Those who served in vietnam, I have a question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Through all the legal issues here, I think we are missing one big, scary deal...

A United States SOLDIER can no longer use his issued RIFLE (or a similar version) back home after fighting for years in a WAR??????? Where is the outrage????

I do not think the founding fathers could have conceived that a soldier could not legally own his issued rifle while the USA still adhered to the Bill of Rights.
 
Thats a good point in a way, bad also in another.

Most soldiers would probably keep the gun very safe and never sell it, but there are always ones who could potentially sell it, have it stolen, or use it themselves for illegal purposes...
 
The point of the second amendment was to ensure that the population had the right the keep and own the arms necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government. The people should be able to own the same small arms (at a minimum) as the government.
 
He's in Canada...

Which brings up another point. Full autos for civilians were banned in Canada in either 1975 or 1978. Prior to that you could own them. Owners were grandfathered in. Here's another interesting point: If the weapon is an M-16 and not a C-X or whatever the Canadian variant is, could it have been given to him by an American soldier in Vietnam. Or, perhaps more morose, could he have taken the gun off a dead American or a dead Viet Cong who in turn took it off of a dead American? In effect, he had a "bring back". As you are in Western Canada, I don't think anyone would have thought either way about it.

If he registered it prior to 75/78, he's grandfathered. If not, you have contraband. As you are in Western Canada, I'd say keep it and use it for when the Torontonians come to try and take it away. Then when you run out of bullets, you can just throw piping hot Tim Horton's coffee in their faces... mmm... coffee and Timbits... :)
 
yes, but they should buy those themselves - unless those arms were owned by the govn't and they were required to regularly submit them for review.

kev
 
Through all the legal issues here, I think we are missing one big, scary deal...

A United States SOLDIER can no longer use his issued RIFLE (or a similar version) back home after fighting for years in a WAR??????? Where is the outrage????

I do not think the founding fathers could have conceived that a soldier could not legally own his issued rifle while the USA still adhered to the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure most everyone here agrees with you, but it's something that's already known, and thus isn't usually pointed out in discussion.
 
They just moved to canada approximately 10 years ago btw, they brought it with them and the border obviously did not do a very good check. Point being, lol, it is not registered. So there was no grandfathering of prohibited weapons (12.3) done cause they were never even in canada at the time.

All I've been told is that it was "his service rifle", which can't be accurate as it was catalogued and would have to be checked back in when he left his tour.

Either way, more 'facts' are needed to find anything else out.
 
Were the Canadians using M16s around the time of Vietnam? The Brits were still using L1A1s (inch FALs) then.

They just moved to canada approximately 10 years ago btw, they brought it with them and the border obviously did not do a very good check. Point being, lol, it is not registered. So there was no grandfathering of prohibited weapons (12.3) done cause they were never even in canada at the time.

All I've been told is that it was "his service rifle", which can't be accurate as it was catalogued and would have to be checked back in when he left his tour.
OK, now I'm confused. Was he in Canadian or U.S. military service?
 
OK, now I'm confused. Was he in Canadian or U.S. military service?


I met several Canadians who joined the U.S. Army so they could go to Vietnam both in the states and in Vietnam. If I recall correctly, Canada along with Poland were appointed by the UN to oversee things in Vietnam. Canadian forces in Vietnam were observers and not combat troops. I'm not sure what weapons they carried there.

There seems a lot of speculation about this M16 and here are the rules in place at the time.

The GCA of 68 outlined what could be brought back as war trophies. The requirements were:

1. It had to be a weapon used by the enemy.

2. If it was full auto it had to be dewatted usually by filling the chamber with weld permanently connecting the barrel and receiver.

3. No US manufactured weapons were allowed no matter what it was.

4. You were supposed to get a war trophy certificate from the MPs before you left. However, I saw a guy bring back an SKS (it was in a case and he handed it to the stewardess to stow during the flight back) and he didn't have paperwork. It took him about 5 minutes with Customs at McChord AFB.

5. About the only weapons you could bring back in shooting condition were Nagants (rifles and revolvers), SKSs, Tokarevs, and the big prize was a Makorov (I only saw 2 or 3 that were already in some GI's hands).

A friend of mine who did a couple of tours with the Marines had a PPSH, AK47, and SKS on his wall at home. He showed me the paperwork he had for all these.

I got there in 1968 and you could easily find a handgun if you wanted one. Just about everything from 22 to 45 caliber were available. Logistics dictated that you needed to find something that fired 38 special or 45 ACP. They weren't too particular about what you brought to Vietnam but paid attention to what you brought back. When I left in 1969 they took you in a room tables that were partitioned off. At the door was a "no questions asked" box where you could dump anything illegal you had before the inspection. You dumped everything out and the MPs went through it all. There were a few guys carted away by the MPs for drugs, weapons, and I don't know for what else.

Many things got smuggled back in a variety of ways. I know they limited Iraq War I vets to nothing and bayonets, helmets, and binoculars were seized which is ridiculous.

I do not think the founding fathers could have conceived that a soldier could not legally own his issued rifle while the USA still adhered to the Bill of Rights.


I don't agree with this. There is no requirement in the Constitution requiring the goverment to supply you with a weapon but the right to own one. The goverment giving you weapons would be an extension of the nanny welfare state.

a similar version

That I agree with.

If that's a M16 your friend has it's illegal in the US or Canada unless there's some paperwork already with it.
 
Last edited:
Vietnam 65-66 and no way did he buy it from the gov.{military} buuut when we changed from m-14's to 16's , you could buy the 14's on the black market and some guy's shipped them home one peace at a time till the gov. got wise and started to check all out bound packages. and if he did that then it has a selector switch from full to semi. and the numbers would be on a watch list some where you can about bet on it.
 
One of our U.S. senators from Tennessee had a WWII Reising
submachinegun that his father brought back from WWII with
paperwork from his unit. There are actually quite a few of
these, and as WWII veterans die off, they should be legally
inherited by their children or grandchildren. BUT the paperwork
must be in order, and the heirs of veterans often do not
know the law.

Later on, rules got stricter about "war trophies" but WWII,
Korea and early Viet Nam conflict was an earlier era.
Look for paperwork before assuming it is contraband.
 
The Army did at one time allow a discharged soldier to take his rifle as part of his mustering out pay. So far as I know, this practice stopped in the early 20th Century. Again, handguns were not included.

You could bring home a trophy weapon from Viet Nam -- I did. You had to have a release certificate from intelligence, a permit from the Viet Namese to have the gun, and an import certificate to bring it into the US. Those were easy to get -- you just taped them to the gun case and carried it through customs.
 
Had a buddy back in high school who's mother's boyfriend served infantry in vietnam. Somehow he got a hold of an ak47, he used to tell stories about the VC kid that he pulled it off of. Right... he also claimed to be a tunnel rat (he was about 5' 11", 200 lbs when I met him)

Anyhow, he did demonstrate it's felonious qualities after drinking way too much and deciding that the neighbors cat didn't belong in his old van. The man was crazy, hope he's in jail.

So, if he was telling the truth, then there must have been ways to transport stuff back from Vietnam (he actually was in vietnam as infantry, I believe that part). For all I know he had the necessary license to have an automatic...I don't remember his name either. Great, now my story is as full of holes as his was.
 
Keeping The Issued Rifle

In was in the USAF '68 to '72, but not "in theatre" during that time.

No, you didn't get to keep the rifle.

Indulging in a little fantasy, there is just one little part of the Swiss system I'd like to see adopted: "Here ya go, soldier, take this home and keep it safe. Make sure you keep in practice with it. You're part of the country's militia now. Take what you've learned and pass it on. Thanks for everything you've done. Carry on."

Hey, I can dream, right?
 
Indulging in a little fantasy, there is just one little part of the Swiss system I'd like to see adopted: "Here ya go, soldier, take this home and keep it safe. Make sure you keep in practice with it. You're part of the country's militia now. Take what you've learned and pass it on. Thanks for everything you've done. Carry on."

Hey, I can dream, right?

The way I see it, you take your rifle to the polling place and prove you are eligible to vote by showing your ammo pouches are full and your qualification certificate is up to date.
 
I too was in VN 1970-1971 and there was no way I could buy my M16 or bring it home under any rules that I knew of. My bags were searched before I left country. If there was a way to do it legally & I knew of it, I would have tried. You could have war souvenirs that were not fully automatic sent home when you left country, but nothing full auto. War souvenirs were tagged and sent to the rear and they stayed there till you processed out of country. If the tags fell off the souvenirs, they seemed to find new tags on them in short order. It seemed the souvenirs in really good shape always lost their original tags. I put original tags on a unfired Chinese pistol and a rifle, but due to the original tags getting lost, some one else got them (or so I was told).

If memory serves me correctly, I heard that during 1970 and or 1971, Sears stores were selling a civilian semi-auto M16 and I seem to remember it being manufactured by Colt. It was a long time ago and SOME things aren't so clear any more.
 
They were all born and raised in the states, they just moved to canada about 10 years ago, so his dad served in the US military, they all grew up in the states.

Wow as much as I want to stay away from this gun, I still can't help myself to find out the truth and see what it really is... Thats all I'm going to say ;)
 
Look, both the english language and the memory of a child are imprecise.

I took to 3 nongunner fence-sitters to gunshow to show them that the concern about 'loopholes' was silly. One guy was in the national guard, we went up to a table with a ton of different configured ARs. He picked one up and said "This is what I used." He was not stating that that specific gun, that serial number, was the one he was issued, he was stating that of all of them on the table, this one had the most features that were the same as his issued weapon.

Who knows what the guy actually said to his son.

Many people who had little gun experience prior to the military come back and if they purchase a gun, frequently purchase one 'just like I had in the military' because they already know how to shoot it, clean it, etc etc. It is very possible that is what the guy actually did.


Send him a pic of an AR-15 with the selector switch circled, tell him to find something similar on his gun, take a pic of it, and send it back. Problem solved
 
M-16 'bring back?

USN 'Nam Vet '65, '71-'72. No! Nothing with US stamped on it or even looked like something we had. No automatic weapons... no matter where theywere from. AK's, RPK's, BMP's, Schmeissers... 'nuthin. I had a 'clean' 1911-A1... no markings whatever. Couldn't get it outta country. 'Finally gave it to a SEAL (Team 2) from up-river (IV Corps). I brought back a Chinese Type 56 (SKS) 7.62x39mm. Have 'War Trophy' papers for it ('72). (PIX included). No automatic weapons ever made it legally outta the 'Nam. Nobody could 'buy' anything from the Army, Navy... Marine Corps. Among other things... I was the Squadron Armorer (Aviation Ordnanceman). Whatever I had left over (on custody cards) when we decommissioned was turned into MACV Saigon. Anything else unaccountable was handed over to the SEALS 'n some others still in-country. 'Lotta what you hear from 'Vets is BS... including the fact that they ever were Vets.

However... if y'all ever wanted to se a REAL Viet Cong rifle... this one IS>
 

Attachments

  • Type 56 7.62x39mm.jpg
    Type 56 7.62x39mm.jpg
    53.7 KB · Views: 135
A friend of mine who is a Vietnam Vet (US Army '70-'72) has an SKS that he legally brought back, he showed me the paperwork even. He told me he wanted to bring back his M16 and a folding stock AK as well, but he was told that he couldn't. He said he thought about trying to smuggle the AK home in his duffle bag since it was quite compact with the stock folded, but he decided not to. He said it was a good thing too because they searched all his things when he left. They definitely would have found that AK. So he "settled" for the SKS that he himself didn't even capture. He traded the AK with another soldier for the SKS so he could have something he could actually legally bring back. The rifle that Sonora Rebel posted looks just like the one my friend brought back.

For a short time after WWII the Army did allow soldiers to purchase their issue rifles, but that didn't last long. The Army hasn't even allowed firearms captured from the enemy to be legally kept and brought back since Vietnam. As a previous poster mentioned, now they don't even let them bring back simple things like helmets, which is absolutely ridiculous. What harm could possibly come from a GI bringing back an Iraqi helmet?
 
There is a book called "Stolen Valor" that details a lot of the BS about who was in VN, what they did or didn't do and who wasn't there, but said they were. Very interesting reading. John Kerry gets mentioned among many others.

Unfortunately.........BS is more often believed than the truth!
 
Anyways, he doesn't want to sell it, or give it away, it was his dads and has sentimental value.
He has no idea what he has to tell you the truth, he has no idea how illegal it would be to have it, he is completley oblivious to what he really has.
It's easy enough to find out if it's full auto or semi. On the receiver, above the trigger, is the safety/selector switch. The civilian AR-15 has two positions: SAFE and FIRE. The early military M-16 had three positions: SAFE, SEMI, and AUTO. Later (after I was out, so I don't know exactly when) the Powers That Be realized that full-auto equated to spray-and-pray, so they changed the auto mode to three-round burst. So those models will have the selector positions identified as SAFE, SEMI, and BURST.
 
ReadyontheRight said:
A United States SOLDIER can no longer use his issued RIFLE (or a similar version) back home after fighting for years in a WAR??????? Where is the outrage????

I do not think the founding fathers could have conceived that a soldier could not legally own his issued rifle while the USA still adhered to the Bill of Rights.
Non sequitur. You are forgetting that when they wrote the Bill of Rights there was no such thing as an "issue" rifle. Each soldier supplied his own rifle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top