Importation,compliance and The 2nd

[rayd70]

I was wondering has anyone given thought to firearm importation and 922 r compliance in light of th e Mcdonald and Heller rulling on handgun bans it would seem to me that the "sporting purpose" language can not pass muster. If the 2nd amendment does not alow the ban of handguns for defensive or other legal purposes how can an import ban based on the not for sporting purpose hold water. If anyone has ideas or heard of anyone addressing this issue please sound off.
Thank You
Raymond Doss

[L1A1rocker]

Oh yeah. I've given it lots of thought. But, as many said after the Heller decision: This is not the end but just the begining. There will be years of court challenges based off of Heller - just a matter of time.

[cotter]

They have banned the importation right? Not the firearm, right? Our beloved FAL is on the ban list right? Can you not go out and buy a DSA or Enterprise or Century? So it is not a ban on the rifle, just the importation. I see no change to it.
Also Heller mentioned 'a ban on a certain class of firearm' as being illegal. What class is being banned? Can you not go out and buy a 308 mag fed semi rifle of a different name? DC banned ALL handguns, the import ban and 922r do not ban all rifles.
Just my opinion and hopefully I am wrong.
Chad

[rayd70]

cotter
My point is that an importation ban limits your choice in the mater and in truth it is in effect a ban on a certain type of firearm or do I misunderstand the terms "no sporting purpose" they do not ban Baretta Shotguns but FAL's,G3s, AUGs etc... in fact it is this very ban that creates a market for DSA and others. Secondly the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport therfore to limit or ban the impotation of a firearm based on wether or not it serves any sporting purpose is not in line with the Heller or Mcdonald decisions wich I feel state most definitivly an individual right to keep and bear arms not sporting rifles.

[1gewehr]

"Sporting purposes" has NEVER passed muster. It is blatantly un-Constitutional and is there because it mirrors the 1938 Nazi Gun Act it was copied from.
In the 1968 GCA where it first appeared, it was a ban on importation that appealed to US manufacturers seeking to cut down on competition from imports. Colt and S&W in particular liked the language as it eliminated the very popular European pocket pistols.

[rayd70]

1gewehr

I agree that this language no sporting purpose is in violation of the Constitution, but now we have Heller and McDonald that finaly state that wich we all have known all along, the second is an indvidual right not subject to hunting or sporting or legal mutalation, and that now is the time to push back on these issues. One thing to remember is that 68 banned so called "saturday night specials" but the ban I speak of began in 89 under Bush sr and is expanding even now under Obama I point to the impending barrel ban by the ATF and I would also call attention to the point that South Korea was blocked from selling several thousand M1 and M1 carbines back to America by our federal govt. we must insist that our govt. respect the second amendment in deed as well as in word if they are allowed to continue weaseling around it we have won nothing.

[keiser]

I am not a lawyer and cannot think like they do so could be full of sxxt.

I personally think the government has the Constitution fully behind them to be able to control any trade in or out of the country. That would include firearms. I doubt seriously any court will even listen to a challenge about the govs power to regulate imports. That power has been active since the country first began (State dept).

[rayd70]

keiser
Yes, the govt. does have a great deal of latitude in regulating import trade but most of that wich is regulated is not at odds with constitutional rights ie.. cars,liquor,watches,computers, etc.. but to ban or restrict trade on an item that is constutionaly protected seems an untenable legal position. To restrict commerce in arms would tread a fine line on constitional law. Lets not forget that almost all import regulations do not involve an outright ban but invlove how much can be brought in at any one time, tarrifs, taxation and licensing(with the exception of controled substances of course). If you have the right to posesse a certain firearm but but restrictions in commerce exist to keep you from aquiring it, just what does it mean to have that right?
To tax something is very different than to ban its importation or manufacture.

[cowbilly]

I'm most interested in the overturning of the 1986 MG ban. If any other amendment to the constitution was as regulated there would be riots in the streets.

[rayd70]

cowbilly
you bring up an interesting subject the MG ban that basicly outlaws any MG built post 86 from entering the civilian market is a perfect example of legislating a non-existing problem. Was their a massive crime wave involving registered MGs that forced the legislature to act, there was not but as allways firearms were a convienent target.
Unfortunatly I think there is not alot of intrest in the legal community to take these issues to the courts that is why we must take our cause of 2nd amendment liberties into the voting booth.

[bill3542]

i know someone who works for a importer and have been told that the BATF will do whatever they wish with impunity, there are many things which can be held up by ( paperwork problems ) or by having a few words with customs and having stuff held up at the port or in bonded customs warehouses.

remember your not dealing with normal rational people, your dealing with arrogant govt assholes that live in there own little world.

[rayd70]

Bill
Believe me I know . If a mind is a terrible thing to waste it is a good thing that most govt.
workers share one. The 2 courses of action we have at our disposal are the courts and elections. It is The President that appoints the heads of these organizations and they reflect his attitude and values we must make clear that governing is respect for the people and when an administration does not respect those it governs it will not be respected in turn nor will it be remembered fondly. Here is a campaign slogan I would like to see "Walkin' Papers In 2012"

Having said that I still believe there is a constitutional issue here, the 2nd protects the right posess and bear arms if that has any true meaning then commerce and trade in arms must also be protected. One thing I would like to point out I was raised in and around Chicago and you will not find a more arrogant, small minded, self important bunch of (insert favorite derogitory term here) that work in city govt.but at the end of the day they lost and they still do not get the message, so they will keep losing unless we give up.

[bill3542]

ray, what you need to understand is that the elections and courts are so corrupt that nothing is going to change. we have become peasants slaving for those who feel its there birthright to rule over us along with being above the law.

you want to see what the govt thinks of us simply google Ruby Ridge or Waco.

we have a 2 party system that been broke for years, the republican party is now a pack of fools and the democrats are now the new communist party.

i do not advocate violence but from what a lot of ordinary people see its time to push the reset button back to the beginning. i give us 1-2 years and things will get ugly very quick.

[rayd70]

Bill
Let me restate that I am originaly from Chicago IL. there is not a whole lot anyone could tell me about govt. corruption I do not already know. I would also agree that a partisan political system is in large part to blame for much of our troubles. Anytime one sacrifices
his/her convictions for the purpose of maintaning or aquiring power or to gain the support of a certain group that person crosses over into a dark place from wich there is no return. So the question asked who is the greater fool the fool himself or those who would follow. that is why I believe the avg. lunchbox joe needs to become his own political advisor/meadia consultant/activist no longer can those of us who believe in the 2nd, limitted govt., self reliance, and personal resposcibilty just simply vote we must have superior grasp of the issues, great command of the facts and the willingness to involve ourselves in the process. I f you believe in somone or some cause we must be invested in the succes of that wich we believe in. Volunteer,donate,speakout,research the facts not nessesarily in that order. All of us must sharpen our our machetes(figuratively) and jump in the brush.

[bill3542]

ok you do understand whats going on but as far as Joe 6-Pak becoming involved that would not happen. when power,food, beer, and tv sports disappear then the sheep will bleat and by that time it will be to late.

I am like many others, i see no end to this problem until it hits the fan in this country. my advice stock up on weapons,ammo and food. i hope your far away from a big city because when it happens the ghetto rats will come looking for easy pickings elsewhere.

[gunnut1]

Originally posted by rayd70
cowbilly
you bring up an interesting subject the MG ban that basicly outlaws any MG built post 86 from entering the civilian market is a perfect example of legislating a non-existing problem. Was their a massive crime wave involving registered MGs that forced the legislature to act, there was not but as allways firearms were a convienent target.
Unfortunatly I think there is not alot of intrest in the legal community to take these issues to the courts that is why we must take our cause of 2nd amendment liberties into the voting booth.

As with most gun laws, the post 84 ban was a feel good measure brought on by the liberals. It didn't make any difference to them that regulating machine guns out of existence was a worthless endeavor. Anymore than the Assault Rifle ban did any good. They look at like this. "Look at us. We have passed a law on those evil machine guns we done good. there will be no more crime." Same thing for the AWB. Texas Rep. Pete Geren (very pro gun) called the AWB the "ugly gun law." And that is what it was.

Machine guns have been regulated since 1934.

The general public has been brain washed about guns. Unfortuanatly, most of the them beleive what they see on the boob tube and haer on the radio. They Fudds think that only thier sporting rifle are ok and the evil black rifles should be outlawed. I recently volunteered to be a RO at my gun club. While I was with the head of the ROs doing my orentation, every time he saw a bullet hole or damage in a baffle he would say. "Looks like those guys came out here with those M16 or AR15 or what ever they like to call them and shot up the range. Srr this damage, this was don't buy one of thopse guys rapid firingf one of the sub mahine gun looking things." Yep he is a Fudd in the first degree. I didn't have the heart to tell thim that I like the EBRs.

[Abominog]

"Sporting purposes" can be challenged, but it must be shown that it inhibits an individual right to (as of right now post-Heller) defend one's self in the home.

Right now if it were challenged, the challenge would fail. One would be hard pressed to prove that "sporting purposes" inhibits self-defense. You claim you can't buy the FAL, G1, or whatever you want, and all the government has to show is that you can, and further more, you can buy "it" (G3, FAL, etc) cheaper in today's dollars than you could before "sporting purposes."

First, it has to be shown that 2A goes beyond "in the home." Well, we know that, but the court will have to say it. Then the court will have to acknowledge that rifles are covered by 2A (not just handguns.)

THEN the damn is bust. With that, all the local "assault rifle" ordinances go down for a number of causes including a lack of "scrutiny" (legal term.) Along with it goes "sporting purposes."

[rayd70]

abominog

My point is we should push back on as many 2nd amendment issues as we possibly can while we have a court that is for all intents 5 to 4 in our favor. Remember we are one heart attack away from loosing our rights all together. Do not forget in Heller DC argued in part that because longguns were allowed their ban was in line with the second but the court shot that out of the water, so I doubt anyone could argue the reverse that handguns are protected and longuns are not. Heller may specificaly say we have the right to protect our selves in our homes but I do not think anyone could say that our rights evaporate when we leave the home so I would profess that that the right to defend is attached to the individual iregardless of his current position. I f we are to have a vibrant and vital
2nd amendment the govt. can not pick winners and looser (DSA Good/ Argentine Bad),they have allready done this with lending institutions, wall street and car companies - Ray