Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It's not remarkable.
Why Isn't There A Legislative Push to Get Rid of the "Sporting Purposes" Clause of the GCA?
- Thread starter LogicMan
- Start date
I think the real reason the Republicans have not made "fixing" gun control a major issue is not because of any "we don't want poor people to have guns" kind of thing, though I am sure some people are into that.
The main reason its not a priority is because, in the view of the Republican party, it doesn't NEED to be. They have a historical pattern of this. Pro-gun voters are, for them, essentially a captive audience.
After all, where else are we going to go??? No one who values their guns and gun rights will vote for the Democrats, who have openly put gun control in their official party platform.
SO, what are our choices??? Vote "R" or stay home.
The Republicans make noises about doing something for us (repealing SOME gun control) before elections, so we will vote FOR them, rather than staying home. After the election, they got our votes, so they don't NEED to make guncontrol a big deal, until the run up for the NEXT election.
They can make noises, introduce bills, maybe even get one of two small things that work in our favor passed, and then claim victory, and how they have defended our rights, done what we wanted, etc., but they don't NEED to push hard or make it big priority, because, after all, do something for us, big, small, or nothing at all, they can still count on our votes in the next election, simply because we have no where else to go.
They will make it seem like it is an important issue to them, so we do vote, but after the election real effort goes on the back burner, until the next election comes up, then they'll move it back onto what they say is their priority list. They have done this time after time (and not just with the gun issue). It is the way business is done in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, about many issues.
The main reason its not a priority is because, in the view of the Republican party, it doesn't NEED to be. They have a historical pattern of this. Pro-gun voters are, for them, essentially a captive audience.
After all, where else are we going to go??? No one who values their guns and gun rights will vote for the Democrats, who have openly put gun control in their official party platform.
SO, what are our choices??? Vote "R" or stay home.
The Republicans make noises about doing something for us (repealing SOME gun control) before elections, so we will vote FOR them, rather than staying home. After the election, they got our votes, so they don't NEED to make guncontrol a big deal, until the run up for the NEXT election.
They can make noises, introduce bills, maybe even get one of two small things that work in our favor passed, and then claim victory, and how they have defended our rights, done what we wanted, etc., but they don't NEED to push hard or make it big priority, because, after all, do something for us, big, small, or nothing at all, they can still count on our votes in the next election, simply because we have no where else to go.
They will make it seem like it is an important issue to them, so we do vote, but after the election real effort goes on the back burner, until the next election comes up, then they'll move it back onto what they say is their priority list. They have done this time after time (and not just with the gun issue). It is the way business is done in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, about many issues.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I agree but one would ask why the issue is not a priority for them given their supposed conservative agenda. That was what I was speaking about. Keep the issue for votes and really don't want an armed populace.
In any case, you folks figure it out as I am going to eat a liverwurst sandwich on an onion roll!
In any case, you folks figure it out as I am going to eat a liverwurst sandwich on an onion roll!
44AMP said:
Does that measure work for other issues?
Reduced marginal income tax rates is an issue the repubs own in much the same way dems own feminism. If repubs don't reduce rates to your liking, what are you going to do? Vote democrat? Yet Glenn identifies this as a repub priority, and I think he is correct on that.
We see only intermittent legislation reducing marginal IT rates. Is this because repubs know they have a lock on voters who want lower rates? Or is it because all legislators work within a system that requires majorities not just of one's own party, but majorities on a specific measure?
Our system is designed in a way that makes legislation difficult to pass into law. It's possible that a bill you and I love doesn't get through because others love the bill less and our system makes passage difficult. It might not be that faithless legislators are just toying with us.
Getting pro-gun legislation passed at the federal level is very doable, it just takes time. For example the 1986 FOPA and the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Yes FOPA is where automatic weapons were banned, but that was something added at the last minute to try and kill the bill. The GOP decided to eat the ban because to kill the bill would've meant burning a lot of bridges and also it would have been unlikely another chance to pass such a bill would come any time soon. But the main reason for the bill in the first place was because of the blatant abuses of people's rights that were occurring due to the 1968 Gun Control Act. FOPA undid certain of the GCA. The PLCAA was passed because of the gun controllers trying to sue the gun industry out of existence.
Silencer deregulation, national reciprocity, and/or elimination of the "sporting purposes" clause will likely probably take some time as well. What we really need are more astute pro-gun politicians who can actually explain these types of bills to people on television, as unfortunately too many can't. IMO, too many pro-gun politicians don't know much of anything about guns or the Second Amendment, so they don't know how to defend the legislation. Remember when Newtown happened and it was cringing listening to some of the politicians try to defend why there shouldn't be any "assault weapons ban," "high-capacity magazine" ban, etc...
Silencer deregulation, national reciprocity, and/or elimination of the "sporting purposes" clause will likely probably take some time as well. What we really need are more astute pro-gun politicians who can actually explain these types of bills to people on television, as unfortunately too many can't. IMO, too many pro-gun politicians don't know much of anything about guns or the Second Amendment, so they don't know how to defend the legislation. Remember when Newtown happened and it was cringing listening to some of the politicians try to defend why there shouldn't be any "assault weapons ban," "high-capacity magazine" ban, etc...
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That is correct. However, it is an indication of priority to me. Many of the 'progun' folks are so lacking in knowledge as to be detrimental. One only has to look at Sec. of Education DeVos. She was asked about carry and guns in school and went on to babble about grizzly bears in the boonies. Looked like a fool and was mocked as such. An affluent, upscale person who really doesn't understand the issue. However, her social class is a priority. Gun nuts aren't to the leadership.
Research clearly shows the energy in the gun world is in self-defense but we still get 'sportsperson' progun babble from many. I'm a hunter - blah, blah. Who cares.
Discussing marginal tax rates, interest, push throughs and back - so what - also. Nice priorities but not high on the priority list for defending and/or enhancing gun rights.
Have a state of the union address that contains a clear statement that decent reciprocity, HPA, a SAGA (eliminating state bans), SHARE, freeing the post offices are equal to letting Paris Hilton get her dad's money without taxes or cutting the deduction on graduate school tuition - then we can talk. Otherwise - you've been had for your vote.
It might take the threat of lowering financial support at a time when the GOP might have some vulnerabilities that will cause priority changes. Sure, then you get an antigunner - but if you are passive in defense - you lose.
Research clearly shows the energy in the gun world is in self-defense but we still get 'sportsperson' progun babble from many. I'm a hunter - blah, blah. Who cares.
Discussing marginal tax rates, interest, push throughs and back - so what - also. Nice priorities but not high on the priority list for defending and/or enhancing gun rights.
Have a state of the union address that contains a clear statement that decent reciprocity, HPA, a SAGA (eliminating state bans), SHARE, freeing the post offices are equal to letting Paris Hilton get her dad's money without taxes or cutting the deduction on graduate school tuition - then we can talk. Otherwise - you've been had for your vote.
It might take the threat of lowering financial support at a time when the GOP might have some vulnerabilities that will cause priority changes. Sure, then you get an antigunner - but if you are passive in defense - you lose.
dogtown tom
New member
Name one US manufacturer that has said they want to import US military surplus firearms.
The sporting clause doesn't ban the manufacture of "military guns", just the importation.
Not really absurd when you read the law ATF was basing that ruling on.
Well, you're wrong. Administrative law is chock full of regulations that require legislative intent. When ATF (or any Federal agency) oversteps then congress or the courts will spank them.....as they did with the old "once a rifle, always a rifle".
The same "us" that wrote the Constitution allows for all those different government agencies to implement regulations based on a Federal law.
Sorry, wrong again.
A "pro-gun" legislator can't magically make an existing federal law disappear.
And neither can a "pro-gun" judiciary...........they must be able to rule in a court case that the Second Amendment is being infringed. As of today, that hasn't happened with regard to the sporting clause.
dogtown tom
New member
Nailed it.
Congress ain't got time to read laws, they leave that for the civil servants and courts to figure out.
If you read the law they were basing it on, it becomes clear that M855 does not apply. One of the requirements in the law is that to be "armor-piercing," ammunition has to have been "designed for use in a handgun." While there are some handguns designed to fire M855, M855 itself was never designed for use in a handgun. The ATF were trying to claim that because of the existence of pistol-variant AR's, that that means that the M855 is now pistol ammunition. But it is clearly rifle ammunition and primarily used as such.
IMO, you are living in a fantasyland. What makes you think that Congress or the courts will stop the ATF from over-stepping their bounds? The courts in particular refuse to do much of anything about the various states and localities that consistently overstep their bounds. Regarding the Congress, that highly depends on who is in control of the Congress.
And your reference to administrative law doesn't change anything with regards to how the ATF is extremely arbitrary with how they define sporting uses of guns.
There was no "us" in the writing of the Constitution. The Founders wrote it, and then had to convince the American public to support ratification of it. And there is no "us" with regards to allowing all those government agencies. There are so many agencies that most people have no idea that the majority of them even exist. And the idea that they just implement regulations based on federal law I think is wishful thinking. They, to a great degree, make law on their own.
I think you misunderstood me as I understand all of that. With regards to pro-gun legislators, I meant such legislators won't use the claim about sporting purposes to write new gun control laws that ban "non-sporting" guns. And regarding the courts, I meant that in court cases, pro-gun courts would reject any law based on "sporting purposes."
Congress is supposed to read the laws they make and try to keep them in line with the Constitution. In the event that they are out of line, then the job of the courts is to put them back in line. Regarding the regulators, basically what you are saying is Congress just creates some "law" and then basically leaves it to the non-elected bureaucrats to make up law as they please in terms of the implementation.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
dogtown tom said:
As a lawyer who offered comments on the proposed ban of M855 and has drafted regulatory interpretations of law, I disagree.
As to your other general comments, I think they reflect a naive view of how the system works. Congress, by necessity, delegates a great deal of authority to federal agencies. During the Obama era the issue was that that authority was “reinterpreted” by the agency in a way that gave them more power. Congress was, of course, free to correct that executive reinterpretation with new legislation - provided they could override a Presidential veto. Of course, the GOP could not do that - even with the largest numerical advantage they’ve enjoyed in the last hundred years.
And for the courts to correct that problem you need someone who can bankroll litigation against an opponent that literally picks your own pocket to pay its own lawyers and can afford to use every nasty, expensive, stalling tactic allowed. And then if you manage to overcome that, you need lower court judges who don’t think Scalia is some horrid nightmare and who aren’t deadset on opposing him.
dogtown tom
New member
First, "designed for use in a handgun" isn't what led ATF to attempt to ban M855, it was the "may be used in a handgun" language in 921a.17.A of what constitutes "armor piercing ammunition" as well as the last paragraph that gives the Attorney general wide latitude in determining "sporting purpose" of ammunition.
Second, It's not arbitrary. Going strictly by the language from the US Code pretty much any jacketed bullet with a core of anything other than lead might be classified as "armor piercing".......and that's the problem. That definition doesn't necessarily mean a bullet is armor piercing.
Third, you assume I agree with ATF....I don't. I'm just showing you the citation from the US Code that ATF was using in their ruling.
Again, the "designed for use in a handgun" isn't what led ATF to attempt to ban M855, it was the "may be used in a handgun" language in 921a.17.A of what constitutes "armor piercing ammunition".
Are you kidding? Who do you think caused ATF to put the brakes on with the proposed ban on M855? It was merely an uproar from Congress....and didn't even require a vote.
Ever heard of US vs Thompson Center?
Obviously not.
Horsehockey.
"Control of congress" didn't result in a single anti gun bill during Obama's first two years did it?
And Heller vs DC wasn't about comic books was it?
Either you don't know the definition of "arbitrary" or you don't know what administrative law really is.
ATF is always very careful to cite the relevant citation from Federal law and the CFR when issuing a ruling or determination letter. That doesn't mean they aren't going to be spanked by congress or the courts.
What part of "We the people" do you not get?
Do you not elect a representative to congress?
Do you not vote?
Oh my.
Uh, irrelevant.
It's called the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
Read it. It details what authority CONGRESS wanted a Federal agency to have.
That's because Congress gives Federal agencies the authority to promulgate regulations BASED ON the legislation passed by Congress.
ATF cannot "arbitrarily" ban black painted guns for example......they would have to provide a legal reference to an existing Federal law. That's why they told Congress that "bump stocks" aren't machine guns (and why ATF cannot ban them). Once Congress decides to ban bump stocks and passes a new Federal law.....ATF will have to write a regulation the defines the illegal features of a bump stock.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
New member
Disagree? With what?
Are you saying ATF didn't refer to U.S.C. 921 a. (17)(A) when they issued their proposed ban?http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
So......tell us how it really works.
No kidding.
Again, no kidding.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I disagree with ATF's interpretation that 18 USC 921(a) gives them the authority to ban M855 ammunition.
You state ATF can't do things arbitrarily, and yet ATF has declared shoestrings to be machineguns, declared arm braces to be OK for pistols, then declared shouldering one made it an SBR, then reversed itself on that as well. ATF has declared bump stocks legal; but the Atkins Accelerator was declared illegal (after it was first declared legal and released to the public.). And now they are taking comments related to regulating bump stocks. No new laws were passed by Congress - all of those decisions were based on the same legal text.
You reference U.S. Vs. Thompson Center; but for almost 20 years the ATF's official position was that the Court's ruling applied only to the specific firearm in that case and not more broadly to pistols that could be converted to rifles.
That's not to say ATF does these things out of malice. They are in the position of having to try and imply the intent of vague law written in 1934 to 21st century firearms sales. Congress isn't in any hurry to clarify any of those delegations of power either. But ATF's interpretations aren't the law - they are just a bunch of government lawyers reaching agreement on how to interpret the law as it applies to modern innovations that didn't even exist when Congress originally delegated them the authority to regulate a different item.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Wouldn't life be much simpler if we could get the .gov to just admit that "shal not be infringed" means exactly what it says?
Yes, I know ... "Good luck wit dat."
Yes, I know ... "Good luck wit dat."
dogtown tom
New member
Again, no kidding.
I don't think that anyone involved in the shooting sports agreed with that.
And yet that decision was based on what? A long existing Federal regulation. While it seems silly, if it were a wire, cable, a plastic Lego or solid piece of metal it wouldn't have been any different than a shoestring.
And AGAIN, that's not arbitrary, but in fact based on what the regulations define as "machine gun".
No more "arbitrary" than a potato or plastic soda bottle being considered a silencer when used to muffle the report of a firearm.
Wait a minute.
It's still illegal (without a tax stamp) to attach ANYTHING to a pistol with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock.
ATF SHOULD have noted in their original determination letter that using an arm brace as designed and intended (as an arm brace) was perfectly fine. But should have also noted that attaching it to a handgun with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock would have required a tax stamp.
But they didn't and came up with the silly "shouldering" response.
And guess what?..............all those determinations were based on an actual Federal law and existing regulation. Not anything arbitrary.
That may be because Mr Atkins subsequently redesigned his stock AFTER receiving initial approval.
And ATF has already been quoted in the press as saying bump stocks are not currently prohibited under any federal law or ATF regulation.
Yep. And note that the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, nitwit GOA and others never pressed the issue. The ATF regulatory change came literally out of the blue.
No kidding.
1) I know that "designed for use in a hand gun" isn't what led the ATF to attempt a ban, the point is that the fact that M855 wasn't designed for use in a hand gun automatically undermines the ATF's authority to restrict it.
2) There you see an example of the arbitrariness regarding that "sporting purposes" language to ban things. So by having a pro-gun Attorney General, they wouldn't use that to ban anything
3) The "may be used in a handgun" is one part of the definition of armor-piercing, and M855 does not meet the complete definition, so it still fails:
An uproar from a predominantly Republican Congress at a time when support for gun rights is fairly strong. As for the courts, again, you are living in a fantasyland, IMO.
It was his first two years. So no, there wasn't a push for an anti-gun bill, because it would have led to a war and possibly destroyed his chances politically to get anything done. Between gun control versus things like universal healthcare, the Democrats wanted to prioritize the latter. As for DC v Heller, that was a skin-of-the-teeth victory, 5-4. And the Supreme Court has as of late been very reluctant to take up any cases regarding gun rights, allowing lower court restrictions on gun rights thus to stand. The lower courts are a mostly lost cause regarding gun rights, especially since Obama as he filled them up with a lot of anti-gun appointees.
They cite a very selective interpretation and as you said, the sporting purposes clause in the law gives wide latitude.
That is general language to refer to the fact that the Constitution was ratified by the American people to create and give authority to the new federal government. But in terms of who actually wrote the Constitution, it was a select group of men.
Yes, I do vote, but that doesn't change the fact that all of those government agencies represent a shadow bureaucracy that is completely unelected. In addition, the creation of many of them was done in the past, and once you create a government agency, it is almost impossible to get rid of it. Reagan wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, which had been created by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, but still couldn't do it. The issue also is more complicated because a lot of government agencies should be there, but it nonetheless creates the problem of a shadow bureaucracy.
It is VERY relevant. How can one keep an eye on their government if they don't know certain portions of it even exist?
There are plenty of things regarding what a part of the government is "supposed" to have the authority to do versus what it actually does. The Constitution prohibits the government from doing a lot of things, but that hasn't stopped it over they years from doing them. The 2nd Amendment says the government is not supposed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, hasn't stopped it now has it?
ATF is looking into the banning of them right now. And "promulgate regulations based on legislation" gives a lot of latitude to essentially make law in certain instances. The EPA has been notorious for that as of late.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
dogtown tom, so essentially, your argument is that ATF rulings cannot be considered arbitrary because although they reach conflicting results and change without any change in the underlying law they rely on, they cite to and are based on an interpretation of federal law (though that interpretation may change)? Effectively, they are arbitrary only in outcome but not rationale?
We’ll see how that statement holds up during the current review.
We’ll see how that statement holds up during the current review.
Congress must have the ability to delegate the making and enforcement of regulations to lesser Federal agencies.
Congress has neither the time, nor the "temperament" to manage the tiniest details that govern our lives, NOR DO WE WANT THEM TO!
They do get involved in some things, where they feel a political advantage is to be gained, and their micro-management of certain things seldom leads to optimal results, and often the opposite.
SO, this leaves us with the various agencies to create the regulations that will be used to enforce the laws. The problem with this is, that those agencies are bureaucracies, which, by their very nature will expand to fill the space available, and beyond, unless specifically checked by higher levels of govt. authority.
The second part of the problem is that these agencies are staffed by human beings, a percentage of which are petty, small minded people concerned with nothing beyond their own personal status and power. And when these people become "kings" of their own little world, they strive mightily to expand their kingdoms.
The easiest way for them to do that is to interpret, and re-interpret the regulations to suit their goals. These are your "arbitrary" decisions. Decisions which, unfortunately they have the authority to make, following an established procedure.
They can propose literally anything, and use the most specious logic to connect their proposed change to existing law. IF the proposal manages to "fly under the radar" during the public comment period, it becomes established, and carries the force of law.
Until/unless the agency changes its "mind" at a later date. Look at the history of certain items and the ATF. Pistol stocks (for one example) have been legal, illegal, legal again (with certain restrictions), and I'm not certain what the current interpretation of their legality is.
Watch and see if "bump stocks" don't go the same way, becoming illegal (a regulated item at the least) with the whim of the prevailing political winds.
The ATF was entirely correct to rule they were not a regulated item when the issue came before them. There was (and currently still is) no law covering their ownership and use. I expect that to change, even if there is no change to the governing law(s). A simple "re-interpretation" of the regs could do it, Although, with all the publicity surrounding this particular item, I expect Congress to push for a change in the law, to ensure easy acceptance of the reinterpreted regulations.
If you are looking for a root cause for our current situation, you might look back a ways to where Congress screwed us, and themselves, by giving the regulations the force of law. Prior to that violating a regulation and violating the law were separate things, and it was up to the courts to determine if the law was actually violated when a given regulation was.
I do not believe that is the situation that obtains today. And we are worse off, because of it.
Congress has neither the time, nor the "temperament" to manage the tiniest details that govern our lives, NOR DO WE WANT THEM TO!
They do get involved in some things, where they feel a political advantage is to be gained, and their micro-management of certain things seldom leads to optimal results, and often the opposite.
SO, this leaves us with the various agencies to create the regulations that will be used to enforce the laws. The problem with this is, that those agencies are bureaucracies, which, by their very nature will expand to fill the space available, and beyond, unless specifically checked by higher levels of govt. authority.
The second part of the problem is that these agencies are staffed by human beings, a percentage of which are petty, small minded people concerned with nothing beyond their own personal status and power. And when these people become "kings" of their own little world, they strive mightily to expand their kingdoms.
The easiest way for them to do that is to interpret, and re-interpret the regulations to suit their goals. These are your "arbitrary" decisions. Decisions which, unfortunately they have the authority to make, following an established procedure.
They can propose literally anything, and use the most specious logic to connect their proposed change to existing law. IF the proposal manages to "fly under the radar" during the public comment period, it becomes established, and carries the force of law.
Until/unless the agency changes its "mind" at a later date. Look at the history of certain items and the ATF. Pistol stocks (for one example) have been legal, illegal, legal again (with certain restrictions), and I'm not certain what the current interpretation of their legality is.
Watch and see if "bump stocks" don't go the same way, becoming illegal (a regulated item at the least) with the whim of the prevailing political winds.
The ATF was entirely correct to rule they were not a regulated item when the issue came before them. There was (and currently still is) no law covering their ownership and use. I expect that to change, even if there is no change to the governing law(s). A simple "re-interpretation" of the regs could do it, Although, with all the publicity surrounding this particular item, I expect Congress to push for a change in the law, to ensure easy acceptance of the reinterpreted regulations.
If you are looking for a root cause for our current situation, you might look back a ways to where Congress screwed us, and themselves, by giving the regulations the force of law. Prior to that violating a regulation and violating the law were separate things, and it was up to the courts to determine if the law was actually violated when a given regulation was.
I do not believe that is the situation that obtains today. And we are worse off, because of it.
from post #13-Logical man
Quote:
ATF has published it's views on 3 gun, etc...........basically saying that although those are now considered "sports", they were not around when Congress passed the GCA. (and therefore do not count)
Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. Just because something wasn't around at the time the law was passed doesn't mean they can't count as a sport.
TV, radio, INTERNET for sure were not around when the Constitution was signed. Try and eliminate the 1A protection from them and see how Nancy, Chuckie, Mitch and Diane respond.
They wont ever give you the time of day.
Quote:
ATF has published it's views on 3 gun, etc...........basically saying that although those are now considered "sports", they were not around when Congress passed the GCA. (and therefore do not count)
Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. Just because something wasn't around at the time the law was passed doesn't mean they can't count as a sport.
TV, radio, INTERNET for sure were not around when the Constitution was signed. Try and eliminate the 1A protection from them and see how Nancy, Chuckie, Mitch and Diane respond.
They wont ever give you the time of day.