FY 2015 budget and C&R Import provision

[wojownik]

The administration issued an executive order in 2013, prohibiting the import of any "military grade" weapons.

Congress slid this little gem into the omnibus appropriations act (thanks to another member for catching this and posting in another thread):

[SEC. 518. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act shall
obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay administrative
expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of the
United States to deny any application submitted pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified pursuant to 27 CFR section
478.112 or .113, for a permit to import United States origin ‘‘curios
or relics’’ firearms, parts, or ammunition.]/QUOTE]

(emphasis added). This would appear to be in direct conflict with the 2013 executive order (Keeping our Streets Safe), at least in terms of "military grade" curios & relics.

So, procedurally, what would have to happen next to allow (for example):
- import of those legendary M1s and M1 carbines from S. Korea.
- import of SVT-40s and other East Bloc C&Rs

I have some thoughts on this (including the likely need for a judicial remedy to resolve the conflict between the EO and the above provision). But, what do you think is next. Please, if we can, let's keep this focused on the next legal steps.

For example, would an importer (like Century) have sufficient standing to sue if their import application were denied?

Pardon the unfocused question, as this has been an extraordinarily long day ...

 

[tyeo098]

a permit to import United States origin ‘‘curios or relics’’ firearms, parts, or ammunition

Something tells me the SVT40's didnt originate in the US

 

[CoalTrain49]

EO's can be overturned by congress or the SC. I don't think this language has effectively overturned the EO but as you say may cause the adm some heartburn if someone wants to test it in court. Might not be worth a defense being as it was a token gesture by the adm to begin with. I would think any gov't agency would look at that long and hard before denying a permit as funding is tied to the bill. It doesn't say you can't do it, it just says you won't get paid if you do.

I like it.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I wonder if I'm reading it correctly.

Simply stated: No funds are to be allocated to block implementation through denial?

You're not allowed to spend money we give you in order to finance not performing your job?

How very Kafka-esque.

Todd.

 

[wojownik]

"no department ... shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of the United States to deny any application submitted pursuant to."

If you are funded (being paid), then the provision says you can't use those funds to deny an application to import C&Rs of US origin. And you can't deny an application either, no work "off the books."

Convoluted logic. No government employee or agency may take any action unless funded. It's not legal to perform official duties or work if not funded.

Yeah, tye, it was a long day ... but how about those NE Westinghouse Mosins, 1911s and other "lend lease" items that are still out there...

 

[tyeo098]

So shall we call CAI then?

 

[wojownik]

Well, if Century was to gear up again and file an import application (hopefully they know about this provision in the 2015 budget) ... then if an administration functionary summarily rejects the application (in accordance with the EO, but contrary to the appropriations act), I presume the importer's only recourse would be to file suit (in VT US District Court presumably if this were Century?).

Aside from the aggrieved would-be importer, who else might have standing in this situation, if anyone?

 

[denton]

Conveniently, Obama has already signed this into law. It's a done deal.

Does it mean that our Garands and carbines are coming home from South Korea? Heckifino. I think the law of the land trumps an executive order, and that an import license ought to be granted. But, then, the courts rarely call me for advice on such topics.

One interesting feature of the law is that it does not just bind funding under the cromnibus law, it binds funding through all other laws as well. So the ban on denying import licenses goes on and on.

 

[HankB]

Conveniently, Obama has already signed this into law. It's a done deal.

Since when has this administration ever been constrained by the law, and how often - when some part of the Executive Branch - breaks the law, do people stand trial on criminal charges, much less go to jail?

 

[alsaqr]

The administration issued an executive order in 2013, prohibiting the import of any "military grade" weapons.

No such Obama executive order exists. No executive order is necessarry. US administrations have wide latitude in the enforcement and interpretation of US law. Four US administrations have banned the importation of firearms citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968.

Executive Actions vs Executive Orders:

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Gun-...fed6eea4-68a5-4bb2-a607-52657dff0295-0-ab_msb

 

[AlexanderA]

This provision in the appropriation bill, in my opinion, doesn't do anything. It doesn't mandate an affirmative action, which would be the granting of the import license. If the relevant government agencies simply do nothing (thereby not spending the appropriated funds), it has the same effect as a denial. In other words, a denial or refusal to grant an import license (by simply doing nothing) would not violate the terms of the proviso.

Now, if a government official were to write a courtesy letter to the import applicant, explaining the reasons for the denial, that would violate the proviso. But a plain stonewalling would not. All applications would be tossed in the trash without a word being said, and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.