New "Executive Actions"
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
Those numbers are intended to impress people who don't or won't read the statement. It doesn't say 39,000 felons got machineguns through trusts. It says there were 39,000 transfers to trusts. Then it says that felons could (not DID) obtain weapons that way.
Very carefully worded with full intent to deceive. Hail Obama!
Jim
Very carefully worded with full intent to deceive. Hail Obama!
Jim
Re these Executive Orders (2), and the Vice Presidents comments thereon, the following comes to mind.
1. The military small arms, essentially Garand rifles and M-1 Carbines were manufactured in the U.S. in the first place.
2. Garand Rifles have come to have significant historical significance and value.
3. Additionally, they would meet the double-talk requirements of the BATFE, in that they are legal hunting arms in many states, that makes them "sporting arms" and they are frequently used in shooting competitions too.
4. When was the last documented instance of criminal use of either a Garand Rifle or M-1 Carbine? Note, I reference DOCUMENTED, NOT ANECDOTAL USE.
5. Regarding Biden's reference to ineligible persons registering automatic weapons or other Class 3(NFA Firearms) to trusts or corporations, how many, again DOCUMENTED instances of this happening can he show, for his off-hand comments, given his history as an anti gun/anti gun rights operator cast serious doubt on the value of his offerings, but wait, there's more. Wasn't Biden the one who suggested that "when threatened, one should go out into their front yard with their 12 Ga., double barreled shotgun and fire it into the air". As I recall, he did so offer, seemingly having forgotten that what goes up, comes down, the question of where it comes down remaining unanswered, or perhaps the Vice President is unconcerned by such mundane considerations as the Law of Gravity. Some of us ordinary citizens aren't so casual.
6. In conclusion, I strongly suggest that readers here get on to their U.S. Senators and Congressional Representatives soliciting action to kill Obama's latest anti gun/anti gun rights/anti civil rights ploys, and that they do this RDN (Right Damned Now). The results obtained from "constituent encouragement" are sometimes amazing.
I see one poster mentioned possible or likely price escalation, something that viewers will probably see.
1. The military small arms, essentially Garand rifles and M-1 Carbines were manufactured in the U.S. in the first place.
2. Garand Rifles have come to have significant historical significance and value.
3. Additionally, they would meet the double-talk requirements of the BATFE, in that they are legal hunting arms in many states, that makes them "sporting arms" and they are frequently used in shooting competitions too.
4. When was the last documented instance of criminal use of either a Garand Rifle or M-1 Carbine? Note, I reference DOCUMENTED, NOT ANECDOTAL USE.
5. Regarding Biden's reference to ineligible persons registering automatic weapons or other Class 3(NFA Firearms) to trusts or corporations, how many, again DOCUMENTED instances of this happening can he show, for his off-hand comments, given his history as an anti gun/anti gun rights operator cast serious doubt on the value of his offerings, but wait, there's more. Wasn't Biden the one who suggested that "when threatened, one should go out into their front yard with their 12 Ga., double barreled shotgun and fire it into the air". As I recall, he did so offer, seemingly having forgotten that what goes up, comes down, the question of where it comes down remaining unanswered, or perhaps the Vice President is unconcerned by such mundane considerations as the Law of Gravity. Some of us ordinary citizens aren't so casual.
6. In conclusion, I strongly suggest that readers here get on to their U.S. Senators and Congressional Representatives soliciting action to kill Obama's latest anti gun/anti gun rights/anti civil rights ploys, and that they do this RDN (Right Damned Now). The results obtained from "constituent encouragement" are sometimes amazing.
I see one poster mentioned possible or likely price escalation, something that viewers will probably see.
Last edited:
armoredman
New member
I doubt there is a more than a handful of instances where M-1 Garands have been used in criminal activity. I have to say, having seen an Enfield used to hold up a Stop 'N Rob in Australia, I can't completely discount it. The number of crimes with M-1 Carbines might be a wee bit higher due to popularity and availability back in the 60s/70s, but I don't know for certain. 
I am willing to bet the number is lower than crimes committed with a beer bottle.
I am willing to bet the number is lower than crimes committed with a beer bottle.I got a bellyful of "military grade firearms" on our streets watching the Boston Lockdown.
kilimanjaro
New member
Anyone still think this administration isn't serious about taking away all the guns?
We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it.
We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it.
To be honest, not really. I've had firsthand experience with some of the remainder of the Korean Garands, and they're not worth having. In most cases, the rifles aren't even safe to shoot.
That doesn't make this effort any less troublesome; it's just that the effects aren't all that dire.
Ignition Override
New member
A guy nicknamed "USSR" seemed to prove under "Legal" at THR that the CMP will be exempt. Even if not, there seem to be no more considerable heaps of nice M-1s in
countries to which the rifles were loaned by the US.
But even if "USSR" is correct, the public perception is what helps to set price increases, not what an Order or Exec. Action actually describes.
countries to which the rifles were loaned by the US.
But even if "USSR" is correct, the public perception is what helps to set price increases, not what an Order or Exec. Action actually describes.
Tom Servo writes:
Quote:
We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it.
To be honest, not really. I've had firsthand experience with some of the remainder of the Korean Garands, and they're not worth having. In most cases, the rifles aren't even safe to shoot.
That doesn't make this effort any less troublesome; it's just that the effects aren't all that dire.
Tom:
If I may. I will not argue over the condition of Korean War Garands, which might well be in terrible condition. If however, they were sold through the CMP, I would think that they would have been appropriately examined, and described as "wall hangers" if their condition so indicated.
I submit that the following is more important. If Obama gets away with this stunt, what might prove sufficient to check his follow-on excesses, excesses that will most surely come.
Quote:
We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it.
To be honest, not really. I've had firsthand experience with some of the remainder of the Korean Garands, and they're not worth having. In most cases, the rifles aren't even safe to shoot.
That doesn't make this effort any less troublesome; it's just that the effects aren't all that dire.
Tom:
If I may. I will not argue over the condition of Korean War Garands, which might well be in terrible condition. If however, they were sold through the CMP, I would think that they would have been appropriately examined, and described as "wall hangers" if their condition so indicated.
I submit that the following is more important. If Obama gets away with this stunt, what might prove sufficient to check his follow-on excesses, excesses that will most surely come.
Ridgerunner665
New member
My question about executive orders is simple...
Can the next president undo them, if he chose to?
Can the next president undo them, if he chose to?
I agree. The CMP rifles are a different venue and are unlikely to be affected. What's affected at this point are the few rifles that we lent to foreign military entities. For the most part, that means South Korea.
Since the mainstay rifle has been the M16 and its variants, those wouldn't be transferable to civilians in any case.
Bear in mind these aren't executive orders, which have the force of law. They're "executive actions."
Yes. But there is one big problem. No US president has ever banned the importation of guns using an executive order, because there is no need to do that. The BATFE has wide latitude to ban guns under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. Methinks once the BATFE does that the action becomes codified in US law.
It may require an act of congress to change that.
First, read the details...
As they are reporting it, the CMP (which is a govt function, despite being embarrassing to the left) would be exempt. They specifically say museums, govt., and certain other groups...
What this action would affect is the importation of US made military weapons from other countries, by private individuals or groups.
And what could those arms possibly be? In theory, anything in the US inventory of small arms. Machine guns and submachine guns (no distinction under US law) would be out, for obvious reasons predating the latest administrations executive actions by decades.
So that leaves rifles, handguns, and possibly shotguns. I think the numbers of US Military bolt action rifles in foreign nations is rather small. When those rifles (1903 Springfield and 1917 Enfield) became surplus to our military's needs, they were mostly sold to civilians in the US, as our allies didn't want them for their militaries either.
What this leaves is those remaining M1 Garands and M1 carbines still in the hands of our allies or former allies, and available for purchase from those nations. I think the numbers of pistols and shotguns able to come back are too small to worry about, as those numbers never were that large to start with, and I think that most of those, when released for sale by the owner nations during the last half century or so, have already "come home" so to speak, or never will.
This new executive action, if enforced as currently described (and there no guarantee of that) wouldn't stop the CMP from importing Garands. But it would stop "Millenium Imports Inc." from doing so. Because allowing that would risk putting "military grade guns on our streets"....
And, oh look, they found another "loophole" in our gun laws, the fact that full auto weapons can be registered to corporations and trusts. And they sieze on that, implying that a criminal could avoid a background check by being a member of the trust or officer of the corporation, and thereby have access to a machinegun.
Personally, I find the logic horridly flawed, and the proposed scenario laughable.
The idea that someone with criminal intent is going to become a member of a trust or officer of a corporation so they can have "background check free" access to a legally registered machinegun? Really? Why would they do that?
Spend that much time and effort? When a handful of $100 bills and the right underworld connections can get you a machinegun completely off the govt's books (and totally illegal)? And one that nobody (other than the criminal you got it from) knows you have?
The administrators of the trust or company that has legal registered machineguns are going to know EVERYONE on the list who can access the weapon(s). If you did something criminal with one of those guns, you are instantly at or near the top of a very short suspect list. Not exactly a good way to avoid suspicion....
So, the administration, who just cannot leave well enough alone has found an area where they can act unilaterally, and justifies it with the most contrived, unrealistic possibilities. Sounds like business as usual in DC.....
As they are reporting it, the CMP (which is a govt function, despite being embarrassing to the left) would be exempt. They specifically say museums, govt., and certain other groups...
What this action would affect is the importation of US made military weapons from other countries, by private individuals or groups.
And what could those arms possibly be? In theory, anything in the US inventory of small arms. Machine guns and submachine guns (no distinction under US law) would be out, for obvious reasons predating the latest administrations executive actions by decades.
So that leaves rifles, handguns, and possibly shotguns. I think the numbers of US Military bolt action rifles in foreign nations is rather small. When those rifles (1903 Springfield and 1917 Enfield) became surplus to our military's needs, they were mostly sold to civilians in the US, as our allies didn't want them for their militaries either.
What this leaves is those remaining M1 Garands and M1 carbines still in the hands of our allies or former allies, and available for purchase from those nations. I think the numbers of pistols and shotguns able to come back are too small to worry about, as those numbers never were that large to start with, and I think that most of those, when released for sale by the owner nations during the last half century or so, have already "come home" so to speak, or never will.
This new executive action, if enforced as currently described (and there no guarantee of that) wouldn't stop the CMP from importing Garands. But it would stop "Millenium Imports Inc." from doing so. Because allowing that would risk putting "military grade guns on our streets"....
And, oh look, they found another "loophole" in our gun laws, the fact that full auto weapons can be registered to corporations and trusts. And they sieze on that, implying that a criminal could avoid a background check by being a member of the trust or officer of the corporation, and thereby have access to a machinegun.
Personally, I find the logic horridly flawed, and the proposed scenario laughable.
The idea that someone with criminal intent is going to become a member of a trust or officer of a corporation so they can have "background check free" access to a legally registered machinegun? Really? Why would they do that?
Spend that much time and effort? When a handful of $100 bills and the right underworld connections can get you a machinegun completely off the govt's books (and totally illegal)? And one that nobody (other than the criminal you got it from) knows you have?
The administrators of the trust or company that has legal registered machineguns are going to know EVERYONE on the list who can access the weapon(s). If you did something criminal with one of those guns, you are instantly at or near the top of a very short suspect list. Not exactly a good way to avoid suspicion....
So, the administration, who just cannot leave well enough alone has found an area where they can act unilaterally, and justifies it with the most contrived, unrealistic possibilities. Sounds like business as usual in DC.....
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
It was my understanding that the Koreans no longer have any rifles that we "lent" them. They own all remaining rifle outright and as such they would not be sent through CMP anyways. It is also my understanding that although the Garands are in terrible shape, they do have a significant number of carbines.
Of course, CMP has adapted to the political winds in the past there probably isn't anything barring them from purchasing the rifles. It isn't like the CMP hasn't cannibalized rifles for parts in the past.
Of course, CMP has adapted to the political winds in the past there probably isn't anything barring them from purchasing the rifles. It isn't like the CMP hasn't cannibalized rifles for parts in the past.
as a previous poster said
quote
"All of this has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.
Gun control laws have nothing to do with crime.
This is all about disarming the populous so we can become subservient subjects and no longer free men.
Look at the curriculum in public schools; look at all the new procedures schools have put in place after the CT shooting.
Look at how local LEO have geared up to military style weapons and gear."
I agree this is what they want to do. Our government is out of control with all the infringements on the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendments. We are loosing our freedom at the hands of our own government. The constitution is there to protect our rights and freedoms. But as Obama said openly the only thing standing in his way is the constitution, and he is ripping it away piece by piece.
quote
"All of this has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.
Gun control laws have nothing to do with crime.
This is all about disarming the populous so we can become subservient subjects and no longer free men.
Look at the curriculum in public schools; look at all the new procedures schools have put in place after the CT shooting.
Look at how local LEO have geared up to military style weapons and gear."
I agree this is what they want to do. Our government is out of control with all the infringements on the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendments. We are loosing our freedom at the hands of our own government. The constitution is there to protect our rights and freedoms. But as Obama said openly the only thing standing in his way is the constitution, and he is ripping it away piece by piece.
thallub wrote:
Quote:
My question about executive orders is simple...
Can the next president undo them, if he chose to?
Yes. But there is one big problem. No US president has ever banned the importation of guns using an executive order, because there is no need to do that. The BATFE has wide latitude to ban guns under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. Methinks once the BATFE does that the action becomes codified in US law.
It may require an act of congress to change that.
thallub:
I believe the "next" president can rescind executive orders of the previous pres, possibly of earlier ones too, but I'm not sure of this last. I think that there might be a time factor involved though.
Otherwise, given that Garand Rifles are legal hunting arms in states where the use of self-loading (semiautomatic) rifles are allowed, that's many states. I expect, though I'm less than expert in the law, ditto for bureaucratic mobs like the BATFE, that the question of "sporting use", was "sport" anywhere, ever defined, might well have been answered. Of course, the USSC might yet have to rule on that point.
As to what the difference is between Executive Orders ans Executive action are, I wish that someone would tell me. That aside, I believe that the number and condition of old Garands and M-1 Carbines in South Korea is of small importance, the heart of the matter being Obama's antics, and the question of when, where and by whom will his excesses, his double-talk be checked.
Quote:
My question about executive orders is simple...
Can the next president undo them, if he chose to?
Yes. But there is one big problem. No US president has ever banned the importation of guns using an executive order, because there is no need to do that. The BATFE has wide latitude to ban guns under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. Methinks once the BATFE does that the action becomes codified in US law.
It may require an act of congress to change that.
thallub:
I believe the "next" president can rescind executive orders of the previous pres, possibly of earlier ones too, but I'm not sure of this last. I think that there might be a time factor involved though.
Otherwise, given that Garand Rifles are legal hunting arms in states where the use of self-loading (semiautomatic) rifles are allowed, that's many states. I expect, though I'm less than expert in the law, ditto for bureaucratic mobs like the BATFE, that the question of "sporting use", was "sport" anywhere, ever defined, might well have been answered. Of course, the USSC might yet have to rule on that point.
As to what the difference is between Executive Orders ans Executive action are, I wish that someone would tell me. That aside, I believe that the number and condition of old Garands and M-1 Carbines in South Korea is of small importance, the heart of the matter being Obama's antics, and the question of when, where and by whom will his excesses, his double-talk be checked.