Ipsc Not A Sport?

[38superman]

I have been thinking lately about 3 gun competition and considering whether my shotgun would be suitable.

I own a USAS 12 which is a combat shotgun with a similar design to an AR-15 rifle.

I looked at the rule book and it does seem to meet all the criteria for an "open" gun.

While doing a little research I came across an interesting bit of information regarding a legal ruling (Gilbert Equip. Co v Higgins) on this firearm back in 1989-1990.

This gun was ruled to be a "destructive device" by the ATF during the Clinton Administration.

At that time the guns were built in South Korea and imported by Gilbert Equipment Co.

The government stopped the importation on the grounds that "the USAS-12 semiautomatic shotgun is not particularly suitable for or readily adaptable for sporting purposes."

Gilbert sued the agency and lost.

The following is part of the text from that decision.

The last line is particularly interesting.

The bureau determined that the USAS-12 weighed 12.4 pounds

unloaded, and this weight makes the gun extremely awkward to carry

for extended periods, as used in hunting, and cumbersome to lift

repeatedly to fire at multiple small moving targets, as used in

skeet and trap shooting (Owen declar. p. 13). The bureau also

determined that the USAS-12 contains detachable magazines which

permit more rapid reloading. A large magazine capacity and rapid

reloading are military features, according to the bureau. The

bureau also opined that the overall appearance of the weapon was

radically different from traditional sporting shotguns, and

strikingly similar to shotguns designed specifically for or

modified for combat/law enforcement/anti-personnel use (Owen

declar. p. 14). Further, the bureau determined that the activities

that the USAS-12 was designed for, various police combat

competitions, have not attained "general recognition" as shotgun

sports.

Bet you didn't know that what you were doing is "police combat competition" and not generally recognized as sport.

At least thats what it was 15 years ago.

Tls

Edited March 30, 2006 by tlshores

[Rob Boudrie]

The ATF issued a report during the Clinton years that determined that practical shooting was not a sport, but competitions involving military style firearms. The report may be found at http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/index.htm

with he specific mention of practical shooting, including the international organization and the fact that we have had national matches since 1989 (not sure that's the right date, but it's what's in the report), on page 3 of the PDF at http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/typscope.pdf

[38superman]

Wow. Now I'm having an identity crisis.

Is this how the US government views us?

If this is not a sport, what is it?

Do they think we're some sort of paramilitary organization?

T

Edited March 30, 2006 by tlshores

[rubberneck]

No crisis for me. The only reason why the ATF decided practical shooting wasn't a sport was because the Klinton gang wanted to do away with those evil assault weapons. If there was no sport that an AR could be used in than there was no reason to carve out a shooting sport exception. If push came to shove I don't think the ATF could defend it's political position in a court of law.

[Rob Boudrie]

No crisis for me. The only reason why the ATF decided practical shooting wasn't a sport was because the Klinton gang wanted to do away with those evil assault weapons. If there was no sport that an AR could be used in than there was no reason to carve out a shooting sport exception. If push came to shove I don't think the ATF could defend it's political position in a court of law.

You mean like the court which heard Gilbert v. Higgins?

[38superman]

No crisis for me. The only reason why the ATF decided practical shooting wasn't a sport was because the Klinton gang wanted to do away with those evil assault weapons. If there was no sport that an AR could be used in than there was no reason to carve out a shooting sport exception. If push came to shove I don't think the ATF could defend it's political position in a court of law.

They already have defended their position in a court of law.

It was upheld in the case I noted in post #1 (Gilbert v Higgins)

Law is all about precedent.

The idea being that once an argument has been decided there's no need to go back and hash it over again and again.

Any time this comes up legally, all an attorney has to do is cite this case as precedent.

It seems the work that shooters have to do in the political / legal arena never ends.

T

[bgary]

The more interesting (?) precedent is the one where they decided that a gun could be banned if it had no legitimate sporting purpose. I don't recall seeing "sporting purpose" in the 2nd amendment... but I *do* see that amendment as specifically applying to militarily-suitable firearms. So... "logic" (?) would seem to indicate that their primary position - that it is OK to ban a firearm has "only military use, and no sporting use" - is a little bass-ackwards.

Bruce

[walangkatapat]

Since when does government have any right to consider what is a sport or not?

[shred]

Some part of the NFA or one of those has a 50-cal limit on 'civillian' firearms (ie the non-tax-stamp ones). Shotguns, in particular, over .50 are exempted if they're for 'sporting purposes'. Originally IIRC this was to get rid of the massive 'punt guns' that could take down a whole flock of birds at once, but has now been perverted into 'anything we don't like' or 'anything that holds more than 2 rounds'.

[walangkatapat]

It's a good first step...

If you give them an inch they'll take a mile...

The camels nose under the tent...

Edited March 30, 2006 by walangkatapat

[SinistralRifleman]

When I was reading this ruling before, there was a part that mentioned the guns or similar types must already be in common use in the sport....kind of a catch 22, since if the guns aren't available how are they to be used in the sport?

There would be a better chance of getting a different ruling today as USPSA/IPSC have grown, and there are more people using detachable magazine fed shotguns today.

[Zak Smith]

Is this how the US government views us?

If this is not a sport, what is it?

Do they think we're some sort of paramilitary organization?

YES, they do.

Consider it a wake-up call.

[38superman]

O.K. I'm awake.

Welcome to the USPSA Militia

Actually I think Russell is right.

Ipsc has grown substantially and we would have a much better chance of getting a different ruling today if the subject of legal status ever came up.

It really is a wake up call to realize how some outsiders view our sport ... whatever it is we do.

T

Edited March 30, 2006 by tlshores

[bayoupirate]

This is way more serious and important than a sport!

Really, think about it and let's compare sports.

Football? What useful life skill can be gained from that sport? Teamwork? maybe but not really if you look at how the pros play and act.

Baseball? how often do you have to hit things with a bat or throw a ball at something? I'll throw lead, thank you.

NASCAR, (Some don't consider a sport either) You can't really drive like that in real life.

Basketball, Unless you're picking pineapples and shooting them into the wagon, nothing useful there

IPSC/USPSA - learning, practicing and honing safe and effective gun handling skills that WILL, not maybe!, be ESSENTIAL when and if you are ever placed in a situation where your life depends on using said firearm to defend and protect one's life.

Sport? I don't think so, it's much more important than that!

Sign me Up for this Militaristic Activity!

I'm a Pirate anyway!

[kurtm]

Does this mean I can now wear cammo to a match??

[rubberneck]

No crisis for me. The only reason why the ATF decided practical shooting wasn't a sport was because the Klinton gang wanted to do away with those evil assault weapons. If there was no sport that an AR could be used in than there was no reason to carve out a shooting sport exception. If push came to shove I don't think the ATF could defend it's political position in a court of law.

You mean like the court which heard Gilbert v. Higgins?

No I meant now in front of todays US Supreme court not the court of 16-17 years ago. We now live in a brand new world. Gone are the holdovers from the Kennedy/Johnson era. The court we have now (with Roberts and Alito) are much more likely to take a dim view of govermental intrusion on private legal activities.

Law is all about precedent.

The idea being that once an argument has been decided there's no need to go back and hash it over again and again.

Any time this comes up legally, all an attorney has to do is cite this case as precedent.

It seems the work that shooters have to do in the political / legal arena never ends.

T

That is not at all true. The US Supreme court is not legally or morally bound to follow precedent from lower courts nor are they bound by their own precedents. In fact the SCOTUS reverses itself quite frequently.

[shred]

Let's remember this is a ruling on shotguns and shotgun sports only.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the NRA "traditional" pistol sports sell us out in favor of keeping their precious bullseye pistols if it came to that.

[Rob Boudrie]

The issue has NOTHING to do with our sport. The issue is "what consequences would recognizing a particular sport have on established law which grants special standing to 'legitimiate sporting activities?'".

All indications are that the decisions were made in the context of a desire to prevent certain consequences of recognition from coming into play, and this consideration, rather than the merits of the activity, drove the conclusion.

Read the entire ATF report and note that the discussion centered on the type of gun being used, not the activity. Pay particular attention to the conclusion which basically states "if the activity uses this type of firearm it is not a sport, but simply an activity using this type of firearm." They have pretty much admitted that the type of firearm used drove the conclusion that practical shooting is not a "legitimate sporting activity."

This Higgens case was about shotguns only, however, the ATF report - which remains the official position of that agency - does not limit itself to shotguns.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Rob Boudrie

[38superman]

Rubberneck,

I will be the first to admit I am not an attorney.

A higher court such as the Supreme Court could overturn that ruling but why would it ever hear such an argument?

Don't forget this case wasn't about IPSC.

It was about an importers right to import a particular type of gun.

I really don't expect that the question of USPSA status as sport will ever again be argued in any court, much less the Supreme Court.

Its just that we spend so much effort promoting this sport.

We argue the never ending sport vs. tactical issue.

Now I discover that the only time the question ever came up "officially" it was decided that it wasn't a "recognized" sport at all.

I just found it ironic.

T

[rubberneck]

Rubberneck,

I will be the first to admit I am not an attorney.

A higher court such as the Supreme Court could overturn that ruling but why would it ever hear such an argument?

Don't forget this case wasn't about IPSC.

It was about an importers right to import a particular type of gun.

I really don't expect that the question of USPSA status as sport will ever again be argued in any court, much less the Supreme Court.

Its just that we spend so much effort promoting this sport.

We argue the never ending sport vs. tactical issue.

Now I discover that the only time the question ever came up "officially" it was decided that it wasn't a "recognized" sport at all.

I just found it ironic.

T

The Court will hear it again because the sporting exception hasn't gone away. In this particular case the 11th court of appeals was the last court to hear the case. For whatever reason the US Supreme Court didn't take the case. I suppose that it isn't out of the realm of possibility that a gun manufacturer will one day want to challenge this ruling especially with the growth of the sport, 3 gun in particular.

One last thing, as I read the decision (I am no lawyer) the Court didn't rule that IPSC wasn't a sport. The case revolved around the authority of the ATF to classify a guns sporting use. Unless I totally misread the decision the Court said the ATF had power under administrative law to make that determination.

[carinab]

Time to find a congressman who will introduce legislation defining what constitutes a sport and what gun manufacture is (hey, they could find the sport one on one of the threads here! I think there are couple that say, if there is a score - it's a game ). Of course the danger is it being drafted with some tiny loop hole eliminating what we do all together. To paraphrase, no idea/plan ever makes it unscathed once contact with the legislature is made.

Edited March 31, 2006 by carinab

[SinistralRifleman]

There are two critical things in regards to sporting purpose when it comes to firearms law.

1) Non-sporting firearms cannot be imported unless they have only 10 parts off the imported list and the rest are of US manufacture

2) Non-sporting shotguns, having a bore over .50 are destructive devices. Non-sporting shotguns are assessed on a case by case basis by BATFE and will be declared DDs by manufacturer and model #. There is no list of features as to what will clearly define a shotgun as non-sporting.

The case in point, was dealing with importation issues.

During the Klinton administration USAS-12s, Striker-12s, and Street Sweepers were declared destructive devices becuase they had no suitable sporting purpose.

What is a sporting configuration has been constantly reinterpretted to the point where the shotgun can now only have a 5 round magazine and a standard stock (non-pistol grip)...good luck trying to get a straight answer out of the government on these issues. They do not want to issue a clear ruling or opinion because then it could be more easily challenged in court.

Further reading on the issues of sporting purpose, you will see that in the debates of 1968 during congressional testimony, that DCM/High Power was also regarded as a competition which uses military style firearms, not a sporting purpose. The Department of Civilian Marksmanship was established, so that civilians would be able to practice small arms skills in peace time, should they be called into the defense of their country (draft = militia service)

The Saiga-12s are being imported in a sporting configuration, but rumors abound that the BATFE will declare them DDs once high cap mags are commercially available.

A completely domestic made detach magazine fed shotgun would have a much better chance of remaining a title I firearm, than those that are imported. This would hold true even more so if they were designed specifically as a competition gun, and sold to military/LE as an afterthought.

The government in the end is hurting itself along with us with these regulations. They're not getting more advanced and continually improved designs to use for military/LE applications because we are hindered with legislation.

In the 1939 Miller case the Supreme Court ruled that a short barrelled shotgun was not particularly suitable for milita service, thus the National Firearms Act was upheld because it did not infringe on the second amendment. Nevermind that short barrelled shotguns were used in the unpleasantness in Europe only 2 decades before....unfortunately Miller disappeared, and his attorney did not appear to argue the point without pay. We may in fact be better off arguing that the firearms in question are particularly suitable for militia service, and thus these laws are in violation of the second amendment. US Code Title 10 Section 311B defines the milita as all able bodied males 17-45 years of age, so like it or not most of us actually are in the Unorganized Militia of the United States.

The 9th District Court has recently ruled that an individual constructing a machine gun (NFA weapon) that is not sold and does not leave the state it was made in does not meet the standard of the interstate commerce clause for the federal government to be able to regulate it.

Attacking the issue from both sides (sporting purpose and militia service) in the courts could end with a favorable ruling. The supreme court doesn't want to touch gun issues at all it seems...even though there are so many conflicting rulings out there amongst the lower courts.

Edited March 31, 2006 by SinistralRifleman

[Smoky Bear]

Does this mean I can now wear cammo to a match??

You mean something other than your undies?

[Paule]

If you discount the sports that have rampant performance enhancing drug use there aren't many sports left. Shooting sports are one of the few.

[Helmut]

The only reason why the ATF decided practical shooting wasn't a sport was because the Klinton gang wanted to do away with those evil assault weapons. If there was no sport that an AR could be used in than there was no reason to carve out a shooting sport exception. .

I do support the bayonet lug removal......there are way to many drive-by bayonetings in this country.

Kurt......if you showed up in camo and a bow with a 10mm on your hip....i would think you where Ted Nugent!