WOW: Rep. Bishop Introduces Bill To Gut “Sporting Purposes,” Prohibit Ammo Bans

General General Discussion
21

The solution is a complete repealment of the NFA.

Incrementalism, boys. Regardless, “lawful” is essentially determined by the state. If they were to, part and parcel, just say, screw it, no more NFA, disband the BATFE, the pant-pissing, pajama-clad Leftists in NY and CA would flip out, and sensationalize the shit out of this.

The bottom line is that, this is a step in the right direction. Would I like more? Hell yes. But our attitude has been one of Hail-Mary-All-Or-Nothing and, “I’m taking my ball and going home”.

If we wait for the Hail-Mary-All-Or-Nothing approach, we’re going to be in a situation where we are complete and utter subjects.

As long as there is a means to work within the system, working with the system is the best course of action we have at our disposal.

I’m all for unregulated firearms for “lawful purposes.”

But the path there isn’t all-out political warfare. The left has used incremental steps to tear this country to shreds.

We have two choices:

Incrementally re-establish our Naturally, and Divinely bestowed Rights by working within the system.

Sit back, throw a temper tantrum, and wait until the country implodes on itself, and we left with a total, naked, tyranny.

The latter is knocking at the door, fellas.

So, since we are throwing out what we’d ultimately like to see in legislation such as this, what would you want?

I would like a repeal of the NFA.

22

This. Progressives work on shit for 100years, no exageration.

We give up before we start, or with the first no. The reason the country is falling apart is because we let it.

Dig in, drive foreward, and don’t stop. This is scratching the surface but we need to get behind it, and shove it through. If it fails, do it again next year, and the next…

23

Three cheers! I really didn’t think I would see the day when the crosshairs were finally aimed at the sporter clause. I am especially charged to read some of the comments here. This needs to happen, this can happen, and it can happen now. Calls and emails abound.

24

Actually that would be a bad idea. If you repealed the NFA but left the “sporter clause” intact, we’d probably be screwed. They would simply use the “sporter clause” to ban ALL NFA weapons across the board including the ones currently on the registry.

All the NFA does is require the payment of a “tax” on transfer. It “bans” or “regulates” nothing.

Foreign machine guns (as well as silencers, SBRs, SBS, etc.) were banned in the 1968 Gun Control Act based upon the sporter clause.

Domestic machine guns were banned in 1986 as part of FOPA based upon the sporter clause.

Foreign semi autos were banned in large number by the Bush Ban of 1989 based upon the sporter clause.

If you got rid of the “sporter clause” you would remove the basis for the 1968, 1986 and 1989 bans. At that point all the NFA would do is require you to pay a $200 “tax” whenever you buy a new imported or domestic NFA item. You pay more to keep your car registered for 5 years.

25

You’re right, and the $200 is chump change, considering it has remained in place for almost a century. My biggest gripe about the NFA is not the cost, but the delay. When I got my first Firearm License here, I remember it took around 6 months for the state to issue it. There have been so many reforms to the carry laws here that I can’t remember which one mandated that the probate judge “SHALL” send an applicants information to the GBI within “X” days for a background check.

I am with you about the “sporting purposes”. I don’t understand how an imported firearm is more dangerous than a domestic one.

I can sum my position up, that there needs to be a simplification of the existing firearms laws at the federal level. I have no problems with background checks. I have no problems with the FFL system. It seems to work rather efficiently.

It’s all the grey-area, ambiguity that needs to be struck down, along with the word “sport” from any legislation. Also, the ability for a regulatory agency to bend the rules, as well as make up the rules, as they go along needs to be be stopped.

26

Heard back from my Rep:

Thank you for writing me with your thoughts regarding H.R. 2710-the Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act. As your Representative to the U.S. government, it is very important for me to know your thoughts on important issues such as this.

As you may know, H.R. 2710 was introduced by Representative Bob Bishop (R-UT) on June 10th. If signed into law, this bill would revise various laws that interfere with the right of the people to obtain and use firearms for lawful purposes, specifically strengthening Second Amendment rights. I strongly believe it is our right to “keep and bear arms.” Law-abiding gun owners in North Georgia and elsewhere should be able to freely carry without fear of governmental encroachment.

I am a gun owner and an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. As a member of Congress, please be assured that I will always support legislation that upholds your right to keep and bear arms.

God, I love Georgia.

27

100% with you on this. With DC v. Heller instituting the “common usage” clause, the antis are already going full bore ridiculous. Rep. Rosa DeLauro from CT claimed that the AR should be banned because it is incapable of being used for any lawful purpose. Basically, the AR-15 is like the Ring of Power: It can’t be used for good even if you want to. If the ATF is given the power to determine if a gun can be used “lawfully” or not, it could actually make things worse. Right now, we can get around the sporter clause by pointing out how any gun can be used for a “sporting” purpose. If it’s changed to a “lawful” purpose, then the ATF could declare pretty much any gun it wants incapable of being used lawfully and therefore outright ban ownership, much like the DEA does with schedule I substances.

Yep.

All the NFA does is require the payment of a “tax” on transfer. It “bans” or “regulates” nothing.

I would partially agree with this, and the fact that it is just a “tax” and the history behind why they did this way gives some hope that the whole thing could possibly be found unconstitutional with the right Supreme Court setup.

However, I would say they are pretty regulated. The fact that you have to let the ATF know whenever you move if you own an NFA item, the fact that you have to fill out a form if you bring it across state lines telling them where you are going with it and why, how long you plan on being there, and when you’ll be back. There’s also the issue with the fact that you have to get the local chief LEO approval to register and own an NFA item and they can deny you for any reason including “because f*** you, kiss my ass.” I know we can get around this with a trust, but still… States and municipalities can outright ban NFA items. Plus, there’s the issue with having to wait anywhere from 3 months in good times to well over a year in bad times.

Foreign machine guns (as well as silencers, SBRs, SBS, etc.) were banned in the 1968 Gun Control Act based upon the sporter clause.

Domestic machine guns were banned in 1986 as part of FOPA based upon the sporter clause.

Foreign semi autos were banned in large number by the Bush Ban of 1989 based upon the sporter clause.

If you got rid of the “sporter clause” you would remove the basis for the 1968, 1986 and 1989 bans. At that point all the NFA would do is require you to pay a $200 “tax” whenever you buy a new imported or domestic NFA item. You pay more to keep your car registered for 5 years.

Agreed on all points here.

Another thing I would want to see is for an instant check system to be implemented for NFA items. If they’re going to be spending my tax dollars on government programs, at least spend them on one that actually benefits us directly. Second, I would want local LE discretion removed from process of getting an NFA item; it should be treated like any other gun transfer. No more need for trusts. Third, once I have the NFA item, remove updates and reports: No more reporting when I move or take it across state lines temporarily. The only time I would have to get the ATF involved is when I get or make the NFA item, when I sell it. Those steps are, I think, incremental enough to finally move in the right direction. With the right president to sign the bill, it could possibly be doable in the future.

28

I love Maine, and it just keeps getting better.

BRUCE POLIQUIN
2nd District of Maine

426 Cannon House
Office Building
(202) 225-6306
(202) 225-2943

July 7, 2015

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me regarding our Second Amendment right to lawful gun ownership. Understanding your perspective on this important issue helps me better represent you and our fellow Mainers in the U.S. House of Representatives.

One of the strongest and most important tenants of the Constitution is the Second Amendment. When I was sworn in as a Member of Congress, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As you may be aware, President Obama used the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to put forth a proposed ban on M855 5.56 x 45mm ammunition. I fiercely combatted the president on his unconstitutional attempts to restrict our Second Amendment rights. I am very proud to have joined my colleagues in sending a letter to ATF Director, B. Todd Jones, pressuring him to dismiss the agency’s unconstitutional proposal. After the efforts of my colleagues and I, and over 80,000 public comments, the ATF rescinded its proposed ban. To that end, I enthusiastically signed on to H.R. 1365, the Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act. This bill directly prevents the ATF from ever establishing this proposed ban while also protecting all rifle ammunition from being reclassified.

You should also know that I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 986, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. This bill allow Mainers, who have a valid concealed carry permit, to cross state borders and have their permit be valid as long as that state allows concealed carry permits/licenses. Our law-abiding taxpayers should be able to defend themselves and their property as they travel the country.

Furthermore, I also became a cosponsor of H.R. 578, the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act. This bill will allow our hard-working and law-abiding taxpayers to possess firearms and State-issued concealed carry permits on lands owned and operated by the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). With over 7 million acres of land owned by the USACE, our taxpayers should be able to defend themselves and their property as they legally fish, hunt and camp.

Please know that I will always fight to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and will make sure our hard-working and law-abiding Mainers are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Again, thanks for taking the time to reach out to me. If you have any concerns in the future, please don’t hesitate to contact our Congressional Office. I’m grateful and honored to represent you in Washington.

Best wishes,

Bruce Poliquin

29

Brick by brick, we will get Freedom legalized again.

30

GCA 1968 needs to be totally repealed. Where in the Constitution does it say the 2A is about sport shooting, or hunting? How our politicians keep letting illegal laws to be passed is beyond me.

31

Rep. Rob Bishop Introduces the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act”

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced H.R. 2620, the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act.” This bill would remove ATF’s authority to use the “sporting purposes” clauses in federal law in ways that could undermine the core purpose of the Second Amendment.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170526/rep-rob-bishop-introduces-the-lawful-purpose-and-self-defense-act

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

32

I saw that this morning. Man that would be outstanding. I sincerely hope we can get this passed. Everyone needs to contact their congress critters urging support.

33

Absolutely. I think it might actually have a shot with republicans in control. I hope they don’t dick around.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

34

You mean like they have with everything else?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

35

Pretty much. But to be fair, it’s not like there was a chance of it being signed in the previous eight years.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

36

Yeah, but let’s not let it fail because we didn’t do our part. Getting rid of the “sporter clause” needs to be as viciously supported as the lefts “reproductive rights.” We need to get obnoxious about “My gun is NOT for duck hunting” and be angry about it.

37

What he said.

38

Yup. I always make it a point when somebody asks me why I own a firearm to explain the purpose of 2A. When one states “you don’t need that to kill deer” I say yup, it’s for killing people that threaten my life or liberty.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

39

And once we’ve established that, then we need to work on getting them to realize that other people’s tax dollars can pay for shooting ranges and ammo if I’m going to keep subsidizing the inner city’s birth control plans…

All kidding aside, I’ll be emailing my congress critter about this. I can’t wait for the shitty form letter back about how much I don’t know and how safe all this gun control is for the Hampton Roads…

40

I want government subsidized cans too. Because muh entitlements.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk