Posted: 12/11/2014 3:59:19 PM EDT
|
Can someone please explain the nuances of the '89 import ban to me? I don't understand why some weapons are still able to be imported while others (some of which I would really like to have) are not.
I have an arsenal Russian AK, though I understand these may be imported in a sporting configuration, and then converted. But I noticed that a new Galil will be available early next year. Are these being imported? Or are they being made in the U.S. by a U.S. subsidiary of IWI, or by a U.S. company that owns the marketing rights to "IWI", and is IWI in name only? If only weapons with a "legitimate sporting use" can be imported, how are AKs and pistols imported by companies such as CAI, EAA, and Royal Tiger, etc.? Could an importer bring in weapons such as the qbz-95, SA-80, etc. if the producer agreed? Or would the company have to establish a U.S. subsidiary to avoid importation restrictions as many companies have done (Glock, FNH, Beretta, for example)? Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere and/or is common knowledge, but I have been wondering about this for a long time. I think that some of the weapons we are not able to get our hands on here would be very successful (in semi-auto, 16" barrel min, etc. legal configuration) even at a premium price point. |
|
I believe the new IWI guns we are seeing are made in the US by a factory IWI set up.
IWI US Pistols are not covered under the ban. The AKs and such you mention are imported in a config that complies with the ban, then are converted in the states. |
|
Quoted:
So it is impossible to import a semi auto rifle into the U.S. unless it is deemed by the govt to have a legitimate sporting use?? Sporting configuration just means it complies with the ban, which is a ban on importing weapons that meet the federal definition of an assault weapon. Which is the same definition used in the 1994 assault weapons ban.. it was just only applied to imports in 1989. |
|
Quoted: So it is impossible to import a semi auto rifle into the U.S. unless it is deemed by the govt to have a legitimate sporting use?? Until we overturn the GCA 1968 and 922r in the courts, in Congress, or by a President's favorable reading of the law, yes. 3-Gun competition is not considered a legitimate sporting purpose @ this time. 
|
|
Here's an article on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... |
|
Quoted:
Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... But but but the repubs are pro 2nd! |
|
Quoted:
Okay. But, theoretically, if a company, say Norinco for example, opened a subsidiary in the U.S., or gave a U.S. company the right to produce civilian-spec qbz-95s, they would be able to be had in the states? Seems that way,but who really knows. Lots of neat stuff being produced anyway.Enjoy it while it lasts..... |
|
Quoted:
Okay. But, theoretically, if a company, say Norinco for example, opened a subsidiary in the U.S., or gave a U.S. company the right to produce civilian-spec qbz-95s, they would be able to be had in the states? Norincos were shut down due to sanctions against China, so that may not work the same as the case with IWI opening a US subsidiary. |
|
Quoted:
Okay. But, theoretically, if a company, say Norinco for example, opened a subsidiary in the U.S., or gave a U.S. company the right to produce civilian-spec qbz-95s, they would be able to be had in the states? Yes, but what's the point? They would be $3k+ If there was no ban, they could be cheaply made and cheaply imported |
| Ok well forget the sanctions, or imagine a domestic production of the FAMAS,SA-80, or AK-5 etc. which come from friendly western democracies. Don't BAE and Bofors already do business with the U.S. govt? Why couldn't they establish a subsidiary to produce small arms for the civilian market like FNH? I feel like there would be plenty of demand from the U.S. premium firearms market as long as the cost was = 2500$ . Plus that is a lot of free T&E for any new small arms, albeit in civilian configuration. |
|
Quoted:
Ok well forget the sanctions, or imagine a domestic production of the FAMAS,SA-80, or AK-5 etc. which come from friendly western democracies. Don't BAE and Bofors already do business with the U.S. govt? Why couldn't they establish a subsidiary to produce small arms for the civilian market like FNH? I feel like there would be plenty of demand from the U.S. premium firearms market as long as the cost was = 2500$ . Plus that is a lot of free T&E for any new small arms, albeit in civilian configuration. H&K does exactly that, but they're oddly not making money @ it. SIG is. The US market is hard to penetrate for a foreign gunmaker who is accustomed to fixed priced, fixed quantity military contracts. |
|
Quoted:
Ok well forget the sanctions, or imagine a domestic production of the FAMAS,SA-80, or AK-5 etc. which come from friendly western democracies. Don't BAE and Bofors already do business with the U.S. govt? Why couldn't they establish a subsidiary to produce small arms for the civilian market like FNH? I feel like there would be plenty of demand from the U.S. premium firearms market as long as the cost was = 2500$ . Plus that is a lot of free T&E for any new small arms, albeit in civilian configuration. I don't see why they couldn't,unless the ATF stopped them. Hard to say how big the market would be for some of those-ARs pretty much dominate now. |
|
Quoted:
Ok well forget the sanctions, or imagine a domestic production of the FAMAS,SA-80, or AK-5 etc. which come from friendly western democracies. Don't BAE and Bofors already do business with the U.S. govt? Why couldn't they establish a subsidiary to produce small arms for the civilian market like FNH? I feel like there would be plenty of demand from the U.S. premium firearms market as long as the cost was = 2500$ . Plus that is a lot of free T&E for any new small arms, albeit in civilian configuration.  yEAH right. Our administration want to take guns away from us.
|
|
Quoted:
Don't expect the ban to ever be lifted, the US gun manufacturers put a lot of support behind it and the Repubs really have no incentive to lift it either. So you are essentially saying that the import ban even gets support from the U.S. gun lobby? Its more of an economic issue in favor of domestically produced firearms than it is a gun control issue? As someone who generallu supports "Made in America" products, I feel like import substitution sucks, especially when it prohibits people from having access to quality and/or innovative products. And if that is true, it enables domestic gun producers to charge a premium for products with little to no innovation: "Oh here, have another AR, this one is chambered in a new caliber and has a piston in it!!!" I love ARs by the way. |
|
Quoted:
Okay. But, theoretically, if a company, say Norinco for example, opened a subsidiary in the U.S., or gave a U.S. company the right to produce civilian-spec qbz-95s, they would be able to be had in the states? Norinco has additional constraints on them and there would be no ammo for that gun in the states. |
|
Quoted:
It is a great example of why you need to vote for the pro gun Republicans!!! Lesson.Learned. The Republicans passed a great deal of pro-RKBA legislation. Tiahrt Amendment, Lawfull Commerce in Firearms Act, non-renewal of the AWB, etc. With the Democrats in full control you'd be lucky to own a single shot .22 bolt rifle. |
|
Quoted:
Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... So you think it would be better to have the Democrats in charge then. When did you suffer that blunt force trauma to your noggin? do you remember the event? |
|
Quoted:
But but but the repubs are pro 2nd! Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... But but but the repubs are pro 2nd! Jeeze...you've sure opened my eyes..I am voting Libertarian next time for sure. Because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be so much better for RKBA than McConnell and Boehner. |
|
Quoted:
Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... What that Bush himself didn't do anything to cause it to happen but it was indeed one of his "minions" (specifically his drug "Czar") that asked the BATFE to re-examine the sporting purposes clause as the BATFE (ATF at the time) did on a regular basis. The ATF came up with a crazy viewpoint which was actually what anti-gun leftists had been researching and railing against not only in the US but also in other countries...and or course California was one of them. So yes, it was his administration but there was no EO... I love these threads. |
|
Quoted:
Ok well forget the sanctions, or imagine a domestic production of the FAMAS,SA-80, or AK-5 etc. which come from friendly western democracies. Don't BAE and Bofors already do business with the U.S. govt? Why couldn't they establish a subsidiary to produce small arms for the civilian market like FNH? I feel like there would be plenty of demand from the U.S. premium firearms market as long as the cost was = 2500$ . Plus that is a lot of free T&E for any new small arms, albeit in civilian configuration. Quoted:
Ok well forget the sanctions, or imagine a domestic production of the FAMAS,SA-80, or AK-5 etc. which come from friendly western democracies. Don't BAE and Bofors already do business with the U.S. govt? Why couldn't they establish a subsidiary to produce small arms for the civilian market like FNH? I feel like there would be plenty of demand from the U.S. premium firearms market as long as the cost was = 2500$ . Plus that is a lot of free T&E for any new small arms, albeit in civilian configuration. As far as AKs are concerned... Izhmash/Kalashnikov Concern, as late as last spring, was mulling around the idea of opening up a factory in the US for domestic production of Saiga rifles, but decided against it. Not months later, Obama placed sanctions on KC that ended the import of all firearms manufactured by them. Arsenal USA was smart about the whole 922r/sporting purposes restrictions, and just brought a shitload of Bulgarian tooling right into the US. Too bad their prices on their US-made rifles are absolutely retarded. I'm not a lawyer but I don't know what is preventing Kalashnikov Concern from opening a factory in the US. I don't believe that the sanctions would prevent them from opening a business directly, or under a shell company. They must have just crunched the numbers and realized that at the price point they would need to recoup costs, they couldn't outprice Serbian and Romanian made AKs. Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't expect the ban to ever be lifted, the US gun manufacturers put a lot of support behind it and the Repubs really have no incentive to lift it either. So you are essentially saying that the import ban even gets support from the U.S. gun lobby? Its more of an economic issue in favor of domestically produced firearms than it is a gun control issue? As someone who generallu supports "Made in America" products, I feel like import substitution sucks, especially when it prohibits people from having access to quality and/or innovative products. And if that is true, it enables domestic gun producers to charge a premium for products with little to no innovation: "Oh here, have another AR, this one is chambered in a new caliber and has a piston in it!!!" I love ARs by the way. Roughly... US firearms manufacturers were huge backers of the "sporting purposes" requirements for imported firearms, and companies like Ruger (Bill Ruger testified before congress in support of these regs, including the 94 AWB) in the 80s were more than happy to see firearms from overseas competitors banned from import. I don't know how these companies would feel about it today. I'm sure there are a few firearms manufacturers run by 2A purists who would welcome the additional competition if it meant that they were "more free" by the government butting out of what is clearly an infringement of the 2A via "sporting purposes" regs, 922r, etc. |
|
Quoted:
What that Bush himself didn't do anything to cause it to happen but it was indeed one of his "minions" (specifically his drug "Czar") that asked the BATFE to re-examine the sporting purposes clause as the BATFE (ATF at the time) did on a regular basis. The ATF came up with a crazy viewpoint which was actually what anti-gun leftists had been researching and railing against not only in the US but also in other countries...and or course California was one of them. So yes, it was his administration but there was no EO... I love these threads. Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... What that Bush himself didn't do anything to cause it to happen but it was indeed one of his "minions" (specifically his drug "Czar") that asked the BATFE to re-examine the sporting purposes clause as the BATFE (ATF at the time) did on a regular basis. The ATF came up with a crazy viewpoint which was actually what anti-gun leftists had been researching and railing against not only in the US but also in other countries...and or course California was one of them. So yes, it was his administration but there was no EO... I love these threads. Who said anything about an EO??? From the link- ''The President was informed of the findings and decisions, and fully supports them,'' Alixe Glen, a White House spokeswoman, said of the ban announced today. Don't try and pull that "The President didn't know what was going on" bullshit. |
|
Quoted:
But but but the repubs are pro 2nd! Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... But but but the repubs are pro 2nd! You must not be from the North East or California. |
|
Quoted:
What that Bush himself didn't do anything to cause it to happen but it was indeed one of his "minions" (specifically his drug "Czar") that asked the BATFE to re-examine the sporting purposes clause as the BATFE (ATF at the time) did on a regular basis. The ATF came up with a crazy viewpoint which was actually what anti-gun leftists had been researching and railing against not only in the US but also in other countries...and or course California was one of them. So yes, it was his administration but there was no EO... I love these threads. Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... What that Bush himself didn't do anything to cause it to happen but it was indeed one of his "minions" (specifically his drug "Czar") that asked the BATFE to re-examine the sporting purposes clause as the BATFE (ATF at the time) did on a regular basis. The ATF came up with a crazy viewpoint which was actually what anti-gun leftists had been researching and railing against not only in the US but also in other countries...and or course California was one of them. So yes, it was his administration but there was no EO... I love these threads. Bill Bennett, degenerate gambler and talk show host, may fuck be upon him forever! |
|
Quoted:
Norincos were shut down due to sanctions against China, so that may not work the same as the case with IWI opening a US subsidiary. Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay. But, theoretically, if a company, say Norinco for example, opened a subsidiary in the U.S., or gave a U.S. company the right to produce civilian-spec qbz-95s, they would be able to be had in the states? Norincos were shut down due to sanctions against China, so that may not work the same as the case with IWI opening a US subsidiary. Norinco along with Polytech fucked themselves by the fact that their people were caught illegally importing full auto weapons with intent to supply the gangs and black markets. No fucks given. ChiComs, Guns, Gangs. Right out of a Don Pendleton Pulp Thriller. U.s. Foils Major Smuggling Operation Chinese Gunrunners Caught In Sting Assault Rifles, Manufactured At Two Plants In China, Were Destined For Street Gangs Across The Country, Federal Officials Say. May 24, 1996|By Jane Meredith Adams. Special to the Tribune. SAN FRANCISCO — Two federal undercover agents--one of them posing as a suave Mafia operative from Miami--negotiated with Chinese arms dealers for more than 16 months to bring about the largest seizure of smuggled automatic weapons in American history, federal officials said Thursday. In releasing the first details of a sting operation that led to the arrests of seven suspects Wednesday in the San Francisco Bay Area, federal officials told a spy-thriller tale of arms-import deals gone wrong, money buried under a potted tree and the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to illegally import 2,000 AK-47 rifles with a street value estimated at $4 million. While many of the suspected smugglers have direct ties to two state-owned Chinese weapons manufacturing companies, federal officials would not say whether the guns had been illegally imported with the knowledge of the Chinese Communist government. Seven other suspects remain at large in China. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This links to my thread about Walmart....specifically the quote that ethics are flexible in China. I know people get wet over the idea of getting some ChiCom guns....but these clowns fucked themselves and would not hesitate to pull that shit again. |
|
Ok so the Chinese State owned defense contractors fucked themselves out the ability to produce anything under license in the US. I get that. But how does that relate to western defense manufacturers like BAE or whoever produces the FAMAS?
If I am understanding correctly, it basically boils down to the fact that domestic producers (Fuck Bill Ruger) who had GOP pro-2A legislators in their pocket were in support of the ban, along with little or no desire of foreign producers to allow their products to be produced under license or open up a U.S. subsidiary for either monetary or political reasons. I get that foreign small arms are often produced by companies that are either state-owned or that the state has a significant stake in. But what do those companies/govts care if American consumers can purchase a version of these weapons? I don't see how it would affect them in any way other than generating revenue since they could potentially mark the rifles up significantly and still generate demand. Or do they feel that they wouldn't be able to compete with the numerous military type weapons already being produced domestically in the US? Or is it simply the fact that, although these companies produce guns, they don't believe that civilians of any country should be able to own them? |
|
And couldn't someone theoretically buy the rights to produce the a version of the qbz domestically, without Norinco having a direct involvement in the production? Just sell a company the blueprints and rebrand/name it and chamber in in 5.56 or 5.45.
Who knows, American producers would probably even improve it after it hit the market |
|
Quoted:
And couldn't someone theoretically buy the rights to produce the a version of the qbz domestically, without Norinco having a direct involvement in the production? Just sell a company the blueprints and rebrand/name it and chamber in in 5.56 or 5.45. Who knows, American producers would probably even improve it after it hit the market After the tooling costs, I doubt any domestic manufacturer would make a profit on them considering the niche market they inhabit. |
|
Guns have to be "sporting friendly". Think of the Saiga sporters, which are now banned as part of a sanction against Russia. But those use to be import legal and pretty much the whole reason that line exists. A Saiga AK in France comes with the proper furniture and side folding stock.
Otherwise you can import them as kits and have them built with 6 minimum US made parts. For example, a receiver or magazine often counts as one US made part each. Add in the NFA and our odd rifle length laws and we have a hard time importing stuff. This is why the CZ Scorpion Evo and Galil ACE are being imported as "pistols", whereas you can get them in other countries in proper semi auto form with stocks. ETA: Also factor in the open bolt semi auto ban, which affects things like Uzis. Again, you can get a Norinco Uzi in France with the proper furniture, open bolt and 10" barrel. The USA is rather strict on the types of firearms we can buy, but access to them tends to be easier. |
|
Quoted:
Ok so the Chinese State owned defense contractors fucked themselves out the ability to produce anything under license in the US. I get that. But how does that relate to western defense manufacturers like BAE or whoever produces the FAMAS? If I am understanding correctly, it basically boils down to the fact that domestic producers (Fuck Bill Ruger) who had GOP pro-2A legislators in their pocket were in support of the ban, along with little or no desire of foreign producers to allow their products to be produced under license or open up a U.S. subsidiary for either monetary or political reasons. I get that foreign small arms are often produced by companies that are either state-owned or that the state has a significant stake in. But what do those companies/govts care if American consumers can purchase a version of these weapons? I don't see how it would affect them in any way other than generating revenue since they could potentially mark the rifles up significantly and still generate demand. Or do they feel that they wouldn't be able to compete with the numerous military type weapons already being produced domestically in the US? Or is it simply the fact that, although these companies produce guns, they don't believe that civilians of any country should be able to own them? Other than China, fuck you stupid greedy commies, most stated owned gun companies do not care if American civilians can own guns....they do however like money and Americans will exchange money for their guns so there is that. Which is really the only reason to sell guns. |
|
Quoted:
Other than China, fuck you stupid greedy commies, most stated owned gun companies do not care if American civilians can own guns....they do however like money and Americans will exchange money for their guns so there is that. Which is really the only reason to sell guns. Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok so the Chinese State owned defense contractors fucked themselves out the ability to produce anything under license in the US. I get that. But how does that relate to western defense manufacturers like BAE or whoever produces the FAMAS? If I am understanding correctly, it basically boils down to the fact that domestic producers (Fuck Bill Ruger) who had GOP pro-2A legislators in their pocket were in support of the ban, along with little or no desire of foreign producers to allow their products to be produced under license or open up a U.S. subsidiary for either monetary or political reasons. I get that foreign small arms are often produced by companies that are either state-owned or that the state has a significant stake in. But what do those companies/govts care if American consumers can purchase a version of these weapons? I don't see how it would affect them in any way other than generating revenue since they could potentially mark the rifles up significantly and still generate demand. Or do they feel that they wouldn't be able to compete with the numerous military type weapons already being produced domestically in the US? Or is it simply the fact that, although these companies produce guns, they don't believe that civilians of any country should be able to own them? Other than China, fuck you stupid greedy commies, most stated owned gun companies do not care if American civilians can own guns....they do however like money and Americans will exchange money for their guns so there is that. Which is really the only reason to sell guns. The Chinese sell anything they can to civilians. Just a few years back they were selling full auto M4A1s and MP5s in the Philippines while it was legal. |
|
Gun Control Act of 1968
The first change to the nonsporting shotgun importation ban occurred in 1968 when Congress amended the Crime Control Act of 1968 with the Gun Control Act of 1968. 82 The Gun Control Act changed the operative provision from § 922(j) to § 922(l) and this provision remains the same today. 83 The nonsporting shotgun importation ban simply states that it is illegal to knowingly import firearms except as provided in § 925(d). 84 A 1968 Senate Report stated that § 925(d)(3)’s purpose is to allow “importation of quality made, sporting firearms, including pistols, rifles, and shotguns, such as those manufactured and imported by Browning and other such manufacturers and importers of firearms.” 85 Further indications of the legislative intent come from the statements of Senator Dodd, one of the main proponents of gun control during the 1960s. 86 In a conversation with Senator Clifford Hansen, Senator Dodd stated that Olympic shooting competitions, trap or skeet shooting, and Camp Perry National Matches 87 were all sporting purposes. 88 However, when asked about whether the firearms used in Camp Perry National matches were sporting, Senator Dodd reasoned the firearms were not sporting because those firearms were not “generally described as . . . sporting” despite their wide use in sporting competitions. 89 .............. C. The ATF 1989 Memo The temporary suspension in Gun South I resulted from an order by former President George H.W. Bush. 128 President Bush ordered an importation suspension and a review of the Importation Sporting Purposes Exception as a result of increasing pressure after a school shooting in Stockton, California. 129 Initially, he refused to do anything, but later he recanted stating that he did not reverse his position, but that he merely had a “pulse change.” 130 He also stated that the administration was not “trying to have a different interpretation of the law” when he ordered a review. 131 By the President’s order, the ATF reviewed the Importation Sporting Purposes Exception and released its review on July 6, 1989, in the Report and Recommendation on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles (ATF 1989 Memo). 132 The ATF 1989 Memo created a test to determine whether an imported rifle is of a type “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” 133 Since the Importation Sporting Purposes Test under § 925(d)(3) refers to the firearm type, the ATF first discussed the type of rifles the Bush Administration had ordered suspended from importation. 134 The ATF determined that the rifles suspended from importation were “semiautomatic assault rifles,” a category represented by rifles with characteristics common to modern military-assault rifles. 135 The ATF then distinguished semiautomatic assault rifles from traditional sporting rifles using characteristics typical of modern military-assault rifles: (1) whether the firearm can accept a detachable magazine (particularly large magazines), folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips, bayonets, flash suppressors, bipods, grenade launchers, or night sights; “(2) [w]hether the [firearm] is a semiautomatic version of a machinegun”; and “(3) [w]hether the [firearm] is chambered to accept” cartridges shorter than 2.25 inches. 136 While the ATF 1989 Memo specifically created a test for rifles, the ATF has used a substantially similar test for shotguns. 137 Next, the ATF discussed the scope of “sporting purpose” and whether the “semiautomatic assault rifles” category was suitable for sporting purposes. 138 In determining what activities were to be included under the ambit of sporting purposes, the ATF consulted the statute’s legislative history and found that a broad interpretation would render the statute meaningless because the Importation Sporting Purposes Exception is just that—an exception. 139 Thus, the ATF gave the Importation Sporting Purposes Exception a narrow meaning and included only traditional sporting activities such as hunting, organized target shooting, and trap or skeet shooting. 140 The ATF then considered “technical and marketing data, expert opinions, the recommended uses of the firearms, and data on the actual uses” of firearms to “determin[e] whether [semiautomatic assault rifles were] generally recognized as particularly suitable for[, or readily adaptable to,] sporting purposes.” 141 The ATF conducted a survey and found that those rifles were not generally marketed, recommended, or used for sporting purposes. 142 As such, the ATF recommended that semiautomatic assault rifles be banned from importation since they did not meet the criteria for the Importation Sporting Purposes Exception. .................. The Unsoeld Amendment The next addition to the importation ban was the Unsoeld Amendment to the Crime Control Act of 1990, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 922(r), which Congress passed on November 29, 1990. 144 This amendment added the words “from imported parts” to a proposed law that would have banned domestic manufacture of firearms deemed identical to imported, restricted firearms. 145 Up until this point, it was still legally possible to import a nonsporting firearm into the United States prior to the importation ban; an importer could simply import a parts kit that could be used to assemble a nonsporting firearm in the United States. 146 While it might seem as though the amendment imposed more restrictions, it actually lessened the restrictions that would have been imposed by the Crime Control Act of 1990. 147 Representative John Dingell pointed out that the “Unsoeld [A]mendment . . . correct[ed] a blatant flaw in” the proposed law, which, had the proposed law passed unamended by the Unsoeld Amendment, “would [have] authorize[d] the Treasury Secretary to prohibit the domestic manufacture of any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun—simply by declaring it identical to a foreign-made, nonimportable model.” 148 Representative Ron Marlenee noted that the Unsoeld Amendment “prevent[ed] unelected bureaucrats from telling [people] which gun[s they] can own.” 149 The Secretary of the Treasury delegated power in this area to the ATF 150 and courts generally defer to enforcement bodies’ interpretations. 151 Indeed, had the Unsoeld Amendment not passed, the ATF could, of its own accord or at the request of the President (as has happened before), ban any domestic firearm by stating that it was identical to a nonimportable firearm. Moreover, in executing the Unsoeld Amendment, the Treasury Department clarified the meaning of the phrase assembled “from imported parts.” 152 By doing so, the Treasury Department determined that a rifle or shotgun was assembled “from imported parts” if it contained more than ten imported parts. 153 This ruling has not changed since its codification. The “Circularity Problem” The Importation and Destructive Device Sporting Purposes Tests, as implemented by the Gun Control Act of 1968, possess a “structural flaw” 257 that distorts their application and has created the ambiguous test that the ATF applies today. Rules subject to societal expectations will contain this flaw as seen in the common-use standard created by District of Columbia v. Heller 258 and the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard applied in the Fourth Amendment context. 259 Here, the structural flaw arises from the “generally recognized” language—what is generally recognized as particularly suitable depends on what a society (or the applicable part of society) recognizes as particularly suitable. However, laws preventing the use of certain types or configurations of shotguns will prevent society in general from recognizing those types or ............. Conclusion ................... the recent appropriations restriction by Congress may have opened the floodgates unless the ATF increases enforcement of the Destructive Device Sporting Purposes Test. Enforced or not, the sporting purposes possession and importation laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. After all, the instruction in Heller could apply well into the future. To wit: Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the [early 20th] century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time [the sporting purposes framework was created]. http://law.okcu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/OCULREV-Fall-2013-Habluetzel-pp-395-432.pdf |
|
House Votes to Repeal Ban on Assault Weapons
Congress: After emotional debate, measure passes by solid 239-173 margin. Its fate in Senate is uncertain. March 23, 1996 http://articles.latimes.com/1996-03-23/news/mn-50373_1_weapons-ban |
|
Quoted: But but but the repubs are pro 2nd! Quoted: Quoted: Here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html This thread will die a quick death since it flies in the face of all the Republican kool-aid drinking cult followers......... But but but the repubs are pro 2nd! ... not all, but as a whole they behave better than Democrats
|
|
Clinton Bans Import Of Modified Military Rifles
clinton WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 6) -- The Clinton Administration made permanent Monday a ban on the import of rifles that can be easily returned to their semi-automatic, military purpose and on rifles with very large magazines for ammunition. The administrative order, which would make permanent a temporary action taken in November 1997, can be appealed within 30 days. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/assault.weapons/ Upon taking office President Bush rescinded Clinton AO. Under GCA the frame and barrel must be torch cut. In 2005 ATF began enforcing the barrel cut. |
|
Monday, April 6, 1998
Clinton Orders Further Ban On Assault Rifles -- 1.6 Million Imports Blocked The AP: The Washington Post WASHINGTON - Vowing "to do our best to keep our people alive," President Clinton today closed a loophole through which hundreds of thousands of foreign-made assault rifles found their way into the United States despite bans. Most of the affected guns are variations of the AK-47 and Uzi semiautomatic weapons. An estimated 1.6 million rifles, for which permits are pending or have already been issued, would be blocked from entering the country by Clinton's executive order. "We can't let a bunch of gun extremists put lives in jeopardy," Schumer said. "They'll continue to prod and poke in a tireless search for new loopholes." Since 1991, more than 425,000 of these modified rifles have been imported, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980406&slug=2743698 |
|
Quoted:
Ok well forget the sanctions, or imagine a domestic production of the FAMAS,SA-80, or AK-5 etc. which come from friendly western democracies. Don't BAE and Bofors already do business with the U.S. govt? Why couldn't they establish a subsidiary to produce small arms for the civilian market like FNH? I feel like there would be plenty of demand from the U.S. premium firearms market as long as the cost was = 2500$ . Plus that is a lot of free T&E for any new small arms, albeit in civilian configuration. Definitely not going to go that way. The response would be a loud "why the hell should I pay $2500 for that when I can just get an AR that is better for less than $1000?" That is the response from the masses whenever any company tries to bring in something cool that carries a high price. |
|
Quoted:
... not all, but as a whole they behave better than Democrats Quite a bit better contrary to dems and libertarians. Most States are shall issue and more are Constitutional carry. Democrats attempted to renew the Clinton AWB in 2004 with an amendment to PLCAA. Voted down and passed in the next Congress with 55 Rs In 2000 the Clinton administration reached an agreement with Smith & Wesson, to end federal and state lawsuits, in exchange for marketing and design changes by the company. Some of the items Smith & Wesson agreed to were; to sell guns with locks, to build the locks in the weapons within two years, implement smart gun technology, and take ballistic fingerprints of its guns.[15] Clinton called the deal a "major victory for America's families."[15] The NRA and other gun rights groups heavily criticized the settlement calling Smith & Wesson's actions "a sell-out",[16] with the NRA calling the agreement ""tantamount to back door blackmail".[15] Smith & Wesson's ownership changed in 2001 and the agreement fell apart after George W. Bush came to office and supported lawsuit protection for gun manufactures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration S.Amdt. 2637 to S. 1805 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) Statement of Purpose: To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. YEAs52 NAYs47 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024 George W. Bush Statement of Administration Policy: S. 1805 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act February 24, 2004 The American Presidency Project STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY (Senate) (Sen. Craig (R) Idaho) The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 1805. The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable. The manufacturer or seller of a legal, non-defective product should not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of that product by others. The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, sets a poor precedent for other lawful industries, will cause a loss of jobs, and burdens interstate and foreign commerce. S. 1805 would help curb frivolous litigation against a lawful American industry and the thousands of workers it employs and would help prevent abuse of the legal system. At the same time, the legislation would carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions. These civil actions are enumerated in the bill and respect the traditional role of the States in our Federal system with regard to such actions. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=24814 The History of Concealed Carry, 1976-2011 http://www.txchia.org/history.htm 
|