Import marks on M-1 Carbines

[kBob]

What year did the importer marks begin to appear on M-1 Carbine barrels?

What year did specific Blue Sky importer markings appear on M-1 Carbine barrels?

Given that one is not supposed to deface Importer Markings, what is the legality of swapping a barrel on an Importer marked M-1 Carbine?

-kBob

 

[GAF]

Type "Blue Sky importer marking" into google search.

 

[carbine85]

Blue Sky was in the late 80's. You had to be careful when you bought one. The are known to be heavily stamped and damaged the barrel. I bought 3 back then for restoration for like $120 each.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Section 5861(g) of the NFA, it is unlawful "to obliterate, remove, change, or alter the serial number or other identification of a firearm required by the chapter" as well as Section 5861(h) which makes it unlawful "to receive or possess a firearm having the serial number or other identification required by this chapter obliterated, removed, changed, or altered." Section 5842 of the NFA requires that, each firearm manufactured imported or made be identified by a serial number, the name of the manufacturer, importer or maker, and "other identification" as prescribed by the regulations. The additional marking requirements are prescribed by 22 CFR 479.102, and include the model of the firearm, caliber or gauge, name of the manufacturer or importer of record, and the city and state of the manufacturer who made the firearm or name of the country in which the firearm was manufactured. Pursuant to section 5861(g) of the NFA, it a criminal offense for an individual to obliterate any of the required markings found on an NFA firearm.

According to this it's illegal to remove the import mark. Realistically I think barrels with import marks are replaced without much thought to the matter. In effect, you didn't remove the mark, you just removed the part it was on. If there is any doubt just keep the old barrel. All USGI carbines were manufactured in the US so there is no big mystery where the rifle was made. I think the ATF is more concerned about arms that were mfg. in another country.

If you called the ATF I doubt they could even cite the applicable code. Personally I wouldn't have a problem replacing the barrel. Barrels aren't regulated but receivers are. You don't want to mess with serial numbers or anything else on a receiver.

There is nothing illegal about buying just a receiver. Are you able to ID an imported rifle from what's marked on the receiver, probably not. SN will probably tell you all you need to know however because the importer is required by the ATF to report the SN. Let them look it up if they're interested.

 

[cam640]

I bought my blue sky marked carbine in the late 80's

 

[AlexanderA]

According to this it's illegal to remove the import mark.

The quoted excerpt relates to "NFA firearms." M1 carbines are generally not NFA firearms, so this wouldn't apply.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The quoted excerpt relates to "NFA firearms." M1 carbines are generally not NFA firearms, so this wouldn't apply.

That's the only thing I could find that addressed import marks. I never thought it was relevant in any case.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Sunray]

"...Blue Sky was in the late 80's..." Mid 80's but still the 80's. They became Arlington Ordnance.
The 1968 Gun Control Act(Signed by LBJ on October 22, 1968. The GCA of '68 also created the ATF, unelected civil servants who have been making law by regulation ever since.) made import marks mandatory. Has nothing to do with the NFA.
Barrels have no S/N. Change 'em all you like.

 

[AlexanderA]

The GCA of '68 also created the ATF, unelected civil servants who have been making law by regulation ever since.

The ATF was not created by the Gun Control Act of '68. It can actually trace its history as far back as 1886, as follows:
1886 - the Revenue Laboratory was created within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue.
1920 - the Bureau of Prohibition was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
1927 - the Bureau of Prohibition was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department.
1930 - the Bureau of Prohibition was transferred to the Justice Department.
1933 - it became a division within the FBI.
1933 - with the repeal of Prohibition, the Bureau of Prohibition was renamed the Alcohol Tax Unit and once again became part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
1942 - responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws (the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938) was given to the ATU.
1951 - tobacco tax functions were transferred to ATU and the unit was renamed the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division.
1952 - the Bureau of Internal Revenue was renamed the Internal Revenue Service.
1968 - the ATTD became the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the IRS, with the passage of the Gun Control Act.
1970 - the ATFD was given responsibility over explosives.
1972 - ATF was established as a separate bureau within the Treasury Department, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
2002 - the bureau was transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice and was renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The related excise tax functions remained with the Treasury, under the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Here's whatcha do.....replace the barrel, cut off about 2" of the old one with the Import mark, then use it to secure the sling in lieu of an oiler. Problem solved.

 

[hdwhit]

The GCA of '68 also created the ATF, unelected civil servants who have been making law by regulation ever since.) made import marks mandatory.

The fact the ATF was not created in 1968 has already been addressed.

Laws are not made by regulation. Laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President (unless vetoed and overridden).

When Congress writes a law, the Agency responsible for administering it will usually promulgate regulations explaining how they believe the law should be interpreted and enforced. These are called "interpretive" regulations because they are the Agency's interpretation of the statute. Failing to comply with an interpretive regulation is not itself a crime, but if the Agency's interpretation of the statute is judged by a court to be correct, then failing to comply with the regulation means that the statute has been violated and it is a crime to break a law.

Congress may also choose to, in essence, "deputize" the Agency by telling them to write regulations not just to explain the law, but to form the substance of the law. These are called "legislative" regulations and because they are written at the behest of Congress are accorded the force of law by the courts. Failing to comply with a legislative regulation is not itself a crime, but since the Agency's opinion in this case is treated as if it were Congress' words, failing to comply with the regulation means that the statute has been violated and it is a crime to break a law.

So, nobody in the Executive branch of the government is "making law by regulation".