• 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

But Obama is still safe to export as many military weapons to private entities in other countries as he wants, right?
 
Rico said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. They were changed in 1996 to a 501c3 and they are not a .gov entity.

"focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106, 10 February 1996) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP.[2] The CPRPFS is a tax-exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress, but is not an agency of the U.S. government (Title 36, United States Code, Section 40701 et seq.). Apart from a donation of surplus .22 and .30 caliber rifles in the Army's inventory to the CMP, the CMP receives no federal funding."
 
After you bitch here, pick up the nearest phone and dial 202-456-1111

Wait a few moments and you will be put through to the White House comment line.

When you get a comment volunteer, say the following...

"I am calling to express my displeasure with the President. Today he signed two executive orders, one restricting the importation of older US firearms previously donated to foreign countries and the other restricting NFA and other gun trusts.

These executive orders are clearly focused on legal gun owners, and not criminals."

Usually they will follow up for clarification as they are trying to write down what you say.

Thank you.
 
sieveboy said:
After you bitch here, pick up the nearest phone and dial 202-456-1111

Wait a few moments and you will be put through to the White House comment line.

When you get a comment volunteer, say the following...

"I am calling to express my displeasure with the President. Today he signed two executive orders, one restricting the importation of older US firearms previously donated to foreign countries and the other restricting NFA and other gun trusts.

These executive orders are clearly focused on legal gun owners, and not criminals."

Usually they will follow up for clarification as they are trying to write down what you say.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

+1 (but he won't listen to "common sense" Thomas Paine or otherwise).
 
2A_Esq. said:
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.
Click to expand...


Some people spent a lot of money to setup their NFA trust and some people have a boatload of money tied up in said trust (machineguns). If this nullifies all existing trusts, a nice big class action lawsuit funded by people with tons of money will be suing the feds all the way to SCOTUS.
 
Alchemist17 said:
Yes, it's referring to trusts. Although you'd be hard pressed to find anyone owning NFA items through a trust that would tell you that they hadn't undergone "background checks".
Click to expand...

I suspect that would likely be limited to those who can afford to set some one else up as the principle so they can play with the toys that they wouldn't otherwise be legally permitted to own.
 
soloman02 said:
Some people spent a lot of money to setup their NFA trust and some people have a boatload of money tied up in said trust (machineguns). If this nullifies all existing trusts, a nice big class action lawsuit funded by people with tons of money will be suing the feds all the way to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

You called me on a good point. I could have been more clear here.

Even if .gov's intentions are nefarious, I'm not sure that this would nullifies trusts that are already in existence; it would not seem to dissolve or revoke the trust's ability to hold NFA firearms that were already owned by, and registered to, the trust. The tax stamp is paid, and the NFA item is still registered. The trustees are the lawful possessors on behalf of the trust. The excerpt (and all I have seen is an excerpt) does look like it could negate the trust's ability to be funded by future acquisition of NFA items by the same trust. In other words, what's in there is safe, but adding more items could be difficult.

I should have made this more clear.
 
soloman02 said:
Some people spent a lot of money to setup their NFA trust and some people have a boatload of money tied up in said trust (machineguns). If this nullifies all existing trusts, a nice big class action lawsuit funded by people with tons of money will be suing the feds all the way to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

They can't nullify all trusts, as the Internal Revenue Code that defines the NFA makes explicit mention of trusts, and that the courts have held that trusts are a legitimate means for a prohibited person to retain a financial interest in an firearm that they are not legally entitled to posses as an individual. That doesn't mean they can use these firearms through a trust, but can construct a trust where a non-prohibited individual maintains their fiduciary interest in accordance with the law.

I'd heard of something like this last year, basically a compromise by ATF. Someone in the trust (as has been pointed out, everyone isn't a reasonable answer) would need to undergo the same background check as for an individual purchase. In exchange the individual CLEO signoff requirement would be replaced with mere notification, so your police chief can no longer refuse to sign and prevent ownership of NFA items.
 
2A_Esq. said:
You called me on a good point. I could have been more clear here.

Even if .gov's intentions are nefarious, I'm not sure that this would nullifies trusts that are already in existence; it would not seem to dissolve or revoke the trust's ability to hold NFA firearms that were already owned by, and registered to, the trust. The tax stamp is paid, and the NFA item is still registered. The trustees are the lawful possessors on behalf of the trust. The excerpt (and all I have seen is an excerpt) does look like it could negate the trust's ability to be funded by future acquisition of NFA items by the same trust. In other words, what's in there is safe, but adding more items could be difficult.

I should have made this more clear.
Click to expand...

That does make it more clear.

Suppose I decide to liquidate my bolt action sniper rifle to fund an NFA trust and a suppressor. Since we are looking at a 6 month (or more) wait on NFA checks, would this rule change screw me over or would I be fine since I filled out the paperwork before the rule change took affect?
 
soloman02 said:
That does make it more clear.

Suppose I decide to liquidate my bolt action sniper rifle to fund an NFA trust and a suppressor. Since we are looking at a 6 month (or more) wait on NFA checks, would this rule change screw me over or would I be fine since I filled out the paperwork before the rule change took affect?
Click to expand...

Who knows. At this point, we don't even know what the actual WH reccomendations are; what the new ATF standards and guidelines are going to be; and what the timeline for implementation is. I read one place that there will be a 90-day "notice and comment" period before implementation, and then there are questions as to whether it would be implemented immediately, or if various agencies (BATFE, for example) have x months to promulgate new regulations to implement the executive order. So you might be able to squeak a new NFA item in, you may not, or it ultimately may not matter.
 
Golddiggie said:
I think pretty much everyone here has known that part for the past 4+ years.
Click to expand...
I would not take that bet.

- - - Updated - - -

exodious said:
Yeah, because gang bangers are running around the 'hood with M1 Garands.
Click to expand...
If a stupid gang banger had a Garand they would have no thumbs. Because they're too stoopid to load correctly.
 
I for one am glad he banned the re-importation. Now that it's illegal to re-import arms given by the US .gov, we won't have any more dead customs agents. If only mexico had thought of that...
 
Rico said:
Orest doesn't think so:

"From what I read - it has no direct impact on the CMP. Of course others will argue it.
__________________
CMP Chief Operating Officer"
Click to expand...


I think it will definitely have a big impact on the CMP. Unless this order doesn't include firearms made in foreign countries and the CMP starts importing Swiss straight pulls, Mosins, etc. where will any US made rifles come from?

This whole idea was discussed on a few different forums months ago and it included banning ALL imports and ammo from countries such as Russia. If that happens you can bet companies both here and overseas that import rifles such as Saigas, Veprs and ammo such as Wolf and Tula will either fold or take a huge hit.

One thing is for sure... just when prices started to settle down and products started appearing on the shelves and racks at gun shops, with gun show season coming up here in New England, prices are going to go through the roof yet again. [angry]
 
Last edited:
SKS Ray said:
I think it will definitely have a big impact on the CMP. Unless this order doesn't include firearms made in foreign countries and the CMP starts importing Swiss straight pulls, Mosins, etc. where will any US made rifles come from?

This whole idea was discussed on a few different forums months ago and it included banning ALL imports and ammo from countries such as Russia. If that happens you can bet companies both here and overseas that import rifles such as Saigas, Veprs and ammo such as Wolf and Tula will either fold or take a huge hit.

One thing is for sure... just when prices started to settle down and products started appearing on the shelves and racks at gun shops, with gun show season coming up here in New England, prices are going to go through the roof yet again. [angry]
Click to expand...

Does any one know the disposition of this shipment Dear Leader was holding up? This story is from Feb 2012

Obama continues ban on importation of 600,000 historical, collectible M1 Carbine rifles; Fate of 86,000 Garands still in doubt | The Daily Caller
 
wacky_doug said:
62 pages, dated yesterday. Assume it's legit since it's on the ATF site.

Supposedly this is in there (I'm still reading):

ATF does not propose to eliminate the CLEO certification at this time. Rather, ATF proposes extending the CLEO certificate requirement to responsible persons of a legal entity.

https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/f...uctive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf
Click to expand...

Really? The ATF is so retarded that they scanned in the document so that is is UNSEARCHABLE on a computer. And on top of that the quality SUCKS. I've seen FAXES that look better than that.

Those ****s.
 
I am so f*cking livid. Trying to explain the intricacies of NFA law to moonbats on FB and why these new "junior executive" orders have zero to do with reducing crime...but they don't get it.

I wonder what it takes for people to finally wake up to the creeping and sinister erosion of liberty.
 
Last edited:
soloman02 said:
Really? The ATF is so retarded that they scanned in the document so that is is UNSEARCHABLE on a computer. And on top of that the quality SUCKS. I've seen FAXES that look better than that.

Those ****s.
Click to expand...
Good, I hope they are retarded. Once Skynet is built in Utah, we need more retards in place so we aren't shot for posting on NES/Google searches etc.
 

Similar threads

Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
540
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
New England gun tourism
Replies
26
Views
634
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Kurt Russell's take on Gun Control
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
houdini
houdini
Nashville School Shooting: Federal Judge Orders Release of Transgender Shooter’s Journals
Replies
7
Views
263
bejay
B
Back
Top Bottom