RKBA. The number of firearms in private ownership has gone up faster than population growth after both NFA 34 and GCA 68 passed; today there are about 200 million privately owned firearms for a population of just over 300 million. All sorts of non-sporting purposes firearms are being made domestically or imported and converted with US made parts. The number of firearm basically unavailable because of “sporting purposes” (street sweeper shotguns, Tavor rifles, etc) are few, and other weapons are available that perform the same functions.

You can argue “sporting proposes” is increasing firearm prices (and creating trade for US manufacturers.) You could argue NFA 34 & GCA 68 has no affect on gun crime. You could argue it is a start down a slippery slope to laws that really do restrict RKBA. And you could argue you are against any restrictions, controls or taxes on firearms for any reason. But just look in your gun safe to see if your right to keep arms has been infringed upon.

revjen45
September 13, 2007, 12:14 PM
"But just look in your gun safe to see if your right to keep arms has been infringed upon."

I just checked my gun safe and nothing in full auto or select fire has materialized since I last opened it, nor any SBRs, AOWs, or shotguns with a bbl length under 18". If it were "allowed" I would like to own some of the aforementioned, but nothing I have is in violation of the law. BTW, the only difference between a scoped bolt action "hunting" rifle and a "sniper" rifle is the target. Both are designed to place one lethal shot on target out to extended range. You can bet when the antis want to ban "sporting" rifles, they will be labeled "sniper weapons."

strat81
September 13, 2007, 12:25 PM
But just look in your gun safe to see if your right to keep arms has been infringed upon.

Where is my 100% Russian semi-automatic AKM clone? Where is my Glock 25 and 28? Where is the armor piercing ammo for my FN 5.7? Where is my Colt Commando clone? Where is my 14" barrel shotgun?


Ask the guys in California what their gun safes are missing.

LaEscopeta
September 13, 2007, 12:49 PM
I just checked my gun safe and nothing in full auto or select fire has materialized since I last opened it, nor any SBRs, AOWs, or shotguns with a bbl length under 18". If it were "allowed" I would like to own some of the aforementioned, but nothing I have is in violation of the law.You are “allowed” to own all of those firearms, they are all legal. Your have to jump through some government paper work and pay taxes, but a search this site will show you lots of people have them. Yes, the 1986 machine gun registry basically makes full auto & select unavailable to most people; it is a de facto gun ban. But neither this de facto ban nor the paperwork/taxes are a result of the “sporting purposes” clauses. The sporting purposes language means if you want a new SBRs, SBSs, or AOWs, you have to buy an American made one, or a foreign made one converted with some American made parts. Or buy a used one that was imported before it was determined to be “non-sporting.”

Where is my 100% Russian semi-automatic AKM clone? Where is my Glock 25 and 28?Because you do not have exact models of certain firearms but have other firearms that do the same thing you are un-armed? Are the Glock 25 & 28 the select fire pistols? If so you may be missing some fun, but that is about it.

Where is my Colt Commando clone? Where is my 14" barrel shotgun?I don’t know; where are your Forms 4, 5330.20, 4473, FD-258 and tax stamp?

Ask the guys in California what their gun safes are missing.I know what they are missing, and I know it is due to State laws not the “sporting purposes” clauses in Federal law the original post was about.

If you want to complain about oppressive gun control laws, the “sporting proposes” one is not the place to start.

MD_Willington
September 13, 2007, 01:10 PM
G25 & 28 are the Glocks chambered for .380... and are not "sporting" for some reason? yet other pistols in .380 are?

Funny how the Saiga that is sold elsewhere in the world is just that a 100% Semi-auto AKM clone, while the US gets the "sporter" version.

Odd that holding the rifle a different way or having a larger magazine or a different barrel length makes it some how "magically" different when it isn't.

benEzra
September 13, 2007, 01:32 PM
You can argue “sporting proposes” is increasing firearm prices (and creating trade for US manufacturers.) You could argue NFA 34 & GCA 68 has no affect on gun crime. You could argue it is a start down a slippery slope to laws that really do restrict RKBA. And you could argue you are against any restrictions, controls or taxes on firearms for any reason. But just look in your gun safe to see if your right to keep arms has been infringed upon.
If the prohibitionists could get a "sporting purposes" test to apply to domestic firearms, rather than guns that can be imported without modification, then heck yes, it would be an infringement. H.R.1022 expressly seeks to do just that:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

...

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.

Consider for a minute the fact that the most popular centerfire target/competition rifle in America (the AR-15 platform) is deemed "not suitable for sporting purposes" according to the current criteria, and you'll see the claim as to whether or not a particular gun is "suitable for sporting purposes" is absolutely meaningless.

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on banning "assault weapons"?

Regarding the proposition that the banning of "nonsporting" firearms would not be an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if we were still "allowed" to own "sporting" guns, consider this question--if the government decreed that all speech not "particularly suitable for entertainment purposes" were banned, would you consider that an infringement of your First Amendment right to speak freely? You'd still be able to talk, right?

ArfinGreebly
September 13, 2007, 01:50 PM
Out of curiosity, where do you stand on banning "assault weapons"?
Not to answer for him . . . but . . . I do have a carefully synthesized stance on "assault" weapons:

<whine>
Assault weapons are bad.

The bullets they shoot are meaner than sporting bullets.

Assault weapons have a bad attitude and dress like thugs.

No one needs an ergonomic weapon. If it's not elegant and refined then it shouldn't be allowed, 'cuz it's scary.

And, since I personal have anger issues, that means everyone else does too, and if they had an effective, efficient weapon they'd probably use it on me, 'cuz I would use mine on them (if I had one).

I should be in charge, so they should all just shut up and turn in their guns and do what I say.
</whine>

LaEscopeta
September 13, 2007, 01:54 PM
Out of curiosity, where do you stand on banning "assault weapons"?Since you asked I think the term "assault weapons" as defined in Federal and State laws and attempted laws over the last 2 decades is meaningless. And we don’t have a problem with a lot of criminals using firearms that meeting the definition of "assault weapons" so bans on these weapons can not reduce crime or improve safety. (I’m not saying other laws concerning other types of firearms that ARE used by criminals do or do not have an effect on crime/safety.)

Regarding the proposition that the banning of "nonsporting" firearms would not be an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if we were still "allowed" to own "sporting" guns,…Banning “nonsporting” firearms IS an infringement on the RKBA. I’m saying we currently do not have a Federal ban on “non-sporting” firearms, only a ban on importing more foreign made ones, and paperwork/taxes/de facto registration on some weapons the Attorney General has determined to be non-sporting. I’m not saying I’m for or against the current Federal Laws concerning “non-sporting” firearms. And I’m not saying other Federal and State laws do not infringe on the RKBA. I’m saying the current Federal “non-sporting” firearm laws do not infringe on the RKBA.

Titan6
September 13, 2007, 02:03 PM
Once you have a perfect society such as America in 1961 or Germany in 1938 the people no longer need weapons for defense or to safeguard their civil rights. Therefore the only valid reason to have a gun must be for sporting purposes.

Other guns are just instruments of death that will kill babies and cause high crime rates.

strat81
September 13, 2007, 02:14 PM
I don’t know; where are your Forms 4, 5330.20, 4473, FD-258 and tax stamp?
How are reams of paper work, government "approval" of such forms, and the control of the supply of such weapons NOT an infringement?


Imagine that from now on, all newspapers, bloggers, and radio stations were subject to similar rules. No new publications, blogs, or TV shows can be created; only those existing prior to 1986 can be aired/published. Your local chief LEO can decide whether or not to allow you to publish something because it might be inflammatory or maybe he just doesn't like you.

Or maybe instead of "sporting firearms" we can have "sporting speech." Unless your topic directly involves hunting, baseball, or college football, it cannot be published. Foreign journalists and foreign-language newspapers are banned.

Not an infringement at all...

ArfinGreebly
September 13, 2007, 02:39 PM
Foreign journalists and foreign-language newspapers are banned.
Actually, more to the point, foreign PRINTING PRESSES would be banned. The Heidelberg press -- very popular among large format and news printers -- is "aus Deutschland," not domestic.

LaEscopeta
September 13, 2007, 03:06 PM
There seems to be some confusion on what parts of Federal firearm law the phrase “sporting purposes” applies. If you want to be confused it is a free country. If you don’t want to be confused you can read the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_44.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_E_20_53.html

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/NFA1934act.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Cunningham1.htm

Here is a couple of things the “sporting purposes” clause does NOT apply to:

How are reams of paper work, government "approval" of such forms, and the control of the supply of such weapons NOT an infringement?These things are from the NFA 34 and the 1986 machine gun registry, NOT the “sporting purposes” clauses of CGA 68, nor its application to making some additional firearms AOWs.

Imagine that from now on, all newspapers, bloggers, and radio stations were subject to similar rules. No new publications, blogs, or TV shows can be created; only those existing prior to 1986 can be aired/published.1986 machine gun registry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sporting Purposes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!