No To M1 Garands.....Again.


PDA






Cactus Jack Arizona
October 13, 2010, 01:59 PM
For those who will remember, I posted a story stating that S. Korea was wanting to sell their old stock of M1 Garands back to the US. The Obama Administration elected to refuse the sale on behalf of the lame excuse that the influx of M1 Garands would be dangerous to the people of the US. They stated gangs and terrorists might purchase them, as well as other bogus excuses.

A few days later, it was written that the OA would allow the sale of these rifles back into the US. So, all is well, right? Wrong!! :what:

A new story has come out stating that the approval has now been rescinded. :mad: The reasons are basically the same. It's the ol' "poses a threat to public safety" excuse, as if the M1 Garands are far more dangerous than any other firearm. Of course, now they are adding to the fear mongering that people could convert the M1's to fully auto by simply machining parts for it. Of course, anyone could technically machine parts to turn any semi-auto into a fully auto firearm. :rolleyes:

Therefore, now is the time to write more letters and make more phone calls to your congress-critters and senators. Now is the time to remind them that the mid-term elections are right around the corner. ;) Now is the time to send pink slips to those who are not friendly to the 2nd Amendment.

Read the entire story:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=214589

If you enjoyed reading about "No To M1 Garands.....Again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
alsaqr
October 13, 2010, 02:43 PM
The re-importation of semi-automatic milsurp rifles into the US was outlawed years ago by executive order under the sporting purposes clause of the GCA of 1968.

No doubt some career civil servant made the decision to allow those rifles into the US: That decision was over-ruled by a political apointee.

EmbarkChief
October 13, 2010, 03:03 PM
Ah, but the "sporting purposes" clause includes Hunting and competitive target shooting. I think a pretty good case can be made there.

Tim the student
October 13, 2010, 03:04 PM
I bet Korea can't prove they own them, and that is why they are being blocked.

alsaqr
October 14, 2010, 08:10 AM
We can make all the cases in the world why those guns should be allowed into the US but the Obama administration is not going to budge on this issue.

mooner
October 14, 2010, 09:21 AM
Wong place for this post OOOPS

GatorRanger
October 14, 2010, 07:27 PM
The re-importation of semi-automatic milsurp rifles into the US was outlawed years ago by executive order under the sporting purposes clause of the GCA of 1968.

No doubt some career civil servant made the decision to allow those rifles into the US: That decision was over-ruled by a political apointee.

alsaqr,

Negative. As per ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation), the President -- by way of the Secretary of State -- has authority to approve or deny importation of these weapons, and has had said authority for a number of years (see: http://epic.org/crypto/export_controls/itar.html ).

If this was supposedly "outlawed years ago," under the Gun Control Act of 1968, then why would the document I just linked have been updated in 1992 and explicitly state whose authority it is to regulate the importation of military surplus weapons? And why would they have allowed it before, but not now? http://www.nationalgunrights.org/images/hrb_webbanner.gif (http://nagr.org/M1garand.aspx?pid=THR2)

Tim the student
October 14, 2010, 07:34 PM
Gator, welcome to THR.

Do you know if the Koreans have ever offered to prove that they own the rifles?

alsaqr
October 14, 2010, 08:27 PM
Negative. As per ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation), the President -- by way of the Secretary of State -- has authority to approve or deny importation of these weapons, and has had said authority for a number of years (see: http://epic.org/crypto/export_controls/itar.html ).

The IATR cannot regulate guns meant for civilian use. Case closed.
In 1998 the US president made permanent the ban on re-importation of US M1 rifles and M1 carbines along with about 65 other guns.

In 1989 the US president banned the importation of certain foreign made semi auto milsurp rifles under the sporting purposes clause of the GCA 1968.

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/importban-kf.htm

The criteria were last modified in 1989. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was ordered to suspend importation of 43 imported semi-automatic firearms until a study was completed pertaining to their eligibility for importation under the "sporting use" criteria. Thereafter, the review concluded that not one of the 43 firearms was of sporting use as defined by the Import Restriction section in the 1968 Gun Control Act [18 USC 925(d)(3)].


If this was supposedly "outlawed years ago," under the Gun Control Act of 1968, then why would the document I just linked have been updated in 1992 and explicitly state whose authority it is to regulate the importation of military surplus weapons? And why would they have allowed it before, but not now?

???

ol' scratch
October 14, 2010, 09:40 PM
The reason the US doesn't want the Koreans selling the rifles back to the US is because the Koreans DON'T OWN THEM! They were loaned to the Koreans during the Cold War. The Koreans did purchase some Garands, but the vast majority were loaned. For those of you who don't know, there is an organization-The CMP who is charged with selling the loaned Garands, Carbines, 1903's and others.

I am not crazy about the President's and Washington's policies, but this one, not allowing the PURCHASE of rifles the US Government already owns is not one of them. The Koreans are trying to screw OUR government. If the Korean Government does what they are supposed to do, the rifles will be sent to the CMP and distributed. A few loud-mouthed politicians have weighed in on this and now it is a political issue. Now people who don't know a thing about the rifles are weighing in as if they were trying to import plutonium.

Check the prices of PRIVATE sellers of Garands. They are double what the CMP charges and not as good. I own three CMP M1 Garands that are amazing.

ol' scratch
October 14, 2010, 09:42 PM
The IATR cannot regulate guns meant for civilian use. Case closed.
In 1998 the US president made permanent the ban on re-importation of US M1 rifles and M1 carbines along with about 65 other guns. In 1989 the US president banned the importation of certain foreign made semi auto milsurp rifles under the sporting purposes clause of the GCA 1968.

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/importban-kf.htm






???

How is it than that they are still selling them. I just bought two and my first last year.

alsaqr
October 14, 2010, 09:48 PM
They were loaned to the Koreans under lend lease.

Not so. Lend Lease ended in Sept, 1945 when WWII ended.

How is it than that they are still selling them. I just bought two and my first last year.

The DCM is an agency of the federal government. The federal gov't can do any darn thing it wants to.

ol' scratch
October 14, 2010, 11:09 PM
The DCM doesn't exist anymore. You are right about lend lease. These rifles were loaned during the Cold War.

Bluehawk
October 15, 2010, 01:05 AM
Ok...how about CMP/CPRPFS instead??

The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. Any U.S. citizen who is legally not prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase a military surplus rifle from the CMP, provided they are a member of a CMP affiliated club. The CMP operates through a network of affiliated shooting clubs and state associations that covers every state in the U.S. The clubs and associations offer firearms safety training and marksmanship courses as well as the opportunity for continued practice and competition.

The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106, 10 February 1996) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP. The CPRPFS is a tax-exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation that has been Federally chartered by the U.S. Congress, but is not an agency of the U.S. Government (Title 36, United States Code, Section 40701 et seq). Apart from a donation of surplus .22 and .30 caliber rifles in the Army's inventory to the CMP, the CMP receives no Federal funding.

jpwilly
October 15, 2010, 01:38 AM
Well irregardless, I don't know what all this mumbo jumbo is about but frankly we need to get the anti's out of fed, state, and local politics...let's work on this! I have a feeling the symptoms of the illness would then subside.

alsaqr
October 15, 2010, 06:27 AM
BTW: The first long gun to be banned under the sporting purposes clause of the GCA 1968 was in 1984. A riot control shotgun made in South Africa was banned.

It was not until 1984 that this open-ended definition was more narrowly applied to only certain sporting activities, such as hunting and organized marksmanship.

In 1984, the "sporting purposes" test was specifically applied to rifles and shotguns. The firearm in question was a South African riot control shotgun. The importer, pursuant to the statute requirements, indicated that the weapon fit "sporting purposes" due to its "suitability for police/combat style competitions." ATF denied the license.

Carl N. Brown
October 15, 2010, 09:55 AM
The reason given publically by the State Dept. for denying the import is the fear they could fall into the wrong hands.

If one wants to accept the SCOTUS decision US v Miller 1939, if any guns are specifically protected by the 2A, they are guns suitable for military preparedness training (militia) and not "sporting purposes".

The 1968 GCA has a "sporting purpose" import clause (supposedly to keep out saturday night specials and the old mausersthat would impact US hunting rifle sales). However, military imports were authorised under the 1986 FOPA. Semi-auto military rifles have been imported as Curios & Relics after the 1989 executive order barring certain military imports so I suspect that is a non-issue on this Korean surplus issue. I have a M1 Carbine imported by Blue Sky, Arlington VA.

Repeat: the reason given publically by the State Dept. for denying the import is the fear they could fall into the wrong hands.

Perhaps there is a dispute whether the guns are loaners (military assistance) that are property of the US and should be returned to the US gov't or were bought and are property of Korea and could be re-sold to private importers with State Dept approval.

Again: the reason given publically by the State Dept. for denying the import is the fear they could fall into the wrong hands. Not that they don't meet a sporting purpose definition. Not that they are military assitance loaners.


(Side bar on the US v Miller 1939 militia purpose: The way my home state courts and attorney generals interpret the state constitution citizen's RKBA, guns for all lawful purposes are protected, purposes from self-defense, militia, hunting, defending livestock from predators, etc.; which I think is the way the authors of the BoR saw it: Antifederalist 2A to specifically protect militia preparedness because in their day no one would think of denying arms for self-defense or hunting, just as the Federalists did not foresee the government expanding its powers and authorities beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. )

GatorRanger
October 15, 2010, 02:54 PM
Carl N. Brown,

Well said.

alasqr,

"The IATR cannot regulate guns meant for civilian use. Case closed."

Great. Except these weapons were not meant for civilian use. That's my point. They were military weapons which means their re-importation falls under IATR until they come back and then signed over to someone like the CMP or another importer or...whoever. It's not a matter of "regulating" guns for civilians because, simply put, they are not even in American hands yet.

"The DCM is an agency of the federal government. The federal gov't can do any darn thing it wants to."

So...which is it? You are saying they cannot import these guns because the President banned them "permanently" in 1998 (documentation? Executive Order?), yet also that the federal government can do anything they want?

Again, this is my point. They have the ability to re-import these weapons and are choosing not to because, as Carl pointed out, they don't want them to "fall into the wrong hands."

In addition, the article you linked ( http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/importban-kf.htm ) specifically states:

On November 14, 1997, the Administration suspended import permits of all "modified semi-automatic assault-type rifles." All future sales of these previously legal firearms are effectively terminated, pending the Treasury review.

"Suspended" and "pending" mean that, as I said, they have the ability to reverse this and re-import the weapons. It's not like the 1997 suspension became a Constitutional law.

ol' scratch
October 15, 2010, 07:36 PM
How is it then that the CMP is still bringing them (M1 Garands and Carbines) back? Over 300,000 of them were just brought back from Greece. They even brought back m-14's. They did demill them and sell them as parts kits, but ACTUAL M-14's were just brought back. I think this has been so spun that the information is just repeating itself and changing with every new source. They have been watching this on the CMP forum too. The source the OP used too many adjectives and 'shock' factor words for me to believe it was from a creditable source.

alsaqr
October 16, 2010, 09:52 AM
They even brought back m-14's. They did demill them and sell them as parts kits, but ACTUAL M-14's were just brought back.

Some foreign countries were asked to return their M14 rifles to the US. Many of those returned rifles are being refurbished and issued to US troops.

SlamFire1
October 16, 2010, 10:33 AM
"The IATR cannot regulate guns meant for civilian use. Case closed."

What!? The President cannot regulate civilian arms? What bosh!!

The Arms Export Act which the ITAR is a part of give the President the authority.

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulati..._official.html
Quote:
“Section 120.1 General Authorities and eligibility.

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act authorizes the President to control the export and import of defense articles and defense services. “ Our “friends” in Congress have given the President total authority to block the import and export of any and all defense articles. Look at all the sections. Anything that the President decides is a defense article is a defense article. That is from electronic devices, machine tools, you name it. No Congressional review is required.

Take a look at section 121 for the list of things that are designated as defense articles.

121.1 General, The United States Munitions List

The following articles, services, and related technical data are designated as defense articles and defense services….

Category I – Firearms, Close Assault weapons and combat shotguns

(a) Non automatic and semiautomatic firearms to caliber 0.50 inclusive (12.7mm)

page 469


Broad enough for you? and I typed only the first sentence in this section. Did you notice that bullet (a) is categorized as “significant military equipment”.

Want to argue about what meets the definition of “civilian firearm”?, it is the President who decides what new definitions to add, what categories to create and I have not found any "civilian firearm" category. Maybe you can.

The State Department regulates the importation of all arms, under the Arms Export Act, and they manage the ITAR.

The Commerce Department manages a different category under the Arms Export Act.

61chalk
October 16, 2010, 01:56 PM
Some Garands were given to S. Korea, an some were sold. Doesn't matter, S. Korea has the right to sell them. The BATFE has ruled that these are rifles over 50 yrs. old an can be sold an imported for sale into the U.S. No other laws past or present out rule this. Many state Sen. are standing up against this unlawful ruling made my the anti-prez.

SlamFire1
October 16, 2010, 02:01 PM
old an can be sold an imported for sale into the U.S.

The BATFE does not have this authority. This authority resides in the State Department.

alsaqr
October 16, 2010, 04:26 PM
Obama is not the first president to ban the import of firearms and he won't be the last: Reagan did it, Bush I did it and Clinton did it.

alsaqr
October 16, 2010, 07:27 PM
The ATF has the authority under the sporting purposes clause of the GCA of 1968 to ban import.

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/importban-kf.htm

The criteria were last modified in 1989. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was ordered to suspend importation of 43 imported semi-automatic firearms until a study was completed pertaining to their eligibility for importation under the "sporting use" criteria. Thereafter, the review concluded that not one of the 43 firearms was of sporting use as defined by the Import Restriction section in the 1968 Gun Control Act [18 USC 925(d)(3)].

ol' scratch
October 16, 2010, 09:12 PM
Some foreign countries were asked to return their M14 rifles to the US. Many of those returned rifles are being refurbished and issued to US troops.
They demilled them. They were drill rifles. The parts kits were sold on the CMP website. There was a bunch of talk about the M-14's coming back last Feburary on the CMP forum. I read these posts with anticipation as I did the descriptions of the most beautiful Garands many guys have seen in years.

Everyone keeps talking about the 1968 clause, however; the rifles are avalable. People online just keep passing this crappy information around. I could go to Perry right now and purchase 50 Garands if I had the funds. THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS. THE REASON THE RIFLES ARE NOT COMING BACK IS BECAUSE THE KOREANS DON'T OWN THEM! If the Prez and his parade of fools didn't want the rifles in the country, why didn't they STOP THE SHIPMENT EARLIER IN THE YEAR FROM GREECE? I own a few of these and so do many of my friends.

Larry Ashcraft
October 16, 2010, 10:33 PM
This one has veered way past firearms and way too deep into politics.

Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "No To M1 Garands.....Again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!