A Sporting Purpose Baby Step

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) today introduced the Sporting Firearms Access Act to stop the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from arbitrarily blocking imports of firearms and ammunition.

The Sporting Firearms Access Act clarifies the definition of “sporting purposes” used by the ATF to regulate import of firearms into the U.S. The new definition would recognize firearms and ammunitions used for activities such as hunting, target shooting, and competitions. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms and ammunition can only be imported if the ATF recognizes it as being suitable for “sporting purposes.” Ambiguity in the law has allowed the ATF to arbitrarily deny imports of firearms by U.S. customers and businesses.

James E. Risch
January 4, 2025
Risch Leads Bill to Block ATF’s Ability to Deny Firearm, Ammunition Imports – Press Releases – James E Risch, U.S. Senator for Idaho

While I think this bill does not go nearly far enough, it is an unexpected gift.

What I want to know, is where does the 2nd Amendment say only sporting firearms are protected? At a minimum, firearms used for self-defense should be protected. And the real threshold for protection should be, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!“

Yes, the ATF have been running roughshod over imports. Their absurd definition of “sporting” means little more than hunting rifles and shotguns. So, this is an improvement. I’ll clench my teeth a little. Nonetheless, I will thank Senator Risch for a baby step in the correct direction.

Share

18 thoughts on “A Sporting Purpose Baby Step”

  1. Baby step is still a step. Sporting purposes is a relic of the era when the firearms community was dominated by the not yet named Fudds.

    • “Sporting purpose” as defined — or as historically construed — since GCA’68 is excessively narrow when it construes sporting purpose to include only hunting. What if sports were defined so as to only include team competitions involving an air-inflated ball and only shoes suitable for those activities could be sold? A black market for shoes for Figure Skating, Track, Ice Hockey, Baseball, Softball, Curling, and possibly Field Hockey and Lacrosse would instantly appear.

      Is there a voidness for excessive narrowness? An arbitrary and capricious inclusion of some sports and exclusion of others, so it should be void on that basis? It’s embarrassing to admit I have forgotten this (not that I’ve needed to use that concept in thirty years).

  2. Unpopular opinion: “sporting purpose” created a robust domestic arms manufacturing base for self-defense carbines and pistols at a time when most manufacturing was fleeing the country.

    And that domestic arms manufacturing capability is critical for national defense.

    • The law of unintended consequences occasionally fires in a beneficial direction.

      Another example is the 94 AW ban pushed pistol purchases into subcompacts, driving support for the liberalization of carry.

      I myself chose a subcompact because there was no capacity benefit of larger frame options.

      • It also arguably drove popularity of .45 caliber handguns, particularly of the 1911 design, over 9mm pistols.

        If you can only have 10 rounds, you want your 10 rounds to punch as large a hole as possible.

    • “Sporting purpose” expanded to include much more competition in target shooting, so people needed those arms for Over the Course matches (if “over the course” is the correct term. I think the last time I heard it was at the last CMP Western Semifinals at Camp Pendleton in 2006).

  3. Oh boy, that’s getting pretty edgy there Jim. Don’t want to chase off any of your liberal friends with such a harshly worded bill. They might not invite you to any of their parties anymore.
    That, there is what DC calls going MAGA.
    Between him and Trump we might get some cheap Russian ammo back in here?
    Or maybe a new version of the bump-stock ban because the FBI sponsored another mass shooting? Allegedly.
    Why not sponsor a bill that just takes the “F”, out of the ATF?
    Ya, I know, baby steps.
    While the left gives us Rowe v. Wade in the 60’s bible belt America.

  4. The problem with a bill like this is that it pays lip service to the notion that the 2nd Amendment exists to protect the rights of hunters, which of course is absurd.

    Now if it were to say that “sporting purposes” is deemed to apply to every firearm fit to be carried by a person, I might drop my concern.

    • I can support that definition.

      What are IPSC, Cowboy Action Shooting, Three Gun, Biathlon, (classic Winter or now Summer), and even the Modern Pentathlon, but modern defensive shooting as invented by Colonel Jeff Cooper dressed up for marketing and quantified for competition.

    • “Sporting Purposes” should include the fair and equitable dispatch of pests, including garden pests, predators of home or farm stock, terrorists, and predatory bipeds.

  5. Rep Boebert introduced a bill (H.R. 129) to abolish the ATF. It’s a far better solution. Encourage your reps to support it!

      • Both the NFA34 and GCA68 are null and void under the constitution.
        Elimination of the enforcement of those to acts would be the most appropriate “baby step” I could think of.
        While the chattering case can hash over the court ruling.
        The rest of us go about enjoying our rights without all the dog slaughter?

        • That may very well be true. I might very well agree with you. And so might many other people.

          But it’s still the law, and SCOTUS has not overturned it (yet).

          Which means that if you get rid of the ATF, someone else is going to be enforcing that law. Most likely the FBI, but there are plenty of other agencies who could take that on. And, who better to hire for that purpose than a whole bunch of newly-unemployed, but highly experienced and professional, former ATF agents?

          I’m pretty neutral on this one. I think it’s all for show & nothing will be accomplished. But if someone would like to prove me wrong, please do so.

          • Thank you for pointing out that it is still likely to be enforced. I was going to write something up about that tonight when I had more time.

            • HaHaHa!
              Ya, I really brain-farted on that one. Thinking that after one agency got bitch-slapped out of existence, that all the others might get the hint?
              We are talking federal agencies/agents here.

              “Highly experienced and professional, former ATF agents?”
              I see I’m not the only one having a “moment” though.

  6. I didn’t check the text of the bill, but hopefully it would also remove the ridiculous 922(r) parts counts, where you had to discard perfectly good parts on an imported firearm (or demil’ed kit, from which to build one) and replace with domestic parts to avoid having more than 10 imported parts.

    When I stopped building kits, ATF had just started requiring that the barrels be of US manufacture as well. When I started building, in around 1998 or so, you could get parts kits of NEW demilled AK clones for about $40 each.

Comments are closed.