Monday, April 13, 2015

To those readers who "don't understand the 'tweak' in the 'sporting purposes' language."

American prosecutor, later U.S. Senator and author of the 1968 Gun Control Act, Thomas Dodd at Nuremberg, 1946.
The way I described it to an emailing reader is this:

The "sporting purposes" language -- lifted by Senator Thomas Dodd from the Nazi law -- is itself, without modification, the principal constitutional offense and gateway to tyranny in the 1968 Gun Control Act.  Any "tweak" of language which strengthens that offense and widens that gateway increases the danger to the rest of us of future arbitrary bans and confiscation, ALL WITH THE IMPRIMATUR OF A GOP-LED CONGRESS!  What a huge win for the antis. I hope this makes it clearer.


Mitch Rapp said...

I'm with you, Mike. Keep up the pressure on the bastards!

Anonymous said...

"Banish, vanish, boot the ATF! In the meantime, go ahead and let it shoot itself in the foot with its long history of idiotic, unfair, catastrophic regulations. Let the entire bogus “sporting purposes” rule go … well, where it belongs. Don’t merely make the obscene rule a little more favorable to us peasants in exchange for dirty political favors. Freedom isn’t a sport. Nor is it something to be compromised away in backroom political deals."

Anonymous said...

No, it does not make it clearer. Is anyone able to comment on this without trying to be clever? Would the tweak make MORE guns, or LESS guns meet the "sporting purposes" test? That seems like a simple thing to be able to spell out without using riddles, yet nobody seems to be able to accomplish this. Dumb it down for us non-initiated types, please.

As to whether "legitimizing" the "sporting purposes" test is a real concern, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. The 2nd Amendment clearly isn't about sport shooting. That's well established, although not established in LAW. If the "sporting purposes" test becomes more permissive, IMHO that doesn't take down any avenues to attack it, since it's still a "sporting purposes" test, when the 2A isn't about sporting purposes.

Full-on repeal of bad laws would be great, but I'll take incremental chipping away in the meantime - ie during deeply anti-gun administrations like the current one. If the changes were going to allow more guns to pass the "sporting purposes" test and you're scuttling it because it fails some purity test, then it seems like cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

But again, who even knows if that's the case, because it seems nobody wants to commit in writing which DIRECTION the changes even went. I wonder if you don't actually have the details and are guessing - like the rest of us are. That's fine, but then don't pretend that the reason you're not being definitive is that your nuanced riddles should have cleared everything up already.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I am a recent Fudd who is trying to aspire to patriot and then maybe someday to III%er status, so I am trying to understand better what this is all about. Perhaps my IQ is just at room temperature.

So I guess arms under the GCA are prohibited from inport unless they make a "sporting test exemption". I guess broading the defintion can then make future lawyers, politicians, and ATF enforcers have an easier time using the broader defintion to say a given firearm DOES NOT pass the sporting exemption and hence, is banned from inport.

Wow. This could extinct the NRA!! They have been cuaght with their hand in the cookee jar big time!!! You are a first rate journalist Mr. V.

Anonymous said...

How is it that supposed pro 2nd Amendment politicians, having the majority in congress, COWER before the gun grabbers and surrender by allowing them to further infringe upon a constitutional right that explicitly states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is unconscionable. They need to be taken out of office.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the pressure.

So more people understand how 'Nazified' the GCA68 really is, maybe you can publish sections of the Nazi laws followed by excerpts from GCA68. The order is important for full effect. Maybe more folks will come to realize GCA68 is in fact, unconstitutional, has roots in tyranny and must go.


Uncle Elmo said...

Anyone that doesn't understand the 'tweak' in the 'sporting purposes' language doesn't understand the incremental strategies of totalitarian statists.
This may be because they side with the totalitarian statists, or it may because they are fools. And America has plenty of both.

Sedition said...

Hunting purposes are hunting down corrupt politicians who rape the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

What is that thing in his hand!? Sorta looks like a shrunken head!

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Agenda May Hurt Hillary’s Campaign

Anonymous said...

Marty said...

We need to remove the "sporting use" criterion once and for all with regard to firearms. The 2nd Amendment is not about "sporting use."

Marty said...

We must remove the "sporting use" criterion. The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with "sporting use." That term itself is offensive.

Anonymous said...

Yes Mike! We have got to get the Fudds to see past the individual example so they can see the premise - seeing the forest through the trees so to speak.

Some think that being "allowed" more permissions equates to "advancing rights" but that's just not true! It really is just continued submission to the premise that government is in charge of individual liberty.

Get this through your heads, Fudds, increased permission is still just permission! Face it!

Anonymous said...

Yea and his puke son retired Senator C. Dodd another freedom grabbing piece of shit. From Collectivist Ct. His secretary once told me on the phone -- we know who you are and where you live. While calling[D.C.] asking him to vote against Slick Willie's - So called Assault Weapons ban. But I have stopped doing the NRA's bidding since Sandy Hook. Behind Enemy Lines. In Unconstitutional, Collectivist ,Ct. We Will Not Stand Down. AAA/O. 11B20.

Anonymous said...

Mike,It rely is to bad that you have to explain why this is not good for our 2nd amendment rights. I guess people today think this right is given to us by the govn't. ITS NOT!

Anonymous said...

As long as the "Sporting Purpose" language includes the elimination, with extreme prejudice, of the destroyers of the clear meaning of the Constitution, I'm OK with it.
Otherwise, the ATF is now and forever a neutered agency.
They are behind the curve with respect to technology.
Hate them and build all you can.
Stockpile ammo and supplies.
Know who your friends are and vet them well.

Fu#kstatists said...

And the NRA just re elected Grover Norquist to the board of directors.

I wonder if he is behind the tweek, afterall, the muslim brotherhood knows every red neck in America will be hunting down the muslim scum in America as soon as the next crap happens.

Anonymous said...

As to the links between GCA68, Nazi Germany's 1938 Weapons Law, and the the late Sen. Thomas Dodd you can start here:

The full text of the 1938 German law, the translation provided to Dodd by the Library of Congress, and the GCA68, highlighting where whole passages were lifted from the translation into the bill that Dodd "authored" used to be available from JPFO. But since the death of it's founder and it's takeover by SAF, that may no longer be the case.

Anonymous said...

CGA68 - Nazi 1938 Weapons Law

You guys are gonna flip when you see the price:

Anonymous said...

Anon at 4/13 10:57 asked if MORE or LESS guns would have met the "sporting purposes" test.

The truth is: no one really knows. It isn't likely to go through now, so we may never find out.

As everyone has pointed really doesn't matter since the 2A is NOT predicated upon "sporting purposes"....but I think you're hinting that this "change" in the rules would be beneficial to the cause of gun ownership.

What you may not realize is that there is the very real possibility that it would mean LESS guns in the future.

Why? Street Sweeper or SIG Arm Brace anyone?

ATF *could* rule that the pistol gripped shotguns already produced will be given an exemption and all future ones will be classified as destructive devices regulated by NFA....if they even allow production to continue at all.

ATF has a history of grandfathering there's no reason to think this would automatically be a win for gun ownership of these types of weapons....and then there'd be even more problem with determining legality of such a weapon (much less transfer of said gun) at later dates.

Anonymous said...

Pressure makes diamonds.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Mike, and David, and Dean.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Spreading the word: