Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005

D

dolanp

New member
Ron Paul of TX has introduced into the House a bill called the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005. This bill would remove the power of the Attorney General and those under his direction to apply the 'sporting purposes' test to determining the legality and importability of firearms. It would modify sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the US Code.

Link to HR1703

It is in two different committees right now. Write your local representative and encourage them to support and cosponsor this bill. Any of you who deal with imported rifles know how much of a hassle this 'sporting purposes' causes and how the BATFE arbitrarily gets to decide what guns should be legal.

Thanks for reading.
 
good for him

the best defense against Schumer, Clinton, et al is a GOOD OFFENSE! Keep them on the defensive for once. Flood the house and senate with so many pro-gun bills so that they can't oppose them all. Hmmm, maybe they could?

Calling my "pro-gun" rep to find out why he's not a co-sponsor.
 
While I am normally right behind Ron Paul on most things, I am not impressed with this one. Good as applied to domestic legal principle - but not so good in other ways.

Rather than helping the import of cheap foreign guns, I would rather see some more aggressive work at lifting some of the restrictions on the homegrown products. Making a manufacturing environment that is more conducive to domestic production - more jobs - and shrugging off the Federal intrusions on the purchase, possession and transfer of all firearms by private persons.

And on the State level, a Vermont-style carry law.

Close but no cigar.
 
Judas jumpin' Priest, LAK... Do you want egg in your beer too? :rolleyes: :confused:

It's a step in the right direction. Surely you have to agree with that!
 
Not really, I am really getting sick of the way it is actually difficult to find American made products. Sure, we can still find plenty of firearms made in the USA at least for the time being. But there are also plenty of cheap foreign made firearms getting over here all the same, and there seems to be no sign of what's coming in letting up any time soon.

It is apparent to me that Remington etc are straining considerably to drum up markets for business. I think with the decline of hunting, and in many areas shooting in general, it is especially important to protect them to a degree or they will go the way of many other historical American marques.

Remington may not be making gas operated semi-auto rifles with 20-rd magazines, but we must remember that once an entire industry is exported it ceases to be at our political control and practical disposal. Thus if the bulk of our firearms industry is exported, it could be given a politically induced death in foreign lands leaving us with what is on hand only. Not hopeless, but not good either.

A few days ago I saw - or perhaps noticed - something amusing and irritating at the same time; a tag on something that said "Made in North America".
 
The company that produces what the people wants is the one that survives. That's capitalism for you. The very fact that this import restriction exists only helps American manufacturers, and maybe that's your point, but it is still a bad law that needs to be removed.

The American car will go the way of the dodo as well if they don't start learning from competitors and quit putting out junk that breaks all the time.
 
AMEN Dolan!

I'm not about protecting American manufacturing. It is their job to protect themselves by producing superior products at a price the market will bear. I think that American gun manufacturing hit hard times from the silly lawsuits, and I believe the government should adopt a "loser-pays" system so when they have to spend five million dollars defending against a lawsuit because their product operates as advertised, the people who lose the suit should pay all defense expenses of the winner. That will protect American gun manafacturing for those firms that still produce superior products.

Colt and S&W both went down due to poor management. Norinco and Arsenal had nothing to do with it. Those are two different markets. I like Sigs myself. I can afford them. Some might only be able to afford a "cheap" import to defend themselves with and so I think they should have that choice.
 
Dolanp
The American car will go the way of the dodo as well if they don't start learning from competitors and quit putting out junk that breaks all the time.
Click to expand...
Well, we might see more domestic competition if some of the automobile industry regulation was removed. The legal framework that has been built around fielding motor vehicles for road use makes it outrageously expensive to design, build, test and market a motor vehicle. I was driving simple, safe, reliable and economical european made cars in the late 70s that would often get 45 to 55 mpg. But under current regulation they would be illegal to build and sell here in the USA.

kjm
I'm not about protecting American manufacturing. It is their job to protect themselves by producing superior products at a price the market will bear.
Click to expand...
"Superior" products is a somewhat subjective term when applied to motor vehicles. As I noted above, regulation effectively strangles the market and prevents new competition on the domestic front.

The second problem is pricing. There is no way that any American car maker is going to be able to compete with countries that can pay workers a couple of dollars an hour - except perhaps in the top end luxury and sports cars where the potential buyers have deep pockets and are not primarily concerned with price.

If you appy this same principle to the firearms industry it means that if countries like China were in the sporting rifles and shotguns market in a big way they could easily undermine most similar products made here in the USA.

What is there that can not be made cheaper in China or other third world countries?
 
I think that this bill is a step in the right direction(as others said), but a lot more should be done.

LAK - You can't have it all at once, beaurcracy doesn't die willingly, unless by force.
 
the best defense against Schumer, Clinton, et al is a GOOD OFFENSE! Keep them on the defensive for once. Flood the house and senate with so many pro-gun bills so that they can't oppose them all. Hmmm, maybe they could?
Click to expand...
Good idea. We should also take a page from the antis and name the bills in a way to make it sound like anyone opposing them is off their rocker.

For example, when the antis introduce a bill to ban AP ammo, they tend to name it something like the "Police Protection Act of 2005" implying that anyone who votes against it is not in favor of police safety.

We could name our bills something like the "Homeland Protection Act of 2005".
 
I do not see why you wouldn't want the sporting purpose clause lifted from the GCA '68. That is the part that prevents import of the Walther TPH and PPK from Germany and Baby Browning from Belgium. It is the part that requires only 'American made' Kalashnikovs be allowed in. The ONE GUN that I really want to see is the Neostead shotgun (primarily because I want to be the importer). The FAL from Belgium and Brazil, the Steyr AUG, and the FAMAS were banned by executive order in 1989, but the 'sporting purpose' clause may have been used as justification for it. There are plenty of good guns made overseas that are banned from import under the 'sporting purpose' clause and I for one would love to see them again or for the first time. This legislation has the potential of overturning years of antigun legislation.
 
The Kind Folks on AR15.com said:
Alrighty folks - we're assuredly on the assault now.

We all need to start with the letters, the calls, the visits and more, and get our elected officials backing Representative Ron Paul of Texas, and his bill, H.R.1703.

Here's the link: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1703:

Here's the text:

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 1703 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1703
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 19, 2005
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



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


A BILL
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL HARASSMENT PERIOD.

Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION.

(a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'; and

(2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes'.

(b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'.

(c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes'.

(d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,'.

(e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community'.

(f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and'.

(h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)'.

(i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting `lawful purposes'.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Here's the full text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top