I have to side with the "import marks are legitimate" crowd. In Canadaicon, rifles don't have to be import marked, yet. That will probably change with the next change in government.
The milsurps we get up here are mostly marked now, because they are imported from Century in the US. There is an outfit called Marstar and a few others that brings in milsurps from their original countries. These arms aren't marked.
I can understand the reasoning behind desiring the unblemished piece but it just isn't reasonable in this day and age. What it is, is an intrusion of foreign governments, through the UN, imposing laws and regulations on us that we didn't vote for or give the government the mandate to promote. The rejection of the import marks only plays into the hands of the antis. It was just their way of slapping us in the face.

The pieces are still desirable and just reflect current historical anti firearm sentiments. They also negate any ideas an individual might have about the arms being used by US forces. I understand that many lend lease rifles were used by US forces and loaned after WWII but the import mark leaves the glaring question.

Lee Enfields have similar problems. Canadians want Longbranch rifles, Brits want Maltbys and Americans want Savages. Especially the rifles without the lend lease stamps. It's only natural and a sign of national pride. If the milsurp fad continues for any length of time, import marks will be, just a proof mark of foreign use. Nothing more nothing less.
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.