Response to ATF "Sporting Purpose Study"

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Response to ATF "Sporting Purpose Study"

Posted: 1/28/2011 6:16:46 AM EDT

I would like to compile a list of incorrect and misleading information in the recent AFT "Sporting Purpose" Study. My plan is to develop this list to help those that don't have the time to read the study or that might not have a clear understanding of the issue. Once we have a list of items, I would like to develop some boilerplate language that will aid folks in drafting their responses.

Please post any issues you have identified in the study.

A link to the "Study" is provided below:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

Key Points

Issue 1 - The Study group didn't consider 3 Gun to be sporting. "Further, both studies concluded that the scope of “sporting purposes” did not include all lawful activity, but was limited to traditional sports such as hunting, skeet shooting, and trap shooting. This effectively narrowed the universe of firearms considered by each study because a larger number of firearms are “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to a sporting purpose” if plinking and police or military-style practical shooting competitions are also included as a “sporting purpose.”

Issue 2 - Attachment of flashlights is not sporting because hunting at night is illegal. False, night hunting is legal in many areas.

Posted: 1/28/2011 6:56:28 AM EDT

[#2]

I will review it this evening and add my two bits.

Posted: 1/28/2011 7:14:40 AM EDT

[#3]

Even after all these years, there's nothing in the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

Posted: 1/28/2011 7:14:44 AM EDT

[#4]

Tag

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 1/28/2011 7:25:24 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Even after all these years, there's nothing in the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

It sure as hell doesn't come after "Shall not be infringed".

Posted: 1/28/2011 7:28:12 AM EDT

[#6]

In the thread about this which was locked, I mentioned that the ATF states that flash suppressors are used to mask your flash signature from other people when in fact I've always been told it lessens the flash that you see, but does little to mask your flash signature to others.

Is this true?

Posted: 1/28/2011 7:33:52 AM EDT

[#7]

Funny, I see no "Sporting Purpose" clause in the 1st Amendment, either.

Posted: 1/28/2011 7:54:06 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
In the thread about this which was locked, I mentioned that the ATF states that flash suppressors are used to mask your flash signature from other people when in fact I've always been told it lessens the flash that you see, but does little to mask your flash signature to others.

Is this true?

Flash suppressors do not eliminate flash

Posted: 1/28/2011 7:54:31 AM EDT

[#9]

I'm not knowledgeable enough about shotguns, but I'd love to see this done. The first thing I'd do is attack the ATF's assumptions, which are many, such as their assumption that night-hunting is "Mostly" illegal.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:03:29 AM EDT

[#10]

tag, and thanks, OP.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:04:01 AM EDT

[#11]

First thing that pops to mind is the vertical fore grip issue. They claim that it's dangerous because it increases control allowing for quicker follow up shots; (not sure if it was in this study, or just in previous rhetoric) but how is greater control of follow up shots not useful for hunting and trap?

The other issue is they seem to be concerned that certain shotguns are readily adaptable for non-sporting purposes; whereas the law states they should be concerned about shotguns that aren't readily adaptable for sporting purposes. By this logic, all shotguns should be banned since any can be readily adapted for non-sporting purposes by cutting the barrel & stock.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:07:28 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Once we have a list of items, I would like to develop some boilerplate language that will aid folks in drafting their responses.

I like this...an organized approach to the issue at hand. Follow up with a firemission thread in a couple of weeks once we have considered all the angles and implications of the study.

I thought a post like this would only be found in team.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:13:18 AM EDT

[#13]

Arguing about whether something meets "sporting purposes" gives credence to the "sporting purposes" policy.

The argument should NOT be whether a firearm meets sporting purposes... the argument should be that "Sporting Purposes" is BULLSHIT!

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:15:54 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Arguing about whether something meets "sporting purposes" gives credence to the "sporting purposes" policy.

The argument should NOT be whether a firearm meets sporting purposes... the argument should be that "Sporting Purposes" is BULLSHIT!

Agreed, but we also have to fight the battles that come along the way to getting there. I'm all for tossing out the Sporting Purpose BS, but until we get rid of it then we have to argue about what constitues a Sporting Purpose firearm.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:17:51 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Arguing about whether something meets "sporting purposes" gives credence to the "sporting purposes" policy.

The argument should NOT be whether a firearm meets sporting purposes... the argument should be that "Sporting Purposes" is BULLSHIT!

The argument against the law is to be used in the legislative and judicial branches; the argument over the enforcement of the law is to be used against the executive branch. Know your audience.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:20:36 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Arguing about whether something meets "sporting purposes" gives credence to the "sporting purposes" policy.

The argument should NOT be whether a firearm meets sporting purposes... the argument should be that "Sporting Purposes" is BULLSHIT!

The ATF can't toss out the sporting purposes test. If memory serves, that is enforced by executive order. It probably can't be overturned without another executive order. You fight the battles you have before you on their own terms. Arguing about the validity of the sporting purposes test will have no standing with the ATF because it's the law they have to follow.

So in this case, you must prove that their assumptions about sporting purposes, and the sport of shooting, are false.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:26:44 AM EDT

[#17]

The shit-stained fuck sticks at ATF should try reading Heller. And the constitution for that matter.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:27:46 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Even after all these years, there's nothing in the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

good point.

Posted: 1/28/2011 8:40:50 AM EDT

[#19]

How about we just round up anyone who thinks a 'sporting purpose' test is by any means relevant to the issue of the Second Amendment in these United States of America and PERMANENTLY FIRE THEIR ASSES FROM ANY POSITION IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

Posted: 1/28/2011 9:06:26 AM EDT

[#20]

Many of the conclusions reached by the working group are based wholly on opinion and speculation.

The claim that because a firearm possesses the "unsporting" features makes it unsuitable for hunting, clay or trap shooting, etc. Many people participate in the "sporting" activities with those kind of firearms and are quite successful.

Further, both studies concluded that the scope of “sporting purposes” did not include all lawful activity, but was limited to traditional sports such as hunting, skeet shooting, and trap shooting. This effectively narrowed the universe of firearms considered by each study because a larger number of firearms are “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to a sporting purpose” if plinking and police or military-style practical shooting competitions are also included as a “sporting purpose.”

I believe this to be an improperly applied concept. It is essentially stating that "we can't include plinking and IPSC-style competition because then we would have nothing to ban/control."

Posted: 1/28/2011 9:19:11 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even after all these years, there's nothing in the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

good point.

Regarding their assertion that sports based on military or tactical skills are not "sports", I would offer the Olympic sport of the Biathlon as the counterpoint.

It's roots are undeniably based on military training and is and has long been considered a sport by our own government.

Follows in a excerpt from the USA Biathlon Team's own website: link

Biathlon, which means dual event, has its roots in Scandinavia and Finland. Rock carvings in Norway dating from over 4,000 years ago depict two men stalking animals on skis. Less as a means of personal survival and more as a form of national protection, Biathlon played an integral role in military life from the 1700's on. The earliest recorded biathlon competition took place in 1767 between "ski-runner companies" which guarded the Swedish-Norwegian border. The world's first known ski club, the "Trysil Rifle and Ski Club" was formed in Norway in 1861 to promote national defense at the local level. Statistics fro the quarter century from 1919 on, show an average of 2000 men participating in biathlon each winter in Finland. In the late 1930's, the Finnish Army on skis, carrying rifles, and out-numbered 10 to 1, routed the Russians from their border.

The first true international competition in biathlon came during the Winter Olympics in Chamonix, France in 1924. During these Games, the Military Patrol was included as a demonstration event and was continued in the Winter Olympics of 1928, 1936 and 1948. The Norwegians and the Finns generally dominated this event, with the Italians sneaking in a victory in 1936. Due to anti-military feelings following World War II, the Military Patrol was dropped from the Olympic program.

How can our own government sanction one military shooting skill as a sport (an Olympic one at that) but then broadly rule out any other tactical shooting sports?

Posted: 1/28/2011 9:22:58 AM EDT

[#22]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1143343&light=

but NY bans BB guns because the 2nd does protect, get this because they are ONLY for sporting purpose.

Posted: 1/28/2011 9:29:55 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Even after all these years, there's nothing in the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

It sure as hell doesn't come after "Shall not be infringed".

Or any mention of .50 cal limitation, either. Or Destructive Devices..........

Shit, the list that is NOT included is pretty long, these days.

We're fooked.

Posted: 1/28/2011 9:38:10 AM EDT

[#24]

"Sporting Purpose" has opened the doors of hell for gun owners.

That was the plan, slow and steady...

Posted: 1/29/2011 7:55:53 PM EDT

[#25]

I already spotted several things that are flat out wrong in the study.

The state laws on hunting round legal capacity is mostly correct but
then they say the total rd legal capacity in certain states is 5, that
is not true and needs to be addressed too.

In a specific case , they say in new jersey the legal capacity in NJ is 5 at any time, false.

There a lot more lies too.

Posted: 1/29/2011 7:58:40 PM EDT

[#26]

They say a foreward grip does nothing for sporting purpose?

It improves accuracy and target reacquisition if a second shot in needed to put an animal down.

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:03:43 PM EDT

[#27]

I like your idea and I think you are on the right track with this.

Most gun owners do not have any idea about the "sporting purpose" harm that this could do to our past time.

Good job, and let me know if there is anything we can do to help!

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:05:33 PM EDT

[#28]

Sporting purpose is the one that gave us the barrel ban. We NEED to get rid of the sporting purpose clause so we can get barrels again...

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:13:02 PM EDT

[#29]

It isn't about sporting uses anyway. It is about making sure you have the weakest possible firearms in case they need to become complete tyrants and completely disarm us.

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:16:36 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Arguing about whether something meets "sporting purposes" gives credence to the "sporting purposes" policy.

The argument should NOT be whether a firearm meets sporting purposes... the argument should be that "Sporting Purposes" is BULLSHIT!

The ATF can't toss out the sporting purposes test. If memory serves, that is enforced by executive order. It probably can't be overturned without another executive order. You fight the battles you have before you on their own terms. Arguing about the validity of the sporting purposes test will have no standing with the ATF because it's the law they have to follow.

So in this case, you must prove that their assumptions about sporting purposes, and the sport of shooting, are false.

The only problem is when you have feelgood blathering language like this:

As a result, the working group did not simply accept the proposition that sporting events were limited to hunting and traditional trap and skeet target
shooting. In determining whether an activity is now generally accepted as a sporting purpose, the working group considered a broad range of shooting activities.

They immediately rebut their own proclaimed "open mindedness" with crap like this:

In coming to a determination, the working group recognized that a
shotgun cannot be classified as sporting merely because it may be used for a sporting purpose.

So the fact that it can be used in a sporting event doesn't make it sporting? That language look familiar? It should:

Carolyn "the shoulder thingy that goes up" McCarthy"s HR 1022

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

So shooting matches - even internationally recognized ones that units of our government participate in like Camp Perry - aren't "sporting events" for the purpose of defining the nomenclature of a firearm.

There's the killshot against using Camp Perry as a rebuttal for the AR, the M1A and the Garand being used for "sporting purposes".

FUCK "sporting purpose". While I hope it never gets that far, I hope that Heller and McDonald can be used in defense of the RKBA if needed.

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:17:47 PM EDT

[#31]

The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of sport shooting

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:24:45 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even after all these years, there's nothing in the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

good point.

Regarding their assertion that sports based on military or tactical skills are not "sports", I would offer the Olympic sport of the Biathlon as the counterpoint.

It's roots are undeniably based on military training and is and has long been considered a sport by our own government.

Follows in a excerpt from the USA Biathlon Team's own website: link

Biathlon, which means dual event, has its roots in Scandinavia and Finland. Rock carvings in Norway dating from over 4,000 years ago depict two men stalking animals on skis. Less as a means of personal survival and more as a form of national protection, Biathlon played an integral role in military life from the 1700's on. The earliest recorded biathlon competition took place in 1767 between "ski-runner companies" which guarded the Swedish-Norwegian border. The world's first known ski club, the "Trysil Rifle and Ski Club" was formed in Norway in 1861 to promote national defense at the local level. Statistics fro the quarter century from 1919 on, show an average of 2000 men participating in biathlon each winter in Finland. In the late 1930's, the Finnish Army on skis, carrying rifles, and out-numbered 10 to 1, routed the Russians from their border.

The first true international competition in biathlon came during the Winter Olympics in Chamonix, France in 1924. During these Games, the Military Patrol was included as a demonstration event and was continued in the Winter Olympics of 1928, 1936 and 1948. The Norwegians and the Finns generally dominated this event, with the Italians sneaking in a victory in 1936. Due to anti-military feelings following World War II, the Military Patrol was dropped from the Olympic program.

How can our own government sanction one military shooting skill as a sport (an Olympic one at that) but then broadly rule out any other tactical shooting sports?

Pentahalon as well. Based on the skills needed to be an effective generals aid, delivering orders by hand....running, equestrian, swimming, pistol, and sabre.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:30:21 PM EDT

[#33]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei2WhctlRHY

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:52:49 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even after all these years, there's nothing in the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

good point.

Regarding their assertion that sports based on military or tactical skills are not "sports", I would offer the Olympic sport of the Biathlon as the counterpoint.

It's roots are undeniably based on military training and is and has long been considered a sport by our own government.

Follows in a excerpt from the USA Biathlon Team's own website: link

Biathlon, which means dual event, has its roots in Scandinavia and Finland. Rock carvings in Norway dating from over 4,000 years ago depict two men stalking animals on skis. Less as a means of personal survival and more as a form of national protection, Biathlon played an integral role in military life from the 1700's on. The earliest recorded biathlon competition took place in 1767 between "ski-runner companies" which guarded the Swedish-Norwegian border. The world's first known ski club, the "Trysil Rifle and Ski Club" was formed in Norway in 1861 to promote national defense at the local level. Statistics fro the quarter century from 1919 on, show an average of 2000 men participating in biathlon each winter in Finland. In the late 1930's, the Finnish Army on skis, carrying rifles, and out-numbered 10 to 1, routed the Russians from their border.

The first true international competition in biathlon came during the Winter Olympics in Chamonix, France in 1924. During these Games, the Military Patrol was included as a demonstration event and was continued in the Winter Olympics of 1928, 1936 and 1948. The Norwegians and the Finns generally dominated this event, with the Italians sneaking in a victory in 1936. Due to anti-military feelings following World War II, the Military Patrol was dropped from the Olympic program.

How can our own government sanction one military shooting skill as a sport (an Olympic one at that) but then broadly rule out any other tactical shooting sports?

Pentahalon as well. Based on the skills needed to be an effective generals aid, delivering orders by hand....running, equestrian, swimming, pistol, and sabre.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Modern pentathlon is a mother of an event, but generally none of the competitors are pistol shooters or riders, as a primary skill.

And fucked up olympic comittees from countries like the UK are all too happy to replace actual pistols with air pistols.

Which isn't to say that the sport of air pistol isn't challenging or competitive at the Olympic level - I regularly shoot 10m air myself - but that's not the spirit of the event. It's like saying that, sure, you *could* run the marathon on treadmills, but that's not how marathon works.

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:55:32 PM EDT

[#35]

I almost think writing to them is a waste of time. ATF is never going to side with freedom on a gun issue. I just guess I am pessimistic, I think have congress telling ATF to not do it is the best option.

Posted: 1/29/2011 8:56:41 PM EDT

[#36]

Those cocksuckers probably shred every pro-gun letter they get.

Posted: 1/29/2011 9:03:32 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Arguing about whether something meets "sporting purposes" gives credence to the "sporting purposes" policy.

The argument should NOT be whether a firearm meets sporting purposes... the argument should be that "Sporting Purposes" is BULLSHIT!

The ATF can't toss out the sporting purposes test. If memory serves, that is enforced by executive order. It probably can't be overturned without another executive order. You fight the battles you have before you on their own terms. Arguing about the validity of the sporting purposes test will have no standing with the ATF because it's the law they have to follow.

So in this case, you must prove that their assumptions about sporting purposes, and the sport of shooting, are false.

The only problem is when you have feelgood blathering language like this:

As a result, the working group did not simply accept the proposition that sporting events were limited to hunting and traditional trap and skeet target
shooting. In determining whether an activity is now generally accepted as a sporting purpose, the working group considered a broad range of shooting activities.

They immediately rebut their own proclaimed "open mindedness" with crap like this:

In coming to a determination, the working group recognized that a
shotgun cannot be classified as sporting merely because it may be used for a sporting purpose.

So the fact that it can be used in a sporting event doesn't make it sporting? That language look familiar? It should:

Carolyn "the shoulder thingy that goes up" McCarthy"s HR 1022

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

So shooting matches - even internationally recognized ones that units of our government participate in like Camp Perry - aren't "sporting events" for the purpose of defining the nomenclature of a firearm.

There's the killshot against using Camp Perry as a rebuttal for the AR, the M1A and the Garand being used for "sporting purposes".

FUCK "sporting purpose". While I hope it never gets that far, I hope that Heller and McDonald can be used in defense of the RKBA if needed.

Now THAT is a good post.

Posted: 1/29/2011 9:05:07 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei2WhctlRHY

LOL WTF is Weird Al's Amish Paradise a related video?

Posted: 1/29/2011 9:09:51 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
First thing that pops to mind is the vertical fore grip issue. They claim that it's dangerous because it increases control allowing for quicker follow up shots; (not sure if it was in this study, or just in previous rhetoric) but how is greater control of follow up shots not useful for hunting and trap?

The other issue is they seem to be concerned that certain shotguns are readily adaptable for non-sporting purposes; whereas the law states they should be concerned about shotguns that aren't readily adaptable for sporting purposes. By this logic, all shotguns should be banned since any can be readily adapted for non-sporting purposes by cutting the barrel & stock.

The second amendment protects firearms that are useful for killing humans. Period, end of story. The liberals are angry about that and the recent court cases, so they're using the BATFE to spearhead a new charge for gun control.

That's my theory anyway.