Did we originally sell them to Korea, or were they lend-leased. If Lend-leased, shouldn't they just return them to the US? Are these the rifles that were mantioned some time ago as going to the CMP? Just wondering.
Printable View
Did we originally sell them to Korea, or were they lend-leased. If Lend-leased, shouldn't they just return them to the US? Are these the rifles that were mantioned some time ago as going to the CMP? Just wondering.
From a previous thread when discussing whether firearms sold and exported under "Lend Lease" could be re-imported back into the U.S. by collectors .....
Regards,Quote:
Extracted from an old Milsurps Thread - C R - Import Into The USA
"The Curios and Relics FFL
a. Introduction
by Junil A. Kim (PANACHINO@delphi.com)
>From ATF Publication 5300.11 (12/89):
The Licensed Collector's Activities
Subject to other applicable provisions of the law and regulations, a collector's license entitles its holder to transport, ship, receive, and acquire curios or relics in interstate or foreign commerce, and to dispose of curios or relics in interstate or foreign commerce to any other Federal firearms licensee. However, restrictions are imposed on importations into the United States. Only licensed importers can bring in military firearms. Military surplus firearms sold under "Lend Lease" and similar arms assistance programs cannot be imported, as these weapons are >>prohibited<< by the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (22 USC 2778). Those collectors having questions concerning the importability of specific curio or relic firearms should contact the Bureau of ATF, Firearms and Explosives Import Branch, Washington, DC 20226."
Badger
I'm wondering why the CMP hasn't made an offer. Is their stockroom so full they don't foresee too much more need?
I'm thinking the CMP doesn't want to get hung with them if the communist impose a ban. Carbines are at the top of the "list".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
If you read the quote in Badger's post, it states that military firearms can only be brought into the US by a licensed importer. The CMP, as awesome an entity as it is, is not an importer. I think that a big issue really is whether or not those rifles were actually lend-leased, outright sold, or were converted to a sale and whether or not the US had been paid for those rifles. I would simply like to see the whole mess resolved so that it's no longer an issue.
Actually, I don't think it means that, although I may be wrong. I think the statement Military surplus firearms sold under "Lend Lease" and similar arms assistance programs cannot be imported, as these weapons are >>prohibited<< by the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (22 USC 2778) means that NO surplus firearms sold under "Lend Lease" may be imported, regardless of importer status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akulahawk
Regards,
Badger
The question is totally political. The current administration and ruling party do not like guns, period, and will do anything to minimize if not eliminate our access to them.
End of story now on to another subject....
The way I read the paragraph, only Firearms Importers are allowed to import military weapons. They're aren't allowed to import weapons that were exported under Lend-Lease, as stated, those weapons are prohibited from import. I suspect that a different method of "importing" those weapons is used... namely arrangements are made to return the weapons to the US inventory.
It's a headache and I'm glad that I don't have to administer any of that stuff...
I think Akulahawk has hit the nail on the head. If "loaned" under a military assistance program the weapons could not be sold and imported into the U.S. They would have to be returned to the U.S. Govt. and then could be turned over to CMP. In the case of these M1's from Korea, I believe they were sold or given to Korea.
What I don't understand is that it is said that when CMP inquired of France, regarding M1 rifles loaned by the U.S. to France, they were told that the rifles had been either destroyed or sold. It seems like if the rifles are sold or destroyed the U.S. can't or won't do anything about it. So what was the point of calling it a loan ?? I thought you were expected to return loans.
Has the current administration done ANYTHING to inhibit your access to firearms? Didn't think so. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff Murphey
Regarding the Korean rifles: interesting (i.e. less stupidly political) discussion on this subject on the CMP web site last week. Part of the snag may be that many of the arms that S. Korea received over time were DEFINITELY loaned, and some MAY have been purchased. This being the case, the thread at the CMP forum goes on to say that the S. Koreans may be running into difficulty proving that they actually paid for the arms they're trying to sell back into the US. If true I see nothing wrong with the state department saying "show us your receipt!" At least the Greeks and Danes (forget the useless French) made no bones about the fact that the rifles were loaned, and they were returned to the US Army for subsequent processing by the CMP. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the Koreans--who wouldn't even have a country if it wasn't for the USA--could take the the position that the borrowed rifles were long since used up and scrapped out, but the purchased ones are still in pretty good shape, in case you'd like to buy one.
Folks, you agreed to not discuss politics when you signed onto this forum. Please abide by your word and don't force closure of thread that is about another topic.
Bob
The issue on the surface is "Burden of proof" (of ownership).Quote:
Originally Posted by togor
More than 250,000 Korean sourced M1 rifles and carbines were imported into the USA in the 1980s and early 1990s. They weren't "long since used up and scrapped out." It was alleged (by the Koreans) then that those were the ones they bought. Since they have another quantity, it's obvious either their first ones were purchased outright or the current offerings are but they both can't be. The Korean's "discovery" proof, if they have any at all, remains unfounded and weak and non-existent.
Without getting into the political aspect, the current ones are not coming back to the USA as imports. This has been debated for the last 17 years with the same unfounded and usually incorrect opinions and political arguments. Nothing has changed and the Internet legends that reappear ad nauseum from time to time remain the same.
The only way these rifles will return is via the MAP (Military Assistance Program) when and if the Department of the Army decides to request their return. And the current Korean rifles aren't any better than their previous imports.
Hi everyone .. :)
Why " NO POLITICS"?
Thanks .... :cheers:
Regards,
Badger (Doug)
We gave the Koreans some and they bought some outright. When CMP tried to get them back, the Koreans insisted that these were the ones they bought, so they could legally sell them. They want the money. Since we never kept the record of serial numbers, we can't prove they are foreign aid guns. CMP negotiated with them and they agreed to give them back for a "handling fee" per gun. CMP was agreeable, but these deals must all go through the Army. Even though CMP was willing to reimburse the Army for the "handling fee," the Army said they don't pay anybody to return guns, period. The deal therefore fell apart. The Koreans have always wanted to sell them to private dealers, it's all about the money.
As much as I'd love to see more M1s come back to the US, I can see the Army's point...were I in their shoes, I wouldn't want to set that kind of precedent for loaned equipment, even if obsolete.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
One SMALL but nonetheless SIGNIFICANT point here !
I see all and sundry bandying the words "LEND LEASE" about with wild abandon !
Let's bring a little CLARITY into play here !
THE ONLY "LEND LEASE" Garands etc were those supplied to the United Kingdom aka The Brits on FDR's say so ! ALL OTHER Garands,Carbines,M1911A1's etc etc & etc were supplied under various Military Assistance Programmes(MAP's).
NEXT.."RE-IMPORT" NOT TO BE PEDANTIC HERE... BUT.....PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME JUST HOW ONE"RE-IMPORTS" anything ? Small Arms were EXPORTED to various countries under Military Assistance Programmes and IF they are "returned to sender" as it were, they would be IMPORTED.
To be "RE-IMPORTED" they would need to be EXPORTED AGAIN so as to be "RE-IMPORTED".
In actual FACT hundreds of thousands of M1 Garands and Carbines were SOLD to various US Client States and are in NO WAY subject to being returned GRATIS to the US of A.YET, you have this forever vociferous group here and on the CSP and CMP Forums who keep harping that EVERYTHING MUST be returned so the Glorious CMP can flog them at inflated prices.
One good case in point is the Philippines.They received no end of US Small Arms IN LIEU OF RENT for the former US Military Bases at Clark and Subic Bay.They have literally HUNDREDS of Thousands of Garands and Carbines and no bloody end of other neat toys that go bump in the night.YET,you see the US Army trying to convince them that it would be just ducky if they were to graciously just GIVE as in GRATIS/NO PAYMENT to be given, all of it back so the US Army in turn can SELL the rifles to the CMP.The Filipinos just LAUGH at this nonsense I might add.They KNOW that the small arms in question were offered IN LIEU OF RENT so they OWN them and aren't about to "GIVE" anything back.It would be tantamount to their returning all the rent money AFTER the US had full use of the bases in question from 1945 until the 90's.NOT going to happen !!
So PUHLEEZE let's be a little more accurate vis a vis the "Lend Lease" bit and"RE-importation" and who OWNS what and won't be "RETURNING" anything so the CMP can gouge anyone wanting a Garand.YES.I have heard ad infinitum this bit about how the CMP use the money to further the cause of shooting etc too.Every time I see them"AUCTIONING" anything that is in ANY way out of the ordinary I just shake my head in wonder.
WHY a LICENCED importer can't get a Form 6(ATF/State Dept) Import Permit and then bring COMPETITION into play i.e., LOWER PRICES is contrary to the principals of FREE ENTERPRISE.Playing this"we don't import the rifles"routine to death the way they do is a bad joke !Let TAX PAYING LICENCED IMPORTERS have a chance too.
Now we'll see no end of CMP sycophants come running out of the weeds throwing rocks etc .
JR
John R. has it, folks. Lots of this sort of equipment went out as rent payments. It is theirs, free and clear. Also note: this is a "Quid Pro Quo" deal. The South Koreans are very intent about obtainig an Anti-Missle Defense System, which the US Army is very intent about selling. We have had a very long and close friendship with S. Korea and they merely want to purchase something that we want to sell. A good deal all around, in my humble opinion.
IIRC , the ownership issue was the first excuse for the BATF/Customs seizure of the initial 40,000 Blue Sky Garands & M1 Carbines . Reportedly , the importers were able to prove legit ownership .
If we could import all these M1's that would flood the market(just thinking and I must add not all ways my strong point so my wife says) that would bring prices down which is good for those who collect to keep not resell. I would just like to see more come home and feel it's my duty to save em when I can.
That's the way I look at it, too . Save as many as these historic guns as possible , where ever possible , by any ethical means that the task requires. The ROKs have been good allies for a long time . The Zaytun unit was active in the mostly Kurdish north of Iraq for years . IIRC , the first ROK soldier killed in A-stan was an EOD NCO who was killed last winter.
Additionally to the statements about Lend-Lease, L-L ended in September of 1945.
The many tons of food and equipment transferred as L-L was not just loaned equipment. The L-L Act gave the President broad powers to do just about anything he wanted as far as transferring goods and equipment. For the use of harbor facilities, L-L equipment could be used as payment.
As to the L-L'd M1 Rifles, slightly over 58,000 rifles went to France, and on a smaller number, slightly over 8000 went to Canada.
Some info about the formation of the ROK Home Reserve Force circa 1968/1969 . ( Before my time )
Source : DA Pam 550-41 Aug 1969 ( Info Cut-off Nov 1 ,1968 ) Area Handbook for the Republic of Korea ( Prepared by The American University in DC ) page 447:
" Homeland Reserve Force "
" On April 1 , 1968 the 2,270,000 reservists and veterans were organized into regional units down to the village level. The objective was to arm the heretofore unarmed reservists for the purpose of defending cities , villages and the countryside from ... infiltrators and guerrillas from the North. A government decree legalized the arming of the reservists and it was planned that one million reservists will be armed with M-1 and carbine rifles ( sic ) by the end of the first year. Formal training will consist of no more than seven days days per year , supplemented by local drill and target practice. The law stipulates ... that members of the reserve ... should not participate in politics as a group. "
[ This next sentence was a real surprise , at least to me . I don't believe that it refers to true private ownership in the North American sense , at all . It's more like a fund drive for the community volunteer fire department . ]
"The ... " home guard " appears to be popular among the people , as shown through successful fund drives to purchase rifles and the volunteering of .... women... "
Political opposition , however , brings out the fear of rifles in .... untrained hands , lack of arms control , and possible increase in crime..... "
Might be interesting to crosscheck numbers and time periods with Garand and M1/M2 Carbine transfers from the US to the ROK.
Some follow-up information:
Looks like the US transfered over 880,900 M1 and M2 Carbines to South Korea during 1968 and 1969:
Foreign Military Assistance
Those numbers seem consistant with the Homeland Reserve Force plan as described in DA Pam 550-41 , Nov 1969. However , the Pam ( understandably ) makes no mention at all of what would become known as the Korean DMZ Conflict ( 1966-1969 ) , also referred to as The Second Korean War . I have heard the '68 and '69 period spoken of as " round two " but have never seen that term in writing. All things considered , this Wiki page isn't bad for an error-net source:
( Round three of the conflict took place in the late 1970's , but that is a story for another day. The Kim Dynasty has periodic delusions of adequacy. )
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean...ict_(1966-1969)
The DA Pam also ommits the full extent of ROK deployments to the RVN , which included two full Army Divisions , one Marine Corps Brigade , and a significant slice of other troops.
The JSA axe murders ( AKA tree trimming incident ) took place on 18 August 1976 . One American was killed outright and one died of wounds on the medivac chopper. The Allies responded with a massive show of force code-named Paul Bunyan and cut the tree .
Axe murder incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1Lt. Barrett was missing for 90 minutes . During that time , Allied guards " ... observed KPA guards at KPA#8 [ post ] exhibiting strange behavior...." involving passing an axe from individual to individual. 1Lt Barrett died enroute to Seoul .
North Korean Invasion Tunnels:
Demilitarized Zone
1974 Nov 15 : Shallow tunnel which extended 1,000 meters into South Korea. Details included " ...electric power... lighting , weapons storage ,and a narrow gauge railway with carts ".
1975 March 19 : Deep tunnel near Chorwon ( central invasion corrider during the 1950 invasion ) . 170 feet deep , 2,300 meters long , "... of which 1,000 meters extended into the ( Allied ] side of the truce zone ".
1978 Oct 17 : Deep tunnel , oriented on Freedom Bridge , 26 miles from Seoul ( the Western corridor during the 1950 invasion ). The tunnel was in the 2nd ROK Recon Company sector directly adjacent to the US 2nd ID battalion sector of the DMZ & also near the JSA . The tunnel was 2 meters high & 2 meters wide and extended hundreds of yards into South Korea. The tunnel is now a tourist destination.
Background Information
The Association of the US Army published an annual " Green Book " during the late 1970's and early 1980's . Situation summaries from each of the major Army commands : Europe , Korea , Forscom , Tradoc , etc , were included . The Korea summaries would be a good open source of further background information. The Infantry Center at Ft Benning published an open source (FOUO , IIRC ) opposing forces manual based upon the NKPA in the early 1980's, another good source .
In depth discussion of details from those open sources are a story for another day.
Suffice it to say that North Korea was clearly preparing for another conventional invasion. This time they planned to employ special Light Infantry Brigades to penetrate into and behind Allied defenses prior to a massive assault across the DMZ . The conventional attack would involve both Soviet-style massed arty and an armored & motorized force which included more tanks and other fighting vehicles than were used by all sides in the 1973 Mid-East War.
I'm wondering, if the Koreans keep up on these rifles as far as collectability is concerned, they must therefore know how valuable many of the parts are-sight assemblies, oprods, gas cylinders, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't swapping them with knock off junk, from neighboring China, or their own mfg. parts. Think about it--their going to do to the importers/dealers, what the importers/dealers might try to do to us collectors?Quote:
Originally Posted by togor
Charlie
Due to the political nature and defamatory comments this subject always evokes no matter how clear our basic site rules are expressed the moderators have decided to permanently close this thread.
Thank you for your cooperation.