The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: twyacht on February 15, 2011, 07:44:25 PM
-
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
HR 615 - Collectible Firearms Protection Act
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has introduced HR 615 - the Collectible Firearms Protection Act. It is a mirror of the bill that Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) will be introducing into the Senate.
The bill has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee for hearings.
Currently, this bill has eight co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle.
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 2/10/2011
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 2/10/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 2/10/2011
Rep Donnelly, Joe [IN-2] - 2/10/2011
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 2/10/2011
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 2/10/2011
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] - 2/10/2011
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 2/10/2011
If your own Congressman is gun-friendly, you should ask him (or her) to sign on as a co-sponsor of this bill. As a "cruffler", if this bill passes it could mean more firearms imported or re-imported to the U.S. for collectors. I still remember the 3-fers that Century International used to offer. I got three Finnish Moisin-Nagant M-39s for $88 plus shipping.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/hr-615-collectible-firearms-protection.html
*****
The Bills are being introduced people.....Let's get behind em', get our voices heard and make it happen.
-
No. Protect them all or take your chances just like the rest of us.
No Fudd's.
I'm not interested in protecting "Collectible" guns.
I want to see them all protected.
I will not support divide and conquer bribery.
-
Its designed (if I'm thinking of the right one) to get those garands and M-1s approved for sale from Korea. I'm for it.
FQ13
-
I checked the link, FQ is right.
Tester To Introduce Collectible Firearms Protection Act
The problem of importing those Korean Garands and M-1 carbines could be resolved if a bill that will be introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) is passed. The bipartisan bill already has six co-sponsors.
Below is the text of the bill that Sen. Tester plans to introduce to the Senate:
112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. l
To amend the Arms Export Control Act to provide that certain firearms
listed as curios or relics may be imported into the United States by
a licensed importer without obtaining authorization from the Department
of State or the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. WICKER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ENZI,
Mr. BEGICH, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill
A BILL
To amend the Arms Export Control Act to provide that certain firearms listed as curios or relics may be imported into the United States by a licensed importer without obtaining authorization from the Department of State or the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Collectible Firearms Protection Act’’.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 38(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating the first subparagraph (B)(as added by section 8142(a) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1988 (as enacted into law by Public Law 100–202; 101 Stat. 1329–88)) as subparagraph (C);
(2) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated byparagraph (1) of this subsection)—
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’ and inserting‘‘subparagraph (A)(i)’’;
(B) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘Secretary of the Treasury’’ and inserting ‘‘Attorney General’’; and
(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
‘‘(ii) the person seeking to export such firearms
to the United States certifies to the Attorney General that the firearms are lawfully possessed under the laws of the exporting country.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or executive order, any such firearms described in subparagraph (C) may be imported into the United
States by an importer licensed under the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, without the importer or the person described in subparagraph
(C)(ii)—
‘‘(i) obtaining authorization from the Department of State or the Department of Defense for the transfer of such firearms by the person to the importer; or
‘‘(ii) providing payment to the Department of State or the Department of Defense of any of the proceeds of the transfer of such firearms by the person to the importer.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to the importation of firearms described in section 38(b)(1)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act (as amended by subsection (a) of this section) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Principle is the same though, Why should Fudds be able to their M-1's if other's can't have their machine guns or Street sweepers,
While I would love to see the M-1's in gun stores they are either ALL OK or ALL prohibited.
No more compromise with Socialists and cowards .
-
I can't say I agree with your rationale or your stance in calling C&R guys Fudd's. They are NOT saying, "protect mine and not yours". They are chipping away at stupid laws and rulings.
All or nothing approaches rarely work. Many people criticized the Heller case because it didn't go far enough. Well of course it didn't, but games are rarely won by Hail Mary passes. It did, however, lay the groundwork for additional forward progress.
-
I can't say I agree with your rationale or your stance in calling C&R guys Fudd's. They are NOT saying, "protect mine and not yours". They are chipping away at stupid laws and rulings.
All or nothing approaches rarely work. Many people criticized the Heller case because it didn't go far enough. Well of course it didn't, but games are rarely won by Hail Mary passes. It did, however, lay the groundwork for additional forward progress.
I figured some one would take exception to that. It makes an easily understood reference for people who are willing to accept compromises.
It is bad negotiating tactics. Compromising with these SOB's is what got us into these problems in the first place. If your start position is "We will revoke all fire arms regulation" of course you will not get it, and will have to give some, but you also may gain a heck of a lot more than you expected.
-
Sorry, I just don't buy it. That's not how the real world works legally...we may want it to, but it doesn't. If your position is this side of unattainable, you won't leave the starting gate.
Look at McDonald case. Gura (peace be upon him) wanted to go with the Privileges and Immunities approach...the "right" one but it would mean turning over all kinds of other law. The NRA wanted to go with Due Process. They were RAILED against on the blogs as a bunch of pansies for taking such a commie, socialist, pansy, compromise position.
What happened? Justice Roberts made it clear very early in the arguments that P&I was Dead on Arrival. Gura had to quickly change and adapt his argument to Due Process...and they won. Barely but they won. Taking a hard line would have gotten them exactly squat. **
Listen, I'm with you in spirit, but I think it is a bad tactic. GOA is "no compromise" and they do almost squat for REAL gun rights except sit on the sidelines yammering. Second Amendment Foundation is much more subtle and actually gets things done.
It makes an easily understood reference for people who are willing to accept compromises.
Wrong -- words have meaning and it is misused here. "Fudd" was coined during the Zumbo affair when he took a "for me but not for thee" position. Zumbo couldn't understand why anyone would want one of them terrorist weapons in the hunting fields. That is NOT what is going on here...no one is saying "machine guns bad, AR15s bad...M1s good". They are trying to specifically get a specific class of firearm unburdened by stupid bureaucrats. (redundancy alert). Would you be so up in arms if someone was trying to get the 1986 machine gun manufacture ban lifted but ignored the M1's caught in Korea?
** NOTE I am not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.