Korean War Memorial (courtesy vacationlovers.net)

“Striving to take action where Congress would not,” the AP reports with startling objectivity (i.e. none at all), “the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.” The Dorner incident is the only example I can think of where an NFA trust was abused; the killer ex-LA cop used an NFA trust to secure silencers which he used during his rampage. So . . . it’s a feel-good gun control measure which makes it that much harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. As for the ban on importing ex-military weapons into the U.S.—also a complete non-issue on the crime front—I know of one Wyoming Congress critter who won’t be happy . . .

Back in June, Nick reported on U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis’s H.R. 2247, the Collectible Firearms Protection Act. The Wyoming Republican introduced the legislation to eliminate the Obama administration’s bureaucratic blockade of tens of thousands of ex-mil M1 Garands. It died in Committee. And now it’s double-dead thanks to the President’s Executive Order. I mean, I think that’s how it’s going down.

The AP calls the measures “proposals.” But the chances of them making it through the Republican controlled House of Ill Repute as new legislation are nil. Besides, the nibbles at the 2A fulfill the Prez’ promise yesterday to push civilian disarmament by Presidential fiat. Vice President Joe “Double Barrel” Biden will make the official announcement of the measures at a White House anti-gun agit-prop hoe down later today.

Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s point-man on gun control after the Newtown tragedy thrust guns into the national spotlight, was set to unveil the new actions Thursday at the White House. The event in the Roosevelt Room will also mark the ceremonial swearing-in for Todd Jones, whose confirmation to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after six years of political wrangling to fill that position was another of Obama’s post-Newtown priorities. A Senate deal to approve the president’s pending nominations after Democrats threatened to change Senate rules cleared the way for Jones’ confirmation last month.

You can bet the Veep will promise more gun control measures while showering love on Jones, the man who threatened actual and potential ATF whistleblowers and did sweet FA to make sure that the agents responsible for Operation Fast and Furious were held accountable for suppling Mexican drug thugs American gun store guns, one of which they used to kill U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

121 Responses to Breaking: Obama Bans Ex-Mil Imports and Modifies NFA Trust

  1. WTF?? It’s not even April 1st!

    Looking at the article, it seems that this isn’t a done deal, but instead merely a proposal…

      • If it is to be implemented, it still has to go through two or three more steps (including a public comment period) before it becomes a finalized rule. I suspect more details will be forthcoming as it goes through the process.

        • I swear the NFA changes were proposed back in January and also the year before. What stopped it? Is there an intelligent person in the ATF shooting these down for being pointless?

        • I don’t know the details of how the system works. I know these changes have been proposed before, and I’ve seen them on the Federal Register as “proposed changes,” but nothing ever came of them. I don’t know at what stage of the process they get listed on the Federal Register, whether it’s before or after they go to the White House, or what. I really don’t know a lot, except that there’s a couple more steps involved at this point.

    • some 500+ were gunned down in chicago last year by surplus m1 garands and russian mosin nagants, now chi towns violence problem will be solved.

      oh wait, most mil imports are for law abiding collectors and the gangs in chi town uses hi-points that they buy on the streets for $75 and sell at gun buy backs for $150 once they commited the crimes they desired to commit.

  2. Someone refresh my memory, please. If you buy an NFA item (or any item) on a trust, doesn’t the person who takes possession of the item from the FFL still have to do a 4473? Does that person have to be a trustee?

    • Yes, and probably.*

      *In most cases, the life beneficiaries of an NFA trust are also trustees. Obviously not all beneficiaries of a trust can be subjected to background checks at the time of application, because they don’t always exist at that time (e.g., if you are a young adult who names your descendants as remaindermen beneficiaries, this is an open class that would include any children born or adopted by you later on).

      The proposed changes will define “responsible person,” and the people who fit that definition will be required to submit fingerprints and photos.

      • So the line “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” is really just bullshit, right?

        I mean, those people can’t own it, they can’t possess it, and they can’t pick it up from the FFL. So how can they “skirt the law” using a trust?

        • Matt, you are correct. There is no way for a prohibited person to _legally_ come into possession of NFA firearms, trust or no trust. (Though the responsible person for a trust or corporation is subject to a NICS check, not a fingerprint-based criminal history check)

        • Completely so. They have made it clear several times that criminals are misunderstood and need to be helped in the face of demonic, evil law abiding gun owners who present a danger to society by not shooting anyone up.

      • In the insane chance that somehow this gets approved by Congress after the 90 day review process, what the heck happens to existing NFA trusts? Or ones that are being processed and have already had the check cashed?

        • This doesn’t require congressional approval. The ATF is acting within its regulatory power under existing law (or so it claims), so there will be a 90 day comment period and then a final rule.

          This isn’t to say you shouldn’t contact your member of Congress to complain. You should also send a POLITE, THOUGHTFUL, AND PERSONAL comment to the ATF when they open up the comment period on why this proposal is a bad idea, not likely to reduce crime, is wasteful, expensive, unduly burdensome etc. Doesn’t have to be long and calling them Hitler won’t help. They have to take these comments into account when they write the rule and while it may not change anything it can help set the stage for a modification at some point in the future under a more constitution-friendly administration (if one ever shows up).

        • Disclaimer: this is all speculation to be taken with a grain of salt. Based on the title “Background Checks for Principal Officers of Corporations, Trusts, and Other Legal Entities” it sounds as though the standard requirements for an individual (fingerprints, picture, background check) will apply to the trustees and perhaps not everyone listed on the trust? Additionally, the language in the description states it will apply to “transfers”. I would think that would mean existing items on existing trusts aren’t required to do anything as the transfer already occurred. However, if you transfer anything into an existing trust or new trust you’ll have to adhere to these rules.

          http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43


          Title: Background Checks for Principal Officers of Corporations, Trusts, and Other Legal Entities With Respect to the Making or Transferring of a National Firearms Act Firearm
          Abstract: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. The proposed regulations would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; (3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and (4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.

    • Yes, the person on the trust fills out the 4473 with their personal information. However, it is not required for the FFL to call in to NICS. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html#brady-law-exceptions

      Q: Are there exceptions to the Brady law’s requirement for a NICS check prior to a licensee’s transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed individual?
      Firearm transfers are exempt from the requirement for a NICS check in 3 situations. These include transfers: (1) to buyers having a State permit that has been recognized by ATF as an alternative to a NICS check; (2) of National Firearms Act weapons approved by ATF; and (3) certified by ATF as exempt because compliance with the NICS check requirement is impracticable.
      [18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 CFR 478.102(d)]

      There is also an excerpt on page 6 of the 4473 under “EXCEPTIONS TO NICS CHECK” http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

      Some FFLs will still call in to NICS regardless (I assume the FBI still runs the background check even though it’s not required), but it is not required.

      It’s also important to note that while Dorner did in fact buy his firearms on a gun trust:
      – he admits he had no felony convictions on his record and a background check would not have stopped his transfers
      – he purchased the firearms using an out of state trust, which means he lied on the 4473 (felony)….yet this is almost completely unenforced by the BATFE. http://goo.gl/H7kAZd
      – the NFA items he used are already illegal (felony) to possess in California

      • The trust being out of state doesn’t matter. There are no requirements to notify the ATF for suppressors when crossing state lines. The only thing that does matter is he brought them illegally into Cali. Just another case of a paper law having no effect on reality in regards to criminals.

        • Correct, the trust itself being out state isn’t necessarily the issue. But when he fills out the 4473 the information in that form pertains to the individual. I would think that the FFL is not allowed to allow the transfer to continue if the 4473 is filled out by a non-licensee with an out of state address (unless he lied which is a felony).

          Silencers do not require forms to be filled out for crossing state lines, but SBRs do (which he claimed to own IIRC).

        • SBR’s don’t have a reporting requirement if you are a criminal. The requirement for reporting of the firearm to a state or national registration scheme to the ATF violates the 5th amendment miranda rules against self incrimination. Would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

        • Found the court case, Haynes v. United States. It was in 1968 in regards to the 1934 National Firearms Act. Supreme Court ruled felons could not be compelled to register a firearm. The NFA was then amended to where it only applied to those who could legally possess firearms and not criminals and felons. God, reading it makes me sick, the law specifically targets only the law abiding.

  3. I’m furious. We were so close to getting those Korean garands and carbines back.
    Seriously, f*ck this guy.

    • F*ck him for the children.

      Cuz you know no yout deserve to experience their national and cultural firearm heritage.

  4. Yet another Obummer solution to a problem that does not exist. It is about “control” not guns, not violence prevention. We need some real representatives on the Hill to counter the criminal in the White House.

  5. So does this mean no surplus? As in buy mosins and SKS while you still can? If so, I think that thoes “they arent coming after my hunting rifle” types better start eating their words considering we are talking about semi-auto and bolt action rifles mostly with fixed magazines.

    • No, they’re specifically talking about things like the Garands in Korea. From the AP article:

      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, where some may end up on the streets.

      • Okay, I misunderstood that part. Its way too early in the morning for me to be reading this :-\ Either way, wow. We’ve got to do something, I guess.

      • Technically we get all of our surplus guns, i.e. Mosins, surplus CZ pistols, and M1895 Nagant revolvers from our allies, or at least our new friends in NATO. Like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc. This is going to impact a lot more than old M1911s, M1s, and M1 Carbines.

      • Craig, this refers to weapons sold or donated by the U.S. to allies. So, again, unless we sold or donated those Mosins, surplus CZ pistols, and M1895 Nagant revolvers to them, this does not apply.

        • But we have built Mosins in the past (see Texas Deputy’s post he beat me to it).

          The last 50 years indicate that this ‘innocuous’ rule change, will quickly and quietly be expanded to ban all Mosin imports (and anything else the powers-that-be see fit).

          Imported ammo to feed them is next folks.

      • “On the street”
        is the new way of saying “for criminal purposes”
        Who will schlep a M1 around.

        The only time they will be “On the street”, is in your car trunk on the way to the range, mountains, or desert

  6. Would this mean no more Nagants, SKS, Makarovs, and other Eastern block hardware? That would be a shame.

    -NM, the question was answered while I was posting this.

  7. Other than just democrat politics as usual what would be the reasoning behind blocking re-importation of M-1 Garands? Rifles are statistically insignificant in crime so that’s not it. Could it be (tin foil hat on here) part of a long view at denying citizens the means to resist tyranny? 10,000 Garand’s wouldn’t (based on available statistics from the FBI it’s self) raise the murder rate by 1. .. not one percent but actually not one murder. What 10k of these rifles would do is arm a light division of minute men reasonably well.

    I’m going to go with feel-good plastic banana politics as usual here but the more of this kind of stuff I see the harder it is to dismiss the fringe paranoiacs out of hand. I mean, it’s not crazy anymore if it’s actually an elegant explanation for reality.

    Left with the choice between 1. The president is a dishonest, influence pandering, constitution hating hack of a politician and 2. The president is a puppet of some sinister plot to eventually overthrow the republic and enslave its citizens, it’s almost as if either is so terrible as to defy contemplation, yet it seems one or the other is true.

    Occam’s Razor still suggests the dishonest politician, but more of this kind of thing slowly makes the latter look less crazy and more believable.

    • “… what would be the reasoning behind blocking re-importation of M-1 Garands?”

      They are weapons of war, therfore a danger to white suburban children and Moms Getting No Action.

        • If recent photos of their leader are representative…what do the kids these day say? Oh, yes, “I’d hit that.” As long as we didn’t talk about politics before, during, or after.

    • Occam’s Razor is a wonderful rule of thumb. In general, never assume evil when incompetence and greed will suffice as an explanation.

      However, there are people in the country with the express goal of undermining the Republic and imposing conditions that many of us would view as tantamount to slavery. It’s not some shadowy conspiracy. The Progressive movement (as they currently and at various times have been known) has been very open about their goals. It’s there in the open for everyone who cares to read their literature. Start here, with a reprint of an article published by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven in 1966:

      http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/24-4

      I am sure that relatively few politicians actually want to destroy the Republic, regardless of whether they have a D or R after their names. Not any more than the Union worker who refuses to take a cut in pay or benefits then watches in disbelief as the factory is forced to close.

      But make no mistake, some certainly do want to see it burn. And right now, their asses are firmly planted in the driver’s seat.

      Ok, now I feel I’ve done my duty. I can go a few weeks or months without writing that again.

      • Occam’s Razor is applicable to physical phenomena, it should not be used when discussing human emotions and motivations for human actions, as the simplest answer is rarely the correct one as far as humanity is concerned. There is no scientific reason to assume incompetence or evil with direct evidence of neither.

        • I believe the analogous concept is referred to as Hanlon’s razor in psychology. Regardless, the meaning and application of Occam’s razor is nuanced and different thinkers have different takes. At core, it means that, when faced with multiple possible explanations for a particular state of affairs, the one with the fewest assumptions should be preferred until hard evidence to the contrary emerges. It’s not about particular application, it’s about how to proceed when you are trying to figure out how a system works.

          In this case, assuming some systematic conspiracy requires the assumption of large-scale effort, organization, planning, and outlay of resources to maintain control and secrecy. On the other hand, to blame most troubles on greed, short-sightedness, and incompetence requires only the assumption that people will tend to act in their own narrow self interest (basically, the assumption that people will act like people).

        • The corruption of power is not an assumption, it is a reality evinced by all of known human history. I get what you’re saying, it just doesn’t apply very well to the motives of politicians. Politicians are not simple, they are power hungry, pretentious, and self aggrandizing. No systematic conspiracy needed for individual greed and self superiority to cooperate with itself, that does not take an ounce of the evil out of it. The system we are supposed to have is supposed to check this known evil all are susceptible to as much as possible, to restrain the politicians to a limited set of particularly defined acts, so that when they start coloring outside the lines they can get their fingers swatted.

      • Please recall Pelosi’s illegal trip to Iran before Obama’s election and then tell me that a significant number of Politicians, both US and foreign do not lust for the destruction of the American PPL in general and Western culture specifically

        • I’m not fully sure about whether Pelosi is evil or just stupid. She’s on me “evil watch list” though, for sure.

  8. Every time they pull something like this I go out and buy myself a new gun and one as a gift for someone else.

    Oh and once again who among you said “Obama is not coming for your guns” well I hate to say I told you so but I told you so.

  9. Get ready for the price on war relics to sky rocket. Things like Reisings, my beloved Spanish FR-8, Mosins, etc…
    Get ’em while they’re relatively inexpensive.

    • Were Reisings, your beloved Spanish FR-8, or Mosins “sold or donated by the U.S. to allies?” If not, then this doesn’t concern them. This is important and a Bad Thing, but we need to focus on the facts, not exaggerated concerns.

      • Thanks Matt, You’ve answered my question below. My read on this is it wouldn’t have anything to do with such rifles as Mosins and SKS’s. (Unless you count the loads of those and others we bought from Egypt and dropped in Afghanistan in the 70’s and 80’s, but I’m not sure we ever officially admitted to that.)

        • No worries Matt. I have always appreciated your comments. I had to go back and re-read the original article to get a better grasp of just what is affected. I jumped to the conclusion that it affected ALL military imports.

      • Technically, yes … MILLIONS of Mosin Nagants were American made (1.5 million Remington, 1.8 million Westinghouse) and mostly shipped to Mother Russia, but many were also US marked and used for domestic training (VERY scarce and EXPENSIVE!)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin_nagant#United_States

        According to Wikipedia:

        When the Bolsheviks took over the Russian government, they defaulted on the Imperial Russian contracts with the American arsenals, with the result that New England Westinghouse and Remington were stuck with hundreds of thousands of Mosin–Nagants. The US government bought up the remaining stocks, saving Remington and Westinghouse from bankruptcy. The rifles in Great Britain armed the US and British expeditionary forces sent to North Russia in 1918 and 1919. The rifles still in the US ended up being primarily used as training firearms for the US Army. Some were used to equip US National Guard, SATC and ROTC units. Designated “U.S. Rifle, 7.62mm, Model of 1916”, these are among the most obscure U.S. service arms. In 1917, 50,000 of these rifles were sent via Vladivostok to equip the Czechoslovak Legions in Siberia to aid in their attempt to secure passage to France.

        • Exactly. And since ‘we have no way of proving’ which ones are which (despite the fact we can), they are all banned from importation.

          Continuing importation ex-mil arms of any stripe much past the next couple of years, is about as likely as when the naifs claimed that NFA trusts would remain just as they were.

        • The stamps on the receiver would prove it. Izhevsk and Tula marks are pretty obvious on top, not to mention the importer marks that got stamped on them with serial numbers and the year.

        • B – You know that, I know that, but the Feds will claim “confusion” and inability to assure that it is not one of those few US-made guns. Besides, regardless of how it’s written, they’ll claim the rule applies to the entire type – this is nothing new.

          It won’t happen tomorrow, but sure as the sun rises, it will happen.

  10. What type of effect would no longer allowing registration of NFA items to a corporation have on ranges that rent full auto guns, and manufacturers of full auto guns. In both cases it would seem that being able to register the weapon to the company is better than having an individual register the weapon since it will pass through many hands in the course of normal business? Also, we have to stop those icky Garands from being imported only to be used in drive bys… you know… for the children.

    • The image of a stereotypical gangbanger attempting a drive by with an M1 just entered my head and I had to grin. Long, heavy, recoil like a mule, limited capacity, yup, that’s what you want in a drive by weapon.

  11. I’m still not clear (though I’m still sick too so. . .) If this applies to rifles that the US sold or donated to allies what would it have to do with Mosins and SKS’s? Am I missing something?

    • No, you’re not missing anything. The proposed measures do not apply. The people who are bringing up Mosins and SKS’s are demonstrating lack of reading comprehension.

      • Lol thanks. That’s how I read it too but when the crowd goes one way and I’m going the other it’s at least cause to stop and rethink before proceeding.

        • Well, it helps that this story got emailed in all morning and I read five versions of it before it hit the front page here.

      • That would help. . .now I can go back to freaking out that both my XDS-9s AND my M&P shield are all under recall. I’m literally right back to packing my 1911 again here, all my ‘little guns’ are apparently defective (what are the odds!) and why isn’t there a story on here about the XDS recall, seems like a pretty big deal!

  12. One of the best ways to make a country forget its history is to take away the pieces of it you can hold in your hands.

    • He who controls the present controls the past controls the future. Or something to that effect. Dems control the schools so they control the revisionist history. If events are not changed I forsee an empty spot at the Christmas table, young Timmy will not survive.

  13. This is all done while Al-queda uses US weapons and CIA assets to establish a Caliphate in Obama’s name across the ME and the Progressives push race war at home.

  14. “[Senator Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared
    about as President of the United States.” ~ John McCain

    Has any republican presidential candidate said anything this profoundly stupid…ever!
    Worse, if the rest of the republicans are this stupid, America is in seriously big trouble.
    Now is the time for us to get everyone in Congress on record about there thoughts of
    Obama legislating from the Executive branch. They all swore an oath to protect and
    defend the Constitution. It’s time for them to honor those oaths and stop pretending
    that Obama has the best interest of this country, or every American, squarely in mind.
    He has something in mind alright, but freedom, liberty, and the Constitution aren’t it.
    And where is the NRA on this? Is it really possible that they didn’t see this coming?
    What are they doing with all those millions of dollars in new membership fees?
    Does NRA stand for Never Really Awake?

    • John McCain is a RINO. Please don’t hold that liberal leaning doddering old fool against the rest of the party. I’m not sure why he hasn’t been run off.

      • Not just McCain. There are a lot of them, and we need to hold them accountable. 2014 is likely the most important election year in the history of the country.

  15. It’s a shame these surplus arms are not being brought over and given to the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which is where they should go. That way they would be treated very well, given the kind of grading they need, and sold fairly and at reasonable prices to responsible citizens.

    • That’s not entirely fair. . . many of our readers might not have seen this story if not posted here and, though I saw it on fox first, I’d rather discuss it here than there or anywhere else.

      The value added part of this post is coming from the Armed Intelligencia. I already understand it’s impact better thanks to people like Matt.

      Try and save the venom for the enemies of the RKBA, not those who are pillars of our community.

  16. This amounts to M1 Garands and M1 Carbines, and maybe some bolt action “Military Style Assault Rifles”. So essentially he’s screwing the CMP and old-timey collectors and counting on people being ignorant enough about these imports so that when he said he “did something about military style assault weapons” they’ll think something different than what he actually “did”. And he’s screwing people who want to invest in expensive but effective hearing protection and who would like to protect that investment from being lost and share it with their family members legally.

    And will the calculus work out? This strikes at the heart of a lot of collectors and baby boomers retiring with money and time on their hands and will affect crime precisely zero. Will he be pleasing more ignoramuses than stirring up people who have the time and money to spend on campaigns? Maybe he’s thinking that when the murder rate continues to drop for other reasons he’ll be able to point at this moment and say “look what I did” while reasonably expecting no one to look at the trend up to that point?

    Either way, what an @sshole.

    -D

    • Correction he’s screwing all gun owners.Hate to compare it to rape, but the government, especially him, seems to love to f*ck us, whether or not we want it. Uncle Sam is the creepy uncle who won’t keep his damn hands out of your pocket and if you push back you’re being naughty and will get shoved under the stairs with the rest of the reject children (prison).

  17. Does banning “ex-mil” imports also cover banning the popular civilian AKs or AK pattern rifles like the Saiga 12s?

      • Matt, you’re a saint for wading through all this and keeping it in check. You might someday be credited with defusing an armed rebellion over this, lol.
        Its still garbage, but its largely symbolicggarbage, since the stockpiles of US surplus rifles overseas has largely dried up in the last decade. Its really just those Korean ones that are affected, and they’ve been blocking them for years, so nothing really changes. Insult to injury.

  18. This is just silly.
    So he is meddling in our financial affairs, and now I won’t be able to buy a 70 year old 30-06. I really want an M1, I was planning on saving up for one. This does nothing and will do nothing. It is an executive order which creates law and therefore illegal. How much longer are we going to get thrown over the barrel and raped before we say enough is enough.
    The king crack pot in chief has spoken! Hear him roar… What a joke..

  19. When was the last time a legal nfa item was used in a violent crime? what will this law do other then make it look like he is doing somthing and hurting out rights and making it harder for us to own items that are hard enough to own allready…and when to SBS,SBR and suppressors become common use there are a ton of them out there now

  20. I will pay $1000 american to anyone who can find where a Garand was used in the commission of a violent crime in the last decade.

    • Only one I can think of is Kent State, and that was in the 60’s. And by the government. Its also the only incident of fixed rifle bayonet attacks I know of.

    • Last I know of was in ’98, when a sherif’s deputy of Lauren’s County GA was killed by a motorist who had one in his pickup

      There might be one newer, but it’s hardly a common occurrence. I could use a K, ’cause some POS stole my van and cleaned out the tools and parts before abandoning it, so I’m thinking about this one,

    • EDIT: Also, that was a carbine — if I recall correctly.

      ‘Course, the ROK was set to send us Garands and carbines, so it’s “understandable” that BO should feel it his duty to ban the importation of a weapon which has been used in something like three or four U.S. crimes ever.

      Maybe the M1 as been used by Mafia snipers or those of similar ilk, or in a not-so-accidental hunting accident, but if so I’m unaware of it.

      Darn.

      I could tell you for sure when a violent “crime” featuring a Garand would occur in future had I the address of the POS tool thief and a Garand, but as I have neither I cannot — and am also blissfully free of any OpSec worries. :[

      Right Guard eliminates BO…

    • 6 years ago: a 15 year old killed one police officer and wounded another with his father’s M1 Garand, and then shot himself.

      http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/07/12/Tyler_Dumstorf_%2815%29_shot_himself_in_the_head_with_the_same_rifle_he_used_to_wound_one_police_officer_and_kill_another

      Within three minutes after he shot two Floyd County, Ind., sheriff’s deputies with his father’s vintage military rifle, 15-year-old Tyler Dumstorf posted a final message on his MySpace Web site.

      “I just killed two cops. Goodbye.”

      Hours later, around midnight, police found the teen’s body in a second-floor bedroom, the rifle by his side, authorities said yesterday.

      Tyler had shot himself with the same .30-caliber M1 Garand rifle that he had used to kill Deputy Frank Denzinger and seriously wound Deputy Joel White as they responded to an argument Monday between the boy and his mother, Gail Dumstorf, Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson said at a news conference.

      (rest of article follows at link)

      You owe me $1000 🙂

  21. Im not seeing anything where it says what the changes to the trust rules are? I am currently waiting on ATF for two SBR trust items. What specifically are they planning to change, or have they said anything specific yet? Thanks in advance.

    • They want to require everyone listed on the trust to submit fingerprints and photographs along with probably Chief of Police signatures. I’m on the wait list too, emailed my trust lawyer for an opinion on it.

  22. So does this effect all ex-mil imports? Like Mosin Nagants and those beautiful Yugo Mausers? You know, rifles near identical to a hunting rifle?

    • Saving Matt the time. . . NO. It only applies to rifles that the US gave or sold to allies. If it didn’t originate in the US then it’s not affected. (It says so a bunch of times above.)

        • You should try it, Dustin. There’s often as much or more useful information in the comments as there is in the actual post.

      • So in other words, “more completely pointless, political BS masquerading as responsible leadership”?

        Got it.

        • Nope, please try again. The point is total disarmament, piece by piece. Because you won’t miss those little pieces. Not until your pieces are all gone.

        • Bingo, Burke. They’re starting with the least guns likely to actually be used in a crime, used for self-defense, or noticed by the sheeple, yet still sound “big and bad” in the headlines.

    • That indeed would be the next “logical” step (or should I say predictable step?). The idea, which is a purely political one, is to ban “military weapons” in the US, but I also think the predominant focus will be on semi-automatic weapons, not bolt actions. The government already has the power to regulate the importation of foreign built semi-auto rifles, which is why the manufacturers are building US plants.

      And the step after that will be to ban the US manufacture and possession of semiautomatic rifles. The California legislature is already taking a step in that direction. Under current California law, semi-auto rifles with detachable mags are defined as “assault weapons” and banned. However, such rifles were legal if it took a tool to remove the mag–which lead to the invention of the so-called bullet button. (Capacity is elsewhere limited to ten rounds.) Senator Yee’s bill will specifically ban bullet buttons and kits, while Senator Steinberg’s bill (SB 374) will ban all semi-auto rifles without fixed (internal) magazines that can be removed only by taking the receiver apart. It will further require registration of all currently legally configured rifles as “assault weapons” (which will avoid an immediate “takings” except that such weapons will not be able to be inherited, transferred or sold within the State). Steinberg has explicitly stated that his intent is to eliminate semi-auto rifles that can be quickly reloaded.

  23. Gods damn it! While it’s the privilege of the Executive Branch to choose to not enforce a law — akin to a traffic cop electing to issue only a warning to a speeder — it’s not their place to implement one.

    Just how does he expect this nonsense to outlast his presidency? This is just plain stupid, unless the Feds manage to suspend the next election because the presence of C&R revolvers “on the street” constitutes a national emergency.

    I’m glad I got my Commie iron when I did…

    Damn.

    • You’ll still be able to get the Commie iron, ironically. It’s the reimported American stuff you’re banned from.

      Just the idea that in America it is easier to buy a Soviet rifle and ammo than it is to buy a gun made by the Greatest Generation of Americans and sent overseas to liberate people from the Axis powers…my grandfather’s rolling in his WWII Veteran’s grave.

    • I know — for now.

      However, I suspect that as f’rinstance an SKS or K-31 is pretty much unambiguously a “weapon of war” we can expect the Commandeerer in Chief to go after the entire class some time soon.

  24. The new ATF director commented that this is a “common sense” regulation. Why is banning re-importation of an 8 shot 30-06 “common sense”? Oh… I get it. It is just “commons sense” to keep military grade weapons out of the hands of civilians. Say WHAT? If you have the money, you can go buy a Springfield MIA which is not only a (very similar) semi-auto rifle, it has a detachable magazine, and the .308 isn’t a whole lot different than the 30-06. The only way that this makes sense is if the government moves to ban semi-auto rifles from the M1 Garand on up….Otherwise it is utterly pointless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *