From 12 September issue of SGN, The Knox Report

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
Young Mr. Knox's piece is headlined Unsporting Regulations. The last paragraph, quoted below, is particularly interesting. Readers might well think on it, and what it says.

"With the passage of the Lawful Commerce In Arms Act in The Senate and almost guaranteed passage in The House, the gun lobby needs a new target. I would propose that we make the "sporting purposes" language that target ", Knox wrote.

By the way, NOWHERE in the law are "sporting purposes" defined. NOWHERE in the law is sport defined. NOWHERE in the law is particularly suitable defined, and NOWHERE in the law is readily adaptable thereto defined. All that we are left with is the SUFFERANCE of the bureaucratic mind, a mind that might well be driven and or directed by certain questionable agendas, to use a more or less polite phrase.

By the way, it appears as if the BATFE has discovered a new plaything in the above mentioned language, that being the power to ban the import of "parts", a power which according to the Knox Report above mentioned, they are utilizing. As to other aspects of BATFE antics, check out Glover v. BATFE, the details of which are available on both DVD and video tape from JPFO. BATFE needs to be placed on a leash, the shortest leash availalbe.

From where I sit, young Mr. Knox seems to have a very clear vision of things gun related. I suggest that his offerings are very much worth serious attention, and the appropriate action from the gun owners of this country.
 
You are absolutely right that 'sporting purposes' is NOT defined.

Hence the BATFE can define what is and what isn't.
 
LAR-15 wrote:

You are absolutely right that 'sporting purposes' is NOT defined.

Hence the BATFE can define what is and what isn't.

------------------------

And that readers is exactly why this sporting purposes language must be removed from federal law, wherever it might appear.
 
Henry Bowman:

I'm aware of the "sticky" you mentioned, having contributed a thought or to to it myself.

I've also solicited my congress critter's support for H.R. 1703, Congressman Paul's proposal. I wonder as to how many others have so done?
 
I've also solicited my congress critter's support for H.R. 1703, Congressman Paul's proposal. I wonder as to how many others have so done?
I have. My representative is probably among the top five anti-gun legislators. But I sent him a letter anyway. He needs to know that even within his own district, he has opposition.

Alas, in California, the districts are drawn in such a way that there are no competitive elections, except in races that don't involve districts, like governor or senator.
 
Starting Tuesday you can begin to hammer you rep again on HR 800 and HR 1703

:cuss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top