Is the ATF’s ‘Sporting Purposes’ Test an Ongoing Violation?

Regulation Changes for Gun Owners

A longstanding regulation affecting law-abiding gun owners’ ability to buy their preferred firearms might soon be revoked.

On April 29, during a press conference, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche revealed that the Biden administration plans to repeal three significant regulations. The Justice Department is also re-evaluating “sporting purpose” testing regulations established by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the 1968 Gun Control Act. For nearly two decades, this regulation has been used to restrict handgun imports, largely driven by “factoring standards.” It was initially aimed at modern semi-automatic rifles, following the mass shooting in Stockton, California, in 1989, which led some groups to label them as “assault weapons.”

Blanche mentioned that the ATF is currently studying which rifles are generally deemed suitable for sporting purposes. “We intend to see this through in the coming months,” he said at the conference.

In the late 1980s, the ATF prohibited the importation of semi-automatic rifles that resembled military assault rifles, such as the AK-47. By 1998, the ban expanded to include rifles capable of accepting standard military magazines and their semi-automatic counterparts.

Many anti-Second Amendment activists often label semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons” to rally support for bans. This term typically refers to guns that have features making them appear similar to fully automatic firearms, which are tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

However, given recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment, the “sporting purpose” test might not hold up for long. In 2008, in the landmark case Heller v. District of Columbia, the court ruled that the legitimate purpose of owning a firearm is self-defense.

Former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “The inherent right to self-defense is central to Second Amendment rights. Banning handguns equates to banning a significant class of ‘weapons’ that Americans commonly choose for legitimate reasons.”

The Court has since overturned additional laws based on Second Amendment interpretations in cases like McDonald v. Chicago and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Stephen Halbrook, a constitutional lawyer and authority on the Second Amendment, indicated that these rulings might ultimately challenge the “sporting purpose” test used in the 1980s and 1990s to restrict modern semi-automatic rifle imports. “Limiting firearm imports to those deemed suitable for sporting or easily adaptable for such purposes infringes on the Second Amendment,” Halbrook argued. “In 1989 and 1998, the government arbitrarily reassessed which firearms were considered sporting.”

Halbrook also mentioned the potential for this ban to be contested in court. He explained, “A licensed importer could apply to the ATF to import specific semi-automatic rifles and, according to Heller, provide documentation showing they are commonly used for legal purposes, including self-defense. Should the permit be denied, both the importer and the prospective buyer could file a civil lawsuit to contest their Second Amendment rights.”