Obama: 100,000 American Rifles Banned

From the Korea Times:

The U.S. government opposed South Korea’s bid to sell hundreds of thousands of aging U.S. combat rifles to American gun collectors, a senior government official said Thursday.

The ministry announced the plan last September as part of efforts to boost its defense budget, saying the export of the M1 Garand and carbine rifles would start by the end of 2009.

The U.S. administration put the brakes on the plan, citing “problems” that could be caused by the importation of the rifles.

The M-1 Garand is one of the quintessential American semi-automatic firearms. The fact that the Obama Administration would prohibit the import of an AMERICAN firearm is absolutely appalling. Seriously.

Another excerpt from the article:

“The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions,” the official told The Korea Times.

Let's start with the first objection. It seems the Obama Administration believes that more guns means a higher chance of firearm-related accidents. However, the chance of accidents has been proven time and time again to decline with an increase in firearm ownership.

The second objection is the chance that the guns would get into the hands of bad people. However, the risk here is the same as any other firearm. These firearms, upon being imported, would have to be sold by a Federal Firearms Licensee. The FFL is required by law to run a NICS background check prior to selling a firearm. These firearms, like any other firearm, would be subject to the same check.

While the Obama Administration can legally pressure the South Korean government to not export these firearms, they cannot legally prohibit the import of these firearms. Because these firearms are over 50 years old, they are considered Curios and Relics and therefore importable.

Maybe Eric Holder should bring the rest of the Administration up to speed on 27 CFR § 478.11 and 18 USC § 925(e)(1). Nevermind, he'd probably find some way to twist it to mean something completely opposite...