Sporting Purpose

[Zundfolge]

This has been discussed before, but I felt the need to revive the subject.

I recently bought a Tromix converted Saiga 12 and have since learned that at any moment the BATFE goons could on a whim decide that its a Destructive Device under NFA and require owners to register (at $200) or surrender them.

This is what happened to both the USAS 12 shotgun and the "Street Sweeper" because they were "high capacity semi automatic shotguns with no sporting purpose".


So what I'm thinking is that an area that the NRA and other elements of the RKBA movement could start our assault on gun laws is to write into the 922r code a SPECIFIC DEFINITION of "Sporting Purpose" (so that the BATFE can't just decide a gun no longer has a "Sporting Purpose" on a whim and either block its importation, or force people to register them).


I suggest it be worded something like; Any firearm will be determined to have a "Sporting Purpose" if it is suitable for use in hunting or ANY form of competitive shooting. In addition, I'd like to see the law require ANY firearm that EVER gets a "Sporting Purpose" designation to retain said designation permanently.

So what say you all?

Does this sound like a battle we can win?

I'd love to start with whittling away at the NFA, but that's probably a few battles off and this sounds to me like a nice stepping stone.

Or have I missed the boat and there's already an effort underway to do this?

 

[Lonestar]

Never understood it either. I would love to buy a Glock .380 pistol, but the BATF would not let it be imported into the US.

 

[gezzer]

First off it has the required us parts to make it legal under .922

Second if, and that’s a BIG if, they try and call it a DD they will have to amnesty it and when they do you WILL NOT PAY! The $200 tax note: NOT PAY! The $200 tax.

Have fun with your new gun and forget about it until they do then it's just filling out the form, if you passed the NICS for it you will get your tax stamp.

 

[Zundfolge]

Well thankfully I live in a state where NFA items are allowed ... but there are several states they are not; Hawaii, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey (and maybe Illinois).

While it won't effect me too much (other than triple the value of my S12 and make it twice as difficult to sell) I don't like the idea that a government agency can change the law by fiat.

So I still like the idea of forcing the government to stick with a single definition of what "Sporting Purpose" is.


On a side note, if it did become a DD and I had to register it, could I turn it into an SBS without paying another tax stamp (much like if you have a full auto you can put a short barrel on it too)?

 

[Zedicus]

Last I Checked Montanna was an NFA Friendly State.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

The whole "sporting purpose" clause is Bravo Sierra. The second amendment has nothing to do with sporting purposes or hunting. We need to repeal the whole enchilada. If we say we accept it but want some new provisions it's validating an unconsitutinal restriction. We need a pitbull lawyer to take it to the supreme court and slap them in the face about how legal NFA weapons AREN'T used in crimes and the laws are not only worthless, they are violating the rights this country was founded on. Given the political climate and the fear of terrorism, it might be possible to repeal some NFA laws. Every day people see bad guys toting RPG's on the news. Put the law abiding citizens on even ground (I'm not saying everyone should go get an RPG but you probably get my drift).

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Thanks Drew

I was getting more and frustrated because no one was getting to the source of the problem!

The problem IS the "Sporting Purposes" cluase. It was written in the era of statist/socialist march toward utopia. That era (thank the almighty) is over. Not that the results of failed socialist policies aren't with us, they are, and will be for many years to come. The sales job for more socialism doesn't work anymore because no body is buying it (hence Bill Clinton running as a 'moderate' and 'pro-business' Democrat).

The GCA needs to be repealed. The NFA needs to be repealed.

How 'bout them apples?

 

[Gifted]

There's been legislation introduced to repeal the sporting purposes clause. Hasn't gotten far any time though. Look it up, and write your critter. I say repeal, not clarify. We try to define it, we say that it's okay. It's not, so out come the scissors.

 

[merk]

I always giggle when I see the owners manual for my WASR 10 when it says "WASR 10 sport type rifle".

I giggle for the fact that some sick fool actually thinks home defense is a sport.


Technical designations are ridiculous.

 

[SIOP]

Don't forget to write or call your Republican representatives in Congress and the Republican National Committee to thank them for the "Sporting Purpose" laws that prevent you from fully exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.

And don't forget to vote Republican this fall to show your appreciation to them.

 

[zoom6zoom]

Defending one's life is not a "sporting purpose". And should I need to do so, the BG isn't getting a "sporting chance."

 

[stevelyn]

The "sporting purpose" clause is arbitrary and subjective. It's ill defined and means whatever BATFEces says it means on any given week/day.

Getting rid of this abomination should be at the top of our list of things to do. Stripping it will go a long ways in restoring rights and access to certain firearms as BATFEces will no longer be able to ban barrels in parts kits and other BS decrees they issue.

It would also make Shrub I's import ban null and void because there would no longer be any authority under the '68 GCA for it to continue.

 

[TallPine]

Last I Checked Montanna was an NFA Friendly State

yeah, I hope so ... never looked up the laws, but one of my former neighbors (not the problem neighbor - this one was a good guy) had at least one registered full-auto. Dang, he moved away before I had a chance to shoot with him.


Back On Topic: isn't hunting tyrants a sporting purpose ...?

 

[orangelo]

The sporting purposes BS runs afowl of the SCOTUS Miller decision.

They ruled Miller had no protected right to own a shotgun because it served no military purpose. Now combine that with the sporting purposes crock and what exactly are you allowed to own?

Only weapons that are used by the military while at the same time also used by john kerry when he goes crawling around on his belly to look for deer. Exactly 0.

 

[Zundfolge]

Last I Checked Montanna was an NFA Friendly State.

They are generally NFA friendly, just no large bore or explosive destructive devices (which would mean no NFA DD Shotguns).

http://www.mp5.net/info/sbsconr.htm

The second amendment has nothing to do with sporting purposes or hunting. We need to repeal the whole enchilada.

I agree, but that ain't gonna happen in one fell swoop.

If the RKBA movement persists in this All or Nothing attitude, we're going to end up with NOTHING.

Incrementalism is how the antis got us this far and thats how we're going to have to get back ... look at the issue of CCW. Look at Alaska. First they passed "Shall Issue" CCW, then they passed "No Issue" ... they didn't go from a complete ban on CCW to "Vermont Style" overnight. Same with other states like Colorado. CCW used to be "may issue" here, now it's "shall issue" and there's a good chance that within the next decade we'll be "Vermont Style" too (although all CCW in Denver will likely be banned :banghead: ).

The point is that we need to roll this crap back a step at a time.

If it was up to me and I was king for a day I'd elimnate EVERY SINGLE GUN LAW leaving EVERYTHING legal (including large artillary, crew served weapons and bombers).

 

[benEzra]

The reason that shotguns are subject to being reclassified as Title 2 destructive devices at whim is that the NFA sets the maximum bore diameter of a Title 1 firearm at .50 caliber, with exceptions granted only to "sporting weapons." A 12-gauge shotgun is .729 caliber, hence if the BATFE determines a shotgun is nonsporting, it automatically becomes a restricted Title 2 firearm, since it is over the .50 caliber limit and was exempted only under the sporting exemption clause.

This is a different part of the law from the "sporting purposes" importation clause in 18 USC 922, and AFAIK the two sections are not related.

 

[Justin]

For those of you who advocate excising the sporting purposes clause altogether, I've got one question:

What's the difference between getting rid of it vs. redefining it so broadly that it may as well not exist?

Either way, the end result is the same, and one of the above options would be easier to accomplish than the other.

 

[ProguninTN]

Sporting Clause

I agree the sporting clause is very arbitrary. The BATFE wields broad authority to declare weapons "non sporting", which goes against our nation's history. Firearms are for defense and as "tyranny insurance". Sports are a secondary use. Unfortunately, our laws and too many hunters disagree. "Machine guns are not good for hunting, what do I need one for ?"

 

[Gunfire]

redefine it so broadly that it may as well not exist?

That's right. Play the game. Have the pro rtba patriots announce a voice vote at 12 midnight and tack it onto and bury it in a huge highway transportation spending bill just like lautenburg was passed by the anti-Constitutionalists.

 

[Low-Sci]

Yes, the sporting purpose clause is ponyloaf. But while we're trying to get it excised, how about we do this a much simpler, faster way...

And create a sport that requires high-capacity, semi-automatic shotguns? Then we have a sporting purpose once we've established this sport as mainstream.

 

[Zundfolge]

And create a sport that requires high-capacity, semi-automatic shotguns? Then we have a sporting purpose once we've established this sport as mainstream.

Already exists ... its called 3-Gun.


Practical shooting has already been DENIED as a "legitimate sporting purpose" by the BATFE.


To F-Troop sporting=hunting

 

[bowfin]

I say, if a firearm has the 11% Pitman-Robertson excise tax levied on it, then the Feds have already declared it a "sporting" firearm by default.

Here is a little blurb on the Pitman-Robertson tax:

The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.
The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.

"Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment"

http://federalasst.fws.gov/wr/fawr.html

Now, why no one has ever challenged the fact that many "non-sporting" firearms were taxed as such up until they were banned, is a mystery to me. The Feds need return a lot of cash if they mistakenly taxed a lot of "non-sporting" firearms;-)

 

[saltydog]

"Sporting purposes" will be the death of the Second Amendment unless that clause is "done away with!" Hell all firearms are destructive devices!

 

[Henry Bowman]

To those who argue that repeal of repugnant laws must be accomplished incrementally because that is how our rights came to be infringed, I would point out that the "sporting purpose" clause was put into place in one fell swoop, not incrementally. In fact, it was part of an omnibus Second Amendment infringement titled the Gun Control Act of 1968.

 

[Justin]

Which was passed as a direct result of a moral panic fomented by politicians and the press in the wake of the killings of Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, jr., and JFK.

For us to be able to make such swift advances would require a large number of the public not only be on our side, but hopping mad about it, as well.