Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/7/2004 6:01:47 PM EST
Dudes,

Below is a recent press release from DF where she takes the ATF to task to justify the importation of the 7,500 Romy AKs that were briefly halted on the high seas, but were deemed to be legal based on modifications that will be performed (adding the 5 US parts) in a "customs bonded warehouse" once they reach the US. Based on her "legal" arguments referencing the precise USC language, I am curious if she has any point at all and very interested in the ATF response. I personally own 2 postban AKs modified to meet ATF requirements, etc... like many of us have, have seen them in shows and gun shops for the past several years, so I assume the ATF will have a pretty good come-back.

Any thoughts or ideas?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Feinstein Questions Importation of Banned Assault Weapons into the U.S.
May 6, 2004


Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today raised questions about reports indicating that a large number of military-style assault weapons bound for the United States were granted permits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, despite clear laws prohibiting such importation.

On April 28, 2004 , the Associated Press reported that approximately 7,500 AK-47s, AKM rifles and other weapons had legal permits to be imported. Yet, current law prohibits such importation.

The 1994 federal assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture and importation of 19 types of assault weapons (and many others by characteristic). The current ban is set to expire on September 13, 2004 unless Congress approves new legislation, and it is signed into law by President Bush.

The Senate went on record in support of renewing the ban, when it voted in favor of an amendment to a gun immunity bill in March. However, in a bizarre twist, the National Rifle Association scuttled its own underlying bill so that the ban would not be extended.

A recent study indicates that 77 percent of voters and 66 percent of gun-owning voters support renewing the ban. The ban's extension is also supported by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country.

In a letter to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Carl J. Truscott, Senator Feinstein wrote:

“I am concerned about recent press reports indicating that a large number of assault weapons bound for the United States may have been granted permits despite clear laws prohibiting such importation.

According to an April 28, 2004 Associated Press story by Curt Anderson titled ‘ AK-47s headed to U.S. had legal permits,' about ‘7,500 AK-47s, AKM rifles and other weapons worth an estimated $6 million were seized April 20 aboard a Turkish-flagged ship in the port of Gioia Tauro. They were bound for New York from Romania.' Even more troubling, an ATF spokesperson, Andrew Lluberes, is quoted in the article as saying that the weapons were cleared by U.S. authorities. ‘The permits are valid,' he said. The article further states that ‘under ATF regulations, a properly licensed company can ship such weapons to a “custom bonded warehouse” in the United States. There, they are disassembled and their key firing components destroyed. The remaining parts can then be reconfigured into a weapon that will meet the letter of the 1994 [federal Assault Weapons] law and can be sold legally in the United States.'

This press report, which states that the importation of these weapons is legal, seems to be contradicted by federal law and ATF policy. Federal law prohibits the importation of firearms that are not ‘particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.' 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) (the ‘sporting purposes test'). ATF interprets the sporting purposes test to bar the importation of semiautomatic assault rifles. See ATF Items of Interest #21 (Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2000 at 126). ATF policy further states that any firearm banned by the federal Assault Weapons Act ‘would also be denied importation into the United States because its possession would be illegal' under that Act. Id. If this press report is accurate, the weapons on this ship appear to be semiautomatic assault weapons banned from importation by both the federal Assault Weapons Act and 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3).

ATF defines ‘importation' broadly to mean ‘[t]he bringing of a firearm or ammunition into the United States,' with the only exception being ‘that the bringing of a firearm or ammunition from outside the United States into a foreign-trade zone for storage pending shipment to a foreign country or subsequent importation into this country, pursuant to this part, shall not be deemed importation.' 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 (emphasis added). Here, it appears that the importer will not merely be storing weapons in a foreign trade zone, but actively disassembling them. As ATF regulations do not exempt disassembly in a foreign trade zone from the definition of importation, such disassembly would bring the importer under ATF's definition of importation and subject the importer to the federal prohibition on the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons. Under ATF's regulations, an importer who intends to bring semiautomatic assault weapons into a foreign trade zone for disassembly will clearly be importing banned weapons, which is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3).

Because this ship may soon reach our shores, I respectfully request an expeditious answer to the following questions:

• Are the weapons on this ship semiautomatic assault weapons or firearms that do not meet the sporting purposes test of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3)?

• Under what authority did ATF grant the importer of the firearms on this ship a permit to import these weapons? Please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that authorizes this permit and import.

• Does ATF allow the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons or other firearms that do not meet the sporting purposes test of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3)? If so, please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that authorizes this and state what restrictions ATF places on importers of these weapons.

• Does ATF allow importers to bring semiautomatic assault weapons or other firearms that do not meet the sporting purposes test into this country and then disassemble them or make changes to them in this country (for example, in a customs bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone)? If so, please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that authorizes this.

• Given that U.S. criminal laws apply in customs bonded warehouses and foreign trade zones, does ATF nevertheless consider it to be legal for an importer to possess semiautomatic assault weapons in such locations? If so, please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that allows such possession.

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.”
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:08:04 PM EST
Dear bitch:

Shut the hell up and get back in the kitchen!

They're legal, period. The importer will be destroying the receivers and whatever else the ATF deems to be necessary in order for them to be legally sold in the United States.

They're only hardware, anyway. They have no criminal intent, as a machine can't have any intent, and odds are that every last one of them will be bought by a law-abiding citizen with no criminal intent.

So make my dinner, bitch!

CJ
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:09:25 PM EST

A recent study indicates that 77 percent of voters and 66 percent of gun-owning voters support renewing the ban.


I call BS. Show me the data and the exact method of polling.

Feinstein is a c**t. She's going to make some serious noise as this is an election year.

Our job?

KEEP CALLING OUR OWN REPRESENTATIVES AND INFORM THEM THAT ANY RENEWAL OF THE AWB WILL BE RESPONDED TO WITH THEIR DEFEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

CMOS

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:17:19 PM EST
"Thank you in advance for your prompt reply."

Oh, you're welcome Diane, here's a couple of replies from ME.



Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:22:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 6:23:45 PM EST by tc6969]

in a bizarre twist, the National Rifle Association scuttled its own underlying bill so that the ban would not be extended.



Where does this "Author" think the NRA gets this kind of juice? Scuttled "Its" own bill?

Thats one powerful gun club!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:26:08 PM EST
what's this "sporting purposes" bullshit? I can think of many sports that AK47s can be used...
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:32:52 PM EST
Dear Senator Feinstein,

It has come to our attention that you're too old, ugly and stupid to pass the "sporting purposes" test. You have 30 days to either leave the USA or submit yourself to the nearest ATF office for disassembly.

Sincerely,

Your Constituents
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:36:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 6:37:01 PM EST by JeffersonDarcy]
"The ban's extension is also supported by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. "

I hate hearing this shit. First of all, I'm a cop, in one of the most liberal city in the US. I dont think any cops I know care about that stupid law.... In fact the media has done such a good job at indoctrinationg people that alot actually think it has to do with machine guns. (well I dunno how many but I was talking about it with a few of my coworkers a few days ago and 2 out of 3 thought that).

The "police" organizations they talk about are chief's organizations. Police chiefs and other police brass are hardly police officers. They are politicians, plain and simple. most got where they are from kissing alot of ass.


I hate feinstein and I hope she chokes on her own cock and dies.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:48:32 PM EST
It's obvious this f*ing bitch is enemy number 1, on the same level as bin laden. She is on a crusade every waking moment of her disgusting maggot leftist life to extend the AWB and erode our rights. It is imperative that we mount a similar offensive. We must carpet bomb her website and go on a massive letter righting campaign to let her know who the foe she is up against. We have seen the enemy, focus on it, take action, visualize her defeat.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:00:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 7:01:03 PM EST by captainpooby]
Originally posted by Captainpooby:

"So I walked right up to her and kicked her right in the cunt. I believe in being gentle with a woman but you have to get their attention first."
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:17:45 PM EST
You know, I can u nderstand (sort of) Sarah Brady's crusade, but I just don't get it: what IS IT with D F ? I mean, why? Why has she made destroying our hobby her mission in life?
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:20:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By jblachly:
You know, I can u nderstand (sort of) Sarah Brady's crusade, but I just don't get it: what IS IT with D F ? I mean, why? Why has she made destroying our hobby her mission in life?



because others want the same thing. its a group of people and she is tendering to them.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:23:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By defilade1:
Dudes,


• Are the weapons on this ship semiautomatic assault weapons or firearms that do not meet the sporting purposes test of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3)?most likely yes

• Under what authority did ATF grant the importer of the firearms on this ship a permit to import these weapons? Please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that authorizes this permit and import. they aren't imported, they are dissassembled at a customs bonded warehouse which is the same as offshore, so they are imported as parts kits. Since they leave the warehouse without recievers, they are not imported weapons but imported parts.

• Does ATF allow the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons or other firearms that do not meet the sporting purposes test of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3)? If so, please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that authorizes this and state what restrictions ATF places on importers of these weapons.No because DiFi made a law against it.

• Does ATF allow importers to bring semiautomatic assault weapons or other firearms that do not meet the sporting purposes test into this country and then disassemble them or make changes to them in this country (for example, in a customs bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone)? If so, please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that authorizes this.Most likely yes as this is legal.

• Given that U.S. criminal laws apply in customs bonded warehouses and foreign trade zones, does ATF nevertheless consider it to be legal for an importer to possess semiautomatic assault weapons in such locations? If so, please cite the statute section, regulation or policy that allows such possession.Most likely the importer has permits to have restricted weapons, as well as a Class II, manufactures permit, etc etc etc.




Just my take on things.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:30:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:30:48 PM EST by RAMBOSKY]

Originally posted by Moof: "Dear Senator Feinstein,

It has come to our attention that you're too old, ugly and stupid to pass the "sporting purposes" test. You have 30 days to either leave the USA or submit yourself to the nearest ATF office for disassembly.

Sincerely,

Your Constituents





Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:46:09 PM EST


Originally posted by Moof: "Dear Senator Feinstein,

It has come to our attention that you're too old, ugly and stupid to pass the "sporting purposes" test. You have 30 days to either leave the USA or submit yourself to the nearest ATF office for disassembly.

Sincerely,

Your Constituents




Originally posted by cmjohnson:
Shut the hell up and get back in the kitchen!




So make my dinner, bitch!




You guys are killin me here
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 4:23:24 PM EST
So lets say, that the ATF was wrong, she has a hearing, and they find out that every SAR1, SAR2, SAR3, WASR10, etc etc are all illegal.

Then what? Confiscation, turn ins, amnesty forms?
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 4:32:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
"Thank you in advance for your prompt reply."

Oh, you're welcome Diane, here's a couple of replies from ME.

www.hunt101.com/img/151009-big.jpg

www.hunt101.com/img/111444.jpg



That last pic is fucking hillarious.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 4:33:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By jblachly:
You know, I can u nderstand (sort of) Sarah Brady's crusade, but I just don't get it: what IS IT with D F ? I mean, why? Why has she made destroying our hobby her mission in life?



Dude if I was that fugly I would make it a point in life to piss everyone off, maybe she just needs some loving
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 4:36:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
"Thank you in advance for your prompt reply."

Oh, you're welcome Diane, here's a couple of replies from ME.

www.hunt101.com/img/151009-big.jpg

www.hunt101.com/img/111444.jpg



And yet another purpose for used toilet paper rolls,
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 4:43:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

Originally Posted By jblachly:
You know, I can u nderstand (sort of) Sarah Brady's crusade, but I just don't get it: what IS IT with D F ? I mean, why? Why has she made destroying our hobby her mission in life?



Dude if I was that fugly I would make it a point in life to piss everyone off, maybe she just needs some loving


Partner, I wouldn't touch her with YOUR schlong!
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:36:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy: I hate feinstein and I hope she chokes on her own cock and dies.


HAHA!!

Feinstein and Reno - who strokes who first??
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:48:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

Originally Posted By jblachly:
You know, I can u nderstand (sort of) Sarah Brady's crusade, but I just don't get it: what IS IT with D F ? I mean, why? Why has she made destroying our hobby her mission in life?



Dude if I was that fugly I would make it a point in life to piss everyone off, maybe she just needs some loving



Not even with your dick!
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:53:31 PM EST
Oh dear.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 9:34:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 9:35:30 PM EST by rayra]
I think this might have been the source for Feinstein's bullshit stats - www.consumerfed.org/022304_assault_weapons_survey_2004_release.html
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:14:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 10:22:00 PM EST by TwoStage]
The Bitch has sometime to say about every 28 days.

Uh, can the ATF start with Sara on the Straw buy she did for he son.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:54:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By rayra:
I think this might have been the source for Feinstein's bullshit stats - www.consumerfed.org/022304_assault_weapons_survey_2004_release.html



Some great info from this gun grabbing site:
"Wouldn’t the Second Amendment prohibit this kind of regulation?
No, the Second Amendment would not prohibit this kind of regulation. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states’ ability to maintain independent state militias that are available to be called upon if our country’s security is threatened. The possession of firearms by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never struck down a gun control measure as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The federal government is clearly free to regulate the possession and transfer of firearms in order to promote public safety. "

"How would this legislation reduce crimes involving guns?
The Department of Justice currently compiles tracing information about guns used in crime. However, the Department has no authority to restrict the availability of those guns most prone to criminal use—guns such as the TEC-DC9 used in the Columbine massacre. This legislation would give the Department of Justice the necessary powers to do just that. Under the bill, the Department could restrict the availability of specific firearms, classes of firearms and firearm products to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to the general public. The bill would also allow emergency action to protect the public from “imminently hazardous” firearm products. Rather than being limited to just monitoring firearm use in crime, the Department could finally do something to diminish it. This legislation would also provide the Department of Justice with the authority to tighten existing restrictions on certain firearms—-such as the assault weapons ban—-without the need for Congressional action."

So two idiot get a TEC-9 and kill people. How exactly doe that make the TEC-9 design un-safe? This is a product safety law they are talking about.

Great stats for Fienstien from a pet organization......

Link Posted: 5/9/2004 12:18:46 AM EST

CFA SURVEY SHOWS OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF GUN OWNERS AND GENERAL PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORT RENEWING AND STRENGTHENING THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 23, 2004
Contacts:
Naomi Seligman
202.628.7772 ext 126

WASHINGTON, DC - A national public opinion poll for the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) finds an overwhelming majority of Americans support renewing and strengthening the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons in the U.S. Both gun owners and the general public overwhelmingly want President Bush to make a strong effort to persuade Congress to extend the ban, which is set to expire in six months if Congress fails to act.

The Senate may take up the ban as soon as tomorrow, Tuesday, February 24, 2004.

"With the Senate likely to take up the assault weapons ban this week, it is critical for Congress to recognize more than two-thirds of all respondents to today's Consumer Federation of America survey and a solid majority of gun owners favor renewing and strengthening the assault weapons ban," Susan Peschin, Firearms Project Director for CFA said today. "Support for strengthening the ban is even greater than simply renewing the ban. This support has grown across the board since we conducted a similar study six months ago."

The survey was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation International. ORCI interviewed a representative sample of more than 1,000 adult Americans from February 18 to 22, 2004. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Among the key findings of the CFA Assault Weapons Ban survey are the following:

Support Renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban - All respondents 76%, Gun Owners 57% Support Closing the Loopholes that Allow:

Modified weapons to evade the ban - All 65%, Gun Owners 51%;
Pre-1994 weapons to be sold without background checks - All 87%, Gun Owners 79%;
Conversion parts kits - All 85%; Gun Owners 73%;
Juveniles from owning assault weapons - All Respondents 85%, Gun Owners 80%.
"In this election year, it is important to note that three-quarters of all respondents want President Bush to make an effort to persuade Congress to renew the ban. Two-thirds of gun owners want him to make the effort. The American public is calling on President Bush to keep these weapons off of America's streets and neighborhoods. We sincerely hope he heeds their concerns." Peschin said.

"The failure of Congress to bring the assault weapons ban up for a vote would not sit well with the American people - 46% say it would make them think worse of Congress, compared to just 11 percent who say it would make then think better of Congress."

Please contact Naomi Seligman at 202.628.7772 ext 126 or Kelly Cox at ext. 127 for a copy of the study or visit www.consumerfed.org/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf .



Conversion parts kits????

Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:54:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By jblachly:
You know, I can u nderstand (sort of) Sarah Brady's crusade, but I just don't get it: what IS IT with D F ? I mean, why? Why has she made destroying our hobby her mission in life?




I would say this was it maybe....

Or it could just be because she is a left wing bitch!
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:11:37 AM EST
Top Top