ATF: Sporting Purposes

[knownalien]

I know this is a "baby steps" process. But I am curious as to how it might play out. Eventually the ATF needs to be corrected because the SCOTUS has already talked about defense of your person being an inherent right, therefore "sporting purposes" is irrelevant. But that phrase has been used to outlaw many models of guns. It has to be challenged. So my question is would this be a lawsuit against the ATF, the administration or someone else? Who will be able to bring this into a court of law. Perhaps also many states mimic this "standard" and so musst be challenged too.

Thoughts?

 

[Ab_Normal]

You bring up a good point but I'll bet it won't happen until after the current attack is defended. I would also think it would undo 922R as well as allow for opening up importation of firearms that were stopped being imported because they have no 'sporting purpose'.

 

[NB1214]

Every baby step in the right direction helps! Thanks for the info.

 

[Inigoes]

The "Sporting Purposes" language was introduced in the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA'68), and has been upheld as constitutional by the SCOTUS.

 

[teratos]

The "Sporting Purposes" language was introduced in the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA'68), and has been upheld as constitutional by the SCOTUS.

That's all well and good, but did the decision that upheld that indicate that "sporting purposes" is the only Constitutional reason to possess firearms?

 

[frozencesium]

More to the point, those decisions were pre Woollard and pre McDonald, thus at the time there was no established right to self defense even in the home, thus "sporting purposes" is a perfectly valid standard.

If a case were to be brought again, I would be interested to see if the SCOTUS would grant cert now that "sporting purposes" would conflict with a right to self defense. My guess is that they would deny cert to avoid having to answer that conflict.

 

[Inigoes]

That's all well and good, but did the decision that upheld that indicate that "sporting purposes" is the only Constitutional reason to possess firearms?

United States v. Freed - 401 U.S. 601 (1971)

 

[knownalien]

That's all well and good, but did the decision that upheld that indicate that "sporting purposes" is the only Constitutional reason to possess firearms?

exactly.

More to the point, those decisions were pre Woollard and pre McDonald, thus at the time there was no established right to self defense even in the home, thus "sporting purposes" is a perfectly valid standard.

If a case were to be brought again, I would be interested to see if the SCOTUS would grant cert now that "sporting purposes" would conflict with a right to self defense. My guess is that they would deny cert to avoid having to answer that conflict.

weapons are inherently defensive/offensive. They are modified to be "sporting" if anything. I would like the ATF to define sporting. They will lose in the end I think. So I wonder . . . . . if we are allowed to defend ourselves and logic says that criminals could be our enemy and that we should have what they have (at least) . . . . . see where I'm going with this? Many have fully auto weapons.

 

[jonnyl]

Does it get murkier since 922R deals with import rather than possession? I realize that if there were no non-sporting weapons produced in the country there might be more of a case.

I'm not making the argument, just looking to learn from the scholars....

 

[K31]

The right to self defense aside, where in the COTUS doe sit say it's the government's right to decide what is sport?

 

[Ab_Normal]

The right to self defense aside, where in the COTUS doe sit say it's the government's right to decide what is sport?

Where in the 2A does it talk about sport?

 

[knownalien]

Where in the 2A does it talk about sport?

exactly. it's a made-up construct. Sporting is a tangent of self defense weapons. If they want to have separate classifications, that's ok. But they cannot deny you your ability to defend yourself with artificial nomenclature. I mean, all guns can be used for sporting purposes too! It's when they said (I think), "yeah, but is this a mean looking weapon meant for combat?" So the area really is somewhere between "sporting" and "combat." I say in the spritit of COTUS, up TO "combat."

 

[Ab_Normal]

exactly. it's a made-up construct. Sporting is a tangent of self defense weapons. If they want to have separate classifications, that's ok. But they cannot deny you your ability to defend yourself with artificial nomenclature. I mean, all guns can be used for sporting purposes too! It's when they said (I think), "yeah, but is this a mean looking weapon meant for combat?" So the area really is somewhere between "sporting" and "combat." I say in the spritit of COTUS, up TO "combat."

Until they put a bag limit and open season dates on tyrants and enemies of the republic (both foreighn and domestic) then 'sporting purpose' would not be covered under the 2A. However 'sporting purpose' would be covered under the 'life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.' part of the COTUS.

 

[teratos]

United States v. Freed - 401 U.S. 601 (1971)

It says NFA is legal. It says nothing about sporting reasons being the only reason to possess firearms. This was also before SCOTUS upheld that the 2A protected the possession of weapons for self defense. The legal landscape has changed. I'm sure you agree it is a bad decision.

 

[Inigoes]

It says NFA is legal. It says nothing about sporting reasons being the only reason to possess firearms. This was also before SCOTUS upheld that the 2A protected the possession of weapons for self defense. The legal landscape has changed. I'm sure you agree it is a bad decision.

Yes, I would love to see the SCOTUS "common arms" language from Heller go up against the GCA'68 "sporting purposes".

The trick is how to get the case heard? That is where my lack of creativity gets me cynical.

Short of a complete ban, it's gonna be tough.

 

[teratos]

Yes, I would love to see the SCOTUS "common arms" language from Heller go up against the GCA'68 "sporting purposes".

The trick is how to get the case heard? That is where my lack of creativity gets me cynical.

Short of a complete ban, it's gonna be tough.

I'm not sure I understand the legal system enough to come up with an answer on this one. We contend that the M4 carbine (select fire) should be protected under the 2A. We are not allowed to purchase them. We feel that harm has been done in the denial of our Right. That's as far as I get......

 

[Inigoes]

I'm not sure I understand the legal system enough to come up with an answer on this one. We contend that the M4 carbine (select fire) should be protected under the 2A. We are not allowed to purchase them. We feel that harm has been done in the denial of our Right. That's as far as I get......

The Hughes amendment, 18 USC 922 (o) is a different fight altogether. So far this endeavor is not in our favor with several circuits ruling against us.

 

[Furious George]

The ATF takes the position that just because a use is lawful (self defense) does not mean that it qualifies as a sporting purpose.

With some limited exceptions, the "Sporting Purposes" test applies only to the importation of firearms and ammunition into the United States.

There is no "Sporting Purposes" test that applies to domestically manufactured firearms and ammunition.

You CANNOT import an AR15 or an HK91, a Walther PPK or tracer ammunition because it does not pass the current sporting purposes test.

You are absolutely free to manufacture any of these items in the United States and sell them commercially.

For the most part you can make the argument that the "Sporting Purposes" test deprives you of almost nothing.

If you want a 2" barrelled revolver to protect yourself, find one made in the U.S. or import it with a 6 inch barrel and modify it afterward.

Heller was about denying possession of an entire class of firearms. It is difficult to argue that the "Sporting Purposes" test does that.

 

[knownalien]

You are absolutely free to manufacture any of these items in the United States and sell them commercially.

For the most part you can make the argument that the "Sporting Purposes" test deprives you of almost nothing.

.

the problem is that the Left has defined the argument by saying "hey, an AK47 has no sporting purpose blah blah blah." We need that thinking changed.
But as it pertains to your point, I don't like being told what I can and cannot buy made from outside of our country. They may build a "better mouse trap." I want access to that if it helps me exercise my 2A right.