Lawful Purpose & Self Defense Act, HR2710 Would Modernize the Gun Control Act of 1968

NSSF Supports Rep. Bishop's ‘Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act,' H.R. 2710

Ban m855 223 Ammo Ammunition
Lack of a clear definition of what “sporting purposes” and “sporting use” mean has allowed, for example, the Obama Administration to try to circumvent Congress and attempt to ban a popular type of ammunition for modern sporting rifles.
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn –-(Ammoland.com)- The National Shooting Sports Foundation ( NSSF), trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, applauds the introduction yesterday of H.R. 2710, the Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act of 2015, by Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT), chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

The bill would revise the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, to replace the “sporting purposes” and “sporting use” sections with modernizing language used to better define whether firearms and ammunition can be lawfully imported, possessed and transferred. NSSF considers the “sporting purpose” and “sporting use” provisions to be outdated and a hindrance to bringing lawful products to market. The 2008 Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller noted that the core purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense, and the language of H.R. 2710 will more accurately reflect this core meaning of the right to bear arms.

H.R. 2710 would prevent narrow interpretations of federal law, such as reclassifying certain rifle ammunition as “armor piercing.” Lack of a clear definition of what “sporting purposes” and “sporting use” mean has allowed, for example, the Obama Administration to try to circumvent Congress and attempt to ban a popular type of ammunition for modern sporting rifles.

For nearly four years, NSSF and its member companies have been awaiting action by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on more than 30 petitions for rifle hunting ammunition seeking a “sporting use” exemption because the ammunition is made with non-lead alternative materials like brass. In California, which has banned the use of traditional ammunition containing lead for hunting, manufacturers are prevented from bringing new, alternative brass ammunition to market, raising the concern that hunters will face limited availability of ammunition approved for use in the state.

H.R. 2710 also would remove the “sporting purposes” requirement for imports of certain firearms—some of which are popular for use in 3-gun competition and have been arbitrarily and unfairly classified as not meeting the “sporting purpose” test because ATF does not consider 3-gun shooting a sport. Nevertheless, 3-gun is among the most popular new target shooting competitions nationally.

The legislation would reform federal laws in the following essential areas:

  • Eliminate ATF's authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” Federal law regulating armor-piercing ammunition was intended by Congress to regulate handgun projectiles, but recently the law was used to attempt to ban popular rifle ammunition, notably M855/SS109 5.56×45 ammunition.
  • Eliminate restrictions on importation of non-National Firearms Act firearm or ammunition that may otherwise be lawfully possessed and sold within the United States. Based on the “sporting purposes” test, firearms that would be legal to manufacture, sell and possess in the United States have been banned from importation.
  • Protect shotguns, shotgun shells, and large-caliber rifles from arbitrary classification as “destructive devices.” When classified as a “destructive device,” a firearm falls under the National Firearms Act and is subjected to registration and taxes, and, in some states, cannot be possessed.
  • Broaden the temporary interstate transfer provision to allow temporary transfers for all lawful purposes rather than just for “sporting purposes.”

“This is one of the most important pieces of reform legislation that the firearms and ammunition industry has seen come before Congress in recent years,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

“We applaud Rep. Bishop for his support of this legislation and of the Second Amendment, and we urge other members of Congress to co-sponsor this bill.”

NSSF urges you to contact your U.S. Representative to urge him or her to co-sponsor and support H.R. 2710.

12
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
Billy JackB J RowbottomRonald L. BurchamMr. EvoMontieR Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Billy Jack
Guest
Billy Jack

Why isn’t ammunition as well as our weapons of choice protected by the second ammendment? I guess it is because of our common sense and their libtardness. It seriously reminds me of the rip off scheme harley davidson pulls when you go to by parts or accessories for your motorcycle. if the part can have two parts they make it into two parts regardless of the actual reason. such as a sisy bar, you are not able to mount a sissy bar with out the base bracket that is not sold with the sissy bar. I know this sounds like… Read more »

B J Rowbottom
Guest
B J Rowbottom

Very well stated Ronald L Burcham! Thankyou for your Reply. An NRA member agrees with you 100%

Ronald L. Burcham
Guest
Ronald L. Burcham

How can this law be updating the 1968 GCA? By definition in the Second Amendment, all federal “arms” legislation is unconstitutional, Why isn’t Representative Rob Bishop repealing the 1968 GCA with the support of the NSSA? The NSSA is accepting compromise when it should be demanding total repeal of the 1968 GCA. The Second Amendment is not for sale. If the NSSA and the NRA keep compromising OUR RIGHTS how can that lead to anything but eventual defeat? All gun rights organizations MUST be uncompromising in their demands to eliminate all federal firearms legislation and regulation. Federal gun acts and… Read more »

Mr. Evo
Guest
Mr. Evo

I don’t recall reading any where in the text of the 2nd amendment about sporting purposes.

MontieR
Guest
MontieR

Another illegal concession. The entirety of the 1968 GCA, should be repealed as it is in direct conflict with the second amendment. No part of the GCA actually did ANYTHING to provide ANY increase to public safety and in almost EVERY case decreased public safety. Look to the FBI murder/death stats. The entire premiss of public safety has been a lie.

Brad Lee
Guest
Brad Lee

Great inclined plane comment infidel, what everyone has to realize is that president Zero is just a puppet for the masters that work behind the scenes. Granted though, that a president aka CEO of United States Inc., more amiable to what America originally stood for would be better for all of us.

Infidel7.62
Guest
Infidel7.62

You see how Obozo is getting around the M855 ban? An executive order banning “high power” pistols. As long as this administration is in we are attached to a helix wound around an inclined plane, i.i. screwed.

hippybiker
Guest
hippybiker

What few people don’t understand is that Senator Thomas Dodd of Conn basically copied word for word The NAZI Weapons Control Act of 1938 to give us the abomination called The GCA of 68. Let that sink in, gentle readers!

Eric
Guest
Eric

People still have not figured out that ATF is not only banning loaded ammo which they deem pistol AP AMMO, they are banning all PROJECTILES ie BULLETS , in that caliber . The .458 socom made Barnes .458 banded solids illegal as armor piercing pistol ammo which were designed for 458 win mag . So yes the ATF is banning ammunition components based on caliber only being that a pistol was made in that caliber. The ATF will go after the projectile manufacturers instead of the ammunition makers. Barnes Bullets had like 7 products discontinued because of this when they… Read more »

John Gregory
Guest
John Gregory

Yes, the Federal Government, as long as Progressives are loose in both major parties, are in DIRECT VIOLATION of their Oaths of Office, as they don’t hold to the WORDS of the Constitution, nor the EXPLANATION of the Constitution that the Founders gave us in the Federalist Papers. As Progressivism tells us that “the Federalist Papers have no legal power”, they deny that the Founders, after the Constitution was ratified, bound the separate essays into a book, named, unsurprisingly, “The Federalist Papers: An Explanation of the Meaning of the New Constitution.” Sounds simple enough: If you want to know what… Read more »

Foxtrap
Guest
Foxtrap

It’s always interesting that when officials no matter of rank take an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution” (or similar language) ending with “so help me God”, the first actions they take are to destroy the very document they just swore to God to protect. God will forgive much. Even most. But God will not forgive swearing falsely in His name. Politicians would do well to learn this.

Diamondback
Guest
Diamondback

Where the hell is the THUMBS UP thingy?