Eugene Volokh has a very interesting post about a San Francisco ordinance that essentially considers only “sporting use.” Professor Volokh says:
So long as gun control proponents talk solely about “sporting purposes,” and don’t even acknowledge the legitimacy of defensive purposes, it’s hard to take seriously the claims that law abiding citizens’ rights to own guns in self-defense are safe, and that the only goal is supposedly “reasonable gun control” rather than broad gun bans.
I agree. Interestingly enough, one reason you can’t get a lot of imported guns in this country is due to the “sporting purposes” language in the Gun Control Act of 1968. It would be a great victory of we could get this provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 invalidated. Heller just might lend some language that could provide a basis to argue this.
Funny thing, the leftists always whine about it being about “the militia” I can’t seem to make it jive with their statements of “I support hunting but”
I suppose someday, maybe if what remains of the constitution isn’t raped beyond recognition one might challenge it.