.

M1 Garrand, threat to America. (C&P)

45long45long Member Posts: 642 ✭✭✭✭
It's a long article. But well worth the read. It is very scary and maybe just the begining if they make this stick.

WEAPONS OF CHOICE

Obama agency busts plan to sell rifles to Americans
Feds call popular gun a 'threat,' proposed shipments canceled

Posted: October 12, 2010
8:18 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
c 2010 WorldNetDaily

The Obama-run Washington bureaucracy has classified a common and reliable rifle, the M1 Garand, as a "threat to public safety in the U.S.," and the State Department has canceled plans by the Republic of Korea to return tens of thousands of surplus rifles to the U.S. for sale in the consumer market.

The stunning classification of an ordinary gun that was used in the U.S. military for two decades and issued to thousands of soldiers and Marines during World War II and Korea as a threat came in a document by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

It is being publicized by Examiner gun rights writer David Codrea, who said the federal agency appeared alarmed that there would be "no more controls [over imported Garands] than any other firearm."

Everything you'll ever need to know about gun is here, in the "FIREARMS MULTIMEDIA GUIDE"

"If I read this right, what they're saying is, every gun poses a threat to public safety in the U.S.," he wrote. "This is the same rationale used in model-specific 'assault weapons' bans - the type of gun is somehow deemed relevant, even though untold numbers of such firearms are already peaceably owned in this country, and even though no supporting evidence for this conclusion exists beyond agenda-promoting speculation."

A source who sought confidentiality because of his current status in the industry told WND that the document posted by Codrea is at least an accurate draft, if not the final version, of the document assembled by the ATF.

According to the document itself, it came about because of this scenario: The State Department in May 2009 approved a "request by the Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) to transfer 87,310 M1 Garand rifles and 770,160 M1 carbine rifles to U.S. private entities for subsequent commercial resale in the United States."

But the ATF contacted the State Department and argued the stock of rifles "poses a threat to public safety in the U.S." As a result, the State Department reversed its decision.

The transfer of such weapons would raise the number of guns available and, therefore, lower the price, making them more generally available, the agency found.

Tracking ability sought

"They may be legitimately sold, trafficked or otherwise transferred. The only controls are the ones in the [Gun Control Act of 1968] and, while these controls require federal firearms licensees to keep certain records and place some restrictions on their firearms sales, such as requiring a background check and limiting interstate shipments to licensees, very few records are required to be provided to ATF and ATF is specifically prohibited from maintaining any form of a firearm registry," the argument said.

The ATF also expressed concern that anyone who can purchase seven separate parts for the gun and install them correctly - or those individuals who can machine their own steel parts for guns - probably could convert the carbine into a machine gun.

The Garand, once praised by Gen. George S. Patton, arrived as a service rifle in the military in 1936 and was issued routinely until 1957, when it was replaced.

The gun expert who acted as a source for WND said the implications of the case are significant for several reasons. One is that a "5-year-old" could figure out that if the government classifies one type of rifle as a "threat," there could be similar designations for other kinds of firearms.

Further, he said a team of ATF managers actually took the initiative in writing the agency's condemnation of the Garand. He noted the agency from 2003-2009 traced an estimated 1.8 million guns for various reasons.

But of those, only some 1,900 were Garands.

"It's a very select core of old-school ATF narcissists who have just become too powerful and too arrogant," the source reported.

'No comment'

Officials with the ATF declined to comment to WND, but a spokesman for the U.S. Department of State explained that the permission had been granted for the rifles to be shipped to the U.S., then it was rescinded.

The decision, explained Karl Duckworth, was prompted because of "concerns that such large numbers" of weapons would be brought into the U.S. and they could be "exploited for illicit purposes."

However, he said he could not elaborate on just exactly who expressed the concerns.

Codrea told WND the classification was a "beachhead" for gun control. The WND source said it was just a symptom of the larger problems at the BATFE, citing a CleanupATF website that describes the work of "returning integrity, accountability and decency to the management of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive."

The site explains that there have been some 400 employee complaints in the agency in just the last two years.

According to Codrea, "This is the grave threat to the republic? This is nothing less than legislation by unaccountable bureaucrats with an agenda that has nothing to do with legitimate delegated authority."

Former congressman warned of gun control

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, now running for governor in his state, wrote some months ago about guns becoming endangered under Obama.

"A U.N. resolution adopted in October calls upon member nations to negotiate the matter and finish writing a [gun control] treaty by 2012. The United States voted for the resolution, which was adopted almost unanimously," he said in a commentary. "President Bush, for all his mistakes and miscalculations, never allowed his U.N. representatives to participate in such negotiations. But Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed course and agreed to join the negotiations."

He said it is such treaties that offer serious threats to the U.S.

"What conventional arms treaties do is constrain the actions of law-abiding nations and law-abiding citizens while allowing outlaw nations and leftist guerrilla groups to build their arsenals," he said. "If you think such international treaties apply only to sales and exchanges among nations and not to individuals, you have not been paying attention to the Obama administration's agenda and to what activist judges have been doing in American courts."

States already rebelling

States already have begun rebelling against federal rules for guns, with eight formally adopting laws that exempt guns made, sold and kept within the states from federal regulations.

A court case over that law now is headed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The description of guns as a "threat" recalls the themes in a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report in 2009 that characterized "right-wing extremists" as opponents of abortion and illegal immigration and supporters of gun rights and third-party political candidates.

WND reported on a Department of Homeland Security report that warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, stated "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, went on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Most notable was the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it said. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

Comments

  • wpagewpage Member Posts: 10,191 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • tomahawktomahawk Member Posts: 11,826
    edited November -1
    banning the old garands will do no good....crazy horse defeated custer using bows and arrows...these politicians are nuts....they worry about guns...and taking away the rights of folks....they better worry about a sharp stick up their *[;)]
  • Peter SuciuPeter Suciu Member Posts: 69 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The article is good, but I've also been tracking this story for my own site, FirearmsTruth.com, and I wrote this piece for Military Trader:
    http://www.militarytrader.com/article/U-S-blocks-Korean-M1-rifles/




    U.S. blocks Korean M1 rifles
    Not the first time the U.S. has stopped arms importation

    by Peter Suciu

    In what can only be termed irony, a large cache of M1 rifles remains in South Korea, ready for the American collector's market-and yet these guns will likely not return home anytime soon, because the importation is being blocked by the American State Department.

    The news broke this past August, when The Korea Times reported that the United States government essentially blocked the importation of some 100,000 vintage M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines. The plan to export the guns from South Korea had been announced by its Ministry of National Defense a year earlier, and this was going to be part of the effort to boost the nation's defense budget.

    Given the increased popularity of the M1 and its subsequent increase in price, it isn't hard to see why this would be welcome news for collectors in the United States, and why the South Koreans would be eager for this influx of revenue. The firearms, which were the most widely distributed semi-auto rifle issued during WWII, gained popularity in the mid-1990s and, since that time, prices have gone sky high.

    "It hasn't just been the last couple of years," says advanced American militaria collector and dealer Reefe Renforth. "A lot of the interest came with the release of "Saving Private Ryan" and later with "Band of Brothers." These created a core of `World War II addicts,' and this is among the classic WWII weapons." The M1 Garand and M1 carbine were also introduced to a younger generation, those who learned of the exploits of their grandfathers through hit video games such as "Medal of Honor" and "Call of Duty".

    The result of the renewed interest in WWII meant that quality M1 rifles, and even those meant for the range as much as the shelves now fetch prices much higher than just a decade ago, and that hasn't fallen even with the economic slowdown. The question is whether 100,000 more guns imported to the American market would even create a dent in the price for collectors?

    "It would affect the bottom end rifles, but really good correct rifles probably wouldn't budge in price," says Renforth. "It would make what we call shooters available to the general public."

    Those rifles -whether of shooter quality or otherwise-are unlikely to show up on the collector's market anytime soon. Following the publication of The Korean Times story, numerous rumors circulated as to what this meant, and why these guns were being banned. It is worth noting that in the article an unnamed source from the Ministry of National Defense passes the blame to the Obama Administration.

    According to this source, the first reason given is because the guns are old, and thus potentially dangerous; and second, could fall into the hands of terrorists or gangs. This fact was later confirmed in early September when FoxNews picked up on the story, quoting a State Department source as saying that the transfer of such a large number of guns, "could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes."

    Both arguments are, of course, weak and a bit contradictory; many older guns are imported all the time without posing a "danger" to collectors-and currently Chinese, Yugoslavian and Romanian AK-47s and SKS rifles are being imported at record numbers. More confusing is that there is precedence in place that would stop this importation, and it is simply odd that the Ministry in Korea wouldn't have known about it, or cited it. Either someone in the Ministry is confused, or the American State Department was trying to make silly excuses when a valid reason already exists.

    "This first became an issue in the 1950s," says Alex Cranmer, vice president of International Military Antiques, and he and his company, which he runs with his father, has run into problems with importation many times over the years. "The key to the issue is the ban on return of American goods, which was introduced after the war, so that lend lease and other firearms weren't sold back to Americans. The reason was so that foreign governments couldn't dump these items at discounted prices, and in direct competition with American makers. But this now extends to all sorts of equipment as well, and it isn't just limited to guns. It is ironic as you can bring in other guns, but you can't bring in these M1s from Korea."

    The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 is another component that could ensure that these guns will likely never come home. This act gave the President of the United States the authority to control the import and export of military hardware, which was not limited to just firearms. It further requires governments that receive weapons, and other military equipment, from the United States to use them for "legitimate self-defense." The act restricts the sale of some technologies as well, but it does put limits on how the guns can be sold. Renforth has also encountered this, and told of efforts to import older vehicles from South America without success. "As far as I know, anything that is military equipment can't be imported into the United States."

    The irony is that while those former Communist Bloc firearms are easy to import, the same can't always be said for M1 rifles or it seems even other U.S. military equipment. But who is in the crosshairs for this regulation is the question, and many gun collectors today like to point the finger at President Bill Clinton. But the fact is that this is an issue that occurred long before Clinton headed to the Oval Office. Following the WWII, South Korea- along with nations such as Taiwan, Iran and Turkey-received support under the Military Assistance Program. With it came the move that Cranmer notes, to keep these items from in turn being sold off.

    Of course, M1 rifles have been imported back into the United States, so the mystery here is why there is a hold up now? "This comes up every eight to 10 years," says Orest Michaels, Chief Operating Officer of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. While the CMP does not import rifles, and receive all their firearms from the U.S. Army, Michaels was able to shed some light on this issue. "This happened before, around 2004, and it seems that the South Koreans started it up again, trying to bring the rifles home through different importers."

    Michaels adds that many times the M1 rifles are simply "on loan" to another nation, and "when those are no longer needed, those rifles come home." From there the U.S. military, through programs such as the CMP, are able to get those guns on the market. The difference in this case may be that the South Koreans don't want to simply give the guns back, they want to sell the firearms-and with even shooter rifles fetching several hundred dollars or more, it isn't hard to see why. "There is no reason to believe collectors wouldn't scoop up the 100,000 rifles if they came up for sale."

    Why does former President Bill Clinton get the blame? One rumor circulating is that Clinton is responsible for the ban of the importation of these guns as part of the assault weapon ban, but that isn't exactly accurate. For one thing, why would M1 rifles be stopped from importation but AK-47s are not? It comes back to the MAPs issue, and according to some sources, the law may have been loosely enforced, and in the pre-9/11 days, much more could be imported.

    "Yes, this comes up from time to time," says Charles Steen, president of Sarco Inc., whose company imports firearms. "The problem is the regulation, and the state department does have to approve the transactions. For a long time, there was a presumptive denial for guns. With the fair trade agreement, this went from presumptive denial to presumptive approval and eventually, to a structured approval."

    Thus it is possible that Clinton (the President) had again authorized a policy of presumptive denial, but it now seems that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has enacted a policy of presumptive denial. And with those M1 rifles will likely remain in South Korea. J

    Peter Suciu is executive editor of FirearmsTruth.com, a website that tracks and reports on media bias against guns and Second Amendment rights.
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 38,925
    edited November -1
    our govt is the real threat to America....and they son't want the opposition to have any weapons ....knives next like england ????...then sticks ???
  • wpagewpage Member Posts: 10,191 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It is of some interest that these guns on loan. Now South Korea wants to sell them back? Sounds like the Russian lend lease program...
    We need to pick better trade partners. Would your trade with neighbors like these?
    International scum bags.
  • Peter SuciuPeter Suciu Member Posts: 69 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wpage
    It is of some interest that these guns on loan. Now South Korea wants to sell them back? Sounds like the Russian lend lease program...
    We need to pick better trade partners. Would your trade with neighbors like these?
    International scum bags.


    This isn't just a matter of trade partners. Keep in mind we still trade with the Chinese and even in the Cold War traded with the Soviet Union. Trade partners isn't the issue.

    South Korea was loaned these weapons when it was a war ravished land, recovering from the conflict with North Korea (some of the M1s may have even been given during the war). The problem is that many American politicians look to "forgive" the debts.

    But the other side of the coin is that the American government created these laws to keep the M1s out when the market was flooded with them. These guns were given more than 50 years ago. So I say they should be considered abandoned. We (the United States) had ample time to ask for them back and we didn't do so.

    The alternative is ugly. The United States could ask for them back, continue to give aid to South Korea (which face it we have to do just to keep North Korea from stealing South Korea's technology if they invade), and then dump them in the ocean. You know Hillary Clinton would love to be on a ship dumping these in the ocean so she could say, "we kept these dangerous guns out of the hands of terrorists."

    I say let the South Koreans sell the guns. Figure it this way. The maximum they're worth is $100 million. We gave $900 million to rebuild Gaza. How much of that money is going to fund the PLO and Humas instead of houses for Palestinians? We give more than $100 million in aid to South Korea already. So I say let them sell the guns. They're just going to use the money to buy new equipment to fend off the North Koreans.
  • wpagewpage Member Posts: 10,191 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Certainly they wont dump them. Either they will come here or be sold off somewhere else. Either way a travesty of taxpayer funds.

    Those guns should by right go back to CMP for refurbish and sold off to US gun enthusiasts and collectors.
  • Peter SuciuPeter Suciu Member Posts: 69 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wpage
    Certainly they wont dump them. Either they will come here or be sold off somewhere else. Either way a travesty of taxpayer funds.

    Those guns should by right go back to CMP for refurbish and sold off to US gun enthusiasts and collectors.

    I wouldn't rule out that the guns won't be dumped. I really think the State Department will dump the guns if they can. They're the ones saying they don't want them back.

    I agree with you they should go to the CMP. But I don't think South Korea will sell them elsewhere. According to the head of the CMP this comes up every few years. This isn't the first time the South Koreans have tried to return them to the US. They'll give up and try again in a few years.
Sign In or Register to comment.