Petition On Re-Importation of US M1 Rifles and Carbines: Deadline, 23 March, 2017

Just an idea; what about re-importing NFA firearms? Besides the M1 Garands and M1 Carbines, I'm sure we have exported things like M2 Carbines, M3 and M3A1 SMGs, 1919A4 machineguns, M14 rifles, etc. Am I the only one who would like to see some of these C&R NFA firearms imported and registered for transfer to qualified collectors?
 
This one didn't even come close.

animated-monkey-image-0051.gif
 
For an update on Re-Importation, check out the article on page 89 of the April issue of the American Rifleman...

Forum members can click here if they want to read the article online. The link will take you to the page.

I'd read the article when I received my issue of the magazine. It doesn't really say anything of earth-shattering importance. The article really isn't informative at all regarding the re-importation of defense surplus firearms, though. All it does is reiterate that the NRA has been part of a "long running effort to repatriate tens of thousands of M1 Garand rifles and hundreds of thousands of M1 Carbines from South Korea." The article goes on to mention that there's no clear public safety reason why these weapons can't be brought back home.

Other than that, there's no mention of any progress being made to achieve this goal, simply because there isn't any progress being made. The article is basically just a position statement, nothing more.
 
Forum members can click here if they want to read the article online. The link will take you to the page.

I'd read the article when I received my issue of the magazine. It doesn't really say anything of earth-shattering importance. The article really isn't informative at all regarding the re-importation of defense surplus firearms, though. All it does is reiterate that the NRA has been part of a "long running effort to repatriate tens of thousands of M1 Garand rifles and hundreds of thousands of M1 Carbines from South Korea." The article goes on to mention that there's no clear public safety reason why these weapons can't be brought back home.

Other than that, there's no mention of any progress being made to achieve this goal, simply because there isn't any progress being made. The article is basically just a position statement, nothing more.

I think the fact that the Deputy Director of the ATF has suggested these more positive steps ( at least put them in writing) is a move in the right direction. Much more positive then the previous administration.
 
Back
Top