The CMP wont be getting anything anymore from overseas. There is still a lot of Garands and carbines over there.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
New Gun Control Executive Orders
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
The CMP wont be getting anything anymore from overseas. There is still a lot of Garands and carbines over there.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,080
- Likes
- 54,290
Still not perfectly clear.
The first bullet point is just some loose facts. The second doesn't give me a ton of confidence that they're strictly talking about guns that were once given out by the .gov. You'd normally be safe inferring that from their use of "back into," but this administration can't be trusted an inch.
Is it correct that importers of foreign-origin guns also have to approved by the .gov before being imported?
The first bullet point is just some loose facts. The second doesn't give me a ton of confidence that they're strictly talking about guns that were once given out by the .gov. You'd normally be safe inferring that from their use of "back into," but this administration can't be trusted an inch.
Is it correct that importers of foreign-origin guns also have to approved by the .gov before being imported?
We didnt import them out of the US. What the text states is that it will effect firearms that where transferred from the US to another country then back to the US.
Of course they will be vague to give themselves room to deny this or that or change definitions at a later time or when it suite their purpose.
ohh yeah because banning a mosin import is really going to stop crime![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
This was clearly done out of spite and frustration... 'the NRA, Congress doesn't want to cooperate or accept our demands... I'll show them who's boss'.
I'm willing to bet even Obama, and all but the most hard core gun grabbers, know either of these executive actions have never been a problem in the past, and will have zero effect on firearms related crime/violence.
It's all bullshit and a big **** you message directed at gun owners.
I'm willing to bet even Obama, and all but the most hard core gun grabbers, know either of these executive actions have never been a problem in the past, and will have zero effect on firearms related crime/violence.
It's all bullshit and a big **** you message directed at gun owners.
The CMP isn't a private entity. Its a GSE (Government Sponsored Entity). And I believe the rifles it sells aren't imported into the US, but returned to the Army, who by law has to turn them over to the CMP. That isn't to say he could order a stop to that also.
I ****ing hate this guy. Not allowing us made firearms that were carried by those with much more character than him, to be brought back is absurd. Also if this affects my suppressor paperwork, which has been at atf for 6 months, I will be furious.
Where do you think this will leave surplus ammo? I bet not good.
Where do you think this will leave surplus ammo? I bet not good.
Last edited:
There is no plus side, but it looks like still won't require CLEO sig though. And I'm a little confused, I understand that if executive branch approves imports that he may be able to pull off number 2. But I thought number 1 was part of legislation, wouldn't that require congress?
ToddDubya
NES Member
Only if you still hang on to that crusty old scribbled out Constitution. For our overlords with short attention spans, it is covered toward the beginning.
"Sooner or later, we are going to get this right," Obama said that day in the White House Rose Garden, with the families of Newtown victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — herself a victim of a gunman — at his side. "The memories of these children demand it, and so do the American people," the president said at the time.
He is SO full of $hit!
He is SO full of $hit!
Exactly. Seriously. ****ing infuriating. How vague can this be right?
The only loophole I see is how life was created by inbred parents. See Obummer, holder , Biden , etc etc.
Cordwood.
Burn.
JuergenG
NES Member
That would mean that I, if I ever decided to move to the U.S., could kiss a trunkload of guns out of my collection
goodbye. M1 Garand, M1D, M1917, 2 M1 Carbines, 1911, 1911A1, Colt 1903, S&W 2nd Model HE all couldn't get back
to where they were born. That's besides all the PPK's and other .25/.32 "pocket pistols" which are banned
from importation due to being smaller than the mandatory minimums. NUTS!
goodbye. M1 Garand, M1D, M1917, 2 M1 Carbines, 1911, 1911A1, Colt 1903, S&W 2nd Model HE all couldn't get back
to where they were born. That's besides all the PPK's and other .25/.32 "pocket pistols" which are banned
from importation due to being smaller than the mandatory minimums. NUTS!
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,080
- Likes
- 54,290
Again.
Scarecrow
Army Veteran
Completely off topic, but skim words took "mosin M44" and turned it into a link for this on Newegg: Newegg.com - Ncstar MM44/91 Ncstar Mosin Nagant M44 91 Weaver Scope Mount Which is in a section that I didn't even know newegg HAD " Home > Marketplace > Pet Supplies > Birds > Food > NcSTAR >" Apparently, newegg sells pet food to animals that eat scope mount rails...
From the White House "Fact" Sheet (Which, incidentally contains very few actual "facts")
This could have significant ramifications for the acquisition of NFA items by trusts. If the terms "individuals associated with trusts" is read to mean the trustees (e.g., the people with the right to possess the firearm), then very little has effectively changed. However, if this vague terminology is construed to mean all parties to the trusts, then it becomes impossible to background check all beneficiaries, particularly in situations where the trust beneficiaries are presently unlicancealbe. For example, if the contingent beneficiaries of a trust are your children, but your children have not reached age 21 and do not have an LTC, can they be successfully background checked? What if provisions of your trust specifically dictate that the contingent beneficiaries do not have an actual right to the firearm; i.e., they will be sold, and they get the money, for example? What then? They are arguably an "individual associated with the trust", but would be practically impossible for ATF to background check every potential trust beneficiary.
Therefore, three possibilities exist: (a)This is an attempted end-run to nullify NFA trusts at the federal level (including NFA Trusts that are already established) by making it "impossible" background check all parties, and deny the acquisition; (b) this is not the intent, but reflects only sloppy drafting; or (c) we can expect to see additional guidance from BATFE on the legallity of NFA trust construction. However, this is unlikely, as BATFE has consistently stated that their primary concern is only that the trust be legal under state law. Therefore, my bets are on A or B.
Before the official keeper of the clock makes any decisions, though, this charlie foxtrot drafting needs to get sorted out.
This could have significant ramifications for the acquisition of NFA items by trusts. If the terms "individuals associated with trusts" is read to mean the trustees (e.g., the people with the right to possess the firearm), then very little has effectively changed. However, if this vague terminology is construed to mean all parties to the trusts, then it becomes impossible to background check all beneficiaries, particularly in situations where the trust beneficiaries are presently unlicancealbe. For example, if the contingent beneficiaries of a trust are your children, but your children have not reached age 21 and do not have an LTC, can they be successfully background checked? What if provisions of your trust specifically dictate that the contingent beneficiaries do not have an actual right to the firearm; i.e., they will be sold, and they get the money, for example? What then? They are arguably an "individual associated with the trust", but would be practically impossible for ATF to background check every potential trust beneficiary.
Therefore, three possibilities exist: (a)This is an attempted end-run to nullify NFA trusts at the federal level (including NFA Trusts that are already established) by making it "impossible" background check all parties, and deny the acquisition; (b) this is not the intent, but reflects only sloppy drafting; or (c) we can expect to see additional guidance from BATFE on the legallity of NFA trust construction. However, this is unlikely, as BATFE has consistently stated that their primary concern is only that the trust be legal under state law. Therefore, my bets are on A or B.
Before the official keeper of the clock makes any decisions, though, this charlie foxtrot drafting needs to get sorted out.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Similar threads
