Posted on 01/17/2023 6:29:55 AM PST by SeekAndFind
1/17/1989: Stockton, CA - Cleveland Elementary School, 24 yo white male shot and killed 5 school children and wounded 32 others, suicide, Norinco (made in China) Type 56S semi-automatic rifle, Taurus PT92 pistol, arson fire
On March 14, 1989, ATF announced that it was suspending, effective immediately, the importation of several makes of assault-type rifles, pending a decision as to whether these weapons meet the statutory test that they are of a type generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. The announcement stated that ATF would not approve, until further notice, the importation of AKS-type weapons, Uzi carbines, FN/FAL-type weapons, FN/FNC-type weapons and Steyr Aug semiautomatic weapons. On April 5, 1989, the suspension was expanded to include all similar assault-type rifles.
For purposes of this suspension, assault-type rifles were rifles which generally met the following criteria:
a. military appearance
b. large magazine capacity
c. semiautomatic version of a machinegun
Based on these criteria, ATF suspended action on pending applications and suspended outstanding permits covering certain firearms listed in Attachment 1. These included both centerfire and .22 rimfire caliber firearms. At that time, ATF indicated that the reexamination of these weapons would take approximately 90 days.
Section 925(d)(3) of Title 18, United States Code, as amended, provides in pertinent part that:
The Secretary shall authorize a firearm. . .to be imported or brought into the United States . . if the firearm . .
(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms. . .
This provision was originally enacted by Title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and was also contained in Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which amended Title IV later that year. According to the Senate Report on Title IV, this provision was intended to “curb the flow of surplus military weapons and other firearms being brought into the United States which are not particularly suitable for target shooting or hunting.” S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 80, 1968 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 2112, 2167.
Moreover, there is legislative history which indicates that Congress intended the standard to allow the importation of traditional sporting rifles, while excluding military-type rifles. The Senate Report on the Gun Control Act observed that the importation standards “. . . are designed and intended to provide for the importation of quality made, sporting firearms, including . . . rifles such as those manufactured and imported by Browning and other such manufacturers and importers of firearms.” S. Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 38 (1968). Significantly, the rifles being imported by Browning at that time were semiautomatic and manually operated traditional sporting rifles of high quality1.
An explanation of the effect of this section by one of the sponsors of the bill specifically stated that military firearms would not meet the “sporting purposes” test for importation. The mere fact that a military firearm may be used in a sporting event does not make it importable as a sporting firearm2.
i see what you mean: ex post facto would be saying something is illegal as of today and anyone who broke this law back 5 years ago would be prosecuted.
so long as they don’t do it that way, but only prosecute from the illegal act perpetrated from the start of the law then they are not doing ex post facto.
Agreed. Register nothing. Turn in nothing, and do not buy “required” insurance(backdoor registration) either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.