Maybe someone can point me to the part of the second amendment that requires a sporting purpose? I am also having trouble locating the part that requires I have any sort of justification or legitimate need.
Don't play that game or we will head down their rat hole after them.
This an interesting "requirement" from the ATF because in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
The argument against "Miller" possessing the Short Barreled Shotgun was that it had not been shown to be widely used in military units therefore had no "use" in a militia.
Seems like the ATF is playing both sides of the argument.
In a sense, the Miller decision makes a good case for the legalization of civilian ownership of M-16's with the same capabilities as those issued to the military. After all, isn't it the standard issue rifle to all "troops"?
