New "Executive Actions"

[Tom Servo]

So, assuming that Clinton's import ban wasn't done via EO, would it still be reversible by a subsequent president as an EO would be?

I'd imagine so. The thing is, EO's are a weird and murky construct. They aren't defined or authorized anywhere in the Constitution, though some folks think they're implied in Article II, Section 5.

The courts have ruled some EO's unconstitutional in the past, so I imagine future Chief Executives could reverse them.

 

[alan]

All:

Re this "sporting purposes" business previously mentioned by several posters, myself included, the following question continues to pique my curiosity. Where in the law, if anywhere are "sporting purposes" defined. Additionally, where in the law is "sport" defined, and finally, where in the law is "readily adaptable thereto(sporting purposes)" defined.

This question is not frivolously offered, for as has been mentioned and referenced, the government agency charged with the enforcement of firearms related federal law, the BATFE, can and has either allowed or disallowed the importation of firearms based on their supposed suitability or lack thereof, for "sporting purposes", which once again, in-so-far as I know, corrections please if appropriate, remain undefined in the law.

 

[Tom Servo]

Where in the law, if anywhere are "sporting purposes" defined.

It's in 18 USC § 925(d)(3), as amended in 1968:

The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition—
(...)
(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph

 

[Faulkner]

The cutoff of ammo and guns from China hit us very hard.

Makes me wonder if the recent/current ammo shortage would have been as severe if Chinese ammo was still imported?

 

[5.56RifleGuy]

I asked in the NFA section, but I wanted to know if a CLEO wont sign off on a transfer, would you now have grounds for a lawsuit because there is no way around it?

 

[JohnKSa]

Makes me wonder if the recent/current ammo shortage would have been as severe if Chinese ammo was still imported?

I've thought about that a lot over the last few years and I think that the answer is a definitive "No."

It might have still been bad but more supply would HAVE to help.

It is my opinion that part of the reason that the ammunition prices were so low during the early and into the mid-1990s was the huge supply of Chinese ammunition. The prices actually fell significantly between 1990 to the mid-1990s.

It will be hard to get support to eliminate that restriction because domestic gun and ammunition manufacturers will likely oppose any such measure. I doubt that any of them would see the re-introduction of Chinese ammo & guns into the U.S. market as a positive move.

 

[alan]

Tom:

Respecting the data provided in your post # 63, thank you. For reference, I have copied and pasted some of it below.

Quote:
The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition—
(...)
(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph

Re paragraph 3, at the risk of seeming picky, re the bit about being "generally recognized...", generally recognized by whom I'm given to wonder. Having read this passage, and the section from which it was taken, you provided a link to that, thank you, the terminology does not define either sport, sporting purposes nor does it clarify the meaning of "readily adaptable", in-so-far as I can see, though perhaps I need new glasses.

Additionally, having read through the PDF, which makes frequent reference to a "working group", who was part thereof is a question that looms large to me. Iam perhaps overly suspicious here.

Looking at various documents, and finding quite frequent references to "The Secretary" and "The Attorney General", the following question comes to my mind, again my outlook might well be jaundiced. Did The Congress, in writing these terms into the law intend to lay the law abiding gun owners of this country open to what I politely describe as "bureaucratic abuse without limit", or where they simply not paying attention to what they were doing? Were they so unaware of the nature of criminals that they wrote as they did?

In conclusion, while many years ago, I took a couple of law courses, they were quite basic, I'm not learned in the law. My career, such as it was, was in Engineering Design and Construction. I did learn, a long time ago, to read English, and at the risk of being slightly crude, I often wonder as to why politicians, legislators seem to have the significant aversion to the English language that the bastards display, looking at what passes for their "work product", otherwise known as legislation. I will also plead to being the proverbial old grouch, however I remain curious.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, I've been poking around trying to educate myself and I'm getting nowhere...

Can someone who understand how the presidential/executive powers work explain how the president has the authority to selectively ban imports without using executive orders?

We seem to have two examples of this happening--Clinton's 1994 ban on Chinese ammunition and small arms and Obama's 2013 ban on the reimportation of U.S. military surplus firearms--but no clear explanation of precisely how it's done.

 

[Tom Servo]

Did The Congress, in writing these terms into the law intend to lay the law abiding gun owners of this country open to what I politely describe as "bureaucratic abuse without limit", or where they simply not paying attention to what they were doing?

A little of both. Just as we saw in January, there was a rush to do something in 1968. As part of that, Congress delegated the authority of approving or denying imports of certain weapons to the DOJ. The paper I linked in post #57 of this thread is the report on the 1989 decision to ban the importation of many guns, and it gives some detail as to how they define "sporting purposes."

Can someone who understand how the presidential/executive powers work explain how the president has the authority to selectively ban imports without using executive orders?

He doesn't have to. The ATF has that authority on their own. All the President has to do is make the suggestion.

 

[JohnKSa]

If it's all done on the basis of the "sporting purposes" clause then why wouldn't semi-auto AKs being imported from China be just as sporting as semi-auto AKs being imported from other countries and having identical specifications and in identical calibers? And how could Chinese ammunition be less sporting than otherwise identical Russian, Mexican, Serbian or Italian ammunition, regardless of the definition of "sporting purposes" that is employed?

What's stopping the BATF from taking the suggestion and running with it--saying that if any Chinese firearm or ammunition regardless of type, model or variety can be defined as not suitable for "sporting purposes" then any firearm or ammunition could also be so defined and therefore banned?

If it's just a suggestion, could the BATF ignore it if they wanted to? If so, how could Clinton confidently make a public announcement that he was "banning" Chinese arms and ammunition and be certain that the BATF would definitely carry through with his "suggestion"?

If the BATF has that much latitude (the power to ban an entire country's firearm/ammunition on the weight of a mere "suggestion") then they would have cut off all ammunition/firearm imports years ago. Either on their own or on the basis of someone's suggestion.

Why hasn't Obama simply "suggested" to the BATF behind the scenes that any "assault" weapon isn't sporting and therefore shouldn't be importable? Are we to believe that wants those imports to continue or doesn't care if they do? Why didn't Clinton?

The fact that most firearm/ammunition imports (including "assault weapons") haven't been banned forces us to the conclusion that in the years since that code went in place, we've simply never had a lame duck president who thought it would be a good idea to ban the import of all "assault weapons". Since we all know that's not true, then we've come to a contradiction that calls the initial premise into question.

Somewhere there's something (or several somethings) missing in the "suggestion" explanation...

 

[alloy]

I thought the selective importation was accomplished under ITAR in conjunction with the Arms Export Control Act(1976)....by the state dept simply putting anything it deems military tech on the USML(United States munitions list).

Not so?

 

[thallub]

If it's just a suggestion, could the BATF ignore it if they wanted to?

i seriously doubt that the political apointee head of the BATFE would ignore a request of the president who appointed him. If such a thing happened then he/she would be fired or ordered to resign. He/she would be replaced by another political appointee more inclined to carry out the wishes of the president.


A look at ATF Ruling 94-2 shows pretty much how the "sporting purposes" ruling is applied. Ruling 94-2 declared the Striker 12/Streetsweeper shotgun to be a destructive device. That gun had previously failed the "sporting purposes" test and was banned from import in 1984 by a letter ruling.

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/index.html

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Looks like no more anything US military. How often you see a gang banger with a M1 Garand/Carbine or 1903 Springfield.

Not only do I agree but even the AP reporter agrees it is silly....

The ban will largely affect antiquated, World War II-era weapons that, while still deadly, rarely turn up at crime scenes, leaving some to question whether the new policy is much ado about nothing.

And that is coming from someone (the reporter) who appears to support new gun laws...

But the narrow, modest scope of those steps served as pointed reminders that without congressional backing, President Barack Obama's capacity to make a difference is severely inhibited.

Calling the attempt a "modest scope" and "Narrow"

If there where not a need to make a difference ( IE change the law) in the eyes of the author there would be no reason for the presidents "capacity to make a difference" statement and the manner in which it was written.

The Obama administration is also proposing to close a loophole that it says allows felons and other ineligible gun purchasers to skirt the law by registering certain guns 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 before the corporation can register those guns.

Is there any chance he received that information about these loopholes through NSA wiretaps?

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., accused the president of governing only by executive action while failing to sufficiently enforce gun laws already on the books. And the National Rifle Association called on Obama to stop focusing his efforts on inhibiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Translation: Mr. President, banning "street" tires because I won't let you have my bike is pretty childish and won't keep me from riding on the road.

But proponents of gun control called them important steps to keep military-grade weapons out of American communities and plug a deadly hole in the background check system.

Yeah like WWII Military Grade Weapons are so different from anything we can by legally or illegally and available today. Better plug that hole.

Also the suggestion of plugging one hole in a background check system, suggests legally sold weapons to someone who go's through a background check is flawed! Really?Thought we already covered this....oh yeah we did ....it failed.

Guess accepting defeat by the legislative process and lacking enough support among the citizens of the US is no reason to just not repackage it, find a loophole of their own, or just plain circumventing the wishes of the majority of Americans and Congress.

 

[Al Norris]

I was going to post this earlier, but decided not... Should have went with my first inclination!

In Executive Order 12938, we have a couple of real zingers. In section 5(b)(7) Sanctions Against Foreign Countries, we have the following:

(7) Import Restrictions. Restrictions shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of articles (that may include petroleum or any petroleum product) that are the growth, product, or manufacture of that country.​

The duration of this order is at the discretion of the Sec. of State (sec. 6) and and full implementation is directed by the same (sec. 7).

So it doesn't matter if China is now a Favored Nation or not.

 

[alan]

Re a string of posts on this subject, those of mine included, at the risk of painting an overly dark picture, it strikes me that the law abiding citizens of the U.S., are just plain screwed.

I note, re existing law and regulations, correct me if I'm wrong, The Congress has the power to amend and or repeal either or both. While the president might veto legislation including legislation directing the repeal of existing statutes, The Congress is not without powers of it's own. The question is, in my view, does The Congress have the guts, the integrity to use the powers that it has, powers that, I believe, could bring Obama to heel. It could have done the same regarding previous presidents too, alas it seems that The Congress lacks, the integrity, the guts, the will to so do. Not a pretty picture at all, but that's what it looks like.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The Congress has the power to amend and or repeal either or both. While the president might veto legislation including legislation directing the repeal of existing statutes, The Congress is not without powers of it's own. The question is, in my view, does The Congress have the guts,...

The members of Congress will do what they perceive the people who elected them want them to do.

Often those who tend to be the most dissatisfied with the way the process is working are forgetting their own role in the process. We select the government. How effective are you at influencing your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., to join you in selecting representatives who will further the goals and values important to you?

 

[Tom Servo]

The members of Congress will do what they perceive the people who elected them want them to do.

That's very, very true, and I remind people of that when they gripe at me about happenings in Washington they don't like.

That said, Congress doesn't really have much of a say in the matter we're discussing. They gave the authority to the ATF to act on certain matters with autonomy back in 1968. This is one of those things.

In better circumstances, we might be able to reverse some of that authority, but I don't see Congress intervening at the current time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...That said, Congress doesn't really have much of a say in the matter we're discussing. They gave the authority to the ATF to act on certain matters with autonomy back in 1968. This is one of those things...

And that's true as well.

I think alan's point was that in theory Congress could change that. But as you correctly point out, Congress won't, because, among other things, the Administration's actions here have enough public support.

 

[thallub]

I think alan's point was that in theory Congress could change that. But as you correctly point out, Congress won't, because, among other things, the Administration's actions here have enough public support

The GCA 1968 is what it is. Despite promises made during the runup to recent congressional elections, i don't ever see the US congress changing that law. This admininstration and those that follow will continue to nibble away at our Second Amendment rights citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968.

 

[Tom Servo]

among other things, the Administration's actions here have enough public support.

I'm not sure in this case. The general public isn't all that interested in gun control, and things like NFA trust are fairly obscure to the layman.

Despite promises made during the runup to recent congressional elections, i don't ever see the US congress changing that law. This admininstration and those that follow will continue to nibble away at our Second Amendment rights citing the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968.

I don't remember hearing about gutting the GCA. I don't think we'll have the clout for that for quite some time.

In any case, the administration doesn't have to do the nibbling. Nor does Congress. The ATF can do that all by their little lonesomes.