Biggest Pro-Gun Reform of GCA ’68 since FOPA ’86 Introduced

The bill just introduced in the House is H.R. 2710, which would gut the sporting purposes language, introduced by Republican Congressman Rob Bishop from Utah. The bill would, according to NRA:

  • eliminate ATF’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition;
  • provide for the lawful importation of any non-National Firearms Act firearm or ammunition that may otherwise be lawfully possessed and sold within the United States;
  • protect shotguns, shotgun shells, and larger caliber rifles from arbitrary classification as “destructive devices” which under federal law subjects them to onerous registration and taxation provisions and creates a ban on possession of the firearm in some states;
  • broaden the temporary interstate transfer provision to allow temporary transfers for all lawful purposes rather than just for “sporting purposes.”

As our Vice President would say, this is a big ‘effin deal! This would be the most substantial reform of the Gun Control Act since FOPA in 1986. Get calling and ask your Congressman to co-sponsor this bill.

UPDATE: Here’s the text of the bill. You need to have the Gun Control Act portion of the United States Code in front of you to understand what it does. It also makes some changes to the NFA‘s definition of Destructive Devices to offer more protection for shotguns. A lot of striking and replacing sections of code.

25 Responses to “Biggest Pro-Gun Reform of GCA ’68 since FOPA ’86 Introduced”

  1. Mildred says:

    Fantastic! I wonder if it has a chance?

    • Sebastian says:

      We’ll see. If it gets enough co-sponsors that would be a good sign even if it doesn’t pass in this Congress. Sometimes you send the flag up the pole and see who salutes it.

      • Eggo says:

        Eh, that’s what I told the judge, but I’m still on this damn registry.

        Seriously though, it’ll be a good test of committee votes, at the very least.

        Also, I wonder how difficult it would be to code something that would show how the law would read as revised by the proposed bill, so people wouldn’t have to play “spot the difference” section by section?

  2. Brad says:

    Oh Yeah! That “sporting purposes” clause of the GCA 68 has been something just waiting for destruction since DC v Heller. The provisions of the GCA 68 are also ripe for abuse under someone with as little respect for the law as Obama.

    Nice to see Congress getting ahead of the ball for once.

  3. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    AWwwwwwww yeah! I hope this goes somewhere

  4. Beatbox says:

    Blah blah blah. This has no chance and the nra knows it. Must be time for membership renewals.

    • Steve in Co says:

      I used to say that when they started talking about legalizing carry of guns in national parks. Never say never.

      • Patrick says:

        That required a provision being added to the “CARD Act” to regulate credit cards and credit provisioning – something Obama wanted passed into law so he could regulate credit providers. The same ones he threatened with “regulation” via Operation Choke The Guns.

        Anyway, national park carry (as well as Amtrak check-in) were not bills. They were amendments. The only way to get something into law with Obama around is via an amendment. No passed bill will become law.

        Sometimes these bills get attached as amendments later in the game. Note that there is a big issue coming up that must be passed – credit limits. Dems want them raised, and the GOP will give them what they want. No reason we should not have things we want attached. Every other decent lobbyist will.

        I say support the bill. Ya never know – someone may do something crazy and actually try to make it law.

    • Sebastian says:

      Everything starts as a crazy idea that’s not going anywhere.

    • Nate says:

      Republicans control both houses of Congress. No reason why we can’t at least send a bill to Obama’s desk.

  5. Jim W says:

    Where is this magical bill? I don’t see the text anywhere. It’s not listed on either.

  6. Right Wing Wacko says:

    And what abomination will we have to accept to get this passed. We’re still having to deal with the consequences of what we gave up to get FOPA.

    • Sebastian says:

      Things are a lot different now than they were in 1986. The climate today is far more favorable to us in Congress than it was then. FOPA ’86 got passed by a Dem congress.

  7. Mike V says:

    It’d be nice if they removed the NFA requirement for suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns while they’re at it.

    • Sebastian says:

      If you start loading a bill up with other provisions, you lose support. You’ll end up in a position where Congressman X supports provision A, but not provision B, and so won’t vote for A+B. But he will vote for A. You’ll have others that like B, but hate A, so they won’t vote for A+B either. But if you run them as separate bills, you have enough votes to pass, just as separate bills.

      I’m not saying that’s the case yet, because I suspect right now there just aren’t votes enough to pass an NFA delistment, and if you tried it on this bill, you’d only accomplish sinking it.

      • HSR47 says:

        But it does include an NFA delistment: Certain shotguns that have previous been ruled to be Destructive Devices due to a determination that they “have no sporting purpose.”

    • ParatrooperJJ says:

      The way to do this is to get some sympathetic staffers on the relevant committees and have provisions quietly inserted into bills.

  8. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Schumer is already making hay over some of these amendments in the Senate and there are 100 Dems in the House who have signed a letter to take gun-related riders out of appropriations bills. I don’t think they’re going anywhere, really, since the Dems have no choice but to pass these things to keep operations running. But they are making light of things. I don’t know if this language would make it through as a rider, but it’s worth doing.

  9. Dave says:

    It’s nice that it’s been introduced, but so has National Reciprocity. Where did that go?

    • Sebastian says:

      From a pipe dream to passing the House, and nearly passing the Senate last time it was up for a vote. Next time it comes up for a vote, it’ll pass.

      • HSR47 says:

        But it won’t get signed into law by this president.

        Still, the Republicans are likely going to want definitive votes that they can point to for re-election in the fall, and once something passes once….

  10. H. Eckel says:

    Remember when Charlie Rangel wrangled in the Huges Amendment machinegun ban into the ’86 FOPA, despite that it was specifically voted down (for which we now have video available), and some Mr. Kallay wrote the NRA a letter asking what they’d do about it only to find that the NRA brushed this off and said that some brisk remedial legislation would fix it… in 1986? Oh, what about ‘any place to any place’ under 18 USC 926A turning out to mean immunity in ‘just about no place whatsoever’? Nobody’s quashed Charlie since, the machine gun ban is still in place 30 years later, and 926A is doubtfully protecting anyone. What is there to trust about half-measures which purport to neuter wholly illegal Acts in the first place, from our legislators, from the NRA, from the courts, from the very People themselves? To amend in a way that leaves unconstitutional statute is to violate one’s oath no more or less than moving to enact unconstitutional legislation in the first place: it is perjury. And here were are celebrating it.

    • Mildred says:

      Mr. Ecklel, your point is not helpful. Saying unless we get rid of all bad laws we should get rid of none is absurd. How have we made such strides in concealed carry in the states? By enacting permitted carry! When that works out well, then we have seen several states now get permitted carry!

      How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!

      If passed this, law would be a fantastic gain. It would cause the price of black rifles to plummet even more- bringing more people into the hobby- and making it harder and harder for these guns to be banned ever again!

      • Joe_in_Pitt says:

        I agree wholeheartedly. We are absolutely demolishing the antis on the culture front. And why? Because with the legislatures and court decisions going our way in the last couple of decades we are opening the door to a lot more people having the freedom to carry, own semi-automatic rifles, and so on.

        And this feeds upon itself. With many more people carrying with a permit who couldn’t 10 or 15 years ago, we eventually begin to chip away at the permit schemes. With more people dipping their toes into the NFA world, we get momentum for chipping away at that (as we see here).

        Do people honestly believe that we can achieve victory by not taking small bites here and there? Yes, we’re not striking major, decisive wins with some of these bills or court decisions. But you’re saying gun rights here in 2015 would be just as strong as they were in 1995 if we went all-or-nothing and the only people pushing it were old, male hunters? Yeah right.


  1. Language of “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act” | Shall Not Be Questioned - […] lot of striking and replacing sections of code. It would seem that everything is as advertised from what I…