Bill Would Allow Importation of Korean M1 Garand and Carbine Rifles

Big Chief

Hey, my kinda gal...........:up::up::up::up:


http://fishgame.com/gunnews/?p=2368&utm_campaign=newsletter130619&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter130619

On Tuesday U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo) introduced H.R. 2247, the Collectible Firearms Protection Act. The bill reverses a State Department decision to block the importation of historic M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines from South Korea.

Originally furnished by the United States to South Korea for military purposes over 50 years ago, the rifles are widely sought collectors’ items and among the most popular rifles in marksmanship competitions. The rifles are perfectly legal to manufacture and sell in the United States and like all firearm imports would be subject to the federal rules and regulations governing retail firearm sales. A similar sale from South Korea was approved during the Reagan Administration. The current State Department’s interference with the sale runs counter to the intent of Congress, which on two prior occasions amended the law to allow for this kind of transaction.

“It’s disappointing that legislation is even necessary to allow U.S. citizens to access perfectly legal and regulated firearms, in this case storied, U.S.-made rifles that are pieces of U.S. military history,” Rep. Lummis said. “This is a political stunt on the part of the State Department, pure and simple, while denying the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding citizens, firearm collectors, and competitive marksman. The State Department has no business blocking domestic firearm ownership; they are way out of bounds and my legislation will put them back in their place.”

Source: Cynthia Lummis Official Page

Slanteyedshootist

I hope the bill passes. We need to bring those guns home where they belong.

Big Chief

I at one time thought the Garands were OK, but not the Carbines beacuse they have a detachable magazine????

Of course, most of the idiots at the State Dept don't know a guns butt from it's muzzle anyhow!

Slanteyedshootist

The carbines are bad cuz they have a shoulder thingie or toe grip or high capacity sights or somesuch and will cause Guam to sink in the ocean and not allow us to deliver groceries to outer space. It's all Bush's fault anywho.

NN

M1 garands are bad, too, they have that thumb crushing thingy

breamfisher

NN wrote: »

M1 garands are bad, too, they have that thumb crushing thingy

Actually that's good because it injures the shooter. Now if we can just get the needle-spiked buttplate installed on all .458 Win. Mags....

JLDickmon

I'd be up for one..

NN

breamfisher wrote: »

Actually that's good because it injures the shooter. ....

And don't even have to shoot or load it, if I had one, Clean would have me doing
"inspection arms" and "port arms" just in hopes I'd mess it up and she could laugh.

breamfisher

Really? She needs another reason to laugh at you?

sgtrock21

The guns in question were manufactured in the U.S. and do not violate any laws as to ownership by U.S. citizens who can legally own these guns. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was effective in keeping certain firearms away from law abiding citizens because they were being used by criminals. In the middle of the great depression most citizens could not pay the $200 tax. The criminals had no problem acquiring these firearms. Does this sound familiar. The Gun Control Act of 1968 which was another "knee jerk" reaction among many other things prohibited selling rifle ammunition to customers under 18 y/o and handgun ammunition to customers under 21 y/o. In 1966 when I was 14 y/o I saved my money, walked into a sporting goods store and purchased a brand new Mossburg "Chuckster" .22 magnum rifle and 2 boxes of ammunition. No questions asked. Then came the GCA 1968 which I was not really aware of. I went back to the same store to purchase a couple of boxes of ammunition. The clerk who was probably my age 18 or 19 y/o asked for my drivers license. I replied I was going to shoot the ammunition not drive it. He replied that I had to have proof of age. I produced my ID and he then asked: Is this for a handgun or a rifle? I asked "what does that matter"? He replied if you are buying ammunition for a rifle you have to be 18 y/o. If you are buying ammunition for a handgun you have to be 21 y/o. I responded that the ammunition was for the rifle that I had purchased at this store. I asked why? He responded that it was required by the GCA 1968. I responded that it seems voting is much more dangerous than shooting! Yes! lets have more and more laws that have no effect on the criminals!

snake284

sgtrock21 wrote: »

The guns in question were manufactured in the U.S. and do not violate any laws as to ownership by U.S. citizens who can legally own these guns. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was effective in keeping certain firearms away from law abiding citizens because they were being used by criminals. In the middle of the great depression most citizens could not pay the $200 tax. The criminals had no problem acquiring these firearms. Does this sound familiar. The Gun Control Act of 1968 which was another "knee jerk" reaction among many other things prohibited selling rifle ammunition to customers under 18 y/o and handgun ammunition to customers under 21 y/o. In 1966 when I was 14 y/o I saved my money, walked into a sporting goods store and purchased a brand new Mossburg "Chuckster" .22 magnum rifle and 2 boxes of ammunition. No questions asked. Then came the GCA 1968 which I was not really aware of. I went back to the same store to purchase a couple of boxes of ammunition. The clerk who was probably my age 18 or 19 y/o asked for my drivers license. I replied I was going to shoot the ammunition not drive it. He replied that I had to have proof of age. I produced my ID and he then asked: Is this for a handgun or a rifle? I asked "what does that matter"? He replied if you are buying ammunition for a rifle you have to be 18 y/o. If you are buying ammunition for a handgun you have to be 21 y/o. I responded that the ammunition was for the rifle that I had purchased at this store. I asked why? He responded that it was required by the GCA 1968. I responded that it seems voting is much more dangerous than shooting! Yes! lets have more and more laws that have no effect on the criminals!

Yeah, in 1966 when I was 18, I bought my first rifle, a model 70 Winchester manufactured that same year. I bought two boxes of Remington .270 Winchester 130 grain core lokts . There was no form 4473 or any other form to fill out. I took my rifle and my ammo after paying the man approx. $165 and went home, again as in your case, no questions asked. Life was simple then.
What the hell happened?

Razorbacker

JLDickmon wrote: »

I'd be up for one..

Me too, I'd love to have a Garand, especially one with that kinda history. or even the Carbine. It would be a fun plinker and could do double duty for HD. Since I don't expect any cranky Chi-coms in itchy frozen uniforms to try a home invasion.

BigDanS

Razorbacker wrote: »

Me too, I'd love to have a Garand, especially one with that kinda history. or even the Carbine. It would be a fun plinker and could do double duty for HD. Since I don't expect any cranky Chi-coms in itchy frozen uniforms to try a home invasion.

Get off my lawn!

sgtrock21

snake284 wrote: »

Yeah, in 1966 when I was 18, I bought my first rifle, a model 70 Winchester manufactured that same year. I bought two boxes of Remington .270 Winchester 130 grain core lokts . There was no form 4473 or any other form to fill out. I took my rifle and my ammo after paying the man approx. $165 and went home, again as in your case, no questions asked. Life was simple then.
What the hell happened?

What the hell happened? I'm thinking political agendas, media manipulation, and other lies convincing increasingly "dumbed down" voters that piling law upon law upon law upon law will be effective on criminals that do not obey laws.