Monday, May 17, 2010

Alan Korwin reports State Department interference with Civilian Marksmanship Program imports. Really? What a laugh.

Alan Korwin reports in his email newsletter, The Uninvited Ombudsman:

I've just learned from a highly placed and reliable personal source that, in a quiet move to restrict gun ownership, the Obama White House has directly instructed the State Department to do what's necessary to prevent predominantly WWII American firearms from being imported back into the United States.

Most imports are not under the jurisdiction of the State Dept., and are controlled by statute and regulations that require very public actions to change. This is another clandestine anti-gun-rights move being taken by the Obama administration, along with a series of treaties and U.N. plans to severely limit or ban American gun ownership.

The main effect of this move is, without fanfare or public attention, to stop the flow of fine M1 Garand and M1 carbine rifles into the hands of American citizens. The M1 is an affordable, accurate, dependable, and exceptionally well-made general-purpose American rifle. Made in .30 caliber, it was the first auto-loading rifle generally issued to the infantry of any nation.

I have not been able to determine the exact quantity of such rifles being held overseas, but the number is believed to be in the millions.

The Obama team in the White House has stunned observers with its eerie silence on so-called "gun control," or efforts to disarm the public. On taking office there was wide anticipation of major action is this area, to reflect the unmitigated anti-gun-rights records of Obama and his coterie. The gun-rights lobby has been hard pressed to explain the lull, pointing to a mere few slips of the tongue by the president, his attorney general or a few other top-level staffers. The Brady Campaign for the Promotion of Gun Violence has given the administration a rating of "F" on gun control, reflecting a virtually complete lack of publicly visible activity.

The most likely explanation probably includes the uproar over the federal health-care takeover, where no army of protesters had even existed or were poised for action, yet rose with tremendous fury in astonishing numbers. This group coalesced into the core of the now ubiquitous Tea Party.

Administration officials and Obama himself likely recognize that the backlash they would face if they publicly came after Americans' guns would make the health-care hurricane look like a mild summer breeze.

Obama though has announced plans to go after "criminal gun smuggling" with two international treaties that would bypass the U.S. Congress. Both treaties would introduce draconian levels of gun control and confiscation on Americans, despite administration promises otherwise. The CIFTA treaty terms are known and already analyzed. Under CIFTA, changing any feature on a firearm, like adding a sling or changing a sight without an undefined government "manufacturing" license, would subject a person to arrest. Reloading ammo would be similarly banned.

The U.N. treaty, being drafted in secret with cooperation from Hillary Clinton, can only be guessed at based on previous U.N. public-disarmament attempts. An international group, IAPCAR, has been formed under the leadership of Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, to monitor and resist planned rights denials. The Uninvited Ombudsman report will feature those activities in the near future.


Now, I will be interested to read some verification of this move on the supply of CMP weapons. If true, it is -- in the grand scheme of things -- both laughable and welcome.

It is laughable because, as I blurted out when I read this early this morning, "Is that all they've got?" Such a move provokes much more negative reaction than it is worth in terms of of their overall desire for citizen disarmament. It is welcome because such a move strikes at the most cherished assumptions of the Elmer Fudd NRA pragmatists. "Wait," they will say, "these aren't evil black rifles or Communist bloc military weapons. These are politically correct firearms."

Insofar as the "impending doom" of the treaties, I continue laughing and still welcome them. Think about it. A regime that chokes at the domestic political cost of legislative citizen disarmament is going to take the ultimate discredit of surrendering its own sovereignty as an excuse to do what they are too cowardly to do directly? They are seriously expected to say, "Give us your guns, but don't blame us, blame the United Nations?" I mean, really? What a hoot.

I can see the bumper sticker now: "The State Department is coming for your guns!" Really? The STATE Department?!? Substitute the "United Nations" and it is still a thigh-slapper.

And even if they do, I welcome it because I can think of no single move more calculated to unite the armed citizenry. What are they going to do? Bring in foreign troops to enforce it? Oh, please. I pray to the Lord that they would be so stupid.

Here's the key point. We need to stop taking counsel of our fears and cease worrying about what THEY are going to do to US, and start figuring out what WE are going to do to THEM when they finally, irrevocably, kick off this impending civil war.

25 comments:

Slobyskya Rotchakokov said...

"and start figuring out what WE are going to do to THEM when they finally, irrevocably, kick off this impending civil war."

"He's making a list
Checking it twice....
gonna find out who's naughty or nice..."

Dennis308 said...

Mike this is truly laughable as you say.People keep on forgeting that ALL Treaties MUST be Ratified by the Senate or is it Congress, I don´t remember off hand. But Not Enough of Members of either House are THAT STUPID. I almost wish they were,So that We could go ahead and get this BullShit over with.

Dennis
III
Texas

Anonymous said...

"The main effect of this move is, without fanfare or public attention, to stop the flow of fine M1 Garand and M1 carbine rifles into the hands of American citizens. The M1 is an affordable, accurate, dependable, and exceptionally well-made general-purpose American rifle. "

The Garand rifle was welcomed with much rejoicing when it wreaked havoc on the filthy forces of fascism during WWII. It is no surprise that socialists still view Garands with apprehension, even today.

MALTHUS

John Robert Mallernee said...

History repeats itself.

The Revolutionary War was unpopular with most Americans until - - -

King George hired Hessian mercenaries, who came from Germany, and spoke German!

Then, English colonists were no longer fighting fellow Englishmen (which is why the war was unpopular), but they were now fighting FOREIGNERS!!!

Anonymous said...

Indeed.

The only thing worse than underestimating your enemy is overestimating him.

Underestimate your enemy and you may lose the fight; overestimate him an you'll surrender before the fight even starts.

Dave
III

Anonymous said...

Nobody seems to be noticing that, under New Jersey's new REPUBLICAN governor, a decision has been made that CMP may no longer ship M-1's directly to NJ homes, but must send them to a FFL holder for transfer, thereby erecting another hoop for legitimate and vetted NJ residents to jump through. Will your state be next?

Doc Enigma said...

Even with ratification, any treaty that violates the Constitution is null and void. Ergo, any 'disarmament treaty' signed by the POTUS and ratified in the Senate that violates any of the BOR is without force.

Simple logic.

Then, of course, there's the compliance and enforcement issue. UN Blue? Bring them the F*^K ON!

The orchestra seems to be warming up....time to practice one's 'dance steps'.

Dr. Richard said...

The Senate must approve all treaties with a 2/3 of the Senate approving the treaty. This means they need 67 votes. Assuming 100% of Democrats and independents are dumb enough to vote for this gun ban treaty (debatable as not all democrats are that stupid or antigun), they would need to get 8 RINOs to also vote for it. They don't have the votes.

The only question remaining is whether the Obama administration is stupid enough to try to make such a treaty take effect through executive order or regulatory means and/or to use foreign troops to enforce said orders.

1911A1 said...

The Senate is tasked with ratifying treaties, and it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

Anonymous said...

Treaty or not ... treaties DO NOT trump the constitution. Not that THEY care ... but WE do.

skybill said...

Hi Mike,
Oh I like that last paragraph!!! Treaties, Agreements, assorted documents to be ratified, bring them on and back them up,....(POW!..Ping!) and another tin can flips up in the air out past the shed...(from the radio speaker,,,"War, Children, it's just a shot away!!!!) Practice, Practice!!
Oh I like that last paragraph!!

III%,
skybill-out

Taylor H said...

I just want an M1 of my own, other than that, this IS kinda funny.

Scott J said...

Even if it isn't true that he's attempting to dork with the CMP (and I'm really surprised it hasn't happened already) I'm glad I went ahead and got a M1 from there.

I remember Clinton trying to kill it in the 90's

Anonymous said...

Dennis308,
I find it laughable that you trust the Senate or Congress to look out for you. More of that Elmer Fudd mentality.

Anonymous said...

I am sure that this is just a distraction, some smoke and mirrors to mask what the real plan is. This administration has demonstrated time and time again their ability to operate this way.

As far as Ratifying Treaties, Bill Clinton went around Congress on the NAFTA Treaty so the precedent has been set...

Brock Townsend said...

ALL Treaties MUST be Ratified by the Senate

Yes, and 2/3rds required.

Smince [III] said...

I just confirmed with my source at CMP that this is just a rumor that they have been fighting for a long time. They are not an agency of the Fed and there has been no interference by the Fed in their operations whatsoever. The supply of rifles coming from overseas is still there, however the cheap supply is running out as Asian suppliers are ratcheting up the prices so high it is not worthwhile to import them.

Mike said...

This could be considered off subject, but "Where" can a person purchase a "Full Size" Nyberg Battle Flag of the Three Percent?

Dedicated_Dad said...

Dennis308:

The Constitution says treaties must be approved by "a 2/3 majority of the Senators *PRESENT*.

I'm sure you can spot the key word in this phrase.

Do you think this bunch is above calling a "special" 3-AM meeting of 6 of its most sycophantic vermin for such a case? Think they're incapable of issuing a press-release afterward trumpeting how it was "...UNANIMOUSLY approved by the US Senate?"

If you're reasonably sane, you know they wouldn't think twice.

The only thing that *MIGHT* save us from such an event is the argument that in spite of the inherent "treaties ... shall be the supreme law of the land" language, the *INTENT* of the passage required that said treaty not violate the rest of The Constitution as written and amended.

Well - that and the fact that as MVB says "When Liberty becomes tyranny, we still get to vote."

DD

W W Woodward said...

Article. II. Section. 2.
He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
And:
Article. VI. Paragraph 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
And:
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Reminder: These articles, along with the rest of the Constitution as presented to the states, were ratified by the State of New Hampshire – the ninth state to do - and became the law of the land on or about 21 June 1788.

Question: Why, exactly, were the first ten amendments added to the Constitution?

Answer: The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified December 15, 1791, and to quote Article V, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, SHALL BE VALID TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;…”

It should be obvious that the president and the senate members present can sign and concur to any damn treaties they like, until they’re blue in the face, and if any of the treaties contradict any Amendment, the treaty isn’t worth wiping one’s arse upon.

[W3]

Alessandro Lallis said...

Nobody seems to be noticing that, under New Jersey's new REPUBLICAN governor, a decision has been made that CMP may no longer ship M-1's directly to NJ homes, but must send them to a FFL holder for transfer, thereby erecting another hoop for legitimate and vetted NJ residents to jump through. Will your state be next?

Even if you hold an 03 FFL (C&R)?

On a related note, did you know that in New Jersey, the M1 Carbine is considered an "assault weapon" and outright banned? Yes, you read that correctly, a 50+ year old carbine issued primarily to non-combat support troops as a weapon of last resort is deemed too evil to be in the hands of what I will generously term "citizens" of New Jersey.

aughtsix said...

Everyone's waiting for the "other shoe" to drop.

"Bring it on!"

"I hope they're stupid enough to..."

"Causus Beli!"

What was the original "first shoe" by the way?

Or have there been so many Intolerable Acts that a millipede could be shod with them?

Wake up and smell the incrementalism.

Jon III

Witchwood said...

The Garand rifle was welcomed with much rejoicing when it wreaked havoc on the filthy forces of fascism during WWII. It is no surprise that socialists still view Garands with apprehension, even today.

One wonders, then, why they view the Kalashnikov with even more apprehension.

For myself, talk of ratification, majorities, and treaties no longer concern me. I'm resigned. The Boers had a saying: trust in God and the Mauser.

Sail Man said...

2 words:

Molon Labe

Anonymous said...

@Mike 5/17 11:48 AM (in case MVB doesn't catch this or hasn't emailed you yet):

Flag link:
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2009/09/iii-flags-now-available.html

Flag Patch link:
http://www.ravenswoodenterprises.com/id6.html
(maybe you could suggest to them you'd like to see the 'III' shoulder patches available again, too?)

JRM
III