So, Obama is not after our guns?

[mak2]

I had a real hard time figuring out exaclty what this article was talking aobut with all the side bar and Obama bashing. It appears to me the only firearms this will effect will be firearms the US has donated or sold to Allies. I can only think of one entity this helps, It sounds to me like this law would benefit the gun companies.

As for the second one, if a guy cannot pass the check for a firearm I dont want him to have one and say it is for his company. I think this might be another foxrage.

"One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.


Read more: Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News

Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News"


Done by exec order.

 

[Bronson]

Obama disarms Americans while arming Al Qaeda and Mexican drug cartels

 

[CRUE CAB]

First the use of executive order bothers me.
Second, these guns were intended to come back to the US from the start. There were not "sold".

 

[mak2]

"military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies" It does not say loaned. I still think it just insures more gun sales.

First the use of executive order bothers me.
Second, these guns were intended to come back to the US from the start. There were not "sold".

 

[Wiseone]

Bull****, go read the second and tell me there is any lattitude with a straight face. Then read the enumerated powers and the tenth amendment. Yeah, they don't have legitimate authority.

Not as such. But if the two were to conflict, the 2A wins.

It depends on what you mean as "in conflict" as LaMidRighter points out Congress has the enumerated power to regulate trade with foreign nations, "The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

So right now the United States has an embargo against the import and sale in the United States of Cuban and Iranian products, this is a form of regulating trade by in this case flat out making it illegal to occur. If you wanted to purchase a firearm that would otherwise be completely legal in the United States by its design, but what produced in Cuba or Iran or even sold by a company charted in one of those countries you would be unable to do so.

You may think this conflicts with your 2A rights, but it doesn't, at least no court has ever said it has. In addition the Congress can, and again no court has ever said they can't, impose whatever form of regulation they want on the sale of international firearms to the United States. Note that I didn't say "in" the United States, if you were to purchase an Austrian glock from a gun dealer it should be handled the same as any other firearm at that point because the sale is between you and the dealer. However at the point of sale where the glocks cross from Austrian ownership to an American company's ownership, and especially at the point where those guns or any other goods phsyically enter the United States, the Federal Government has near free reign according to its power to regulate trade.

Again that's according to the courts, I won't argue with you if you're opinion just happens to be different thats fine and I understand that but you can't say that its unconstitutional in accordance to what the courts and the SCOTUS have said is unconstitutional. In other words I need you to acknowledge the difference between your opinion and what the courts say on the Constitution.

 

[CRUE CAB]

"military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies" It does not say loaned. I still think it just insures more gun sales.

How does it insure more gun sales.
Right now, collectors cant buy them. How is that insuring sales.

 

[mak2]

If the gun companies manufactures the firearms and sells them to the US governemnt, the company has sold the fire arm, the company will not profit from it if that firearm is resold. If it cannot be sold in the US and I want one I have to buy if from the gun manufacturer insead of buying it used. Thus another sale the gun company would not have made. as for the next point, why do you think people that cannot pass the background check should be allowed to buy firearms for their corperation?

How does it insure more gun sales.
Right now, collectors cant buy them. How is that insuring sales.

 

[CRUE CAB]

If the gun companies manufactures the firearms and sells them to the US governemnt, the company has sold the fire arm, the company will not profit from it if that firearm is resold. If it cannot be sold in the US and I want one I have to buy if from the gun manufacturer insead of buying it used. Thus another sale the gun company would not have made. as for the next point, why do you think people that cannot pass the background check should be allowed to buy firearms for their corperation?

Up to 87,000 South Korean M1 Garands Coming Home
Now go learn something about the Garand and who is making them now.
No one is going to go out of the Garand making biz if these are imported.
Colt didnt go out of business when Kimber started making 1911s.
Many of the 87K rifles are of historical value dating all the way back to WWII.
They are not the type of firearm that criminals will seek out.

 

[BretJ]

I had a real hard time figuring out exaclty what this article was talking aobut with all the side bar and Obama bashing. It appears to me the only firearms this will effect will be firearms the US has donated or sold to Allies. I can only think of one entity this helps, It sounds to me like this law would benefit the gun companies.

As for the second one, if a guy cannot pass the check for a firearm I dont want him to have one and say it is for his company. I think this might be another foxrage.

"One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.


Read more: Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News

What really stinks is the availability of these "military grade" Garands and Springfield 1903s is going to get worse and worse. Another feel good, "look at me" I am doing something piece.

I can go either way with who it helps. There is a market for M1 garands and 1903 rifles along with parts and accessories. Nobody makes them any longer so gun companies will not benefit as most people want them for the historical value. If they were to import them, more companies would have them for sale along with parts and accessories.

Realistically, the only one who benefits is the President. It makes him appear to those with limited understanding as if he is doing something. It sounds grand but in reality, does nothing. Note how they said it keeps "military" grade weapons off the streets rather than explain what they meant by military grade? The "military grade" weapons he is talking about are over 100 years old in some cases. The M1 garands are nearing 75-100 years old (adopted for military use in the 30s and replaced in the 60s). Their take on what constitutes "military grade" could be applied to practically every single firearm produced or currently in production..........

 

[mak2]

You wanna buy mine? I have a 1911 too, I will make a lot more on it if I decide to sell it without those millions comeing from whereever. Come on man, this is just another foxrage.

Up to 87,000 South Korean M1 Garands Coming Home
Now go learn something about the Garand and who is making them now.
No one is going to go out of the Garand making biz if these are imported.
Colt didnt go out of business when Kimber started making 1911s.
Many of the 87K rifles are of historical value dating all the way back to WWII.
They are not the type of firearm that criminals will seek out.

 

[Harshaw]

It depends on what you mean as "in conflict" as LaMidRighter points out Congress has the enumerated power to regulate trade with foreign nations, "The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

So right now the United States has an embargo against the import and sale in the United States of Cuban and Iranian products, this is a form of regulating trade by in this case flat out making it illegal to occur. If you wanted to purchase a firearm that would otherwise be completely legal in the United States by its design, but what produced in Cuba or Iran or even sold by a company charted in one of those countries you would be unable to do so.

You may think this conflicts with your 2A rights, but it doesn't, at least no court has ever said it has. In addition the Congress can, and again no court has ever said they can't, impose whatever form of regulation they want on the sale of international firearms to the United States. Note that I didn't say "in" the United States, if you were to purchase an Austrian glock from a gun dealer it should be handled the same as any other firearm at that point because the sale is between you and the dealer. However at the point of sale where the glocks cross from Austrian ownership to an American company's ownership, and especially at the point where those guns or any other goods phsyically enter the United States, the Federal Government has near free reign according to its power to regulate trade.

Again that's according to the courts, I won't argue with you if you're opinion just happens to be different thats fine and I understand that but you can't say that its unconstitutional in accordance to what the courts and the SCOTUS have said is unconstitutional. In other words I need you to acknowledge the difference between your opinion and what the courts say on the Constitution.

I didn't say THIS conflicted. I said if the power to regulate trade and and 2A WERE TO conflict, the 2A would win.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It depends on what you mean as "in conflict" as LaMidRighter points out Congress has the enumerated power to regulate trade with foreign nations, "The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

So right now the United States has an embargo against the import and sale in the United States of Cuban and Iranian products, this is a form of regulating trade by in this case flat out making it illegal to occur. If you wanted to purchase a firearm that would otherwise be completely legal in the United States by its design, but what produced in Cuba or Iran or even sold by a company charted in one of those countries you would be unable to do so.

You may think this conflicts with your 2A rights, but it doesn't, at least no court has ever said it has. In addition the Congress can, and again no court has ever said they can't, impose whatever form of regulation they want on the sale of international firearms to the United States. Note that I didn't say "in" the United States, if you were to purchase an Austrian glock from a gun dealer it should be handled the same as any other firearm at that point because the sale is between you and the dealer. However at the point of sale where the glocks cross from Austrian ownership to an American company's ownership, and especially at the point where those guns or any other goods phsyically enter the United States, the Federal Government has near free reign according to its power to regulate trade.

Again that's according to the courts, I won't argue with you if you're opinion just happens to be different thats fine and I understand that but you can't say that its unconstitutional in accordance to what the courts and the SCOTUS have said is unconstitutional. In other words I need you to acknowledge the difference between your opinion and what the courts say on the Constitution.

Um, no. Apparently you need to read up more on the constitution.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You wanna buy mine? I have a 1911 too, I will make a lot more on it if I decide to sell it without those millions comeing from whereever. Come on man, this is just another foxrage.

I personally dont have much interest in owning one.
And I already have 7 1911s, so one more is getting close to redundant.
Every idiotic gun law, grab and executive order needs to be fought and its impact felt throughout the gun community.
What you going to do if Obama outlaws handguns? Just send your 1911s to the smelter?

 

[mak2]

maybe, but I still bet there is money behind it. Either way it is not an assualt on out gun rights. What might harm our gun rights is this recent insistance on felons etc being able to buy firearms. I personally think that is crazy. I know, I know, this one kid in Oklahoma cant buy a gun because he stold a pack of smokes or something, but I am talking about violent felons being allowed to buy guns. I cannot figure out how that is a good idea.

What really stinks is the availability of these "military grade" Garands and Springfield 1903s is going to get worse and worse. Another feel good, "look at me" I am doing something piece.

I can go either way with who it helps. There is a market for M1 garands and 1903 rifles along with parts and accessories. Nobody makes them any longer so gun companies will not benefit as most people want them for the historical value. If they were to import them, more companies would have them for sale along with parts and accessories.

Realistically, the only one who benefits is the President. It makes him appear to those with limited understanding as if he is doing something. It sounds grand but in reality, does nothing. Note how they said it keeps "military" grade weapons off the streets rather than explain what they meant by military grade? The "military grade" weapons he is talking about are over 100 years old in some cases. The M1 garands are nearing 75-100 years old (adopted for military use in the 30s and replaced in the 60s). Their take on what constitutes "military grade" could be applied to practically every single firearm produced or currently in production..........

 

[LaMidRighter]

I didn't say THIS conflicted. I said if the power to regulate trade and and 2A WERE TO conflict, the 2A would win.

And, the old "regulate commerce power" has been bastardized since FDR threatened to stack the court. It was never meant to be more than specific powers over trade rates between state, foreign, and indian tribal governments.

 

[mak2]

At some point we get to sillyville. I think we did that with the last gun bill. I am all for all responsible Americans being encouraged to carry. What I am not for is felons etc being allowed to. As I understand it the RW is all for that now.

By the way, they will never get my firearms, but I dont think we should be silly about it. We are getting there.

I personally dont have much interest in owning one.
And I already have 7 1911s, so one more is getting close to redundant.
Every idiotic gun law, grab and executive order needs to be fought and its impact felt throughout the gun community.
What you going to do if Obama outlaws handguns? Just send your 1911s to the smelter?

 

[BretJ]

You wanna buy mine? I have a 1911 too, I will make a lot more on it if I decide to sell it without those millions comeing from whereever. Come on man, this is just another foxrage.

Perhaps. But it is also just another law/regulation/executive order passed only for the sake of appearance. Regardless, it is idiocracy...

 

[mak2]

I dont really disagree with you guys. But I do not fear the slippery slope.

Perhaps. But it is also just another law/regulation/executive order passed only for the sake of appearance. Regardless, it is idiocracy...

 

[Wiseone]

I didn't say THIS conflicted. I said if the power to regulate trade and and 2A WERE TO conflict, the 2A would win.

Alright fair enough.

Um, no. Apparently you need to read up more on the constitution.

Don't just say I'm wrong, lay out an argument and explain your position.

 

[Henrin]

Nothing in the 2nd amendment takes away the government ability to regulate trade, especially international trade.

Sorry :/

Only douchebags look for loopholes and only idiots think they won't get caught when they do it.

 

[BretJ]

maybe, but I still bet there is money behind it. Either way it is not an assualt on out gun rights. What might harm our gun rights is this recent insistance on felons etc being able to buy firearms. I personally think that is crazy. I know, I know, this one kid in Oklahoma cant buy a gun because he stold a pack of smokes or something, but I am talking about violent felons being allowed to buy guns. I cannot figure out how that is a good idea.

I never said it was. I have no problem with non-violent felons having their rights returned after serving their time. Regardless, that does not make this executive order any less idiotic.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Alright fair enough.



Don't just say I'm wrong, lay out an argument and explain your position.

I've danced with you on these issues thousands of times, it's just easier to point out that you are wrong.

 

[Henrin]

At some point we get to sillyville. I think we did that with the last gun bill. I am all for all responsible Americans being encouraged to carry. What I am not for is felons etc being allowed to. As I understand it the RW is all for that now.

By the way, they will never get my firearms, but I dont think we should be silly about it. We are getting there.

Why should felons not be allowed to own and carry firearms? Is there something in the second amendment I'm missing that doesn't protect their right to bear arms? Is one of us seeing imaginary text again?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I dont really disagree with you guys. But I do not fear the slippery slope.

Except that the precedence has been set with FDR. The "strong" NFA was deemed "not enough" when the Democrats got another supermajority in the LBJ years, then the Democrats passed the GCA which was a "strengthening" of gun control which was supposed to stop criminal actions with weapons, when the economy went to **** afterwards and drug use ballooned so did crime, so the Hughes amendment was passed, then Brady, and no matter what it's "never enough". People need to wake up to this crap and DEMAND a return to proper constitutional government. Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no precedent to support it, the gun control movement worldwide and at home have born out that this is exactly what the intent is, a slow stripping of the natural right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BretJ]

I dont really disagree with you guys. But I do not fear the slippery slope.

Nor did gun owners in the UK, Australia or new Zealand. I lived in the UK when that "slippery slope" finally came to reality to many gun owners who thought it was improbable. What I see now is many gun control advocates in the US using those countries as examples of how we should do it. We have also seen many high ranking politicians open their mouths and say things "out loud" dealing with confiscation that, in hindsight, they probably wish they had kept under wraps...