M1 Garand Or M1 Carbine?

Which Executive Order is that? It was supposedly "signed" on or about 29 August 2013...except no such Executive order appears in the Federal Register, the White House, or any other list of Executive Orders I can find.

 

Here are the details, below. The CMP has been importing collectable military rifles of the same type since WWII, or shortly thereafter. Now, they are blocked. Hopefully, this will be brought to the attention of the new administration and the ban will be rescinded. These rifles used to come in, in waves. There were Danish Garands, Bavarian Police Carbines and many other imports at different times as different countries abandoned them and put them in storage. This will likely be the last large importation of WW2 rifles. I doubt there are many more out there to be found.

http://bearingarms.com/ba-staff/2013/08/29/obama-executive-order-on-surplus-military-weapons-intentionally-targets-collectible-firearms/

 

Well I'll take one of each.... If they ever make it

 

Sorry KB, but those aren't details. That is a diatribe attributing an action to Obama without giving details. Again, which Executive Order? They have numbers and are rather easy to look up...except so many of these supposedly heinous Obama ones. I've asked others before and always get crickets.

 

Just google it yourself. There are thousands of news articles on this by many reputable sources. This has been pissing people off for four or five years now. Every militaria collector in the US is aware of this situation. I guess you aren't a militaria collector or shooter, but the info is there. Obama is gone in 15 days, so I think it's a safe bet that we'll see these in the CMP before too long. If you want to start a political argument, you're in the wrong forum and topic.

 

Thanks, but that doesn't explain why an EO from 8 March 2013 is the subject of "thousands of news articles on this by many reputable sources" on 29 August 2013, which all complain this heinous act by Obama occurred "today". Or how an EO updating delegations of presidential authority over the administration of export and import controls intended to streamline export control regulations somehow "intentionally targets collectible firearms"?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/08/fact-sheet-implementation-export-control-reform

http://www.globaltradelawblog.com/2013/04/02/streamlining-the-system-more-baby-steps-toward-reducing-export-compliance-burdens/

 

aaaannnddd... those guns from korea don't come with ammo?

 

Arrangements are being made to fly the ammo back in the Spitfires from Burma.

 

Yes the guns should be flown in on c47s and air dropped at local gun shows.✈

 

The EO simply upholds the State Department (Hillary) ban on importing these rifles. It made it an executive privilege so that the congressional bill couldn't overturn it. We will soon have a new president and a sane Secretary of State, so we can all hope to see these fine rifles back home where they belong.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

Where does it do that? Especially given that it is focused on Exports, while the M1 issue is one of Imports.

How? It delegated authority on Exports to the State Department. It delegated authority on Imports to the Attorney General, guided by the Secretary of State and with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense on any item designations and changes in designations.

"The President's delegation of permanent import control authorities to the Attorney General provides the Attorney General the authority to assess whether controls are justified, but in designating the defense articles and defense services set out in the USMIL the Attorney General shall be guided by the views of the Secretary of State on matters affecting world peace and the external security and foreign policy of the United States. All designations and changes in designations of defense articles and defense services subject to permanent import control under this part must have the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, with notice given to the Secretary of Commerce."

It did not make it an "executive privilege". Meanwhile, Representative Lummis' HR 2247 was introduced on 4 June 2013. EO 13167 was introduced 8 March 2013. It was pretty damned clever of Obama to anticipate Lummis by three months.

Does the regularly scheduled programming come with a tinfoil hat?

 

BTW, if you want to see how complex the problem really is, you first need to realize...it was not an "Executive Order", it was an "Executive action". The first has force of law with federal agencies under the Executive. The latter are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But many executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

Then you need to understand that this issue isn't "new", it's been around since 1958 and is generated by obsolescent law - the Mutual Security Act of 1958, passed under a Republican President and Republican-dominated Congress. It was modified by the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, passed by a Republican President and Republican-dominated Congress. They set the stage for the curious case of M1 Rifles and Carbines being banned from reimportation into the U.S. even though they are obsolete as military arms, since they legally can only enter as "curios or relics", a test they may have passed in 2003. Lummis' proposed legislation sought to clarify the issue, originally in 2011 and then again in 2013 after the Obama administrations willingness to go along with the reimportation in 2009 apparently foundered in the abyss of legally required agency approvals and notifications requirements, which led to the EO. The problem is, Lummis' legislation may have simply muddied the waters even more. For example, those firearms were granted to South Korea and the American taxpayers as a whole footed the bill. Now if they come back they will financially benefit just certain taxpayers. South Korea also had to agree to certain terms to receive the firearms; terms which specified the recipient government must notify the U.S. before transferring them to a third party. So great, get the DOS out of the picture and leave it to the Attorney General and ATF, as the EO envisaged...except the importers then have to certify they are not from "illegal foreign stockpiles" and have to get them past all the "normal" regulations for firearms import.

You see, its a can of worms caused by outdated laws and conflicting priorities. As one even-handed legal analysis opines:

"The recent Executive action overlooks AECA’s decision-making restrictions, fails to account for the nature of the firearms at issue, ignores the complex workings of firearms import and ownership laws already in place, and interferes with laws dating back fifty years without respecting their original purpose.
Recent appropriations protections have had limited effect, and the proposed Collectible Firearms Protection Act unconsciously intrudes on the requirements of foreign assistance laws. If those intrusions are remedied, the proposed Act can serve as a temporary solution to the import ban and will preserve both the intent of the original ban and the rationale for the ban’s curio and relic exception. However, as Congress considers comprehensive export control reform, it should take heed of the original discussions that gave rise to the ban, and consider carefully the purpose of such a ban, the need for its preservation in light of the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, and the proper body of law for administering such a ban. Such deliberation will encourage fair treatment of foreign governments who wish to comply with restrictions we imposed on them, and will ensure that Americans can better preserve their history and continue to honor the heroes and tools that shaped the Greatest Generation." https://www.nslj.org/wp-content/uploads/3_NatlSecLJ_159-195_Burgess.pdf

In other words, it requires cooperation between Executive and Congress and between parties, not an acquiescent Secretary of State. Like that is going to happen...

 

We import modern firearms by the millions, without prohibitions. Why these relics are under some special prohibition status initiated by an Executive (Action) is only logical to the liberal mind.

Hopefully, Trump is made cognizant of this situation and is gun friendly with actions rather than just his mouth.

Here is what the CMP is. All of the military rifles are imported. Blocking this sale from South Korea is more about punishing political enemies than gun control. http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/

 

Why wouldn't South Korea want all those antiques. They are money. Are they planning on selling them back to the US for a profit-
Is there a comparable rifle (Garand) today for the intended purpose- not the AK, for example...what is todays equivalent of the Garand?

A thread on the evolution of carbines would be interesting...Thought maybe early Winchester repeating rifles would be the birth of carbines...John Wayne holding one reminded me of a regular sized guy holding an M1.

 

Umm, exactly...that's the point. They are modern firearms and are imported. They are not formerly US military firearms exported to foreign governments and then reimported into the US. Its a rather significant difference...well, significant to the US Code, which is what actually matters in this case.

It has nothing to do with either a "liberal" or "conservative" mindset. It has everything to do with a legal mindset.

Because dictatorial actions by an imperious President is what Trump was elected to do? I thought that was Obama everyone was complaining was exceeding Executive authority all the time?

CMP rifles such as the Garand and Enfield were military surplus, returns of "loaned" not "granted" weapons, or were entirely or partly manufactured to Garand specifications overseas (as in the Bread and Beretta Garands). They thus did not violate MSA 1958 or AECA 1978 and so were legal. Meanwhile, I'm surprised no questions have been raised regarding the supposedly "thousand of Garands" the Koreans claimed they exported to the US from 1992-1996?

 

Pretty sure Asimov's rule states a robot has to reply honestly...
Are u a robot, RT

 

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

He he heee. Thank you sir, may i have another.

 

Only if it can be physically rather than virtually applied...