Import Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Slappy McGee

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
61
Any chance McDonald will affect the import ban, or are there any pending challenges to that?

You can say what you want about the Chinese, but I'd love to see a parade of half-decent, $199 AK's coming soon to a store near you, not to mention all the other fun stuff out there!
 
The real answer to your question is no, not a chance, not even a little bit.

Only because McDonald deals with state laws. McDonald holds that the 2A applies to the states. It is Heller that provides the basis for challenging federal laws, not McDonald.
 
IIRC, Bush's ban had an expiration date to it. Clinton's does not.
Also, you have to ask yourself: upon what basis would a President issue an executive order lifting the ban that Clinton put in place? It would not be something the general public would find necessary, appealing, or important.

It's likely a permanent ban.
 
Sometimes I wonder, given the current Admin & congress habit of signing things they haven't even read. I am still waiting for the American version of the "Enabling Act" (Hint, look up A. Hitler & Enabling Act). But this is way off the subject of guns.
 
Since the "sporting purpose" test of the GCA of 1968 bans the import of many guns made for self-defense (such as small pistols) I believe it does violate the Second Ammendment.

I think any Judge who voted in favor of Heller should vote to strike down the sporting purpose test for gun imports; just as it would be unconstitutional to ban the import of foreign political or religous books under the 1st, banning imports of self-defense firearms should be struck down.

I hope Taurus, FN, Glock or another non-usa company is willing to bring a suit to allow the importation of their non-sporting defensive arms.
 
If W didn't do it, what are the odds Obama will lift it?
Click to expand...

he'll need all the campaign contributions he can get. right now he is making China even richer. Lifting the ban would only benefit him :)
 
The problem is that importation is something different from bearing arms. The 1968 GCA banned importation of cheap pistols, but they are now being made in the US. Jennings, Cobra, Lorcin, Davis, etc, etc, etc.

A factory in the US could make an SVD Dragunov, including flash hider and bayonet lug and it would remain perfectly legal.

Said factory could make an FAL, AK, AR, or CETME (as long as the safety sear and associate cuts were absent) with all evil 922r features and all is well.

Importation - or commerce - is capable of being regulated according to the constitution. These two rulings have no impact upon commerce and said commerce has no impact on our RTKBA.

There is a difference between wanting a cheap SKS, Makarov, NDM, or AK and wanting to keep and bear arms.
 
You've got a couple of options.

The first would be to get a firm to challenge the import regs on the basis that they ban legitimate defensive arms. For example, Glock makes .380 versions of the G17 and G19...but they aren't importable. These are perfectly good defensive arms for people with limited hand strength.

The second would be to go after the import requirements as arbitrary. A good example is the requirement for pistols to have safeties. Including high-end target pistols such as Hammerli and Pardini guns. Absurd, but there it is. And vulnerable to attack.
 
CoRoMo said:
IIRC, Bush's ban had an expiration date to it. Clinton's does not.
Also, you have to ask yourself: upon what basis would a President issue an executive order lifting the ban that Clinton put in place? It would not be something the general public would find necessary, appealing, or important.

It's likely a permanent ban.
Click to expand...
You are confused. The Clinton assault weapons ban of 1994 had an expiration date. The Bush ban on certain imported arms without a requisite number of US made parts has no expiration date. The Clinton ban on certain Chinese manufacturers also does not have an expiration date, not limited to just guns and ammo.
 
Folks,

There is a confusement here between some arbitrary EO's blocking the import of very specific makes of firearms and the ever popular ATF "sporting purposes" import restrictions applicable to ALL classes of firearms.

The first one would be very very difficult to attack directly

The second is relatively easy to attack as it is demonstrably

Arbitrary
Capricious
Subjective
Outside of the now SC defined "Self Defense" usage of 2A.
 
Again, this is STILL importation and not at all affected by the 2nd Amendment.

The sporting purposes (922r) test prevents many arms from being imported. But that does not affect the 2nd Amendment as any arm that is banned from importation CAN be produced legally here.

How else do we get around 922r when we build AK's & FAL's with bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and flash-hiders while also having the capacity to accept high-capacity magazines?

I do not defend the importation bans, but they are easily lifted by executive order if the right president arrives or if congress chooses to allow importation. But neither Heller nor McDonald judgments have any effect on importation.
 
Also, you have to ask yourself: upon what basis would a President issue an executive order lifting the ban that Clinton put in place? It would not be something the general public would find necessary, appealing, or important.
Click to expand...
Provide for the common defense. The NFA of 1934 seriously hampered private development of small arms forcing us to depend heavily upon imports for private ownership of quality firearms at reasonable prices. The Second Amendment is an individual right and providing citizens the opportunity to choose from a broad global market (like we do with all other consumer products) allows freedom of choice and removes the artificial government infringement on certain classes of weapons.

Dunno if that would fly but nothing ventured nothing gained :)
 
You are confused. .... The Bush ban on certain imported arms ... has no expiration date.
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm not confused, and I wasn't mixing it up with the AWB. I was just reporting what Jim V has stickied in the link I first posted.
http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=77146
Posted by Jim V - March 2004
Bush issued a 2 year executive order banning all Norinco products from importation... When that EO expires, everything but the Clinton banned items, will be allowed in the country again.
Click to expand...
If he's posting something incorrect, I apologize.
 
Sigh.

The Executive has to freestanding power to just make {@#$} up and order it to be made so.

Executive Orders are orders to *implement* certain federal statutes.

The underlying laws on which the EOs are based certain can be attacked on constitutional grounds, and if the underlying statutory authority is shot down, it takes the EOs that depend on it with it.
 
If he's posting something incorrect, I apologize.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize. There were two different bans signed by Bush I.

Bush I was in office only about 6 months when he invoked the "sporting purposes" clause of the 1968 gun control act. It is permanent.

The Bush I gun ban:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html

WASHINGTON, July 7— The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles. Imports of the weapons have been suspended since spring.

The permanent ban affects all but 7 of the 50 models included in the spring suspension. It does not affect the far larger number of virtually identical weapons manufactured domestically, nor does it affect foreign-made semiautomatic weapons already in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Basically, in order for this to work, you'd have to get a President who has two things going for him:

#1.) Be ACTUALLY pro-gun.

#2.) Be willing to start taking down Executive Orders right and left.

Basically, not likely to happen.
 
It's amazing how good the ban on weapons is & how lousey the ban is on illegals.
But this is the new America...................
 
I love the part of the constitution that explains the granting of the EO power. We need to challenge that mallarky.
 
Owning self-defense guns is a right protected by the Constitution. Our gov bans the importation many guns exactly because they are made for that reason. This drives up the price of defensive weapons, making them unaffordable by some. It seems clearly unconstitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top