TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote:

equin wrote:So will this affect the re-importation of WWII era M1 Garands?

Mike Piccione, in an article for the Daily Caller, says that today's executive order would effectively shut down the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program.

This is exactly what I was afraid of. This is terrible news for collectors and for those of us who dreamed of once owning a piece of American history.

Made me ill watching the VP and the POTUS mouthpiece talk about how good this EO is and how they had to do it since the Legislature wouldn't...

The Trust and Corporation piece of it really boggles my mind...

Was that really a loophole...????

equin wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

equin wrote:So will this affect the re-importation of WWII era M1 Garands?

Mike Piccione, in an article for the Daily Caller, says that today's executive order would effectively shut down the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program.

This is exactly what I was afraid of. This is terrible news for collectors and for those of us who dreamed of once owning a piece of American history.

Interestingly enough, it seems like the old Russian WWII Mosin Nagant imports would not be affected since they're not "re-imports"?

RPBrown wrote:

couzin wrote:"However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation."

Uhh - since when do criminal types bother to register their weapons? This EO is typical Obama rhetoric and only meant to satisfy the anti-firearm crowd's whimpering.

This just shows that this administration is full of a bunch of idiots.

You didn't need this latest fiasco to convince you of that...

couzin wrote:"However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation."

He's an idiot, but I think I get what he's saying... It's possible to purchase - that is, have the purchase go through on the seller side of a classed weapon if you're using a corporation as a veil for the appropriate license and hiding the felony.
Is it a problem worth solving? Only if you're interested in more legislation.

equin wrote:

equin wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

equin wrote:So will this affect the re-importation of WWII era M1 Garands?

Mike Piccione, in an article for the Daily Caller, says that today's executive order would effectively shut down the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program.

This is exactly what I was afraid of. This is terrible news for collectors and for those of us who dreamed of once owning a piece of American history.

Interestingly enough, it seems like the old Russian WWII Mosin Nagant imports would not be affected since they're not "re-imports"?

Good cause those are on my list as one I want to obtain.

I've already written the White House to reconsider its decision although I doubt it'll have any effect. More importantly, though, I've written my Senators and Congressional Rep to introduce legislation overriding, repealing or at least amending the Executive Order to allow for the re-importation of these old, collector-value WWII-era rifles.

What is most perplexing about this EO is what appears to be ignorance and a lack of knowledge of the M1 Garand. It only has an 8-round capacity. It is recommended that only old, military surplus ammo be used - not modern, more readily available commercial ammo. Due to its age, it requires added care, upkeep and maintenance. And it is more difficult to load for a beginner without practice. It's also long and heavy. None of these factors make it suitable or desirable for criminals to use in the performance of a gun-related crime.

Now the M1 Carbine, being lighter, shorter and having a greater ammo capacity than the M1 Garand, may be more suitable. But someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought ammo for it was a bit harder to find and more expensive.

Anyway, I urge others to write Congress and the White House expressing their concern with this EO.

cb1000rider wrote:

couzin wrote:"However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation."

He's an idiot, but I think I get what he's saying... It's possible to purchase - that is, have the purchase go through on the seller side of a classed weapon if you're using a corporation as a veil for the appropriate license and hiding the felony.
Is it a problem worth solving? Only if you're interested in more legislation.

I have a trust which I use to purchase Title II firearms. I could put a felon on as a trustee and sure enough they could have access to a firearm that is owned by the trust. Problem is, it is already illegal for a felon to be in possession of a firearm. This ne EO does nothing to keep guns away from felons, it just makes it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain Title II firearms.

equin wrote:I've already written the White House to reconsider its decision although I doubt it'll have any effect. More importantly, though, I've written my Senators and Congressional Rep to introduce legislation overriding, repealing or at least amending the Executive Order to allow for the re-importation of these old, collector-value WWII-era rifles.

What is most perplexing about this EO is what appears to be ignorance and a lack of knowledge of the M1 Garand. It only has an 8-round capacity. It is recommended that only old, military surplus ammo be used - not modern, more readily available commercial ammo. Due to its age, it requires added care, upkeep and maintenance. And it is more difficult to load for a beginner without practice. It's also long and heavy. None of these factors make it suitable or desirable for criminals to use in the performance of a gun-related crime.

Now the M1 Carbine, being lighter, shorter and having a greater ammo capacity than the M1 Garand, may be more suitable. But someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought ammo for it was a bit harder to find and more expensive.

Anyway, I urge others to write Congress and the White House expressing their concern with this EO.

Isn't that a mandatory characteristic of all gun control legislation? The mis-understanding about EBRs regarding fully automatic versus semi, folding stocks, etc. among those who passed the original AWB and then tried to pass the more recent version confirms their ignorance. You would think that they have access to experts on those matters but they either elect not to contact them or choose to ignore them and destroy any credibility for the action.

This is just payback for the gun owners resisting the AWB. He cannot do as much as he wants but he will do what he can. He seems to be using the same mentality in dealing with Syria. What a small minded man. I'm sure that much of the reasoning is pandering to his political base but I don't believe that even they feel like these EOs do anything to further their cause.

RJGold wrote:Made me ill watching the VP and the POTUS mouthpiece talk about how good this EO is and how they had to do it since the Legislature wouldn't...

The Trust and Corporation piece of it really boggles my mind...

Was that really a loophole...????

Those kinds of statements come out of the mouths of people who fundamentally do not believe in the constitutional separation of powers. Separation of powers if you are a public servant means that you win some, you lose some, but you accept the limits that places on your ambitions regardless of the outcome because you respect the Constitution's framework. But if you are not a servant but rather a petty despot, then separation of powers is merely a stumbling block to work around on the way to achieving your ambitions. If Congress says "no," then to hades with Congress and go around them.

In 1798, John Adams said in a speech this famous quote:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Please don't anyone be offended if you disagree, but for the purposes of this quote, I include atheism in the general category of the world's religions. I say it because atheism is still a belief system about the existence or lack thereof of a divine authority. So in my view, if one is moral and atheist, then one still falls into the general category named by John Adams as "a moral and religious people." The point here is that the Constitution only works if a people are moral, ESPECIALLY those people who are entrusted with political power. It is axiomatic that from whom much has been given, much is expected. It is entirely reasonable AND moral to expect of the people we have entrusted with power, that THEY will behave morally with regard to the limits that the Constitution places upon their authority.

Obama and Biden are NOT moral people. Therefore, they do not observe the Constitution in anything more than lip-service. In fact, one of those two actually LIES about being a "professor of constitutional law," which is demonstrably made-up hokum. If Obama studied the Constitution, it was with the same eye that Hitler studied Poland, looking for her weaknesses to exploit to her ultimate demise [Cloward-Pivens Strategy, of which Obama is an avowed student]. THAT is why this administration has no problem ignoring the separation of powers required by the Constitution. They fundamentally do not respect the limits it places on their ambitions.

That makes them very dangerous men. We should deal with their political ambitions accordingly.

piece by piece, gun by gun, they chip away at our 2nd amendment RIGHT to bear arms

Here's the White House Petition seeking to retract the Executive Order:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... s/Gw1Pc64d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skiprr wrote:

equin wrote:So will this affect the re-importation of WWII era M1 Garands?

Mike Piccione, in an article for the Daily Caller, says that today's executive order would effectively shut down the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program.

One thing to note here re: the CMP. The OP story said, " Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets."

The CMP is a U.S. gov't chartered organization, but is it a "private entity?" Perhaps a grey area.

"The CPRPFS is a tax-exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress, but is not an agency of the U.S. government (Title 36, United States Code, Section 40701 et seq.). Apart from a donation of surplus .22 and .30 caliber rifles in the Army's inventory to the CMP, the CMP receives no federal funding."

G26ster wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

equin wrote:So will this affect the re-importation of WWII era M1 Garands?

Mike Piccione, in an article for the Daily Caller, says that today's executive order would effectively shut down the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program.

One thing to note here re: the CMP. The OP story said, " Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets."

The CMP is a U.S. gov't chartered organization, but is it a "private entity?" Perhaps a grey area.

"The CPRPFS is a tax-exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress, but is not an agency of the U.S. government (Title 36, United States Code, Section 40701 et seq.). Apart from a donation of surplus .22 and .30 caliber rifles in the Army's inventory to the CMP, the CMP receives no federal funding."

Good point, and I was wondering the same thing. But I find it disconcerting that it says, "...with only a few exceptions such as for museums," and no mention whatsoever of CMP. It may be that they intend to continue to allow the CMP as part of the "few exceptions," but didn't want to mention the CMP for political reasons. But the fact it was left out and the words "with few exceptions" leads me to believe otherwise. Hopefully that's not the case. Nonetheless, I still urge those who disagree with the EO to write the White House and Congress seeking its repeal. The more communications they get voicing its unpopularity, the more likely it is to get repealed, retracted or at least amended and clarified.

It's not about logic or effective policy; it's about incrementalism. You pass (or dictate by EO) what you can, whenever you can, and these small seemingly insignificant actions are never effectively challenged or indeed repealed by future administrations.

Each one creates a precedent that then provides leverage to justify future seemingly insignificant actions, and 20yrs later you have nothing left at all.

Consider this EO banning reimport of US made military firearms going unchallenged. A year later there is another EO expanding this for non-US military firearms, because, well that just makes sense right ? We stopped US-made reimports last year and since 99% of the public were behind that, it makes sense to do the same for similarly old, unsafe, poor quality European firearms right ? There you go, that's the whole 'C&R loophole' shut down.

What possible rationale is there for the EO on trusts except to introduce the issue into the public mindset, which then becomes leverage for, say, an EO banning trusts from having any NFA items. Because we already banned felons with an EO a year ago, and since 99% of the public were behind that, we now need to shut down those trusts that felons had already set up to own hundreds of machine guns and hand grenades. Hence another unchallenged EO wraps up the 'NFA-items registered to trusts loophole'. And so on until it's all gone.

"...with only a few exceptions such as for museums," - this gives legitimacy to exceptions via back-door deals with the administration, in the same way that Obamacare is law unless you are connected enough to get a waiver saying it doesn't apply to you.