Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/12/2004 10:00:14 AM EST
what's the story of the 1989 import ban, and what was the rationale behind it. what was the government's excuse for passing it, and how was it supposed to 'make us safer'?
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:04:40 AM EST
Patrick Purdy, a shithead, took a Chinese-made AK and mowed down children playing in a schoolyard in Stockton, CA in 1989. The import ban was a reaction of George Bush to "do something".
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:08:08 AM EST
It was more "feel-good" legislation..... I too would like to hear a more defined reason.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:08:34 AM EST
so the 89 import ban is pretty much the same as the AWB, only it bans only ones made in foreign countries?

well, with the expiration of the AWB, wouldnt it make sense this should go as well? wouldnt it be fairly easy to take down?
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:13:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 10:13:47 AM EST by raven]

Originally Posted By poink:
so the 89 import ban is pretty much the same as the AWB, only it bans only ones made in foreign countries?

well, with the expiration of the AWB, wouldnt it make sense this should go as well? wouldnt it be fairly easy to take down?



No, because the 1989 ban was an executive order. Bush could get rid of it tomorrow if he wanted. But imagine the headlines.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:16:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By poink:
so the 89 import ban is pretty much the same as the AWB, only it bans only ones made in foreign countries?

well, with the expiration of the AWB, wouldnt it make sense this should go as well? wouldnt it be fairly easy to take down?



No, because the 1989 ban was an executive order. Bush could get rid of it tomorrow if he wanted. But imagine the headlines.



He could...

Or Congress could attach a provision to a bill removing the 'sporting purposes' test for the importation of firearms, which would remove the legislative authority for the EO, and thus invalidate it...

If Bush would sign it, that is...
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:16:54 AM EST
congress cant overturn an executive order? what about the courts?
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:17:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By poink:
so the 89 import ban is pretty much the same as the AWB, only it bans only ones made in foreign countries?

well, with the expiration of the AWB, wouldnt it make sense this should go as well? wouldnt it be fairly easy to take down?



No, because the 1989 ban was an executive order. Bush could get rid of it tomorrow if he wanted. But imagine the headlines.



But who is going to listen to headlines from known frauds? A lot of you don't seem to understand that this is what Memogate really means- that hysterical headlines are going to be as valued as the cover of the National Enquirer.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:19:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
congress cant overturn an executive order? what about the courts?



Both can. Its very easy to turn over a executive order, it is the lowest form of federal legislation. ANY Federal judge can stop it, the Congress can overturn it with a simple bill.

It, however, had less to do with gun control than with protectionism for the US firearms industry.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:20:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
what's the story of the 1989 import ban, and what was the rationale behind it. what was the government's excuse for passing it, and how was it supposed to 'make us safer'?



Basically, Bill Bennett, the then drug Czar, talked Bush 41 into signing it. Little did Bush 41 realize at the time was he was alienating a measurable percentage of his constituency.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:23:03 AM EST
has there been any challenges to the 89 import ban?
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:25:27 AM EST
oh yeah, did the 89 import ban just ban the actual firearms, or the parts as well?
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:25:42 AM EST
NRA had a prefunctory challange to it, it failed, because face it this IS in the perview of the President.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:26:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
oh yeah, did the 89 import ban just ban the actual firearms, or the parts as well?



A gun needs just 5 US made parts to be considered domestic.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:28:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By poink:
oh yeah, did the 89 import ban just ban the actual firearms, or the parts as well?



A gun needs just 5 US made parts to be considered domestic.



what retarded law is that covered under? the 89 import ban.

jesus, that is retarded. does a sling count?
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:30:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
But who is going to listen to headlines from known frauds? A lot of you don't seem to understand that this is what Memogate really means- that hysterical headlines are going to be as valued as the cover of the National Enquirer.




Half the people in the country.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:30:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:31:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:37:05 AM EST
I always knew Bill Bennett was an ass. Now I've just had reason to confirm that.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:52:21 AM EST
I thought it was an attempt to both ban "evil-looking" firearms and also assist the American-made firearms industry.. like steel tarrifs or something..
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:53:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:54:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I thought it was an attempt to both ban "evil-looking" firearms and also assist the American-made firearms industry.. like steel tarrifs or something..



It had NOTHING to do with helping the American firearms industry.



Alright.. fire-mission for George W to repeal the EO in late November?
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:57:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By poink:
oh yeah, did the 89 import ban just ban the actual firearms, or the parts as well?



A gun needs just 5 US made parts to be considered domestic.



what retarded law is that covered under? the 89 import ban.

jesus, that is retarded. does a sling count?



No it has to be something that the gun cannot operate without.

This is how the FAL kits have been getting in the country though.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:58:55 AM EST
A lame duck president would have nothing to lose by killing an executive order.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:59:14 AM EST

A gun needs just 5 US made parts to be considered domestic.


THAT is a partly false and broad-brush comment !

Different firearms have different part counts....

Here is a link to some good info pertaining to part counts:

Part Counts for 922 (r) compliance

The one constant in 922(r) is that the maximum amount of imported parts you can have is 10. If you have a firearm that has more than 10 imported parts then you are not in compliance.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 10:59:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By poink:
what's the story of the 1989 import ban, and what was the rationale behind it. what was the government's excuse for passing it, and how was it supposed to 'make us safer'?



Basically, Bill Bennett, the then drug Czar, talked Bush 41 into signing it. Little did Bush 41 realize at the time was he was alienating a measurable percentage of his constituency.




Geeze are we the ONLY people that know this?



Yeah, too bad he didn't tell Bush 41 we needed to ban casinos lol Seriously, I consider the Bennett wing of the Republican Party the "money" wing...that is all they care about, they could care less about the freedoms that many in the Republican Party hold dear. Bill Bennett and his brother are overpaid fat loudmouths that this country would do much better without.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:01:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:03:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I thought it was an attempt to both ban "evil-looking" firearms and also assist the American-made firearms industry.. like steel tarrifs or something..



It had NOTHING to do with helping the American firearms industry.



Why was it done for then?
I always thought it was protectionism.
Plus foreign arms makers wouldn't bitch as much.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:05:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By leelaw:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I thought it was an attempt to both ban "evil-looking" firearms and also assist the American-made firearms industry.. like steel tarrifs or something..



It had NOTHING to do with helping the American firearms industry.



Alright.. fire-mission for George W to repeal the EO in late November?



Shhhh...Fineswine was already talking this last week about Armalite "jumping the gun" with their flash hider deal, we don't need this talk hitting the floor of the Senate too lol...
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:08:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By SS109:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I thought it was an attempt to both ban "evil-looking" firearms and also assist the American-made firearms industry.. like steel tarrifs or something..



It had NOTHING to do with helping the American firearms industry.



Why was it done for then?
I always thought it was protectionism.
Plus foreign arms makers wouldn't bitch as much.



It was feel good legislation that the US gun makers would not complain about. A win win or so it was thought.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:09:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
There was a little more too it than purdy, he was just sort of the last straw at that time. The drug wars in our nations inner cities were at their height at that time. There were daily drive by shootings and it turns out this is just about the time that Norinco had started to import AKs enmass for about $300 ea. Well, the gang bangers were not gonna pony up the $$ for a colt but they could sure as hell buy an AK and they did. More than once. Therefore, with the full advice and consent of the American gun manufacturers ( all of them ) we got the 89 import ban. The Domestic manufacturers figured trade protection, the feel good crowd figured the President did something about the problem, and the price of AKs went up. Other than that, nothing really significant happened.



That is an interesting take, but I respectfully disagree...look at the price of the Mak 90...those were a hell of a lot cheaper than 300 bucks. You could get a Maadi, Romanian, and Hungarian AKs in a postban configuration a hell of a lot cheaper than 300 bucks...even in '94 and '95. Criminals don't care about the thumbhole stocks....if they don't like them they just change them. Plus, a gang banger makes more money than just about anyone on this board if they are involved in narcotics, so I doubt even now the price of a pre ban 550 or Famas or Aug would make them flinch...
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:16:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

He could...

Or Congress could attach a provision to a bill removing the 'sporting purposes' test for the importation of firearms, which would remove the legislative authority for the EO, and thus invalidate it...

If Bush would sign it, that is...



As a plus, if this ever happened it would make all pre-sample machineguns into transferrables, as the "sporting use" provision is what makes machineguns that were imported between '68 and '86 into pre-samples. Not as good as repealing 922(o), but it'd be a start.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:19:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Pangea:
A lame duck president would have nothing to lose by killing an executive order.



We can learn from Clinton's failure to do a lot of what his party wanted in his last four years. His re-election isn't at stake, but everyone in his party who holds office is. Had Clinton done a lot of what his party's leftmost members wanted via EO, we wouldn't see another Democrat elected for a long time.

Same for Bush. He won't do anything to hurt his party. Bush is a socialist first, Republican second. I expect to see as much pro-freedom activity from Bush as I saw from Clinton - that is to say, none. Not an iota.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:23:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:27:51 AM EST
It was my understanding, from information gained on this board, that the 1989 EO was used as a basis for legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush 41 in 1990. Hence, we have the parts count rules.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 11:31:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By poink:
what's the story of the 1989 import ban, and what was the rationale behind it. what was the government's excuse for passing it, and how was it supposed to 'make us safer'?



Basically, Bill Bennett, the then drug Czar, talked Bush 41 into signing it. Little did Bush 41 realize at the time was he was alienating a measurable percentage of his constituency.


It was written up Rob K. Brown's Soldier of Fortune magazine, that the guy the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation also had a lot to do with it. I forget the man's name at the moment.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 12:13:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By poink:
what's the story of the 1989 import ban, and what was the rationale behind it. what was the government's excuse for passing it, and how was it supposed to 'make us safer'?



Basically, Bill Bennett, the then drug Czar, talked Bush 41 into signing it. Little did Bush 41 realize at the time was he was alienating a measurable percentage of his constituency.


It was written up Rob K. Brown's Soldier of Fortune magazine, that the guy the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation also had a lot to do with it. I forget the man's name at the moment.



Normally when the Republicans support gun control, it is for other reasons. As noted, '89 did have a lot to do (at least in talking points) with the drug war. In 1968, it basically was to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. It was the era of the riots and urban unrest and even some "pro" gun ppl. at the time thought it would help fight crime. Well, all it did was open the door for more incrementalism. Nothing worse in life than "good intentions".
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 12:13:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
Patrick Purdy, a shithead, took a Chinese-made AK and mowed down children playing in a schoolyard in Stockton, CA in 1989. The import ban was a reaction of George Bush to "do something".



+1
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 12:17:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By RyJones:
Bush is a socialist first, Republican second.



Then where is our "free" health care, college, and raise in the minimum wage
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 12:26:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
No, because the 1989 ban was an executive order. Bush could get rid of it tomorrow if he wanted. But imagine the headlines.



Actually, during the Clinton Administration Rep. Unsoeld (D-WA) attached an amendment to a bill that made part of the 1989 ban into law - so it can no longer be overturned with just a simple executive order.

This is why in 2001 when the Bush administration reversed the 2000 Clinton decision banning import of any parts that could be used on a banned weapon they had to specify the parts could only be imported for repair or replacement purposes only.

Also 1989 was a whole different world in gun control... the Internet was not yet a power and all the lies you have been seeing in the media the past week? That was what was said about military-style semi autos non-stop...even most gunowners believed it. I was thankful at the time that the ban wasn't worse and hoped it would appease the antis (fat chance there).
Top Top