Should Soldiers Today Be Able to Bring Back Weapons?

[Vern Humphrey]

The normal method (in Viet Nam) was first to register the weapon with the intelligence people and get their certificate, saying it was not needed for intelligence purposes. Then you got a command certificate to keep it, a Viet Namese permit to have it, and finally permission to bring it into the states -- You needed four separate pieces of paper on a bring-back. That's plenty of controls -- more than needed, in fact.

 

[qwert65]

There's a big difference between cutting off a body part versus sending home an inanimate object.

 

[cambeul41]

So far armoredman makes the best argument although I can understand the desire to bring back a weapon one has personally liberated.

 

[newfalguy101]

I like BearGriz's idea, but I don't really see how the Military could afford it. The soldier that wants his weapon would have to pay a LOT of money to literally buy an M4 and have it converted. I could see that process costing thousads and thousands if the Military isn't losing money from it.

KInda depends really.

If the soldier were charged the same as the military for the M-4 then it would pretty cheap!!

On the other hand, if they charged the going rate of a transferable gun, ouch.............

Oh, then there is the pesky problem of no NEW transferable machine guns built after 1986......

In the long run, knowing the guvernment, it would probably cost less to just order a new M-4orgery when the guy gets home.

Oh, and for the original question, YES, I believe war trophies should be allowed

 

[RickMD]

My late father brought back a Walther P-38 and a 98 Mauser from the European Theater. He told me that full auto weapons were not permitted even in 1945. That policy, if still in effect, would rule out all modern day weapons with the exception of autoloading pistols and riot shotguns. It unfortunately makes any argument in favor war trophies moot.

 

[Ingsoc75]

At least they had a few amnesties between 1945 and 1968 for vets to register their NFA class war trophies.

You can thank this jackass from New Jersey for never allowing an amnesty to happen again:

 

[Plan2Live]

I understand the sentiment of most here encouraging the practice. However, I think this is a slippery slope and a bad PR idea. Why a slippery slope? Why stop with weapons? Once you open that door then where do you draw the line? Watches, jewelry, money, art, religious artifacts, computers, cars, where does it stop? We are Americans and we should set a higher standard by living that example.

 

[moxie]

I don't know what the earlier policies might have been, but I left Vietnam on "the last day", March 29, 1973. It was illegal to bring any weapons out with us. Which hurt, since I had a number of primo pieces, especially .45s. Never did see any "certificates" that might have allowed such. My commission was worth more than a gun, so I didn't take any chances, but it wasn't a big deal, to me. If I had to set policy, I would allow bringback of captured weapons, not auto. Very few would meet the criteria. My father-in-law brought an Arisaka back from the Phillipines in WWII. Something like that would be appropriate. Vietnam era would be a captured SKS, but not an AK. I don't know what would meet my criteria in Afganistan/Iraq.

 

[armoredman]

Plan2Live, if you read the suggestions, this was NOT to let individual soldier bring back "loot" stripped from the dead, but selected war trophies and memorabilia vetted by the local command and whatever local government was available. I think the cutoff would be operational main battle tanks - armored cars are just fine, but YOU have to pay for shipping! Weapons have long been acceptable war trophies, dating back to the swords and armor eras, where battle flags and captured "arms", shields with the vanquished coat of arms is painted, were displayed in great halls. I also cannot imagine a more fitting salute to a fallen enemy than letting his weapon continue working as a civilian firearm, helping to safeguard liberty, hearth and home.
BTW, I have seen many soldiers return with money, watches, etc., from the sandboxes, allowable memorabilia.

 

[armoredman]

Moxie, thank you for your service - one of my earliest TV memories was watching the fall of Saigon.

 

[justice06rr]

Although I'm all for it, the practice would bring some issues once the Veteran soldier returns to the civilian world. Already mentioned are full-auto firearms, which are regulated along with SBR's, suppressors, etc.

it would be great if a soldier could bring home his favorite duty weapon, but it would need to have very clear regulations on possesion and sale/transfers i.e. the soldier must keep it for himself (cannot be sold or transferred to anyone else without proper approval). As you can imagine, this would bring up more unnecessary paperwork and regulations to the already highly regulated system. Also it means that the firearm cannot be re-used by another soldier if needed, and new firearms must be constantly purchased by the Military.

 

[Averageman]

I work with Military equipment.
A couple of years ago someone stumbled upon a weapon cached in a vehicle years ago.
No small amount of hell broke loose upon finding this lump of ex soviet Iraqi ball of rust.
All in all I want none of it, legal or not.

 

[Redlg155]

Semi auto or deactivated trophies, yes.

I also believe that each soldier should have to purchase his own M4 with his first check. Afterwards the same rifle transfers with him to each duty station. Upon HONORABLE discharge, the weapon is coverted to semi auto and "discharged" as well with the servicemember to permanently serve as inactive civilian guard.

 

[shuvelrider]

Sounds like some of you are living in the past, those days are gone. We live currently in a world where the mindset has changed, in regards to the popularity of a war. Which in turn effects policy on the mindset of allowing soldiers to bring home souvenirs.

 

[russ69]

As far as keeping your service weapon, no. This is tax payer property and should be returned to inventory. Having a infantryman keep "his" rifle is like having a pilot keep "his" airplane. It never was "his" to start with.

 

[Cosmoline]

It would be very easy to put whatever limits and safeguards are needed on the practice of taking trophies. I guess the problem is that the very idea of trophies is frowned upon by the other side. As we've seen with the RKBA battles won and lost, worrying about how the other side chooses to demonize you is a losing strategy. You fight on their turf, and they'll ALWAYS find another way to undermine and attack. Maybe it's time to stop apologizing, placating and deferring and open the way for soldiers to bring at least something of value back.

arguing against our troops cutting the heads off of their enemies, preparing them and shipping them home

Since when is this the moral or legal equivalent to sending back weapons bound to be piled up and destroyed anyway?

It never was "his" to start with.

And as the guy who paid for it (yes believe me I've paid for it LOL) I would love to see that solider be given the chance to BUY it.

 

[Warp]

I don't see why not...until I read this thread and I see some very good points being made by some posters regarding the nature of the war, professionalism, the impression given to the locals, perception, etc. I can see why not, for sure.

 

[Tinpig]

Excellent posts by Nushif.

Tinpig

 

[CapnMac]

Some germane points:
1934 NFA made many of the WWII "bring backs" thoroughly illegal--yet society did not collapse into anarchy. And, large numbers of items wound up quietly sitting in barns and attics and basements ever since.

There was only ever the one amnesty; which was very nearly still-born as it required admission of guilt to be applied. This truncated several weeks off of the very short (6 to 8 week, if memory serves) amnesty period--which received little or no publicity at all.

Far too many of "us" have engrained 'reflexes' that selective-fire and FA are "bad" or in need of "higher regulation" than other arms. We should never forget that NFA items were stigmatized as part of a political "compromise" that, initially planned to ban all handguns.

This will become an issue.

The war generations are passing from this mortal coil. Their families, oft their grandchildren are going to start finding items cached away for years (especially in the dark days after GCA '68).

In all probability, a number of these families have already been treated quite shabbily by "the authorities." Equally likely, a number of historically significant items have been crushed/melted/bandsawn away. But, none of these cases has likely been much more than a local "firefly" in the news. Which will last until some decorated current war vet is found in "illegal" possession of gran'pappy's MG-42, or PPSh or Type 56 or the like.

Which the pop press will manager to spin as evil as if every conglomeration of hoodlums was being equipped, presto-chango with B-40 rockets, RPG, SA-2, SS-N-4 and the like, rather than have a sensible dialog about people being competent with their arms, and being free to use them.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

President Truman, as a Lt. in WWI, was allowed to keep his issued 1917 revolver. It was donated by Truman after he was president to a museum (not sure if is is the Smithsonian, or a presidential exhibit somewhere, or what). Countless officers of WWI and WWII were allowed to keep or purchase their issued sidearms (see the General Officer's Models and history). Probably half of the unaltered M1 rifles and M1 carbines from WWII were "liberated" by soldiers....most all the ones that remained in inventory have been altered by upgrades and replaced parts over the terms of their service before being sold through the DCM. I am not advocating stealing issued weapons, although that's exactly what it was at the end of WWII, but they may have been going to a scrapheap, dumped in the ocean, burned, or otherwise destroyed or abandoned in many cases (I know of a bunch of Thompson SMG's buried in the sand off the coast of Ascension Island in the Atlantic at the end of the war; my father-in-law was part of the detail that buried them). Foreign weapons that would otherwise be destroyed are prime candidates for repatriation to the US under some kind of supervised souvenir plan, should the military see fit. Why not dewatted AK's. permanently welded, etc? By ATF, they could be classified as "non-weapons", if BATF saw fit to do so. Could they be reactivated? Maybe, but not any easier than it would be to BUILD one from a parts kit and fabricated receiver. IF one WANTS to be illegal, there is always a way, but there are also those who comply, fill out all the blanks, and have dummy, dewat, or other non-guns in compliance of the laws, too. A vet bringback that followed set guidlines for persons not prohibited does not seem like a problem to me. Many of you naysayers are writing an awful lot of criminal intent and assumed social disapproval into this. Deactivated machineguns are wallhangers, and many have even been accepted in gun-hating countries like Great Britain and Canada for many years.

 

[ScrapMetalSlug]

Of course they should be able to, it will never happen though. You need a memorandum signed by the company commander to bring your own personally owned pocket knives back from theatre, and these are ones you bought!

Bringing back your own weapons would be great, but it will never be allowed. Besides, most possible bring backs would be NFA items anyways, which are already banned.

The best we can do is talk about the good old days, when whatever I stuffed in my duffel bag I could bring back. Coming back from Afghanistan I went through customs 5 different times to include an X-ray scan, and got an ink pen confiscated that looked like a bullet

 

[DammitBoy]

The current objective of most war is not simply to crush, defeat, loot, and/or humiliate the enemy and take their land. Rather, the ultimate objective is often nation building to create a stable, economically prosperous, and strong ally...

Which is politically driven nonsense, which only serves to get our soldiers killed and a one-size fits all remedy that is ill-conceived at best.

If you want to send men to wars, don't fight in half measures. Scorched earth, winner takes all, no mercy to the vanquished and take all the trophies you want. Leave the politicians out of the military strategy sessions.

War is ugly and dressing it up with a bow doesn't change that. Trophy taking as an issue of losing focus is one thing. Debating on how it makes us look as regards our enemies is just political correctness gone mad.

Hearts and minds, my behind.

 

[Warp]

Which is politically driven nonsense, which only serves to get our soldiers killed and a one-size fits all remedy that is ill-conceived at best.

If you want to send men to wars, don't fight in half measures. Scorched earth, winner takes all, no mercy to the vanquished and take all the trophies you want. Leave the politicians out of the military strategy sessions.

War is ugly and dressing it up with a bow doesn't change that. Trophy taking as an issue of losing focus is one thing.Debating on how it makes us look as regards our enemiesis just political correctness gone mad.

Hearts and minds, my behind.

The argument is that it is about perceptions of many more than just our enemies.

 

[doc2rn]

I have been in several conflicts, and the reason my superiors gave made more sense than what I am seeing.
The reason we are no longer allowed to bring back weapons is that they are capable of full auto. The AK-47 is the weapon of choice by most of our enemies. Even with the barrels plugged and bolts welded, the trigger control group which allows for full auto fire is not disabled. There for allowing former military personel to transfer set trigger group to comercially available rifles.
There was an incident between a former Marine and LEO in California where the Marine did just that. There was even a YouTube video showing him pying off a corner to engage the LEO.
This is why we are no longer allowed to bring back war trophies.

 

[asia331]

QUOTE]Should Soldiers Today Be Able to Bring Back Weapons?[/QUOTE]
Unquestionably..yes. Will it happen ...no.

Shhhhhhh...I have a secret for you. The unfortunate sad truth is that too many, not all, but way too many Flag and General officers are politically driven, do not actually like small arms, don't really trust their soldiers and Marines with them and view small arms in the possession of their Marines/soldiers as too often a "career risk" to their next star. On the SecDef's recent visit to the Afghanistan a Marine General Officer ordered his troops to disarm before entering an assembly with SecDef Panetta. Shameful. The official justification was the CG wanted his Marines to show brotherly unity with the disarmed Afghans in attendance.

There isn't a Fleet Marine anywhere that believes that.