April 17, 2013: President Obama puts his arm around former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords before speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington about measures to reduce gun violence.AP
One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.
The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.
But the NRA said that neither measure would reduce crime, since neither the re-importation of firearms nor the corporate gun registration is known to be a source of weapons for criminals.
"Requiring background checks for corporations and trusts does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Prohibiting the re-importation of firearms into the U.S. that were manufactured 50 or more years ago does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. This administration should get serious about prosecuting violent criminals who misuse guns and stop focusing its efforts on law-abiding gun owners," the NRA said in a statement.
The types of surplus weapons that have been re-imported under this provision are all more than 50 years old, and fall under the definition of "curio" or "relic" firearms. They include M1 Garand rifles and several other models -- a list can be found here. As such, it is safe to assume that few are used in crimes.
I wouldn't argue that the M1 Garand, and other similar weapons, are rarely used in crime, but obviously the more of them we import, the more will be used improperly. The other measure, however, certainly will have an a positive affect on crime. Disqualified people should be prevented from circumventing the system in this way.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Please, show me crimes committed with an M1 Garand. Mikeb, those aren't used by thugs. They're heavy, for one thing. But here's another example of Obama desperate to look busy, now that the American people are asking him tough questions.
ReplyDeleteU.S. service men used the M1 Garand in World War II. It is extremely long and heavy weighing over 11 pounds -- about the same weight as a case of beer or soda pop. Criminals will never use such a firearm for crimes.
DeleteFurthermore, equivalent rifles for hunting that shoot the same ammunition and are half the weight of an M1 Garand are available for sale everywhere in the U.S. And yet criminals never use even these lighter weight rifles.
This latest Executive Order is punishment aimed at citizens, period. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety.
- TruthBeTold
"Never?" Are you sure about that? You know what else is never used in cerime, claymore mines and stinger missiles? You know why?
DeleteM1 Garands are perfectly legal, Mike. There are currently commonly owned, and collectible. Obama said no to these even though they will all go through background checks. It was an FU to gun owners whom he said he wanted to work together with.
DeleteAs far as the "trust loophole", are there any documented cases of a felon using this? This seems like the complaint against voter fraud.
Why are we talking about the M1 only. Doesn't the new Executive Order apply to other weapons as well?
DeleteAs far as I know, the only guns being affected are M1 Garands and M1 Carbines (which Obama already blocked last term as "assault weapons"). These had been re-imported and sold through the CMP.
DeleteI'm ready to be enlightened, but so far I haven't heard of any re-importation of newer models of guns. My guess is that most other weapons we've sold are select fire, and therefore, by ATF regulations, will be considered machine guns for all of eternity--therefore, because of the Hughes Amendment, they can never be re-imported and sold in the U.S.
This really does only seem to affect collectors of American made, WWII era semi-automatics that we sold off to Cold War allies.
True, most of the guns on the list linked in the article are lever action rifles. Think cowboy movies. However the Garands are mentioned because of the large numbers involved. South Korea has been selling their stocks of the rifles back to the US, where they are being bought by collectors and shooters for military service rifle competitions.
DeleteAs well as heavier weapons, I suppose.
DeleteMike, you don't have to suppose, go to the list on the ATF website using the link in the article you posted.
Deletehttp://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/curios-relics/update-january-2009-june-2010.html
I don't think the list of what the ATF considers "curios and relics" is what the prez is talking about in this matter.
DeleteMikeb, that's exactly what is being referred to here. We're talking WW II era firearms--none of them full-auto. Your anti-rights fanaticism is showing.
DeleteWhat heavier weapons are you supposing?
DeleteI've explained why the machine guns aren't coming in. If you're talking about artillery and such, those things are floating around on the black market--hence all the American made recoilless rifles showing up in the Syrian Civil War.
BTW, as far as I understand, you're right that this doesn't cover all curios and relics. It only seems to cover guns exported from the US.
DeleteThat being said, the covered small arms would be classed within the curio and relic heading because anything new enough to not be in that heading is already blocked by the Hughes Amendment.
Criminals do not form trusts or corporations to acquire firearms. Rather, criminals simply steal them or buy them on the streets anonymously.
ReplyDeleteThe Executive Order requiring trusts and corporations to submit to background checks is also punishment aimed at citizens. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety.
- TruthBeTold
You're speaking for all criminals of every stripe. Not a one of them uses this way to circumvent the law?
DeleteMaybe you're still under the mistaken impression that gun owners are neatly divided between good guys and criminals. I've tried to help you with that.
Mike the order pertaining to NFA firearms is smoke and mirrors. Registration of NFA arms is already federal law. The owners of the trust still have to go thru a finger print background check thru the FBI. Not one of them use the trust to circumvent the law because they cant. The main reason to use a trust is investment protection. Like a business use a LLC, incorporated and so on, its a protection from having your property liquidated for financial reasons. Its also a way to include these weapons into a family will for example, but those family members still must be able to legally sign on to the trust. The other advantage of the trust is a applicant of a NFA arm does not have to get the chief law enforcement officer to sign off for you to have your investment gun.
DeleteShow me an example of one criminal or kind of criminal activity that would make it worth while to go thru the background checks (has always been required), nine months to three years to get approved, spend twenty to fifty THOUSAND dollars to buy a NFA controlled firearm, the taxes on it and required registration to even get to HOLD the gun. Just one single example because I cant think of any.
If you cant pass the required finger print FBI check, or any signatory on the trust cant pass, the trust cant be made. If you become convicted of a crime during your trust and the conviction makes you loose your rights then the trust is invalid and your weapons, ALL of them are confiscated. Or your name on the trust becomes invalid if there is more than one name on the trust.
As to the other order, all it did was kill a 110 year old tradition marksman program originally sponsored by the white house. The program allowed the re-importation of antique military firearms. The M1 Garand is targeted here and is a semi-auto no different than any other hunting gun. They are a piece of history and an excellent example of workmanship of the time. It does nothing to the importation of other foreign made military rifles both bolt action and semi-auto from Russia for example. The Russian made Mosin Nagant 7.62X54R is still safe from this stupid order and continue to be imported and sold by the hundreds of thousands as well as military surplus ammo to feed them,,, CHEAP! The AK47 continues to be imported as well as numerous other ex military, civilian approved guns.
This whole ordeal is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to take the focus from other things that Obama has his butt in a crack over.
Now, that's a laugh. Some diversionary tactic. No one even gives a shit about this announcement except us.
DeleteMost people don't, and it's not even showing up on CNN's main page, but it's a bone he's tossing to you and the other gun control supporters to keep you on his side and not let you feel like he never did anything for you.
DeleteEspecially since he'll need to keep all the support he can get if he's going to get involved in Syria mostly unilaterally, telling our allies that he doesn't need them and telling Russia and China to go to Hell--something completely different from what Bush did in Iraq.
"I wouldn't argue that the M1 Garand, and other similar weapons, are rarely used in crime, but obviously the more of them we import, the more will be used improperly. "
ReplyDeleteMike, I sympathize with you trying to put the President's executive orders in a positive light. It's a challenge trying to portray a bolt action rifle or an eight shot semi-auto as something potentially useful for criminals. Especially since all purchasers of the weapons would undergo the background check required by an FFL.
I seems to speak of something that happens a lot in these days of politics. Someone raises up a demand to "do something", and the expectation is government will "fix" it. Last session, the administration went in confident that they would pass all of this gun legislation and fell flat on their collective faces because the staggering numbers they claimed or hoped for just weren't there. Virtually the same thing happened on a state level here in Minnesota.
So now the administration is reduced to trying to "do something" within the limits of its power. It also doesn't lend credibility to believing the promise of "common sense" gun laws when they don't seem to use any when using executive orders.