Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Are import bans a violation of 2A?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by raftman, Sep 19, 2010.

  1. raftman

    raftman Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    250
    Here's kind of an interesting topic as it's not so much about anti-gunners against pro-gunners, it's actually something that people within the pro-2A community don't seem to agree about. That is import bans.

    Over the decades, there have been a number of bans against the importation of firearms. For example, that whole "point system" that either allows or denies the importation of handguns, or the ban on importing Chinese ammo as well as most Chinese firearms. Or the Clinton-era ban on most Russian-made handguns.

    Some schools of thought say these bands are good in that they protect domestic manufactures. With workers in China, for example, earning $100-$300 per month, Chinese-made guns could be priced far lower than any American-made counterparts. Thus widespread availability of firearms from places like China or Russia (where the average worker makes around $560 per month) could seriously hurt American gun makers. This side doesn't think these bans violate 2A is the gov't isn't saying "You can't get an M4" they're saying you can't get one from China.

    The contrary opinion is that these bans limit the number of guns and types of guns available to people, and also causes the cost of buying a gun to go up... and anything that limits the kind of gun you can have and makes it more expensive for you to have a gun, is a violation of 2A. This side holds that American manufacturers will do just fine, as the existing import bans still do allow quite a few foreign-made firearms and these don't appear to be hurting American makers. That is if cheap Chinese M4's were available, most buyers would still prefer to buy American.

    I tend to side with the latter opinion, but was curious as to what perspectives other people had and what the most widely held opinion is...
     
  2. SavageGerbil

    SavageGerbil Salem, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    143
    (RE-EDITED! I thought I screwed up but I didn't, leaving it as it to make fun of myself though)

    D'oh, the one "Yes" is incorrect, I fumbled my answer, so think of the yes as the answer to the question "are import bans complete BS that shouldn't be tolerated"

    I'll go ahead and amend this, lets talk Ferrari, they were really forced to step up their game when the very reasonably priced (well, for the target audience) NSX was released, they had to pull out the stops and really kick some butt, and look at the results. Competition drives progress, not only that but the inexpensive imports defend the homes that need it most, the ones with very low income who can't afford much which is the EXACT kind of situation that keeps you living in the kind of neighborhood where you have to deal with higher crime probability.

    Another thing, I know lots of guys who've bought X company's copy (usually Taurus, hehe) and decided they loved whichever platform and invested later in a better home-grown version. Really all these arguments are kind of a moot point, what it really comes down to is when you think of a free country do you feel that letting politicians make your purchasing or any other decision fits in with that?
     
  3. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    I think it is BS, but is it a 2nd issue? I'm not really sure. My first thought would be no I don't think the right to buy cool firearms cheap is a constitutionally protected right.
     
  4. raftman

    raftman Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    250
    But, I don't think it's so much about cool as it is about cheap, and actually having options for cheap.

    Just like microstamping is anti-2A, even though it doesn't actually prohibit people from owning any guns, it does make guns more expensive and thus less available to those who don't have as high an income as some other folks.
     
  5. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186

    I look at micro stamping as a right to privacy issue as well as a 2nd issue.
     
  6. MrNiceGuy

    MrNiceGuy between springfield and shelbyville Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    669
    I think it's a huge stretch to call it a 2nd issue.

    Although I dont agree with them, import bans are completely constitutionally legal IMHO.

    The preventative cost argument is irrelevant. Not everyone can afford a gun. The government has no right or responsibility to regulate lower pricing of existing guns then it does to provide lower cost alternatives.

    Simply put, you're right to buy a gun is protected, but your ability to buy the weapon rests on your shoulders.
    I have a right to free speech in public, but the government doesnt have the responsibility to provide me with a bully pulpit and access to cheap chinese microphones.
     
  7. JungleBoy

    JungleBoy Woodburn OR Member

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    14
    However there is nothing in the constitution that gives the Government the right to restrict our options. Plus some other peoples argument about protectionism is silly.
     
  8. Riot

    Riot Benton County, Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    1,723
    The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment that has the words "...shall not be infringed."

    That means that they (our founding fathers) realized it's probably smart to have a law stating that you can't yell "fire!" in a crowd when their is none...even though that is basically your 1st Amendment right. Nevertheless, our founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment for one purpose and one purpose only...and it was to keep our own government in check. At any time we, the people, should be able to organize a militia (any able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45) to take back our country from a tyrannical government. Obviously, our founding fathers never imagined guided missles our belt-fed machine guns. Nevertheless, their intentions were to have every US citizen the same capability as the standing US Army in case a revolution was in order.

    Many of us right-wing gun-nuts have basically looked the other way on a lot of these laws governing certain firearm restrictions (i.e. GCA68). Nevertheless, many legislators have taken this compromise from us as an opportunity to make more laws to hinder our rights. For example, the law for imported rifles (must have no more than 10 imported parts) is rediculous. What does the amount of imported parts have anything to do with the function or effectiveness of the rifle? Thank god the national AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) expired (sorry CA)...that was another useless law that just made it harder to purchase and own a firearm! The flash supressor, bayonet lug, collapsible stock, pistol grip and detachable magazine had NOTHING TO DO with the effectiveness of the gun! What purpose did the AWB serve, other than to hinder our 2nd Amendment rights?

    BLAH!
     
  9. Unka-Boo

    Unka-Boo Milwaukie Active Member

    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    225
    I honestly think everything from the GCA of '34 forward should be thrown out for being unconstitutional.

    We did fine for 158 years without it....just sayin'....



    I can dream.....
     
  10. raftman

    raftman Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    250
    I agree the government has no right/responsibility to regulate in order to ensure lower prices for firearms... but by extension wouldn't that mean the gov't has no right to regulate in order to ensure higher prices either?
     
  11. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Actual video of Unka-Boo dreaming...

    YouTube - twin mg42

    There are no bullets because Unka-Boo can't even afford to dream them. :p
     
  12. MrNiceGuy

    MrNiceGuy between springfield and shelbyville Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    669
    Higher prices are only one of many possible outcomes.
    They could easily argue that their imports have no effect on buying something like a $100 hi-point, therefor the costs to purchase a gun will not be effected.
    They could also twist the idea that they did this to spur local competition and innovation in order to create jobs..... Kind of like the good ol' Harley Davidson debacle.

    I dont believe they have the right to artificially inflate the price of guns to keep them out of the hands of citizens. On the same note, I dont believe that they are obligated to allow something like a $50 turkish glock clone simply and solely because it's cheap.

    hëll, I'd love to get my hand on a JDM right hand drive nissan GT-R.... but I cant, because their importation is illegal.
    I'm not happy that they're illegal to import, but I dont feel my rights are being violated either.
     
  13. Unka-Boo

    Unka-Boo Milwaukie Active Member

    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    225


    :bluelaugh:

    Pew Pew.....Pew pew pew pew
     
  14. eldbillbo

    eldbillbo clackamas New world samurai and a redneck none the less Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,170
    Likes Received:
    878
  15. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Great post! I agree, but...
    Are import bans a violation of the 2A? I say no. It does depend what and why its banned though. Not for greed,steping on our 2ndA rights or other bull.
    We the People need to let the ones who passed a ban know if we agree with it or not. And if we dont, demand they lift a ban. MY.2
     
  16. raftman

    raftman Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    250
    But if the $100 Hi Point is all that you can get, then what people can afford is affected. Wouldn't that be tantamount to saying there's only one kind of gun a poor person can own, and it's gotta be a pot-metal gun that's too big and heavy to carry and is unsafe to carry with a loaded chamber?

    For example, we all (I assume) agree we should have the right to own an AK, or a comparable firearm. If a law were to pass though, saying every AK must be 100% US-made, no imported parts of any kind may be used, that's gonna turn $400 rifles into $800 rifles, thus severely limiting the ability of many people to be able to afford a firearm of that class. It would be like saying only someone who can afford to drop $800 on a such a rifle, should be allowed to own one. In fact if such a law were to pass, that would likely be the whole point.

    The Nissan GT-R example isn't really a good one in that your right to own and drive a car isn't protected by the constitution.
     
  17. Abiqua

    Abiqua Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    85
    Your ability to keep and bear a firearm has been banned because it was produced in another country.
    I don't think even you can even call that 2A Neutral.
     
  18. chris61182

    chris61182 A little west of Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    38
    First I'll start by saying I don't like 922(r) in practice but I'm willing to play devils advocate for it using the militia and a militia's purpose as the primary reason.

    If we ever ended up in a situation where the militia was called up and expected to bring their arms with them, you do not want a bunch of rifles which the enemy is the sole parts provider for. 922(r) creates a demand for these parts domestically and prevents the 'enemy' from being the sole source.

    Though like I said, I don't like it, and I don't think that was ever the actual intent behind the law, but it does make sense if you view it in that light. Now I can think of much better ways to mitigate such a problem, some of which involve the CMP selling more than just Garands but that will never happen.
     
  19. crosse

    crosse Bellevue Active Member

    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    35
    I'm not a lawyer so what I have to say on the topic should only be regarded as an educated guess and not actual legal fact BUT that noted, I believe that any laws that seem to be unconstitutional have to show that the law was enacted with the intention to exclude or intentionally infringe on a constitutional right. So the importation ban was one that was not to limit the rights of citizens to own guns but to control a foreign product. This ban included the inexpensive guns as well as the expensive high end firearms. So unfortunately, by the basis that the law was not created to exclude the access of the everyday american but to just limit foreign commerce so its not in constitutional violation. or that's just how i see it.
     
  20. Karma

    Karma the woods in Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    72
    I think that I do see it as a violation of the 2nd Ammendment and this is why. In most other things, cars, electronics, food, and pretty much every other item you buy can be imported from foreign countries. We are told that this is a free market system and a world economy. Why would it all of the sudden stop with firearms. It would seem to me that it is 2nd Ammendment specific because special laws are applied to firearms, that aren't applied to other things that are cheaper to import than to buy domestically.