Rumor on executive orders and imports

[Come and take it.]

Is it true that Obama is now trying to "ban" the importation of surplus ammunition and the import of parts kits that may be used to build semi-automatic military style rifles?

Possibly even "ban" (through ATF interpretation) the import of commercial ammo that may be used as military ammunition?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/executive-action-obama-to-ban-importation-of-ammo-magazines-and-gun-accessories-without-congressional-approval/

[Spats McGee]

I had not heard that, but I do know that you can keep abreast of Executive Orders here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

[csmsss]

There are always rumors of this, that or the other. Some of them are even true. For whatever reason, BATFE (and thus the White House) have fairly broad discretion over which firearms and ammunition are permitted to be imported into the U.S. It's unlikely that any such action, whether statutorily provided or assumed via executive order, would be ruled unconstitutional (at least in my opinion).

[Evan Thomas]

Interestingly, Pres. Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any other president in the last 100 years. This article (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html) from New York Magazine has a graph that compares the executive orders issued per day for all presidents who served during that time span, and Mr. Obama is right at the bottom. By that measure, he has issued fewer executive orders than the likes of George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Calvin Coolidge. The most recent president to issue fewer than Mr. Obama: Grover Cleveland, who left office in 1897. :eek:

As to the rumor in the OP, I would give it no credence at all until I see something from more believable sources than that one; or, even better, on the White House page Spats linked or in the Federal Register:
https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders/barack-obama/2013

[Ruthless4christ]

All this noise comes from Alex Jones doing a newsflash of an article done by The Examiner that basically revolves around the UN Arms Treaty, that still has to be approved by Congress.

Nothing new here, but might as well take the opportunity to write/call your reps and let them know we are against the Arms Treaty. I cant say that enough as I swear 90% of the people that say they do, actually never contact anyone in Congress or The Senate.

[Come and take it.]

I could not find anywhere on that Whitehouse website about the executive orders that Obama signed after Sandy Hook. Why would those executive orders not be listed on the whitehouses own website?

Although Alex Jones can often times get his facts backwards, I wouldn't discount him totally. I would say for sure his chances of getting the news right is about as reliable as CNN or MSNBC.

What the issue seems to revolve around is that Obama is attempting to (within his executive powers to abide by the UN treaty that was signed) tell the ATF to go all out and stop whatever imports they can get away with.

That is what the article seems to suggest. I am not even sure an executive order would be needed for them to do this.

[Spats McGee]

Those orders that were (allegedly) signed right after Sandy Hook have never shown up there, and I do not know why. I've been watching for them. :confused:

[Evan Thomas]

While the U.S. voted "yes" on the arms treaty at the U.N., Pres. Obama has NO "powers" under that treaty, nor will he have unless and until the Senate ratifies it, which is approximately as likely as the Easter Bunny running for president next time around. (Which is too bad -- I'd probably vote for her if she did run...)

[Come and take it.]

He can attempt to use the ATF to try to mirror the requirments of the treaty as much as possible within their power.

He has the authority to do that and has had that authority since being president. The ATF has a lot of leeway in regulating imports of arms. I am sure with a little research you can find a lot of information on it. Curio and Relic dealers know all too well the Kangaroo court the ATF runs.

[Tom Servo]

Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March (...) A direct on attack on the second amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade.
Just a heads-up, folks: this is not how credible, professional journalists write. This is blogspeak at best. Show me something from a reputable (or at least financially solvent) source, and I'll consider taking it seriously. This would be in the national press if it had legs.

(Which is too bad -- I'd probably vote for her if she did run...)
Wait, the Easter Bunny's a woman? I am so getting sued now :eek:

[Battler]

Correct me if I'm wrong; but I still remember the day they banned the import of receivers and barrels (pretty sure it was in 2000) - I remember as I was starting to research FALs and in the middle the receivers and barrels were cut off. A cutoff to the rest of the parts on these guns is not outside the realm of the realistic.

(I realize too that domestic manufacture of a lot of this stuff, or of good alternative platforms, makes a lot of this moot compared with a domestic AWB).

[Come and take it.]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/general-information-surplus-military.html

They have the authority on surplus ammunition. I know I have seen surplus ammo show up from time to time at ammunition sites I was never aware how much it can be regulated.

All they have to basically do is flat out say any ball surplus ammo is non-sporting period.

[Evan Thomas]

Wait, the Easter Bunny's a woman? I am so getting sued now
Tom... where did you think Easter eggs came from? :p

[Derius_T]

Tom... where did you think Easter eggs came from?

You know, in all my years here at TFL, that may have left the singular most disturbing image in my head ever...

[Qtiphky]

When I interpret the graph posted by the NY magazine linked to early in the discussion, one thing that jumps out at me as that Bush II and Obama are virtually the same in the number of EO's issued per day. Per day is a spin by the media to show that Obama hasn't really done any more than Bush II. However, the part that they aren't addressing is that he has only been in office for a little over 4 years so his comparison time is significantly shorter than Bush II. Also, Bush II was in during some of the most controversial times in our history in regards to conducting a new type of war-terrorism. Also not noted is what were the constraints of those EO's issued? Yes Bush II enacted the Patriot Act, but Obama has gone so much farther down the road of eroding private rights and in a much shorter time period, that in my opinion the two are really not comparable. Such as authorizing the use of drone strikes agaist US citizens without established due process. The POTUS making a unilateral decision that you are a terrorist and authorizing the strike is not established due process to me.

As for guns, he can write anything he wants as the court system hasn't addressed any of his other EO's, some of which appear to be borderline on their constitutionality as addressed by pundits far smarter than me. Look at the $3mil cap on retirement funds. How is that anywhere near legal for him to do.

I apologize for getting off topic, but please don't close your eyes as he can try anything he wants in regards to guns, ammo, parts, etc. . . It wouldn't surprise me.

[thallub]

Obama's executive orders are a red herring issue perpetuated by the fringe media.

To date Obama has signed about 152 executive orders. President G. W. Bush signed 290 executive orders during the 8 years of his presidency.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Obama's latest executive orders:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2013.html#13641

I could not find anywhere on that Whitehouse website about the executive orders that Obama signed after Sandy Hook. Why would those executive orders not be listed on the whitehouses own website?

They exist only in the minds of fringe media panjandrums like Alex Jones.

[Kimio]

As civily and politely as possible, I'll simply state that Alex Jones gives me way too much of a headache whenever I have had the displeasure of listening to him. I'll just leave it at that.

On topic, I don't think we should be getting all hyped up right now until something official has been documented.

Stay vigilant, though, Obama did make it clear that he plans on continuing the push for more gun control, at the very least in the form on an EO.

[JimDandy]

They exist only in the minds of fringe media panjandrums like Alex Jones.

And the copy for President Obama's Speech where he said he was signing them, and the copy of Vice President Biden's multiple speeches where he referenced them?

[Tom Servo]

They exist only in the minds of fringe media panjandrums like Alex Jones.
I have learned a new word today. I like it.

That said, the orders were apparently signed, but they haven't been published on the White House site.

[thallub]

And the copy for President Obama's Speech where he said he was signing them, and the copy of Vice President Biden's multiple speeches where he referenced them?

The term used was "executive action". "Executive action" can range from whining, to appointing a director of the BAFTE, to demanding congress pass draconian gun control laws, to tightning existing gun law. "Executive action" is distinct from "executive order".


Obama's 23 "executive actions":

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/16/obamas-23-executive-actions-guns#ixzz2RP4jVADp


http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/16/obamas-23-executive-actions-guns

[Evan Thomas]

Just so.

The reason that no executive orders regarding gun control have appeared on the White House site or in the Federal Register is that the President hasn't issued any. According to this article in New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-23-executive-orders-actions-gun-control.html), he has issued the 23 orders as "executive actions" or "presidential memoranda;" it seems that the administration considers these to be less likely to be seen as "going around Congress," presumably in part because executive actions don't have to be published in the Federal Register. (Three of the 23 were issued in the form of presidential memoranda; these are published in the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions[publication_date][gte]=04%2F24%2F2012&conditions[term]=memorandum&conditions[type]=PRESDOCU) under the heading "Presidential Documents.")

Striking another blow for transparency in government... :rolleyes:

[JimDandy]

And how does this interact with, as Chief Executive, promulgating more/different regulations and standards through the BATFE, as an executive department, with powers delegated by Congress? (Honestly asking where, if at all those would show up from the President's Desk)

[thallub]

And how does this interact with, as Chief Executive, promulgating more/different regulations and standards through the BATFE, as an executive department, with powers delegated by Congress? (Honestly asking where, if at all those would show up from the President's Desk)

Three US administrations have banned guns from import, citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. When a gun is banned from import the BATFE either contacts the importer and tells him to cease importing the gun or publishes a letter.

[Evan Thomas]

I've deleted some posts. Just a reminder: L&CR rules prohibit posting links to " ineffectual and useless online petitions."

[JimDandy]

But not a specific, and reasonably plausible one on the White House website that will in fact get a response with enough signatures?

[Spats McGee]

As I understand it, we're just not doing links to online petitions and polls. Whether a particular one is "reasonably plausible" is a matter of speculation.

[Ruthless4christ]

this supposedly is something the DOJ and BATFE put together. Not sure how bad this is for us. alot of legaleze.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-22/pdf/2013-09392.pdf

[Willie Sutton]

^^^ This is not germane to the importation of small arms of ammunition for them. It's about defining who is responsible for the list of items prohibited for export from the USA.



Willie


.

[Come and take it.]

Let me attempt to work on this topic from another angle

What power does the ATF have to regulate imported ammunition?

What is the flexibility in their determination in what surplus ammunition can be defined as not being intended for sporting purposes?

Explain the intricacies in their incorporated judicial body? What powers it has in interpreting ATF guidelines?

Is newly made commercial ammunition subject to restriction if it could be determined under ATF rules to not being intended for sporting use?

Hopefully this will help to explain what my concerns are. The power of the ATF has already been granted before Obama ever took office, Even some new rules can be instituted under the framework without overstepping the bounds.

From my understanding the ATF has its own executive, legislative and judicial bodies that can operate under the power that is given to them.

[Spats McGee]

From my understanding the ATF has its own executive, legislative and judicial bodies that can operate under the power that is given to them.
BATFE is a piece of the Department of Justice, which sits within the executive branch of the federal government. It has some regulatory authority, but that is not a "legislative body" in the traditional sense of having a bicameral legislature. What sort of "judicial body" do you understand ATF to have? I've never heard any such thing. :confused:

[csmsss]

Come and Take it - BATFE has no "legislative" or "judicial authority" - it does have limited authority within certain U.S. laws to write and enact regulatory statutes which are intended to add flesh to the bones, so to speak, of legislation passed by Congress but which has inadequate specificity to enforce. Typically such bills are written with language instructing BATFE or whatever the appropriate executive agency might be to write enacting statutes providing more specificity and detail as to how the law can be complied with and how it is to be enforced.

[JimDandy]

Probably one of the most common we run into would be the "Sporting Exception" They get to decide what that means.

[KyJim]

Come and Take it - BATFE has no "legislative" or "judicial authority" - it does have limited authority within certain U.S. laws to write and enact regulatory statutes which are intended to add flesh to the bones, so to speak, of legislation passed by Congress but which has inadequate specificity to enforce. Typically such bills are written with language instructing BATFE or whatever the appropriate executive agency might be to write enacting statutes providing more specificity and detail as to how the law can be complied with and how it is to be enforced.

I don't know how the ATF is structured but I assume it is like every other agency of which I am aware and has "legislative" authority by passing administrative regulations. While tolerated as part of the Executive Branch's authority to implement legislation, only the most naive would believe there is no legislating through adoption of administrative regulations.

Likewise, administrative agencies often have a judicial function. Dispute a social security disability, for example, and your first step is a hearing in front of a hearing officer employed by the Social Security Administration. I assume the ATF or the DOJ employs hearing officers. While parts of decisions can be reviewed by the courts, the courts generally defer to the agency's factual findings and, to a degree, the agency's interpretation of the statutes which it administers. This latter point was an issue in a recent SCOTUS opinion where the minority thought the courts should not defer whatsoever to an agency's legal interpretation. Don't remember the case.

[Come and take it.]

To be more specific how extreme can the sporting interpretation be exercised in the restrictive sense?

[KyJim]

To be more specific how extreme can the sporting interpretation be exercised in the restrictive sense?I would think it could be used to to keep out most firearms except maybe over/under shotguns and maybe single shot target guns.

This restriction is what keeps out a bunch of M1 Garands sitting in South Korea. The Garands primarily serve two functions today -- collector pieces and match shoots, a sporting purpose. Yet, they're out.

[thallub]

Chinese made rifle and pistol ammunition were banned from import in about 1994 when China received most favored nation trade status.

Three US administrations have banned the importation of long guns citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. In 1984 the Striker-12 semi-auto shotgun was banned from import: This was the first long gun banned from import.

The 1984 ban of the Striker-12 set a precedence for future bans. In 1986 another shot gun was banned from import. In 1989 over 40 milsurp rifles were banned from import. In 1998 certain "assault weapons" were banned from import.

[Come and take it.]

Than we move on to Eastern European, African, Spanish, Isreali, Russian, Indian etc. etc. surplus military ammunition.

Specifically... can they ban the importation of ordinary full metal jacket military surplus ammunition from these sources?

Can they ban the importation of newly manufactured full metal jacket ammunition (labeled for commercial sale) from Russia?

under the existing authority of the BATF.

[Tom Servo]

To be more specific how extreme can the sporting interpretation be exercised in the restrictive sense?
We may soon see. I expect some sort of import controls to be proposed soon.

Apparently, Century International (the guys who import most of the SKS/AK-47/Mosin stuff) agree. They have raised their prices roughly 60% across the board. If you want a Romanian WASR/10, it's going to run at least $800 at retail from here out.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Chinese made rifle and pistol ammunition were banned from import in about 1994 when China received most favored nation trade status.

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]

Also I seem to remember that Norinco was caught trying to sell type 56 rifles (AK-47 select fire) to gangs as well, something around 2000 unlicensed imports. Hence the ban on everything but smoothbore guns and ammo for same.

[Alabama Shooter]

^^^ This is not germane to the importation of small arms of ammunition for them. It's about defining who is responsible for the list of items prohibited for export from the USA.



Willie

I read it and am not so sure.

II. Final Rule
Because the Department of Justice
regulations at 27 CFR part 447 listing
the defense articles and defense services
controlled by the Attorney General for
purposes of permanent import currently
adopt, with some exceptions, the list of
defense articles and defense services
controlled by the Secretary of State, and
because certain defense articles and
defense services on the Department of
State export control list that appears in
the ITAR, 22 CFR 121.1, will, in the
future, be removed from that list and
controlled for export and temporary
import by the Secretary of Commerce,
the Department of Justice is clarifying
its regulations by amending 27 CFR
447.21, to do the following:
(i) Remove the language adopting the
State Department export control list
maintained in the ITAR;
(ii) Clarify that the Attorney General
exercises delegated authority to
designate defense articles and defense
services for inclusion on the USML for
purposes of permanent import controls,
regardless of whether such items are
controlled by the Secretary of State for
purposes of export or temporary import;
and
(iii) Clarify that the defense articles
and defense services regulated for
purposes of permanent import pursuant
to the AECA authority delegated to the
Attorney General appear in the
permanent import control list labeled
the USMIL, set out at 27 CFR Part 447,
and that the USMIL is a subset of the
USML pursuant to the AECA.

[ltc444]

Obama has not used Executive Orders to implement his policies. Most of his policies have been implemented through arcane rule making by various agencies.

Not all executive orders are published. They may be issued and through a Presidential Finding not be published.

Given this administration's fixation on veterans as being potential terrorist, (DHS latest threat assessment) and a belief that all veterans have PTSD (Senator Feinstein) and should not be allowed to own firearms. The President could issue an unpublished EO banning the ownership by veterans by issuing a presidential finding on National Security Grounds.

This same logic could be used against many other groups and or objects.

[Alabama Shooter]

The President could issue an unpublished EO banning the ownership by veterans by issuing a presidential finding on National Security Grounds.


Whelp, there goes the half police in the country. Somebody better start rounding them up. Won't be the government workers though because about half of those guys are vets too.

[ltc444]

Alabama shooter and Come and take it. You make my point. A simple change buried in the Federal Register or through a National Security finding can have impact far beyond what it appears on the surface.

One only need to look at the problems caused by the Domestic Violence law which, at the time it was enacted, was applauded as a reasonable measure.

As one Legislator once said, the devil is in the details. Many Public Safety Measures/ National Security measures can be enacted without the normal 90 day public comment period. The damage can be done before we even are of aware it has been promulgated and way before we can take action in court.

We have all read the horror stories of recovering our guns from local law enforcement. Can you imagine the problems of recovering our AR-15s from the BATF if you were to win a court case against them for illegal seizure after a regulation was overturned by a court.