"Sporting Purposes only"


PDA






Spcl
January 28, 2011, 11:08 PM
I would really like to know why the government thinks that the firearms that i should own are to be for sporting purposes? Such a a barrel length requirment, magazine capacity, and for some reason overal length and weight. I just want to know how the anti-gun people and the government sees my means to defend my life a "sporting cause?" How in the world is shooting a living human being in defense sporting? (Unless the government just has a sick view of sporting.) Is there anything even being done to to stop more gun control? Like these ridiculous import laws requiring a thumbhole stock, and consinder a semi-auto shotgun (in class with the SPAS-12 and 15.) As a destructive device? Second Amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED then where the hell is my right to own a legal SBR without federal approval!?!? I've never seen a more BS goverment than ours. Give a CONSTITUTIONAL right. Then take it away.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Sporting Purposes only"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tommygunn
January 28, 2011, 11:43 PM
From what I gather this all got started when the Nazis passed a gun control law in 1938 and amongst its provisions was a "sporting" purpose. In 1968 Connecticut Denator Chris Dodd (father of the current Dodd) used that law pretty much word for word (save having it translated from German) and thus we wound up with a "sporting purpose" clause in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Someone else might be able to give a more precise answer, but that's what I recall.

DoubleTapDrew
January 28, 2011, 11:45 PM
The "sporting purposes" language came into the picture with the gun control act of 1968 IIRC. According to the JPFO that language was borrowed, basically verbatim from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 (now doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?)
I think the ridiculous length laws were because the NFA originally included handguns, so they threw a bunch of provisions in there to keep people from being able to shorten rifles and shotguns to the point where they were concealable. They got rid of the handgun part but "forgot" to take out the language pertaining to rifles.
None of this makes you feel any better I'm sure, so join the fight!
Here's the link to the JPFO's take on it: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

Kentuckiana rifleman
January 29, 2011, 03:22 AM
I only hope that my nephew will be able to enjoy the freedoms I have now.

sigstroker
January 29, 2011, 03:58 AM
I remember it differently. The "sporting purpose" provision was on imported firearms. Gun retailers got that included to stop the flood of cheap war surplus and obsoleted bolt actions in order to reduce competition. GCA '68 got lots of support from sporting goods stores because you used to be able to mail order guns. I remember ogling over the Sears and Herters catalogs dreaming of the day I could afford those guns.

Carl N. Brown
January 29, 2011, 06:38 AM
One result of the "sporting purpose" limit on imports was to dry up the market for imported Mausers and Enfields (the local Army Navy Surplus store used to have a barrel of .303 Enfileds back in the 1950s). It also stimulated imports of high-end sporting shotguns from Europe. And it did away with imports of cheap pistols like the RG10 (but stimulated domestic manufacture from imported parts).

The "sporting purposes" import clause did force foreign gun makers to open factories in the U.S.A. even though many of our domestic manufacturers had originally supported it (either openly or behind the scenes) to protect their turf.

sansone
January 29, 2011, 06:51 AM
being the son of a soldier, then stateside LEO, I grew up believing my govt was here to help.. Now at the ripe old age of 55 I see my govt has evolved into wealth-engorged parasites.. Back on topic: legally we need to make certain our so-called representatives hear what we think. Remind them we all vote

Carl N. Brown
January 29, 2011, 06:51 AM
Frank Zimring is usually considered a pro-gun control academic, but his history of the 1968 Gun Control Act is pretty much, well, academic and historical and is listed as a source by Second Amendment Foundation a very pro-gun rights group.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

Franklin E. Zimring, "Firearms and Federal Law: the Gun Control Act of 1968", Journal of Legal Studies, vol 4, page 133ff, 1975.

When someone regarded as pro-gun control and anti-gun like Zimring calls the vague "sporting purposes" definition "cognitive dissonance", you and I should not be faulted for having problems with the definition either.

Plus, since Zimring is pro-gun control, you get a good feel for what arguments the gun control advocates were using in the 1960s when the 1968 GCA was passed.

It was badly written law and the structure of rules and regulations built on it are turning into contradictory arbitrary traps for those who try to comply with it with good intent, and leave violent criminals hardly scathed.

Art Eatman
January 29, 2011, 09:39 AM
Like many feel-good, likely-unconstitutional anti-gun laws on the books, this on is still around because nobody with a Soros-type billfold has challenged it in court.

"Standing to sue" rights for such laws with criminal punishment require taking the chance after being charged with a crime. If you lose, it's Graybar Hotel time.

Cearbhall
January 29, 2011, 10:54 AM
Because if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Even if it's still a lie.

armoredman
January 29, 2011, 11:00 AM
I was in short pants when that passed, kinda feel cheated. SAF won D.C. and Chicago, wonder if this one is in Alan Gura's sightsyet?

Ohio Gun Guy
January 29, 2011, 11:13 AM
Its just one ploy to try and eventually get them all banned.

See first ist sporting purpose, then its 10 rounds, or 5, or 3. Then long guns only....then...etc, etc.

Their stradegy is to get whatever they can, piece by piece. That's why HELL NO, is ALWAYS the best answer to "Cant we both agree on something?"

Owen Sparks
January 29, 2011, 11:06 PM
'Sporting purpose' is similar to 'concealed' in that these terms have become broadly used conditions to limit the 2A though the Constitution makes no mention of either.

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