|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Sporting Purpose – Just One of Many Problems with the 1968 Gun Control Act
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The term 'sporting purpose' is imbedded throughout U.S. gun control laws, and its use is a violation of the Second Amendment."
"That has been my position for decades. My brother Chris raised the issue in a speech before the Gun Rights Policy Conference some three years ago, and our dad Neal Knox was making an issue of the language in the 1980s."
"The 'sporting purpose' language has been a plank in federal gun laws dating back at least to the National Firearms Act of 1934. The 1968 Gun Control Act, down to its current incarnation, institutes broad restrictions and prohibitions on a variety of firearms and ammunition, then exempt items that are deemed to be 'particularly suitable for sporting purposes,' ..." ... |
Comment by:
Millwright66
(7/21/2015)
|
This an old, old story - and 'qualifying definition' myself and others have opposed from its outset with only marginal success. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] |
|
|