-=Continued from previous post=- 
Second, the sport of Practical Rifle Shooting, with formal competitions, has
become increasingly popular. We are informed that the Kalashnikov variants 
are particularly prominent in this sport. They offer virtually the only way 
to engage in the competition without spending $800 or more for a rifle, and
accordingly are used by upwards of 50% of competitors.They offer reliability,
sufficient but not excessive power, and relatively little muzzle rise in
recoil. All of these are highly desirable features in Practical Rifle
competition. In light of this, it is impossible to contend that the 
Kalashnikov design is not suited for "sporting use."
But the statute allows firearms to qualify for importation under a second
criterion, if they are "readily adaptable" to sporting use. Treasury has
adopted an expansive definition of the word "readily" as used in the Gun
Control Act. In United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1973), it
successfully argued that a firearm was "readily" restored to fire, even 
though its barrel had been welded shut at the breach and the barrel welded 
to the receiver. Treasury contended, and the court accepted, that the 
necessity of cutting off the barrel, drilling out its remnants, rethreading 
the receiver, and attaching a new barrel, did not prevent it from being 
"readily" restored.
It goes without saying that, if this is the test, any firearm on the list 
could "readily" be adapted to any possible sporting purpose. Barrels, 
stocks, and any other features could be changed in a fraction of the time 
necessary to do the machine shop work in Smith.
Gun Owners of America would close by noting its objection to the "sporting
purposes" test itself. The framers of our Bill of Rights wisely provided for 
a "right of the people to keep and bear arms," and not for the sake of deer
hunting or competitive shooting. The framer's writings upon the subject 
stress the underlying political judgment: the people must have arms 
comparable to those of their servants in order to ensure that the servants 
never become masters. Thus Federalist writer Noah Webster argued that America 
need not fear a standing army, since "the whole body of the people are armed, 
and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that could be,
on any pretense, raised in the United States." (An Examination into the 
Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late 
Convention at 43, 1787). Thus James Madison, in Federalist No. 46, praised 
American's "advantage of being armed" which would furnish practical 
insurance against tyranny. The underlying theme of these writings is not 
amusement or sport, but the necessity that the people be at least as well 
armed as the government to which they grant powers.
Why, then, does Treasury propose to ban this list of firearms? What is 
improper about having a gas tube above rather than below the barrel, or a 
locking system patterned after the M-1 carbine? The only common theme that 
can be seen is that the firearms in question look military. We submit that 
a firearms ban motivated by the fact that given firearms are military would 
contradict the basic political judgments that underlay the Second Amendment 
-- that is, it represents the people's servants' deciding that they must be 
better armed than the people who empower and pay them -- that they are in 
some sense superior human beings to the "rabble" that pays their salaries 
and votes them power. To ban firearms merely because they look military is 
not only a reflection of this unconstitutional judgment -- it is a 
caricature of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Without examining statutory history, the drafters proclaimed that 
  "plinking" was simply not a "sporting purpose."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
...          ******** NOTE: THIS IS A FORWARDED MESSAGE ********
--- FMail 1.22
---------------