Non-political question about proposed sale of Korean M1s

[RBruce]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Badger]

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 .....

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."

Regards,
Badger

[Bob Womack]

I'm wondering why the CMP hasn't made an offer. Is their stockroom so full they don't foresee too much more need?

[Wulf]

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".

[Akulahawk]

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.

[Badger]

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.

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.

Regards,
Badger

[Griff Murphey]

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....

[Akulahawk]

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...

[Joe W]

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.

[togor]

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....

Has the current administration done ANYTHING to inhibit your access to firearms? Didn't think so. End of story.

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.