What is this "Sporting Purpose Exemption" thing of which you speak?

To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute. The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” Interpreting the meaning of this statutory language, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has developed a framework that will apply to requests seeking a determination that certain projectiles qualify for this “sporting purpose” exemption ,,,,

There is no "sporting purpose" Exemption.

Except in the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA):

The 1968 Gun Control Act added a "sporting purpose" test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a "points system" for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun.

Domestically produced firearms .. not so much.

The same test can be used to define "Saturday Night Specials"  (also known as "inexpensive handguns which are affordable to the people who live in ghettos").

Actually, that definition accurately describes the Kel-Tec .380 I bought as my backup defensive handgun a few years ago. I don't see anybody trying to take that away from me. What's the difference between that, and a very expensive handgun which will accommodate  "armor piercing ammunition".

So what's the big deal?  Is my Kel-Tec a "sporting purpose" handgun, but a more expensive (and more effective) pistol requires a "sporting purpose exemption" .. because it is more effective?

"They" are still trying to limit our availability to firearms.

First it was cheap pistols, now it's pistols that can penetrate a "bullet proof vest".

Oh, and of course there's the problem of knives, which will penetrate a "bullet proof vest".  Just ask the Brits about how well Knife Control legislation works!   (see also HERE)


How many of you have a clip knife in your pocket now?  I know MY hand is up!

Just how far IS our government willing to go, to deny its citizens defensive weapons to its citizens?

ANSWER:
The federal government is not beyond any treasonous act to disarm its citizens, if they think they can get away with it.  And until we stand up and say something like "MOLON LABE"  (as states are beginning to do this year), the elected representatives of the people will keep pushing to outlaw any defensive tool available by technology.