The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 29, 2013, 06:38 PM   #26
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,855
I doubt there is a more than a handful of instances where M-1 Garands have been used in criminal activity. I have to say, having seen an Enfield used to hold up a Stop 'N Rob in Australia, I can't completely discount it. The number of crimes with M-1 Carbines might be a wee bit higher due to popularity and availability back in the 60s/70s, but I don't know for certain. I am willing to bet the number is lower than crimes committed with a beer bottle.

Quote:
...and apparently, the ban on surplus imports "will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets."
I got a bellyful of "military grade firearms" on our streets watching the Boston Lockdown.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 06:44 PM   #27
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
Re armored man's post concerning stuff seen "on the streets of Boston", us ordinary folk aren't supposed to question the blandishments of our betters, or are we.
alan is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 09:18 PM   #28
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 2,011
Anyone still think this administration isn't serious about taking away all the guns?

We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 09:27 PM   #29
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,655
Quote:
We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it.
To be honest, not really. I've had firsthand experience with some of the remainder of the Korean Garands, and they're not worth having. In most cases, the rifles aren't even safe to shoot.

That doesn't make this effort any less troublesome; it's just that the effects aren't all that dire.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 09:30 PM   #30
Ignition Override
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Posts: 1,804
A guy nicknamed "USSR" seemed to prove under "Legal" at THR that the CMP will be exempt. Even if not, there seem to be no more considerable heaps of nice M-1s in
countries to which the rifles were loaned by the US.

But even if "USSR" is correct, the public perception is what helps to set price increases, not what an Order or Exec. Action actually describes.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 09:31 PM   #31
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Posts: 1,510
If the executive order is violated, is there any associated penalty, vs. a statute?
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 10:52 PM   #32
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
Tom Servo writes:

Quote:
We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it.
To be honest, not really. I've had firsthand experience with some of the remainder of the Korean Garands, and they're not worth having. In most cases, the rifles aren't even safe to shoot.

That doesn't make this effort any less troublesome; it's just that the effects aren't all that dire.

Tom:

If I may. I will not argue over the condition of Korean War Garands, which might well be in terrible condition. If however, they were sold through the CMP, I would think that they would have been appropriately examined, and described as "wall hangers" if their condition so indicated.

I submit that the following is more important. If Obama gets away with this stunt, what might prove sufficient to check his follow-on excesses, excesses that will most surely come.
alan is offline  
Old August 29, 2013, 11:14 PM   #33
Ridgerunner665
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2007
Location: Upper East Tennessee
Posts: 346
My question about executive orders is simple...

Can the next president undo them, if he chose to?
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 12:38 AM   #34
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,655
Quote:
A guy nicknamed "USSR" seemed to prove under "Legal" at THR that the CMP will be exempt.
I agree. The CMP rifles are a different venue and are unlikely to be affected. What's affected at this point are the few rifles that we lent to foreign military entities. For the most part, that means South Korea.

Since the mainstay rifle has been the M16 and its variants, those wouldn't be transferable to civilians in any case.

Bear in mind these aren't executive orders, which have the force of law. They're "executive actions."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 07:03 AM   #35
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
My question about executive orders is simple...

Can the next president undo them, if he chose to?
Yes. But there is one big problem. No US president has ever banned the importation of guns using an executive order, because there is no need to do that. The BATFE has wide latitude to ban guns under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. Methinks once the BATFE does that the action becomes codified in US law.

It may require an act of congress to change that.
thallub is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 09:41 AM   #36
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I would think the next step would be a formal challenge to "sporting purposes," based on Heller.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 10:27 AM   #37
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,845
First, read the details...

As they are reporting it, the CMP (which is a govt function, despite being embarrassing to the left) would be exempt. They specifically say museums, govt., and certain other groups...

What this action would affect is the importation of US made military weapons from other countries, by private individuals or groups.

And what could those arms possibly be? In theory, anything in the US inventory of small arms. Machine guns and submachine guns (no distinction under US law) would be out, for obvious reasons predating the latest administrations executive actions by decades.

So that leaves rifles, handguns, and possibly shotguns. I think the numbers of US Military bolt action rifles in foreign nations is rather small. When those rifles (1903 Springfield and 1917 Enfield) became surplus to our military's needs, they were mostly sold to civilians in the US, as our allies didn't want them for their militaries either.

What this leaves is those remaining M1 Garands and M1 carbines still in the hands of our allies or former allies, and available for purchase from those nations. I think the numbers of pistols and shotguns able to come back are too small to worry about, as those numbers never were that large to start with, and I think that most of those, when released for sale by the owner nations during the last half century or so, have already "come home" so to speak, or never will.

This new executive action, if enforced as currently described (and there no guarantee of that) wouldn't stop the CMP from importing Garands. But it would stop "Millenium Imports Inc." from doing so. Because allowing that would risk putting "military grade guns on our streets"....

And, oh look, they found another "loophole" in our gun laws, the fact that full auto weapons can be registered to corporations and trusts. And they sieze on that, implying that a criminal could avoid a background check by being a member of the trust or officer of the corporation, and thereby have access to a machinegun.

Personally, I find the logic horridly flawed, and the proposed scenario laughable.

The idea that someone with criminal intent is going to become a member of a trust or officer of a corporation so they can have "background check free" access to a legally registered machinegun? Really? Why would they do that?

Spend that much time and effort? When a handful of $100 bills and the right underworld connections can get you a machinegun completely off the govt's books (and totally illegal)? And one that nobody (other than the criminal you got it from) knows you have?

The administrators of the trust or company that has legal registered machineguns are going to know EVERYONE on the list who can access the weapon(s). If you did something criminal with one of those guns, you are instantly at or near the top of a very short suspect list. Not exactly a good way to avoid suspicion....

So, the administration, who just cannot leave well enough alone has found an area where they can act unilaterally, and justifies it with the most contrived, unrealistic possibilities. Sounds like business as usual in DC.....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 02:53 PM   #38
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,846
It was my understanding that the Koreans no longer have any rifles that we "lent" them. They own all remaining rifle outright and as such they would not be sent through CMP anyways. It is also my understanding that although the Garands are in terrible shape, they do have a significant number of carbines.

Of course, CMP has adapted to the political winds in the past there probably isn't anything barring them from purchasing the rifles. It isn't like the CMP hasn't cannibalized rifles for parts in the past.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 03:30 PM   #39
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
as a previous poster said
quote
"All of this has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.
Gun control laws have nothing to do with crime.
This is all about disarming the populous so we can become subservient subjects and no longer free men.
Look at the curriculum in public schools; look at all the new procedures schools have put in place after the CT shooting.
Look at how local LEO have geared up to military style weapons and gear."

I agree this is what they want to do. Our government is out of control with all the infringements on the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendments. We are loosing our freedom at the hands of our own government. The constitution is there to protect our rights and freedoms. But as Obama said openly the only thing standing in his way is the constitution, and he is ripping it away piece by piece.
rebs is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 03:39 PM   #40
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
thallub wrote:

Quote:
My question about executive orders is simple...

Can the next president undo them, if he chose to?
Yes. But there is one big problem. No US president has ever banned the importation of guns using an executive order, because there is no need to do that. The BATFE has wide latitude to ban guns under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. Methinks once the BATFE does that the action becomes codified in US law.

It may require an act of congress to change that.

thallub:

I believe the "next" president can rescind executive orders of the previous pres, possibly of earlier ones too, but I'm not sure of this last. I think that there might be a time factor involved though.

Otherwise, given that Garand Rifles are legal hunting arms in states where the use of self-loading (semiautomatic) rifles are allowed, that's many states. I expect, though I'm less than expert in the law, ditto for bureaucratic mobs like the BATFE, that the question of "sporting use", was "sport" anywhere, ever defined, might well have been answered. Of course, the USSC might yet have to rule on that point.

As to what the difference is between Executive Orders ans Executive action are, I wish that someone would tell me. That aside, I believe that the number and condition of old Garands and M-1 Carbines in South Korea is of small importance, the heart of the matter being Obama's antics, and the question of when, where and by whom will his excesses, his double-talk be checked.
alan is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 03:47 PM   #41
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
It is also my understanding that although the Garands are in terrible shape, they do have a significant number of carbines.
Many of those carbines are of the M2 variety. They are also in terrible shape.
thallub is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 05:23 PM   #42
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,855
Quote:
No US president has ever banned the importation of guns using an executive order
Wasn't that what was done to the Norinco firearms when Bush Sr closed off importation of firearms from China? Maybe I'm remembering that one wrongly...
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 06:16 PM   #43
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by armoredman
Wasn't that what was done to the Norinco firearms when Bush Sr closed off importation of firearms from China? Maybe I'm remembering that one wrongly...
It's somewhat more complicated. See here:
Quote:
...In 1993, the import of most Norinco firearms and ammunition into the United States were blocked under new trade rules when China's Most Favored Nation status was renewed. The prohibition did not apply to sporting shotguns or shotgun ammunition however. The year subsequent to that, U.S. Customs agents conducted a sting against Atlanta based importers of Norinco firearms. According to an affidavit signed by two of the undercover agents involved in the investigation dubbed "Operation Dragon Fire", representatives from Norinco offered to sell urban gangs shoulder-held missile launchers capable of downing a large commercial airliner.[2]

In August 2003, the Bush Administration imposed sanctions on Norinco for allegedly selling missile-related goods to Iran.[2] These sanctions led to a prohibition on imports into the US of the remaining types of firearms and ammunition not covered by the 1993 ban...
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 06:45 PM   #44
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
I believe the "next" president can rescind executive orders of the previous pres, possibly of earlier ones too, but I'm not sure of this last. I think that there might be a time factor involved though.
Yes, a new president can rescind an executive order by a previous president. Problem is: No guns were ever banned by an executive order.

Someone in the white house tells the BATFE to make it happen or the BATFE acts independently. The BATFE sends a letter order to the importer/or promulgates a numbered order stating the gun/s in question can no longer be imported. The BATFE may or may not have a comment period on proposed rules change. This is an example of a letter order to importer/s:

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/07-...ion.cgi.6.html

A link to all Executive Orders back to 1927

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html

Last edited by thallub; August 30, 2013 at 06:53 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 06:52 PM   #45
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 2,011
Earlier, I posted : "We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it."

One reply : "To be honest, not really. I've had firsthand experience with some of the remainder of the Korean Garands, and they're not worth having. In most cases, the rifles aren't even safe to shoot.

That doesn't make this effort any less troublesome; it's just that the effects aren't all that dire."

I could not agree less with this opinion. We've imported millions of weapons good only for the scrap heap, and sold them as curios. Were these available to the American public, how many people would like a wall-hanger? Something they could point to, next to Granddad's picture from France in 1944, and say, 'This is what my granddaddy carried at Bastogne. He's gone now, but this means something to me that I can't put into words. I've never had any guns before, but I just wanted one of these. I like to think about what they went through then."

Followed by : "If it was in good shape, it would have cost me a thousand dollars. I'd of never bought one at that price, but these hangers are going for much less.'

Or something along those lines.

That opportunity for thousands of Americans to re-connect with their nations' history and their own family history is now gone. That, and the opportunity to further mainstream gun ownership in this country is diminished.

We have got to get outside of our personal boxes. Collectors and collections are far more than racks of expensive, pristine examples of weapons or something we can take to the range every Sunday. A rifle hanging on the wall has meaning to people, and we need to fight just as hard for that right as we do for such things as open carry, background checks, whatever. To paraphrase George Orwell, 'That rifle hanging over the fireplace is a symbol of democracy. Our job is to keep it there.'

Make no mistake about it. This administration knew very well these Garands and carbines would not be on the streets, but instead hang over the fireplace, a symbol of our democracy, and they took that symbol away.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 06:55 PM   #46
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,583
Quote:
No US president has ever banned the importation of guns using an executive order, because there is no need to do that.
Quote:
Problem is: No guns were ever banned by an executive order.
I suppose that's true in the sense that no particular class of firearms has ever been banned from import by executive order. HOWEVER, Clinton did ban the importation of all firearms and ammunition from China via an executive order that has never been rescinded.

It's not at all easy to find if you just start searching through the list of EOs because it's couched as a general sanction against an unspecified list of countries which meet certain criteria and doesn't specifically mention China firearms or ammunition. But it is in there if you dig for it.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fa...firearm-p.aspx
"Also in 1994, President Clinton, by Executive Order, banned importation of firearms and ammunition from Red China, then a major exporter of AK-47-type semi-automatic rifles."
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 07:26 PM   #47
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
HOWEVER, Clinton did ban the importation of all firearms and ammunition from China via an executive order that has never been rescinded.
Show me the Executive Order:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...s/clinton.html


Quote:
"Also in 1994, President Clinton, by Executive Order, banned importation of firearms and ammunition from Red China, then a major exporter of AK-47-type semi-automatic rifles."
The NRA got it wrong. Show me this one:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ders/1994.html

Frank Ettin covered that one earlier. It went away during the negotiations when China was granted most favored nation status.

Last edited by thallub; August 30, 2013 at 07:39 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 07:31 PM   #48
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,583
No, they got it right. I remember when it happened and the Norinco ammo and guns dried up.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...constitutional
"President Clinton issued an executive order (No. 12938) in 1994 where some Chinese firearms and ammunition were restricted from import."
Here's an article from the time period that states plainly that Clinton was planning to use an EO to ban the importantion of Chinese firearms.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...6&slug=1912502
"While renewing trade benefits, Clinton plans to ban the importation of Chinese assault weapons to the United States, administration and congressional officials said yesterday.

The number of Chinese weapons imported to the U.S. has increased from 108,000 in 1991 to more than 1 million in 1993, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

But China exports more than $31 billion in products to the United States, and the guns and ammunition that would be affected by sanctions make up only a tiny share of these sales.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who has led a campaign for a ban, said a ban would send "a strong message that the United States will no longer allow China to turn our streets into killing fields with cheap semiautomatic weapons.""
Here's an excerpt from a court case citing the EO.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/site.../BWestImp.html
"President Bill Clinton announced the renewal of most favored nation trading status for the People's Republic of China. At the same time, however, in light of "continuing human rights abuses" in China, he announced certain trading sanctions against that country. One of the sanctions was a ban on the importation of weapons from China. China is one of the countries on the State Department's "proscribed list," a list of countries as to which it is "the policy of the United States to deny licenses and other approvals" for the importation of munitions. "
I've read EO 12938 and I'll readily admit that the language is not at all easy to decipher, but the effect was certainly easy to see.

Let's try a different tack--if you reject the commonly given explanation, then how do you explain the total absence of Chinese arms & ammunition on the U.S. market?
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 07:56 PM   #49
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
I've read EO 12938 and I'll readily admit that the language is not at all easy to decipher, but the effect was certainly easy to see.
EO 12938 pertains to weapons of mass destruction. Yep, those semi-auto milsurp rifles are powerful but they ain't WMD.


Quote:
Let's try a different tack--if you reject the commonly given explanation,
Commonly given explanation!!!! Hardly.

EO12580
Conditions for Renewal of Most-Favored-Nation Status for
the People’s Republic of China in 1994


EO 12850 does not mention guns.

Quote:
then how do you explain the total absence of Chinese arms & ammunition on the U.S. market?

Frank Ettin covered it above.
thallub is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 08:04 PM   #50
Model12Win
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 798
Such a shame. I really hope nothing comes down that would stop the supply of Mosin Nagant's into the country.
Model12Win is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14545 seconds with 7 queries