New "Executive Actions"
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
armoredman
New member
Wasn't that what was done to the Norinco firearms when Bush Sr closed off importation of firearms from China? Maybe I'm remembering that one wrongly...
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Yes, a new president can rescind an executive order by a previous president. Problem is: No guns were ever banned by an executive order.
Someone in the white house tells the BATFE to make it happen or the BATFE acts independently. The BATFE sends a letter order to the importer/or promulgates a numbered order stating the gun/s in question can no longer be imported. The BATFE may or may not have a comment period on proposed rules change. This is an example of a letter order to importer/s:
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/07-19-05/discussion.cgi.6.html
A link to all Executive Orders back to 1927
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
Last edited:
kilimanjaro
New member
Earlier, I posted : "We just lost the M1 Garand, totally a collector's and re-enactor's piece, because they can get away with it."
One reply : "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."
I could not agree less with this opinion. We've imported millions of weapons good only for the scrap heap, and sold them as curios. Were these available to the American public, how many people would like a wall-hanger? Something they could point to, next to Granddad's picture from France in 1944, and say, 'This is what my granddaddy carried at Bastogne. He's gone now, but this means something to me that I can't put into words. I've never had any guns before, but I just wanted one of these. I like to think about what they went through then."
Followed by : "If it was in good shape, it would have cost me a thousand dollars. I'd of never bought one at that price, but these hangers are going for much less.'
Or something along those lines.
That opportunity for thousands of Americans to re-connect with their nations' history and their own family history is now gone. That, and the opportunity to further mainstream gun ownership in this country is diminished.
We have got to get outside of our personal boxes. Collectors and collections are far more than racks of expensive, pristine examples of weapons or something we can take to the range every Sunday. A rifle hanging on the wall has meaning to people, and we need to fight just as hard for that right as we do for such things as open carry, background checks, whatever. To paraphrase George Orwell, 'That rifle hanging over the fireplace is a symbol of democracy. Our job is to keep it there.'
Make no mistake about it. This administration knew very well these Garands and carbines would not be on the streets, but instead hang over the fireplace, a symbol of our democracy, and they took that symbol away.
One reply : "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."
I could not agree less with this opinion. We've imported millions of weapons good only for the scrap heap, and sold them as curios. Were these available to the American public, how many people would like a wall-hanger? Something they could point to, next to Granddad's picture from France in 1944, and say, 'This is what my granddaddy carried at Bastogne. He's gone now, but this means something to me that I can't put into words. I've never had any guns before, but I just wanted one of these. I like to think about what they went through then."
Followed by : "If it was in good shape, it would have cost me a thousand dollars. I'd of never bought one at that price, but these hangers are going for much less.'
Or something along those lines.
That opportunity for thousands of Americans to re-connect with their nations' history and their own family history is now gone. That, and the opportunity to further mainstream gun ownership in this country is diminished.
We have got to get outside of our personal boxes. Collectors and collections are far more than racks of expensive, pristine examples of weapons or something we can take to the range every Sunday. A rifle hanging on the wall has meaning to people, and we need to fight just as hard for that right as we do for such things as open carry, background checks, whatever. To paraphrase George Orwell, 'That rifle hanging over the fireplace is a symbol of democracy. Our job is to keep it there.'
Make no mistake about it. This administration knew very well these Garands and carbines would not be on the streets, but instead hang over the fireplace, a symbol of our democracy, and they took that symbol away.
I suppose that's true in the sense that no particular class of firearms has ever been banned from import by executive order. HOWEVER, Clinton did ban the importation of all firearms and ammunition from China via an executive order that has never been rescinded.
It's not at all easy to find if you just start searching through the list of EOs because it's couched as a general sanction against an unspecified list of countries which meet certain criteria and doesn't specifically mention China firearms or ammunition. But it is in there if you dig for it.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2004/the-1994-clinton-crime-bills-firearm-p.aspx
"Also in 1994, President Clinton, by Executive Order, banned importation of firearms and ammunition from Red China, then a major exporter of AK-47-type semi-automatic rifles."
Show me the Executive Order:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html
The NRA got it wrong. Show me this one:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1994.html
Frank Ettin covered that one earlier. It went away during the negotiations when China was granted most favored nation status.
Last edited:
No, they got it right. I remember when it happened and the Norinco ammo and guns dried up.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/presidential-gun-ban-executive-unconstitutional
Here's an article from the time period that states plainly that Clinton was planning to use an EO to ban the importantion of Chinese firearms.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940526&slug=1912502
Here's an excerpt from a court case citing the EO.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073524980/336374/BWestImp.html
I've read EO 12938 and I'll readily admit that the language is not at all easy to decipher, but the effect was certainly easy to see.
Let's try a different tack--if you reject the commonly given explanation, then how do you explain the total absence of Chinese arms & ammunition on the U.S. market?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/presidential-gun-ban-executive-unconstitutional
"President Clinton issued an executive order (No. 12938) in 1994 where some Chinese firearms and ammunition were restricted from import."
Here's an article from the time period that states plainly that Clinton was planning to use an EO to ban the importantion of Chinese firearms.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940526&slug=1912502
"While renewing trade benefits, Clinton plans to ban the importation of Chinese assault weapons to the United States, administration and congressional officials said yesterday.
The number of Chinese weapons imported to the U.S. has increased from 108,000 in 1991 to more than 1 million in 1993, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
But China exports more than $31 billion in products to the United States, and the guns and ammunition that would be affected by sanctions make up only a tiny share of these sales.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who has led a campaign for a ban, said a ban would send "a strong message that the United States will no longer allow China to turn our streets into killing fields with cheap semiautomatic weapons.""
The number of Chinese weapons imported to the U.S. has increased from 108,000 in 1991 to more than 1 million in 1993, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
But China exports more than $31 billion in products to the United States, and the guns and ammunition that would be affected by sanctions make up only a tiny share of these sales.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who has led a campaign for a ban, said a ban would send "a strong message that the United States will no longer allow China to turn our streets into killing fields with cheap semiautomatic weapons.""
Here's an excerpt from a court case citing the EO.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073524980/336374/BWestImp.html
"President Bill Clinton announced the renewal of most favored nation trading status for the People's Republic of China. At the same time, however, in light of "continuing human rights abuses" in China, he announced certain trading sanctions against that country. One of the sanctions was a ban on the importation of weapons from China. China is one of the countries on the State Department's "proscribed list," a list of countries as to which it is "the policy of the United States to deny licenses and other approvals" for the importation of munitions. "
I've read EO 12938 and I'll readily admit that the language is not at all easy to decipher, but the effect was certainly easy to see.
Let's try a different tack--if you reject the commonly given explanation, then how do you explain the total absence of Chinese arms & ammunition on the U.S. market?
EO 12938 pertains to weapons of mass destruction. Yep, those semi-auto milsurp rifles are powerful but they ain't WMD.
Commonly given explanation!!!! Hardly.
EO12580
Conditions for Renewal of Most-Favored-Nation Status for
the People’s Republic of China in 1994
EO 12850 does not mention guns.
Frank Ettin covered it above.
Model12Win
Moderator
Such a shame. I really hope nothing comes down that would stop the supply of Mosin Nagant's into the country.
Maybe not now, but that was what everyone, including Clinton was saying at the time.
The wiki article Frank quoted is in error. Clearly if the weapons were banned in 1993 as the wiki claims, then clearly it wouldn't make any sense to be able to find numerous articles from 1994 quoting Clinton and others saying that he was planning to ban them.
I don't know who's trying to rewrite history, but that seems to be what's going on here.
Here are some more articles from the period.
From May 27, 1994
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...75_1_human-rights-trade-and-human-china-human
"In a mild sanction, Mr. Clinton said that the United States would ban the import of munitions, mainly ammunition and cheap automatic rifles that have poured into the country and have become a mass-market assault weapon."
From May 27, 1994
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/27/news/27iht-mfn_1.html
"Clinton Bans Weapons Imports To Keep Some Pressure on Beijing"
"He ordered a ban on the importation of Chinese-made weapons and ammunition, but there was no explicit link to human rights. Cheap, Chinese infantry assault rifles are flooding the U.S. market and are increasingly being used in violent crimes. "
"He ordered a ban on the importation of Chinese-made weapons and ammunition, but there was no explicit link to human rights. Cheap, Chinese infantry assault rifles are flooding the U.S. market and are increasingly being used in violent crimes. "
From May 27, 1994
http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html
"Clinton said he was banning the import of Chinese munitions and taking several other small steps to support the pro-democracy cause in China."
"He acknowledged that the one sanction he was imposing - the ban on imports of guns and ammunition from China involving about $200 million in sales - constituted little more than a "discrete" symbol of U.S. displeasure. "
"He acknowledged that the one sanction he was imposing - the ban on imports of guns and ammunition from China involving about $200 million in sales - constituted little more than a "discrete" symbol of U.S. displeasure. "
From May 28, 1994
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...tries-group-most-favored-nation-chinese-goods
"President Clinton decided the U.S. will ban the import of Chinese guns to punish Beijing for its human-rights record."
And another authoritive source explaining what happened.
From the Congressional Record V146, Page 9065, May 24, 2000
http://books.google.com/books?id=z6...n "trade status" china weapons import&f=false
"The import of Chinese guns was effectively stopped in 1994 when President Clinton imposed a ban as a condition of renewing China's most favored nation status."
I told you that I've read it and that I can't decipher it. But there's clearly no question at all as to what it actually did, nor what Clinton intended it to do. And there certainly wasn't at the time. It wasn't like he made a big secret of it. Anyone in doubt can read the period articles--they make it all crystal clear.
As kilimanjaro noted, see post 45, not in these words, the words are mine, as are such faults as may well be a part thereof, it's not a question of a few rifles, rifles that should perhaps not be in the same room as live ammunition, it's the principle of the thing, that being Obama's ongoing abuse of authority, his ongoing double-talk.
As I asked in an earlier post or posts, at what point in time will the administrative/bureaucratic excesses of this man, Obama, be checked, and if the checking is to be done by The Congress, it is so hoped, when might The Congress (House and Senate) so act. Will they act before the enemy is inside the gates, for respecting the constitutional rights of Americans, it strikes me that the enemy is already AT the gates.
As I asked in an earlier post or posts, at what point in time will the administrative/bureaucratic excesses of this man, Obama, be checked, and if the checking is to be done by The Congress, it is so hoped, when might The Congress (House and Senate) so act. Will they act before the enemy is inside the gates, for respecting the constitutional rights of Americans, it strikes me that the enemy is already AT the gates.
Guys? You know we're talking about executive actions and not executive orders, right? The distinction is being lost in much of the media, but it's important.
That said, the President doesn't need an executive order to stop importation. The ATF can simply decide not to authorize it. That was the direction given in 1989.
I really doubt that's their motivation. They've got a barrel with a rapidly waning fish population, and they've got to shoot at something. That something has to be something that doesn't require congressional approval, so here we are.
That said, the President doesn't need an executive order to stop importation. The ATF can simply decide not to authorize it. That was the direction given in 1989.
I really doubt that's their motivation. They've got a barrel with a rapidly waning fish population, and they've got to shoot at something. That something has to be something that doesn't require congressional approval, so here we are.
My dad was in the 11th Airborne. Graduated high school halfway through the year and enlisted on his 18ht b'day. I have a pic of him with Rod Serling in the Philippines.
Now that I have the means I certainly do want one for my son who is his namesake and who just got his jump wings.
I think this action is utterly absurd. It is perfectly illustrative of the gun law impulse.
Tom:
A brief excerpt from one of your posts:
Tom Servo Guys? You know we're talking about executive actions and not executive orders, right? The distinction is being lost in much of the media, but it's important.
That said, the President doesn't need an executive order to stop importation. The ATF can simply decide not to authorize it. That was the direction given in 1989.
1. Media manages to "loose" all manner of things, some of them being important points.
2. As for the AFT, BATF I believe, as it was then named, at the orders of the then President, Bush 41, they bent over and grabbed their ankles, effectively prostituting themselves re the following, as I recall. They had previously authorized the import of certain semiautomatic rifles on the basis that they were suitable for or adaptable to "sporting purposes". On orders from the then Bush administration, they "discovered" the error of their ways, reclassifying the same semiautomatic rifles as not being suitable for or adaptable to sporting purposes. One assumes that the "sporting purposes" after orders were identical to the "sporting purposes" before orders, that is orders from The White House, but one never knows.
Speaking personally, and at the risk of perhaps doing some good people an injustice, I never thought that the agency in question, whatever it's name of the moment, was worth the matches it would take to set it on fire, but that's just my opinion.
A brief excerpt from one of your posts:
Tom Servo Guys? You know we're talking about executive actions and not executive orders, right? The distinction is being lost in much of the media, but it's important.
That said, the President doesn't need an executive order to stop importation. The ATF can simply decide not to authorize it. That was the direction given in 1989.
1. Media manages to "loose" all manner of things, some of them being important points.
2. As for the AFT, BATF I believe, as it was then named, at the orders of the then President, Bush 41, they bent over and grabbed their ankles, effectively prostituting themselves re the following, as I recall. They had previously authorized the import of certain semiautomatic rifles on the basis that they were suitable for or adaptable to "sporting purposes". On orders from the then Bush administration, they "discovered" the error of their ways, reclassifying the same semiautomatic rifles as not being suitable for or adaptable to sporting purposes. One assumes that the "sporting purposes" after orders were identical to the "sporting purposes" before orders, that is orders from The White House, but one never knows.
Speaking personally, and at the risk of perhaps doing some good people an injustice, I never thought that the agency in question, whatever it's name of the moment, was worth the matches it would take to set it on fire, but that's just my opinion.
It's a chicken/egg question. William Bennett, who was drug czar at the time, pressured President Bush to do something about semiautomatic rifles following the Stockton shooting. Directly after, the ATF issued a report [pdf] in which they interpreted 925(d) as such:
There wasn't an executive order because they didn't need one. The President simply stayed out of the way. To what extent he influenced that decision, I can't say, but there wasn't an EO.
In 1984 The BATF banned a semi-auto shotgun from import citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968. So far as i can determine this was the first time a long gun was banned from import. In 1986 another semi-auto shotgun was banned.
Same here.
As an Army M/Sgt. in an Army EOD unit, i had my conflict with the BATF when a SAC demanded that i lie to federal judge about the disposition of hundreds of thousands of small arms rounds the judge ordered returned to their owner.
Same here.
As an Army M/Sgt. in an Army EOD unit, i had my conflict with the BATF when a SAC demanded that i lie to federal judge about the disposition of hundreds of thousands of small arms rounds the judge ordered returned to their owner.
If it wasn't via an executive order, what method did he use? I'll admit that I'm not an expert on presidential powers so I don't have an answer for this and I'd like to change that.
Here are two different sources for the speech that Clinton gave at a press conference.
http://china.usc.edu/(S(5ng2xa3dwwj...x?articleID=735&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50241
William Clinton said:
That pretty much eliminates any debate about who was responsible for the ban but still leaves some question as to how he managed it.
Clearly he did enact the import ban, and whatever method he used, it obviously worked very effectively and is still working effectively 20 years later.
I see no reason that the current president would have any difficulty doing something similar.
So, assuming that Clinton's import ban wasn't done via EO, would it still be reversible by a subsequent president as an EO would be?
The cutoff of ammo and guns from China hit us very hard.
Same here.
His decision to demagogue on the issue of the re-importation of obsolete US infantry weapons from Korea indicates his willingness to trash our Second Amendment rights. The administration previously banned those weapons from import. How many bans are enough?
i don't know. i'm sure the Chinese would be willing to sell guns and ammo to US buyers.