The rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center's Josh Sugarmann has, predictably, joined his anti-gun cohorts in exploiting the Ft. Hood atrocity as justification for banning the FN Herstal Five-seveN pistol.
How the FN Herstal Five-seveN pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting--originally designed as a military-only handgun/ammo combination capable of piercing the body armor worn by soldiers on the battlefield--came to be sold on the U.S. civilian market is a stark example of the increasing militarization of the U.S. civilian gun market and the enabling role played by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)--even in the age of Obama.
Sugarmann, though, is either not confident in the chances of passing such a ban legislatively (attempts to do so have gone nowhere in each of the last two Congressional sessions--I have not, so far, noticed an attempt made yet in the current Congress), or simply lacks the patience to wait for such a process--he wants the Obama administration to simply bypass Congress, and ban the importation of these firearms by administrative fiat.
The Obama administration could act today to prevent any more Five-seveNs from entering the country. The decades-old "sporting purposes" test contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 grants ATF wide discretion to ban the import of the Five-seveN, the PS-90, and any other foreign-made, military-bred, "non -sporting" firearms. But since the agency treats the gun industry as its "customer," such an action--without direct engagement by the White House--is more than unlikely. And so far, the only consistent action from the White House on the gun issue is a virtually unmatched ability to ignore it.
Let's ignore for a moment the blatant unconstitutionality of the Gun Control Act, and its provision empowering the federal government to ban importation of a firearm merely by determining said firearm is unsuitable for sport, and consider what such a ban would do. My guess is that it would make some enterprising domestic firearms manufacturer very pleased, as it tooled up to swoop in on the newly (forcibly) vacated market--a market probably invigorated by the very hysteria against the 5.7x28mm caliber generated by groups like VPC and the Brady Campaign. I rather doubt that Sugarmann is motivated by a desire to help the domestic firearms industry, though.
As I've discussed before, banning imports has also been suggested this year--by Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), perennial sponsor of efforts to ban the Five-seveN--as a means of reducing the numbers of so-called "assault weapons" on the civilian domestic market. Such an approach might have some appeal to Attorney General Eric Holder, who although having pulled back from (publicly) calling for an all out ban, is still clearly in favor of restricting so-called "assault weapons."
His response to a reporter in February, Holder claims, is not akin to “call[ing] for a new assault weapons ban, but rather restating the previously expressed campaign position on this issue.”
Regarding the administration’s next step, Holder stated, "The department is currently reviewing existing gun laws to determine how best to combat gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others prohibited from possessing them."
The fatal flaw, of course, with using the "sporting purpose" test to determine a gun's suitability for private ownership by the people, is that the Founding Fathers did not devote 10% of the Bill of Rights to the protection of sport. The forcible citizen disarmament lobby demonizes whatever is the "evil" gun du jour as being an "weapon of war," while utterly disregarding the fact that the Second Amendment is intended specifically to protect the citizenry's right to possess such arms.
I'll end with a line that I first saw attributed to the late Lt. Colonel Jeff Cooper, but have been unable to establish that it was actually he who said it. Regardless, it's a line worthy of him:
The 2nd Amendment doesn't state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods.
Comments
The second amendment is the only one that contains within itself a justification for its existence. Specifically, it says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The first 13 words provide a conditional justification, which none of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apparently needed. And no, you're right, it has nothing to do with "sport." It's also not an assumption of natural rights or an example of a priori reasoning, it's a specific set of societal conditions that makes this right necessary.
That said, when was the last time a well regulated militia was necessary for a state's security? This is the only right in the Bill based on a condition which can, at some point, no longer exist, so it's the only one that can arguably be restricted.
Acid reflux, indeed. I spy (with my little eye) a partially-digested, bile-soaked sophistry which the body quite sensibly decided to reject. Dude, let it go already.
I continue not to understand why people fight so hard to make the point that we should welcome a state monopoly on violence, despite, well, the ENTIRETY of human history.
In the 20th century alone, more people were disarmed and murdered by their own governments than were killed in all the declared wars combined. "Unilateral Personal Disarmament" (to use another term Jeff Cooper used) is absolutely essential to enable genocide, and it is laughable to suggest that it makes the weak safe against the strong.
(Kurt, in particular, can speak with authority on that. Wanna try him?)
Acidreflux,...You are giving me a bit of acid reflux
I am bewildered by your analysis. You quote the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment yet at the same time miss their meaning. "...,being necessary to the security of a FREE state,...". That includes the possible danger of the "State's" encroachment upon the citizenry. And it is very clear this is what was meant. An armed citizenry was to combat Tyranny pure and simple.
Good article Mr Hofman. I like the picture of the Gal with the machine gun.....bet you could get quite a few Brace of Rabbits with that!
I support current gun laws. While it's true that many gun owners are compensating for something, be it courage or brains, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to kill in the right circumstances.
acidreflux-
so you are telling me that in all of their infinite wisdom, the founders of this great country, while feeling the necessity to put the right to keep and bear arms second only to the right to freedom of speech, left the overwhelming loophole provoiding the government with the ability to disarm the citizenry by simply by removing the necessity for state militias to exist?....
So pretty much your point-of-view would be... "All that is necessary to remove the second amendment from existence is the removing of the States' necessity to protect itself by providing FEDERALLY administered protection to the states..."
So since 1791, there has been no reason for citizens of America to own weapons because are competent FEDERAL government abolished state militias in favor of 'state' national guards...
One may ask how the citizens then protect themselves from the federal government....acid reflux, you are either a gun-grabbing hack, or you lack all critical thinking skills...
FYI people...
"... the FN Herstal Five-seveN pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting--originally designed as a military-only handgun/ammo combination capable of piercing the body armor worn by soldiers on the battlefield..."
LIE LIE LIE
... Read More
Civillians in Amerika can NOT purchase Armor Piercing Ammo... it's ILLEGAL.
AND...
The 5-7 was NOT designed as a "...military-only handgun/ammo combination..."
The 5-7 was NOT "designed" to pierce "... body armor worn by soldiers on the battlefield....."
THAT is a frigging bald faced LIE.
The body armor (TL IIIa) worn by out troops can stop a high powered .308 Armor Piercing round...
the 5-7 is a friggin PISTOL!!
Once again we see the left. anti self defense, pro victim disarmement camp DISTORTING and LIE about gun related events...
"the 5-7 is a friggin PISTOL!!"
Du Flux, you might get a kick out of this Examiner article:
/x-8434-Anchorage-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Learn-from-the-experts
I had a bit of fun with that very topic, but more ridicule is needed. (And I still stand by the airdrop proposal.)
Du Flux - the 5.7 round was indeed designed to penetrate body armor - 1990's era Eastern Bloc body armor, not "the body armor worn by our troops" (the Belgians haven't been planning on fighting the US Army), it was designed for the P90 as a way to equip rear-echelon and non-combat troops with a combat-effective lightweight weapon to replace 9mm ball handguns
another note - do you think the average beat cop is wearing TL IIIa body armor? do you think a 5.7mm will pierce level II or III?
I agree that many of the arguments against the 5.7mm are specious
but don't contribute to the problem by being equally ignorant
Kurt wrote: My guess is that it would make some enterprising domestic firearms manufacturer very pleased, as it tooled up to swoop in on the newly (forcibly) vacated market--a market probably invigorated by the very hysteria against the 5.7x28mm caliber generated by groups like VPC and the Brady Campaign. I rather doubt that Sugarmann is motivated by a desire to help the domestic firearms industry, though.
Remember the Grendel P30? A very high cap .22 WMR pistol killed by the Clinton high cap magazine ban. I bet it wouldn't be hard to revive that.
Y'all just can't get past the Heller decision can you.
Unanimous finding, individual right. Yeah, the DC ban was a 5/4 split, but the underlying principle was 9/0.
And that introductory conditional statement you're so enamoured of was placed there simply to explain why the government had any interest in the subject at all, not to limit a citizen's RKBA to just that purpose.
The BOR is our fundamental line in the sand stating quite clearly that beyond this point you the government shall not pass. And ever since they've been weasel wording their way around every amendment that got in the way of increasing their power. Please reflect on where that approach wound up taking what at the time was the greatest power on Earth, the British Empire. We are all really good shots and we will shoot the officers first. Worked very well back in the day, didn't it.
As a member of JPFO I know that the 1968 GCA is an annotated version of the 1938 German gun control laws passed by the Nazi’s.
What people don’t seem to understand is that German law had to maintain compliance with the treaty of Versailles.
The Nazi’s maintained the appearance of compliance with the treaty up to the start of the war.
Germany was forced to disarm under the treaty and the German people were only allowed to have arms that were for “Sporting Purposes”
Have you ever wondered why our gun laws define an antique as being 1898 and earlier and that Black powders are exempt from the 68 GCA?
This is right out of the treaty of Versailles and the NRA supported the damn thing
mi·li·tia
NOUN:
-An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
-A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
-The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
acidreflux said, " It's also not an assumption of natural rights or an example of a priori reasoning, it's a specific set of societal conditions that makes this right necessary."
Look at the 1776 Virgina Declaration of Rights which provided the prefatory clause of the existing 2nd amendment,
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The intent is obvious to any educated person.
@Michael Gilson: actually, I HADN'T heard of the Grendel P30--thanks for the info.
ALL of the FN products that I've seen say "FNH USA Fredericksburg VA." on the slide. Do you think that those, that I've seen with my own eyes would be stopped from importation from within the US? I think not! I also know that the people who own them are among some the most responsible and knowledgeable that I've known. You really need to, and probably do know what you want when you purchase something like a Five-seveN. DON'T TREAD ON ME because of the left slant ignorance!
acidreflux, your last paragraph states "when was the last time a well regulated militia was necessary for a state's security" well, I guess the second amendment is doing what it was intended to do!
You lost something in translation. The "State" referred to in the Second Amendment is the whole of the country. Individual "states" are not what it is talking about. And just because we have not had a foreign army in our country recently, does not mean it can't happen. So you argument has no validity at all..
Frank
The supposed conflict between resistance to tyranny and sporting purposes is a false dichotomy.
Be sporting....give a politician a running start!
Allow that I bring to the fore a brief explanation of the purpose and intent to the Amendments in the very words of those who wrote and ratified them.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.."
Amendment II "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!