According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market. These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941. As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.
According to a South Korean official, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.”
Regarding the second objection, any firearm lawfully imported into the United States would eventually be sold by a Federal Firearm Licensee who, pursuant to the background check system imposed by Congress (and endorsed by the NRA) would have to contact federal or state law enforcement to verify that the gun buyer is not prohibited from possessing firearms. Accordingly, the risk that the South Korean surplus guns might fall into the hands of gangsters or other bad people is exactly the same as with the sale of any other retail firearm in the United States. Notably, neither the M1 Garand nor the M1 carbine are concealable, and the M1 Garand is long, heavy, and bulky. Accordingly, the criminal utility of such guns is relatively low.
The second Obama administration objection is accidents. But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)
Legally, it is indisputable that the guns are importable. Being over 50 years old, the rifles are automatically “Curios and Relics” according to federal law. 27 CFR section 478.11. Accordingly, they are by statutory definition importable. 18 USC section 925 (e)(1). Notwithstanding the law, the Obama administration has the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns.
President Obama was elected on the promise that he supported individual Second Amendment rights. His administration’s thwarting of the import of these American-made rifles is not consistent with that promise.
UPDATE: I’ll be discussing this issue tonight at 11:20 p.m., Eastern Time, on NRA News. (Available live on the web, or via Sirius/XM channel 144, and also archived on the web for the following week.) The discussion will take into account the helpful contributions of some of the commenters, who have pointed out that the rifles were part of a lend-lease program, which means that the South Korean government is contractually barred from transfering the rifles without U.S. permission. As some other commenters point out, the win-win solution would be to resell the rifles via the Civilian Marksmanship Program, with the U.S. and South Korean governments agreeing to share the revenue.
1040 says:
this statistic says nothing about whether 60 or 84 year old guns have a high accident rate.
August 18, 2010, 12:18 am1040 says:
really? somebody must tell all the gun sellers and republican pols who’ve been making hay all these months telling people that bam would take away their guns. for example, a simple goog search
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=obama+bans+rifles&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
gives me link after link of fox news, random right wing web sites, palin, nra and on and on threating us about the coming gungemaddon under obama.
August 18, 2010, 12:27 amLiam says:
Nor does it even touch on the substance of the relationship between the increase in gun ownership and the decrease in accident rates (same goes for the Amicus brief itself). It could just as easily be the by-product of better education or more reliable gun technologies as of anything else, and neither of those factors are nearly as relevant to older firearms such as these.
August 18, 2010, 12:33 amMLS says:
Please tell me that someone in the administration has actually looked at such a rifle and how it works. Semi-automatic. Long and heavy. How one would hide it escapes me. Limited ammunition load. Hardly what anyone intent on terror and mayhem would be drawn to.
Accidents? Let’s get serious for goodness sake.
August 18, 2010, 12:35 amGuy says:
I am going to have to second the point that it’s not irrational to think that old guns are more dangerous and accident-prone. That doesn’t prove the justification isn’t a facade, but then again I doubt this is being done just so evil liberals can twirl their mustaches and make the gun lobby angry (Why would they want to pick that fight? Not remotely worth it). Besides, isn’t it in the interest of national defense as well as consistent with the individual rights theory of the second Amendment to establish protectionist policies that encourage the development and preservation of domestic gun manufacturers? If we rely on foreign countries for arms, those countries could cut off the supply. Not that this seems to be based on a protectionist philosophy, but my initial gut reaction was that there’s no serious 2nd Amendment problem with banning gun imports, so long as domestic guns are reasonably available and affordable.
August 18, 2010, 12:42 amHasdrubal says:
But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents.Is there some specific reason we should assume causality from that correlation? Something we can extend to a sudden influx of 100,000 new rifles?
In regard to the other issue, of unsavory people gaining access to more guns, one might take note that these are the exact same types of rifles that the U.S. government itself sells to citizens through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
I would love to get a Garand, they’re wonderful rifles when properly cared for. It’s a shame that this potential huge increase in supply won’t make it over here. Especially since the rifles are already available in the states and are literally pieces of America’s heritage, not just sporting equipment.
August 18, 2010, 12:43 amfda says:
1040:
These M-1s are prized for their workmanship and quality even after all of these years. In fact, many gun owners search for these older M-1s as they are considered quite superior and the carbine of choice for those in the know.
Obama awere said that statements like those quoted were attempts to paint him inaccurately as in favor of gun control and not supporting an individual right to bear arms. So which is it?
August 18, 2010, 12:43 amGuy says:
Also it would be nice if the “100,000″ figure were put into some sort context. How many guns do we import each year? How many do we manufacture? How many are currently in the United States?
August 18, 2010, 12:48 amRobert says:
Guns are extremely durable goods. Properly cared for, they will last for well over a hundred years. There are many hundreds of thousands of M-1 Garands and carbines already in the hands of private citizens which are just as old as the rifles in this case. So long as they haven’t been stored improperly, there is very little chance that they will be dangerous to shoot.
August 18, 2010, 12:48 amLeChat says:
Obama is an enemy of the Constitution of the United States and, by extension, the people of the United States. Nothing good will come from him.
August 18, 2010, 12:51 amWe can hobble him in the 2010 elections, and throw him out in the 2012 election. Between now and then, there are no solutions. Work for the total destruction of the Democrat Party.
Nik B. says:
Really? Are those citizens who have other firearms somehow less responsible? Are those citizens who don’t own firearms completely irresponsible?
August 18, 2010, 1:01 amTyler says:
These guns and this “issue” has been going on for some time. I am a gun owner, I have several Garands and M1 Carbines, and I would love to have some of these, however the issue is much more complex.
These weapons were provided as surplus war stocks during and after the Korean War. They were provided without charge to the ROK government. Therefore, the ROK government can keep and store them for as long as they like, but they can not sell them. If so, they must repay the value of the weapons to the US government.
So, the weapons no longer constitute the “reserve” for the ROK armed forces. The going rate of 500-1200 USD per weapon on the US market is enticing and the ROK gov wants to unload them.
The US government however has been unwilling to waiver on them. If they do, lend-leased weapons from around the globe and the cold war would then be given a pathway into circulation. These weapons became an issue during Clinton’s years and W.
Sorry for long winded post, just wanted to put forth more than rhetoric/pro-gun/anti-gun. I will concede that the reasoning from the Obama White House on banning their re-importation was poorly crafted.
August 18, 2010, 1:02 amS. Korean M1s a no go says:
[...] [...]
August 18, 2010, 1:04 amSteve says:
The second Obama administration objection is accidents. But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents.
I have to concur that this is among the poorest attempts at logic I have ever seen. Next to this argument, it almost makes sense to say that refusing to import a particular gun shipment is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
August 18, 2010, 1:05 amhtom says:
We hope, he changes.
Frankly, I’d rather have an National Match M-14 Squad Automatic Weapon, the successor to the M-1, but in this state those aren’t legal without a lot of hoop jumping, and an M-1 shooting .30-06 would be fine for elk and moose.
August 18, 2010, 1:06 amJames Gibson says:
To me this is just the second official anti-gun act by the Obama Admin: The first was the spent military gun casing issue of last year.
On the subject of safety, we have been importing Garands and M-1 Carbines from Greek sources for years for sale through the CMP program. I put in the link so you can see that these guns are available for sale through this government program. So why not have the US buy the guns, have the CMP armorers check them for proper function and condition and then sell them at the CMP mark-up (Korea wants $220.00 per Garand and the CMP sells for $600.00). It won’t correct the deficit but it doesn’t hurt either.
As for criminal use the gun control movement has been trying to ban the M-1 carbine for decades as an assault rifle and declare that because the Garand can be modified to use a detachable magazine that it too should be considered an assault rifle. But the use of these guns is even fewer and farther between then the AK-47 replicas. I know of one case of an M-1 Garand used in a crime and the Simbianise Liberation Army shoot out in the 1970s is the only case I know involving the M-1 carbine. In the mean time no State that has an assault weapon ban names the Garand and California has bent over backwards not to ban the carbine.
The Presidential problem Obama has with this is that Bill Clinton started the CMP vintage rifle shoots. These shoots primarily use the M-1 Garand, the unavailable M1903 Springfield, and in recent years the M-1 carbine. Though Clinton also blocked the re-importation of Garands during his administration, he diverted the guns to the CMP. So why can’t Obama??
One final note: David, don’t believe everything printed in a newspaper. The Garand didn’t reach the Army until 1936, hence its little known official title as US Rifle, 0.30 Cal, Model 1936. It actually wasn’t fielded until 1940 just before the second world war. It also never served in Vietnam, that was the M-1 carbine which we sent to the South Vietnamese Army.
August 18, 2010, 1:09 amSFAlphageek says:
AFAIK, neither of ROK’s small arms manufacturers have ever made the Garand. These are almost certainly US manufactured weapons that the Koreans want to sell back to us.
In very rough figures: Between 230 and 270 million guns in the US. Last ATF report indicates roughly 5 million guns manufactured in the US annually (less around 200k exported.) I had trouble finding recent stats on imports, but in 2000, it was slightly over 1 million.
August 18, 2010, 1:10 amSteven Appelget says:
Nice work on the title of the blog post there, Prof. Kopel. /snark
The rather skimpy story from KT quotes an anonymous source saying the Administration opposes this. Seems rather a weak reed for blaming Mr. Obama personally, which is what you did in your title.
It is interesting that the KT story doesn’t mention a buyer for these guns.
August 18, 2010, 1:11 amJohn Richardson says:
The only correction I would make to the Korea Times story is the date for the M-1 Garand. It should be 1936 instead of 1926. Development started in the 1920s but the rifle wasn’t standardized until 1936.
I have one Springfield M-1 Garand and would love to have another especially if it was by one of the other manufacturers.
August 18, 2010, 1:14 amJames Gibson says:
One wonders what State you do live in that allows full-auto. Personnally, the M-15 (which is what you are really talking about) is worthless. Too heavy, difficult to control in full auto and there is no such thing as a National Match version (which means trigger assembly).
And no one would hunt Elk or moose with a Garand, too heavy and its five shot magazine violates most hunting laws that limit magazine capacity to five rounds.
August 18, 2010, 1:18 amSteve says:
I’d suggest not regarding an anonymous Korean official as the definitive White House spokesperson on this issue, or any other.
August 18, 2010, 1:19 amMrPattywagon says:
As has been mentioned, the ROK has attempted to sell this surplus for years now. Bush opposed their sale, too – and are you going to say he was anti-gun?
The suggested “accidents” and “suspicious buyers” rationale for opposing the sale is just posturing. I see no citation of who this US government official is – no actual quotes or documentation as to the Obama administration’s rationale. I think we can assume that a Korean newspaper isn’t going to say “we’re trying to sell weapons that don’t belong to us but the US won’t let us.”
August 18, 2010, 1:23 amKirk Parker says:
Laim,
It could just as easily be because we’re being infiltrated by space aliens, but people who actually know something about firearms know that your hypothetical is barely less ludicrous than mine.
Guy,
Certainly is is irrational to think that in the absence of any evidence.
Nik B.,
I certainly wouldn’t put the “completely” in there, but on the other hand do you really want to argue that no one who avoids firearm ownership is freeloading on the security provided by those who do?
August 18, 2010, 1:26 amOrin Kerr says:
I’d be interested in hearing more on the alleged authority of the Obama Administration to stop the sale. The article suggests that the M1s were given by the U.S. to the South Koreans: Is the idea that we retain some sort of control, or is this just as a courtesy to the U.S. given how much we continue to spend on defending South Korea? Does anyone know?
August 18, 2010, 1:29 amafmcclint says:
Was he elected on the promise, or with the promise?
August 18, 2010, 1:30 amOrin Kerr says:
As has been mentioned, the ROK has attempted to sell this surplus for years now. Bush opposed their sale, too — and are you going to say he was anti-gun?
Link?
August 18, 2010, 1:30 amKirk Parker says:
James,
Quite a few do, you just have to jump through all the federal hoops. (Mine doesn’t, though I only care on the principle of the thing–as a practical matter the last thing I need is something to encourage me to burn expensive ammo faster.)
I suspect you meant to say ’8-round’ in the first case, but in fact you can buy 5- and even 3-round clips for the Garand to make them hunting-legal for those states that care about such a nonsensical detail.
August 18, 2010, 1:35 amTatil says:
Your explanation makes sense. The “unnamed South Korean official” sounds like an attempt to enlist the gun lobby into pressuring the government into providing this valuable permit by making the administration the enemy. Based on the original post and some of the comments, it worked beautifully. I wonder if the story is planted by a lobbyist who will be paid a commission if the waiver actually comes through.
Unnamed government sources = Hidden agendas + Misleading or false statements nowadays…
August 18, 2010, 1:35 amJames Gibson says:
it’s not irrational to think that old guns are more dangerous and accident-prone…
Yes, they do call the Garand the Thumbcruncher. Don’t get instruction on how to load or unload the Garand and you will regret it. Other then that most ex-military arms are usually built to a higher standard then civilian guns (which means they are heavy). Late war production Mausers and Japanese rifles were dangerous to operate but most of these have been melted down by now. Unlike the Springfield M1903, there is no record of poorly built Garands or Carbines during the second world war. Outside of rotten stocks (which can be replaced) the worst you can expect is a barrel that has virtually no rifling left in it.
August 18, 2010, 1:35 amJames Gibson says:
True on my mistake on the Garand N clip, but tell me where you find three and five round N-clips. I have a two rounder for shots that require a ten shot series (one reload) and I have a sled for single shot. But I have never seen three or five shot N-clips?
August 18, 2010, 1:38 am1040 says:
Orin, i am sure kopel wrote a similar emotional post about “George W. Bush bans over 100,000 rifles” with bizarre supporting arguments back then too. a simple search through the archives should yield the result in no time at all. if, by some chance, kopel was busy between the years of 2000-2008 and did not get around to writing the post, here’s the alternative:
a search for “bush korea gun surplus” yielded multoiple threads with relevant stories. one of them is here:
http://www.saysuncle.com/2010/08/14/korean-garands/
Yes, lobbying by gun manufacturers… in 1968.
The ban on bringing in U.S. military weapons provided to other nations under the military assistance program goes back to GCA ‘68. The main thrust of the law was to ban mail order sales, but a few U.S. gun makers, notably Connecticut-based Winchester, got Tom Dodd (D-CT) to insert the surplus arms ban and the ban on return of U.S. arms solely to protect themselves. At that time, Winchester was making expensive but poor quality arms (”post-64″ guns) and was rapidly losing market share to the less expensive but better quality Remington products. Of course, Winchester could not admit that their products were inferior, so they blamed military surplus. Since Olin had a lot of clout, GCA ‘68 became in reality the “Winchester Protection Act of 1968″.
When the law was changed to again allow military surplus arms to be imported, the clause about “sporting use” was retained, but BATF was allowed to define the term loosely and grant waivers. Many M1 rifles and carbines were brought back under those rules. But Clinton, determined to punish his political enemies any way he could (he didn’t care one bit about crime or violence), ordered BATF to stop granting waivers and define “sporting” as “hunting”. Bush has yielded to pressure and has never changed that.
NOTE that the old Olin-owned Winchester of 1968 has no connection with the current USRAC, so don’t start a boycott of today’s Winchester products.
August 18, 2010, 1:55 amKirk Parker says:
James,
LMGIFY: 5 round en-bloc clips (First link goes to Midway USA, one of my favorite places to buy firearms stuff online.)
And I must have misremembered the 3-rounder, but here’s a place selling 5, 2, and 1-round clips: http://www.creedmoorsports.com/store/product.php?productid=888903
And really, if you can’t get that deer or elk with 2 rounds, is the third really going to help you all that much? :-)
August 18, 2010, 2:06 amBuck Turgidson says:
This sounds like the usual Kopel blather. What does a commerce and international trade issue have to do with the Second Amendment? No individual sales or access to firearms–or any other arms–are implicated.
The article also does not say how much actual control the US has over the export effort by the Korean ministry. Raising “objections” to the bulk sale is not the same as actively preventing the importation. Given that the article actually says that US “put pressure” on the Koreans, it sounds like the ultimate decision to suspend the sale was with the Koreans. Is Kopel suggesting that diplomatic negotiations somehow violate individual Second Amendment rights? What is it about people obsessed with gun ownership rights that makes them delusional and paranoid? Or is it the other way around? Can we get some sane gun rights advocates please?
August 18, 2010, 2:07 amKirk Parker says:
OR, roll your own: http://www.fulton-armory.com/2clip.htm
August 18, 2010, 2:08 amOrin Kerr says:
Thanks for the link, 1040. It seems that you can buy all the surplus M1s you want here. That’s pretty interesting.
August 18, 2010, 2:18 am1040 says:
Uh oh. Don’t tell Obama!
August 18, 2010, 2:21 amJames Gibson says:
Disclaimer alert.
ONLY MEMBERS OF CMP AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS MAY PURCHASE SURPLUS RIFLES, PARTS, OR AMMU- NITION FROM THE CMP.
I couldn’t purchase mine until I had shot in a Springfield match for official score and joined a CMP affiliated group. And they have limits on sales to individuals and you have to show US citizenship (Birth Certificate or documentation of prior military service).
August 18, 2010, 2:28 amJames Gibson says:
Found the eligibility requirements for a CMP Garand
August 18, 2010, 2:36 am1040 says:
at this point, given the poor logic and the faulty premise, it seems like the only point of kopel writing posts is some sort of weird race to the bottom with lindgren. kopel’s doing pretty creditably, although lindgren’s “michelle wrote me a mail and i looked up her travel schedule” post gives him quite a strong lead.
August 18, 2010, 2:46 amAndy says:
Old rifles are inherently dangerous? Damn, I better go throw out my two bolt action Mosin Nagants from 1926 and 1944. And the ammo they consume is Hungarian army surplus from the early 1970s…
August 18, 2010, 2:49 amDavid Welker says:
Talk about living constitutionalism run amok. So, the Second Amendment prohibits the President from requesting that a foreign government not export particular weapons to the United States? Unless you have these particular weapons in your grubby little paws, your right to bear arms has been infringed? I think you are seriously confused and are not the sort of person who really takes the meaning of the Constitution seriously if that is your position.
August 18, 2010, 3:32 amJ.T. Wenting says:
No, but they form the bulk (in numbers per type, maybe even total numbers).
August 18, 2010, 4:12 amLike the Colt revolver and the Winchester rifle are automatically associated with the Wild West, so the AR15 and M1 are associated modern civil defense.
That’s not to say other weapons don’t exist or won’t work as well if not better, but they’re less prominent and less easily recognised.
JakeD says:
Assuming arguendo that this is a broken campaign promise, it is hardly his first:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
August 18, 2010, 4:18 amJ.T. Wenting says:
uh…
Which one of those “fives” is wrong here? If neither, there should be no problem.
Weight might be an issue, but not magazine size if it’s 5 and the limit is 5.
And weight is relative. Due to the high power of the rifle and its accuracy you need less round (if you’re a decent marksman) so the weight in ammo that you carry goes down.
It was carried by combat troops over long distances and all terrain without problems in WW2 and Korea for days or weeks on end, no reason a physically fit hunter couldn’t do the same for a few hours before going home in his airco’d SUV to a ready made dinner and home theater :)
August 18, 2010, 4:22 amNik B. says:
I simply pointed out that owning a gun isn’t quintessential to being a responsible citizen.
As for your question (which is a little bizarre and awkwardly phrased), no, I don’t think that if you don’t own a gun you’re freeloading on the security provided by gun owners. Unless, of course, you want to argue that because anyone can be a gun-owner and some people choose to be, would-be miscreants are deterred from breaking into houses, since they don’t know if the owner has a gun or not. But that’s stretching “freeloading” a bit far, don’t you think?
All of that is great. But I think you missed my point. Owning an AR-15 or an M1 is not quintessential to being a responsible citizen, as Prof. Kopel posted, unless you have a very distorted definition of what the responsibilities of citizens are.
August 18, 2010, 4:38 amSteve (CT) says:
@James Gibson
A little explanation on how CMP works. They only sell rifles given to them by the Army from their surplus stocks. The rifles that have been returned to the army from Greece, Italy & others were lend/lease type agreements whereby the US always owned the rifles & the foreign governments were required to return them to the US for disposal. Clinton could not divert rifles to the CMP because they were already owned by the US. The US government does not receive any monetary benefit from the sale of the rifle as all funds received from sales goes towards CMP training & matches to support their corporate policy of ‘civilian marksmanship’. Clinton signed the legislation that privatized the previously army run DCM.
What the CMP has been more aggressive at doing (I believe) is tracking down all these lend/lease rifles & getting the foreign governments to agree to return them. These rifles being sold by Korea were obviously purchased by the ROK & they have no obligation to return them. There have been previous importations s of Korean Garands & Carbines back in the 80′s typically imported by an importer named ‘Blue Sky’. Conditions on the rifles were reported as ‘well used’. Hopefully, these are in better shape.
About 10 years ago (IIRC) there were a number of Garands that ATF (or whomever) would not allow to be imported. I can’t recall the country of origin, but what ended up happening is the importer destroyed the receivers then sold the parts kits to be used on newly manufactured receivers. Unfortunately, the collectible value was gone & the new receivers were of much lower quality than the originals.
August 18, 2010, 5:50 amCornellian says:
Well obviously the Second Amendment is all about import licenses. Did you even consider the question of whether not importing those old Korean rifles had any effect on the number of firearms in the United States? Not importing them may simply have resulted in the sale of an equivalent number of American firearms. Geez Kopel, you really woke up in hack mode this morning.
August 18, 2010, 6:13 amSarcastro says:
Hmmm, this story may have fallen apart but I still know Obama is gonna take our guns, being evil and authoritarian and all.
Better go out and buy more ammo today, just to be sure.
August 18, 2010, 6:38 amBrett Bellmore says:
He was anti-gun, too.
Seriously. He actually started out running on signing a renewal of the 94 ‘assault weapon’ ban, until his campaign advisers FINALLY convinced him he was cutting his political throat. And, while he downplayed this position, he never reversed his position that, if Congress would only send it to him, he’d sign it. That was scarcely the only anti-gun position he took, he was also in favor of raising the minimum federal age to own any gun to 21, and of a bill which would have effectively banned gun stores through most of the country.
Further, there are a number of anti-gun executive orders Bush could have undone with the flick of a pen, and didn’t.
I’ll grant you that he wasn’t the MOST anti-gun Presidential candidate, in either 2000 or 2004, but that is certainly the side of the spectrum he fell on, just like his father.
perfectly consistent with the fine print, reading, “Of which there are none.” It’s quite common for anti-gun politicians to claim they support the 2nd amendment, while leaving themselves the out of interpreting it to leave nothing to support.
Few were actually fooled by Obama’s doing this, but he was certainly trying to fool people.
August 18, 2010, 6:48 amProF says:
Seriously?
August 18, 2010, 8:15 amMaybe a few whiners could try BUY AMERICAN GOODS rather than arguing for the import of more old crap and sending more of the scant business still here in the US across the ponds.
Gary says:
Is anybody besides me disappointed by the Fox-Newsification of the Volokh Conspiracy? When I started reading the blog, it was eclectic, unpredictable, clever, erudite and interesting — even when I disagreed with the points of view. Now the content is frequently predictable, knee-jerk, dull, RNC talking points kind of stuff (like this post). It seems mostly due to the newer people on the blog. As a result, I read it less often.
August 18, 2010, 8:24 amJohn Richardson says:
I believe you mean the Garand’s 8-round enbloc clip. As to whether or not “no one” would hunt elk or moose with a Garand, I’m sure in past years many a big game animal was taken with a Garand.
Before there was Goretex, synthetic fabrics, and 6-pound Kimber 84L rifles, there was wet wool and Garands.
August 18, 2010, 8:34 amRoger the Shrubber says:
Respectfully, I think you speak without knowledge:
First, most states allow full auto. There are federal requirements that must be met before owning a fully automatic weapon, but they aren’t actually that onerous.
Second, there are no moose or elk around here, but I legally hunt deer with my Garand all the time. It’s a bit heavy, but that doesn’t matter much in a deer stand. It’s superbly accurate, even after all these years, and is an excellent hunting rifle, with the .30-06 round capable of taking all or most North American big game (opinions differ). For all practical purposes, it differs very little from a number of modern, commercially available hunting rifles. As noted above, its en bloc clip (I’m guessing that’s a typo in your description) can be substituted with something lower capacity, and presto, legal.
August 18, 2010, 8:36 amFrank Drackman says:
“The Greatest Battle Implement Devised by Man”
General George S. Patton on the M-1 Garand
I prefer the “Tanker” version in still-easy-to-find 7.62 NATO
August 18, 2010, 8:39 amHarry O says:
Speaking about the CMP, get them while you can.
They have almost no M1 Carbines left. When they get a small shipment in, they sell out fast. They have more M1 Garands, but even those dwindle between shipments. They are quite a bargain. The CMP sells them for 1/2 to 2/3 of the cost on gunshow tables.
I got one of each from the CMP. They are much more accurate than most people believe. I shot 216 out of 300 with iron sights at 200 yards the first time out and 225 the second time. This was with instruction, but no prior shooting of these type of guns at these ranges.
The gun range I went to shoot at had extra guns for those to use who did not have one (yet) and surplus ammunition at a low price.
August 18, 2010, 8:39 amStrict says:
“Is there some specific reason we should assume causality from that correlation?”
No. The decline in fatalities from gunshot wounds is probably [more] causally related to advances in health care.
In 1948, trauma centers hadn’t even been invented yet.
Blood transfusions were rare and ineffective [actually, extremely risky]. Scientists had only just begun to discover that blood could be separated into plasma and red blood cells, and they had only just begun to discover why some people’s bodies reacted poorly to transfusions.
Xigris hadn’t been invented yet. Corticosteroids hadn’t been invented yet. Synthetic insulin hadn’t been invented yet. Heck, antibiotics had only been invented just years before, and by 1948 were barely commercially available throughout the United States!
And besides, the Obama Administration said “accidents,” not “fatal accidents.” So DK’s statistics are absolutely meaningless. If he wanted to make even a weak association between gun density and accidents, he’d have to use statistics on accidents overall, not just fatal accidents. It’s quite possible that an increase in gun accidents is associated with an increase in gun density – but we don’t know, because we are only given information about fatal gun accidents.
Quintessence: the most perfect embodiment of something.
lol
August 18, 2010, 9:00 amEric Muller says:
David, it has been said that all good scholarship is in some way autobiographical. I find this to be true for so many (myself included, though many would surely quibble with the word “good”) that I have long wondered in what way this might be true for the passion you bring to your scholarship about, and advocacy for, people’s rights to own and use weapons.
Perhaps in your writing you have offered a glimpse of why these particular issues are so central to you; if so, I’d love it if you would offer a pointer to a piece or two. If you haven’t ever written about the source(s) of your passion, I would be curious to read something along those lines someday if the muse were to grab you.
[DK: See Marjolijn Bijlefeld, ed., "People For and Against Gun Control: A Biographical Reference" 166-71 (Greenwood Press, 1999).]
August 18, 2010, 9:00 amAnderson says:
Work for the total destruction of the Democrat Party.
Well, 100,000 rifles should be a good start!
August 18, 2010, 9:07 amPLaw says:
It appears that these rifles are AMERICAN GOODS. They were built in the U.S. many years ago, sold to South Korea, and now South Korea wants to sell them back.
August 18, 2010, 9:27 amJakeD says:
Brett Bellmore:
Are you claiming that there is no INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms?
August 18, 2010, 9:27 amRoger the Shrubber says:
By the way, I’m as pro RKBA as you can find, but the headline on this piece is overly alarmist and potentially misleading.
August 18, 2010, 9:29 amnathaniel says:
the other piece of information I would like to know regarding that gun accident fatality statistic is what is the percentage of the population that owns at least one gun now and in 1948. I would imagine at least a chunk of the increase number of guns in the US is due to a greater number of collectors now that own large numbers of guns.
August 18, 2010, 9:31 amScott says:
A couple of notes on the statistics involved here (at least one of these points has been made by another poster, I think, but I wanted all my thoughts in one place):
But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)
“Increasing gun density” is an interesting term, and may be more applicable here than you’d think. The increase in number of guns does not necessarily signal in increase in the number of households with guns – it’s entirely possible, given the increased interest in collecting and in hoarding in accordance with various political philosophies of the mid-to-late 20th century, that there are more guns in fewer hands, which could account for a decrease in accidents, as fewer individuals would be exposed to a firearm on a regular basis. Moreover, since an increase in circulating guns is almost certainly the result of the manufacture of new weapons rather than the mass release of old weapons into circulation, the decrease in accidents is highly unlikely to say anything about the safety record of older weapons.
August 18, 2010, 9:33 amJeff the Baptist says:
US soldiers did not use the Garand in Vietnam. However we gave issued them to allied groups within the country. I know at least one SF soldier who carried a Garand while leading a Montanyard unit.
August 18, 2010, 9:35 amWednesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath says:
[...] Obama and the M1 Garand. [...]
August 18, 2010, 9:37 amKen Arromdee says:
And a law banning all guns with arbitrary physical features (the “assault weapons” ban) may just result in the sale of an equivalent number of guns without those features.
Assuming your suggestion is true, all it means is that Obama’s action wasn’t enough to get rid of guns, not that getting rid of guns wasn’t its aim. Gun control is often done by nickel-and-diming the guns away rather than just doing it in one go.
August 18, 2010, 9:39 amScott says:
Additional info: according to Wolfram Alpha, the 1948 population of the US was ~147 million, while the 2004 population was ~300 million. Using these figures, I calculate that there were 2352 fatal gun accidents in 1948 and 660 in 2004, a 72% decrease. I agree that decreased response time and distance to ERs and trauma centers are probably not-insignificant factors in the decline.
August 18, 2010, 9:42 amJeff the Baptist says:
Cheaper than dirt has the 5 rounders (http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG244-1.html). I’ve also seen a different clip design that can load 3 or 5. There are dimples on side of the enbloc clip with space for 3 rounds on one end and 5 on the other. Not sure how well any of these work though.
August 18, 2010, 9:43 amAnderson says:
I wonder if the story is planted by a lobbyist who will be paid a commission if the waiver actually comes through.
David Kopel: innocent blogger … or Korean catspaw?
August 18, 2010, 9:44 amKirk Parker says:
Scott,
You’re right, it doesn’t. It’s the lack of any statistical evidence showing a higher incidence of accidents with older weapons that does.
August 18, 2010, 9:58 amDennis N says:
I’ve never heard itv referred to by that designation. Do you have a source?
All the documentation I’ve seen, including Army Technical and Field Manuals from the 1940s refer to it as US Rifle Caliber 30, M1. I don’t believe Hatcher ever referred to it in his books by anything other than the Garand (the inventor) or the M1, but am subject to correction. (Julian S Hatcher was head or Ordnance at the time and has written some authoritative anbd fascinating books.)
By 1936 I believe we were solidly in the low-number M period, and I know of no weapons whose number was changed. (For you non-mil-geeks, the older system was M-year, like the M1903 Springfield and the M1911 automatic pistol.)
August 18, 2010, 10:03 amMarcus says:
Just so I am clear, because the Obama Amdinistration has blocked the import of 100,000 antique weapons from South Korea, it is evidence (FINALLY!) that the Obama Adminsitration is anti-2nd Amendment rights. Is that an accurate summation of what appears to be a cheap shot against the president?
Is it the author’s position that if an American does not have full access to and opportunity to buy every weapon on the face of the Earth that the rights of all Americans are being infringed upon? Is the author at least a little embarrassed over trying to make such a big point with such an insignificant issue?
August 18, 2010, 10:06 amSeaDrive says:
Clearly the elitist, pro-business Obama administration capitulated to the gun manufacturers who want to sell expensive AR-15s and don’t want competition from dealers in inexpensive used firearms.
August 18, 2010, 10:08 amA Conservative Teacher says:
Can I still import an AA12 shotgun? That thing kicked butt in the Expendables!
August 18, 2010, 10:08 amyankev says:
Isn’t the burden on those who assert that a higher accident rate is likely?
August 18, 2010, 10:12 amKirk Parker says:
Nik,
Yeah, it was definitely awkward wording, I was trying to be too brief. Let me expand (this is a warning to the rest of you to skip over this comment if you have a low tolerance for boredom!)
What I mean to say is, (a) not everyone in the community has to personally fill every role in the community (that fellow formerly known as Saul of Tarsus wrote some eloquent words on this a while back), but (b) it’s a stretch to say that therefore there are no freeloaders.
And yes, providing for the overall safety of the community–both in the deterrence of crime aspect, and the more 2nd-amendment-related deterrence of official tyranny–is most certainly a responsibility of the community at large, not something we can safely or morally delegate to a few hired guns and then wash our hands of. In this regard I really like this one of Sir Robert Peel’s points:
August 18, 2010, 10:13 amStrict says:
I agree that “they might fall into the hands of bad guys” is not a good justification to block the import, especially because that risk is there for any gun import into the US, as DK explained.
But so far, I haven’t seen the Obama Administration use that justification.
All I’ve seen is an anonymous Korean person explaining that an anonymous US person was “worried” about that. That “worry” might not be the real reason at all. It could have been just something said in negotiations.
Can we get some names and contexts here?
Also, what is the Administration’s record on gun imports generally? Has the Administration does anything else to restrict imports from anywhere else?
And if so, is that to reduce guns, or to protect domestic industry?
August 18, 2010, 10:21 amyankev says:
If you mean that gun owners and gun rights advocates (not just ‘gun sellers and rublican pols’) warned he was lying, you are correct. We did. And he was. And his campaign attorney threatened to seek criminal penalties and loss of license against any broadcaster who ran ads during the campaign that documented in detail why we thought he was lying.
But nothing you offer has contradicted DK’s statement, for the simple reason that he is correct.
August 18, 2010, 10:21 amStrict says:
How far does the logic of this 2A individual rights argument go?
Are Presidents anti-2A individual rights because they don’t allow individual Americans to buy guns from North Korea or Iran? I think Americans can’t import guns from Iraq, either.
I’m sure those countries have some firearms that American collectors would love to get their hands on.
Was Bush criticized for not allowing Americans to import certain guns from certain countries?
August 18, 2010, 10:34 amGoNavy says:
The accident rate for the M1 Garand is high, but I doubt “M1 Thumb” is what the administration was refering.
August 18, 2010, 10:42 amDenver says:
You didn’t actually believe the pResident when he said he supported 2nd Amendment rights, did you?
August 18, 2010, 10:47 amyankev says:
For some reason I thought you can also get replacement barrels, but it would not be the first time I was mistaken.
August 18, 2010, 10:55 amJakeD says:
No, Marcus, that is not an accurate summation. As pointed out above, this is not the first anti-gun position taken by the Obama administration nor is it the first broken campaign promise.
August 18, 2010, 10:55 amJohn Steele says:
Good point. I loathe everything Barack Obama and his Socialist Juicebox Mafia are doing to this country but this MAY (note MAY) be a simple case of enforcing existing law. these weapons were ‘loaned’ to the ROK and when they are done with them they should be returned to the US govt. They would then be sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), the official disposal organ for these weapons.
I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case — provided the weapons are returned and show up in the CMP.
August 18, 2010, 10:56 amWilliam O. B'Livion says:
And the first real chance he gets he proves them right.
M1 Garands and M1 Carbines are solidly built, reliable rifles. They aren’t scary black rifles.
The M1 Garand is a BIG, HEAVY rifle. It has (off the top of my head) an 8 round internal magazine that is fed by clips. It’s NOT something you use to spray bullets into a school, or to attack a nuclear plant. It is something you throw into the back of your SUV, drive to the range and kill LOTS and LOTS of paper with.
The M1 Carbine is a much smaller, much lighter rifle, but by modern standards the round it uses is rather on the light side.
It is doubtful that Obama knows any of this. The man is woefully ignorant of history, and shows a remarkable lack of depth on almost any topic. But he had the chance to prevent Americans from buying guns so he took it.
I wonder if he uses an American Flag to wipe off his shoes.
August 18, 2010, 10:57 amMinneapolis says:
Are these weapons destined for a militia? If not, what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
August 18, 2010, 10:59 amJohn Donovan says:
RE: Full auto – and some states have even changed their laws to allow private ownership of full-auto weapons in recent memory. In Kansas, we were always allowed to own artillery and tanks (if they were listed in the NFR)but couldn’t have machineguns because a crook and a Federal agent were killed in Missouri in 1934. In 2008, Governor Sebelius (yes, that Sebelius) signed into law a change that allowed us peons to own full-auto (subject to the Federal rules).
As for the Korean M1s, the FMS issue has been covered already – the bottom line is the Koreans want to sell the rifles, vice return them via the FMS rules (where they would most likely be transferred to the CMP, as the recent Dutch, Greek, and Italian rifles were). The importers would *love* to get their hands on them, and keep them out of the hands of the CMP.
This is all politics, pure and simple. The stated rationales are just a fig leaf.
August 18, 2010, 11:02 amAnderson says:
Is the author at least a little embarrassed over trying to make such a big point with such an insignificant issue?
Hey, I think we all know the answer to that one: No.
August 18, 2010, 11:03 amHenry Bowman says:
Of course, Obama has never told the truth about any substantive issue. He lies even more readily than FDR, who was enowned for such.
August 18, 2010, 11:07 amDon Meaker says:
Some of us kept track of Obama’s promises, and figured out that he was lying. The Liberal ones were pleased that he was blatantly lying to get elected. The Conservatives were outraged that he was blatantly lying to get elected. The Korean rifles are US made, and very nice pieces of work over all. The M-1 Garand is a fine design, and you don’t have to shoot all 8 rounds at a game animal. Yes, import restrictions do infringe on my rights, and inflate the price of comparable items.
August 18, 2010, 11:08 amarch1 says:
Strict,
August 18, 2010, 11:08 amVery good point about accidents vs. fatal accidents. David, do you agree with this and if so do you have stats about accidents which would at least filter out the medical technology effects?
yankev says:
Nor are these guns antiques, which is by no means the same as ‘curios and relics’.
August 18, 2010, 11:12 amDanInAustin says:
Most states allow people to own full auto firearms, but the supply of full auto firearms is limited by the FOPA of 1986 and they are expensive.
Hunting with a Garand is not a problem since you can get reduced capacity clips for them.
I agree about the M14 being too difficult to control in full auto. I had a Springfield M1a which was converted prior to 1986 and it was tough to control on full auto.
August 18, 2010, 11:15 amben says:
Many things have been covered above but I had to jump in:
1) Many M-1 Garands were loaned to countries such as Italy, Iran, Cuba, and Greece as part of the Military Assistance Program. Many other countries bought the rifles outright. MAP rifles had to be returned to the US Army. Purchased rifles were the property of the country that bought them. I understand Korea purchased their rifles.
August 18, 2010, 11:17 am2) Clinton presided over the destruction of surplus M-14 rifles rather than allowing them to be returned to the Army, then to be available to US citizens and taxpayers through the DCM/CMP. In addition he sold thousands of M-14′s to the Balklands for $1/ea to also prevent them from being returned to the Army. Now the Army would like that type of rifle back for fighting in Afganistan and is recalling abused, salt water pitted, Navy line shooting modified M-14′s to rebuild for ‘stan. Thanks again Clinton!
3) An 8 shot en-bloc can be modified to shoot 2 or 5 rounds (can be inverted), the tabs take the place of the 8th round.
4) It would be interesting to see statisitcs on how many gang-related drive-by bayonetings have occurred using 50 year old wood stocked rifles. I would bet a lot of money there have been none.
Smooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Presuming one is not an elk or a moose, I suppose.
August 18, 2010, 11:17 amAnderson says:
… The Second Amendment suffers most, I think, from some of its more zealous defenders.
August 18, 2010, 11:17 amFloridan says:
It’s Obama’s fault.
August 18, 2010, 11:19 ammrex says:
Anyone who believed in 2008 that Obama was anything other than anti-gun and anti-second amendment was a complete chump.
And, I would like to see someone post a link to an incident in the last 50-years where someone was injured by a defective Garand.
August 18, 2010, 11:21 amrmd says:
Per John Stewart, “Your race card is maxed out.”
August 18, 2010, 11:28 amajacksonian says:
As a C&R holder I would love for these to come back to the US… but then I would love for the LL Thompsons to come back uncut, also, as a piece of our war and firearms history. There are very few things harder to take than to know our own history is being torched to meet political and ideological whims. For the Garands, I am more than willing to de-cosmoline one or two (if the Koreans did like we did with them for long term storage) for my own use. If stored in cosmoline that, alone, will keep any criminal from wanting to get one. If you have ever spent a couple of days cleaning cosmoline from a rifle and carrying a rag with you to the range to clean up the cosmoline that sweats out of it, then you will know what I’m talking about. There is nothing like the smell of cosmoline after a good workout at the range.
August 18, 2010, 11:30 amrosignol says:
I realize you’re being sarcastic, but it’s happened before, and it’ll happen again. Arms dealing is downright cutthroat, and there are plenty of manufacturers who are willing to use their influence in Congress to hose the competition.
Check the wiki article on Bill Ruger Sr. for one example.
August 18, 2010, 11:30 amzipity says:
Yes. Next question…..
August 18, 2010, 11:42 amRafi says:
Don Meaker,
While I’ll allow that a deliberate attempt to inflate the price of all firearms to make them unaffordable might infringe your right, an import restriction that might lead to a slight increase in the price of some firearms is absolutely NOT an infringement. Calling it such dilutes and weakens the meaning of “infringement” (and makes you look like a confused partisan).
August 18, 2010, 11:50 amBlue Neponset says:
This post is a good example of how claiming someone is arguing in bad faith is actually the most generous option. Professor Kerr might want to update his recent writings on the topic.
August 18, 2010, 11:52 amkarrde says:
I think it is true that gun owners who love their rights have learned to be vigilant about them, and now cause great noise over any action by any politician that appears to be detrimental to their rights.
(As a gun owner, hunter, and member of the Unorganized Militia of the United States, I was scared when an OSHA rule change might have made ammunition hundreds of times more expensive. Thankfully, that particular OSHA ruling was reconsidered and reversed…as it was apparently based on an event that occured under a violation of already-in-place safety regulations. This time, I am not incensed. But I am annoyed. And others are incensed over the symbolism, or the details of the case, or some other factor…)
August 18, 2010, 11:54 amScot says:
1040 said: “this statistic says nothing about whether 60 or 84 year old guns have a high accident rate.”
Technically true, but the fact is that M1 Garrands and M1 Carbines are among the best built and most highly reliable rifles ever built. If they had high accident rates, the US military would have never had them built in the first place. In addition to this, they were built in an age when quality and reliability mattered. I own two M1 carbines, and several other rifles built from WW1 and WW2 era bolt-action rifles. Trust me, there is no comparison between the safety and reliability of these firearms and the mass-produced firearms of today.
August 18, 2010, 11:58 amguy in the veal calf office says:
Are you suggesting that he is arguing in bad faith?
I’m mostly kidding. “Link?” in the vocative tense is never spoken in polite company, it can only survive in comment chains on the blogosphere.
August 18, 2010, 12:00 pmEric Blair says:
I’ve seen at least one picture of whatever those South Vietnamese village/hamlet self-defense militia guys were called with an M1-Garand–I’m pretty sure it was in a National Geographic Article from the 1960′s–the rifle looked so big in the hands of that little Vietnamese guy.
August 18, 2010, 12:03 pmzippypinhead says:
Dave, you got the facts terribly wrong on this one. Time for a retraction. If you don’t believe me, check with your friends at NRAHQ. They haven’t been fooled by the Korean’s ploy into taking a pro-private sale position.
What’s really going on: Since the Truman Administration, the Military Assistance Program has permitted indefinite-term loans of firearms and other military equipment to recipient countries. However, when the recipient was done with the firearms, they were required to return them to the U.S. Army for disposal. The system has worked well, including recently – the Army has gotten back a lot of WWII Garands and M1 Carbines in recent years from places like Italy, Greece, Denmark and Austria. These rifles have been turned over to the Congressionally-chartered Civilian Marksmanship Program for sale to qualified individuals and organizations. When available, CMP also sells milsurp rifles that never left the U.S., whether from honor guard returns from veterans’ organizations (in the last 3-4 years including 1890s-era Krags, WWI-era 1903 Springfields and 1917 American Enfields), as well as mil-spec trainers and drill rifles loaned to JROTC programs, and obsolete rifles from various military armories. This is all pursuant to Congressional authorization, as explained more fully on the CMP website, at http://www.odcmp.com/about_us.htm.
It’s been widely suspected that the Koreans for years have tried to game the MAP requirement that surplus firearms must be returned to the U.S. government. They’re allowed to sell USGI-origin guns and equipment to private importers and others only if they have proof their government BOUGHT the guns. Sometimes they have been able to document purchases, although there have been allegations that the Koreans have also swapped poor-condition purchased rifles with good to excellent condition MAP rifles, returning the former to the U.S., while selling the latter into the commercial market. The current batch apparently has no purchase documentation, and the Army believes they were sent to Korea as MAP loaners. Thus the current dispute.
What you have managed to do is buy into some Korean “spin” they’re putting out to try to get pro-RKBA Congresscritters to go to bat for their scheme to earn many millions of dollars selling these classic warhorses. Remember, these rifles were paid for by U.S. taxpayers, not the Korean government. Frankly, law-abiding U.S. firearms collectors, milsurp shooters, and Second Amendment supporters in general would be better off if these rifles came back as MAP returns and were then sold to qualified persons at reasonable prices by CMP with the proceeds being used to finance U.S. shooting sports, rather than being marked up by importers and resold for private profit.
August 18, 2010, 12:03 pmGaunilo says:
Forgive me if this is covered elsewhere– I ran out of time to read comments about halfway down.
The Arms Control Act of 1958 vested in the President the authority to deal with US weapons transferred abroad under Foreign Military Assistance and related programs. Essentially, the US retains residual rights to the arms so transferred, and they can be re-exported or sold only with permission from the President.
In essence, the foreign government is supposed to give the proceeds of any permitted transfer to the US. Of course, they have no incentive to transfer them if they get nothing, so some compromise is generally done, with the selling government getting all or most of the proceeds.
But permission still has to be obtained.
In practical terms, this authority is exercised on behalf of the President by the US Department of State.
I have dealt with them in the past on this issue. It was the usual bureaucratic cluster fornication. Some nice helpful people, but nothing basically gets done.
To make this clearer, any importation of such controlled goods requires an affirmative act by a
State Department person. No good comes to anyone there who does this. Much damage can come if they approve and something bad happens. So the default rule is that the applications are denied. With enough political pressure, sometimes things get through.
But it can lead to really fascinating discussions as to whether this arm or this small sub-component of an arm is a “significant military item.” And it is all covered in great detail in the ITAR, the International Traffic in Arms Act. After a careful reading of this act and its interpretations, the skinny is that if you engage in this business and we decide we want to send you to prison, we can do so at our sole discretion.
The trade group of the firearms import community has been working on getting this fixed for years. Congress passed a bill that was intended to fix this (I don’t have access to cite the bill at this time.) In practice, there was enough bad drafting that the act did not in fact solve the problem.(intentional? I would have to take off my tin-foil hat to be sure. Can’t risk it at this point.)
Recently there has been some movement. Some things are getting in.
But remember that the authority rests with our Dear Leader. How we can be surprised that the prospect of allowing 100,000 scary sounding rifles in on his say so would cause instant wetting of the panties when contemplated. Reflex action occurred, thought was not required.
Enough political pressure may be applied to fix this. It is political season. Just don’t expect logic to have much to do with it.
August 18, 2010, 12:03 pmJakeD says:
More BROKEN campaign promises by Obama:
1: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
“Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors — saving them an average of $1,400 a year– and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all.”
2: End no-bid contracts above $25,000
“Will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid.”
3: Allow imported prescription drugs
“Allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S.”
4: Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives
“As president, Barack Obama will immediately direct his Secretary of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with agency officials, academic researchers, cancer survivors and advocates for people with cancer, and state public health officials, to comprehensively examine the various cancer-related efforts of federal agencies, and provide recommendations to eliminate barriers to effective coordination across federal agencies and between the federal government and other stakeholders.”
5: Double the Peace Corps
“Barack Obama will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by its 50th anniversary in 2011 and push Congress to fully fund this expansion, with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean.”
6: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
7: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”
8: Double funding for afterschool programs
“Will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.”
9: Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws
As president, “will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”
10: Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
Will repeal provisions of the Chapter 13 law that prohibit bankruptcy judges from modifying the original terms of home mortgages for ordinary families — regardless of whether the loan was predatory or unfair or is otherwise unaffordable — “so that ordinary families can also get relief that bankruptcy laws were intended to provide.”
11: Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council
Will re-establish an organizational authority in the federal government with a sufficiently broad mandate to oversee a comprehensive and integrated strategy and policy dealing with all aspects of the government’s space-related programs, including those being managed by NASA, the Department of Defense, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Commerce Department, the Transportation Department, and other federal agencies. This Council reporting to the president “will oversee and coordinate civilian, military, commercial and national security space activities. It will solicit public participation, engage the international community, and work toward a 21st century vision of space that constantly pushes the envelope on new technologies as it pursues a balanced national portfolio that expands our reach into the heavens and improves life here on Earth.”
12: Support human mission to moon by 2020
Will “endorse the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.”
13: Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit
“Will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government (to pay for a national service plan that will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented). This plan will be paid for in part by cancelling tax provisions that would otherwise help multinational corporations pay less in U.S. taxes starting in 2008 by reallocating tax deductions for interest expenses between income earned in the U.S. and income earned abroad. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with ending the war in Iraq.”
14: Give annual “State of the World” address
“I’ll give an annual ‘State of the World’ address to the American people in which I lay out our national security policy.”
15: Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
“Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994.”
16: Provide an annual report on “state of our energy future”
“I will report to the American people every year on the State of our Energy Future.”
17: Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
“Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009.”
18: Recognize the Armenian genocide
“Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term ‘genocide’ to describe Turkey’s slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”
19: No family making less than $250,000 will see “any form of tax increase.”
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
20: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
To achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”
21: Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.
“The exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency.”
22: Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year
“I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I’m promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible.”
August 18, 2010, 12:03 pmGaunilo says:
Forgive me if this is covered elsewhere– I ran out of time to read comments about halfway down.
The Arms Control Act of 1958 vested in the President the authority to deal with US weapons transferred abroad under Foreign Military Assistance and related programs. Essentially, the US retains residual rights to the arms so transferred, and they can be re-exported or sold only with permission from the President.
In essence, the foreign government is supposed to give the proceeds of any permitted transfer to the US. Of course, they have no incentive to transfer them if they get nothing, so some compromise is generally done, with the selling government getting all or most of the proceeds.
But permission still has to be obtained.
In practical terms, this authority is exercised on behalf of the President by the US Department of State.
I have dealt with them in the past on this issue. It was the usual bureaucratic cluster fornication. Some nice helpful people, but nothing basically gets done.
To make this clearer, any importation of such controlled goods requires an affirmative act by a
State Department person. No good comes to anyone there who does this. Much damage can come if they approve and something bad happens. So the default rule is that the applications are denied. With enough political pressure, sometimes things get through.
But it can lead to really fascinating discussions as to whether this arm or this small sub-component of an arm is a “significant military item.” And it is all covered in great detail in the ITAR, the International Traffic in Arms Act. After a careful reading of this act and its interpretations, the skinny is that if you engage in this business and we decide we want to send you to prison, we can do so at our sole discretion.
The trade group of the firearms import community has been working on getting this fixed for years. Congress passed a bill that was intended to fix this as least as regards Curio and Relic. (I don’t have access to cite the bill at this time.) In practice, there was enough bad drafting that the act did not in fact solve the problem.(intentional? I would have to take off my tin-foil hat to be sure. Can’t risk it at this point.)
As further background, the Gun Control Act of 1964 banned import of any weapon that was once owned by a foreign military or militia. The Curio and Relic provision was enacted to open this for old weapons of collectible interest.
Recently there has been some movement. Some things are getting in.
But remember that the authority rests with our Dear Leader. How we can be surprised that the prospect of allowing 100,000 scary sounding rifles in on his say so would cause instant wetting of the panties when contemplated. Reflex action occurred, thought was not required.
Enough political pressure may be applied to fix this. It is political season. Just don’t expect logic to have much to do with it.
August 18, 2010, 12:09 pmSDN says:
All that means is that we recognize he’s a liar, and always has been. What’s your excuse for voting for him?
August 18, 2010, 12:30 pmzippypinhead says:
Very few gang-bangers and untrained crooks could even figure out how to load a Garand’s en bloc clip, let alone actually use the 11-pound full-sized battle rifle. The M1 Carbine has a more conventional detachable box magazine configuration and is prohibited as an “assault weapon” in both New Jersey and D.C., notwithstanding the last time I know an M1 Carbine was used in a crime was when Patty Hearst waived a cut-down one during the SLA’s bank robbery spree in the mid-70s. It was also one of the rifles Charles Whitman, the Texas clock tower shooter, had with him in 1966. There’s also a famous photo of Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine. Other than those instances, I haven’t heard of a single reported instance of any of these 65-year old warhorses being used in a U.S. crime in several decades.
FWIW, I own several CMP rifles, including both M1 Carbines and Garands. These rifles are incredibly solid and well-built. If maintained properly, they will continue to be safe to shoot long after all of us reading this blog are dust. There’s a robust commercial market for new and used spare/replacement parts for both models, including new match-quality barrels made by Krieger and others. They’re both widely used in vintage service rifle competitions at the National Matches and elsewhere (in fact the carbine has its own competition class), and I expect both will continue to be shot competitively for many years.
August 18, 2010, 12:31 pmjgreene says:
Bottom line is that we’re dealing with an incompetent President and an administration that is generally “unfriendly” to any person or organization having an interest in “firearms” for personal protection or as collectors items.
Obamarama is going away in a little over two years; we will have to hold our breathe until he is back in Chicago.
August 18, 2010, 12:33 pmCal H says:
Original Garands are highly sought after by gun collectors and by target shooters in CMP matches. These guns would be highly unlikely to end up used in crimes or involved in accidents for precisely this reason. The Obama administration’s reasoning against importation is so disingenuous as to be risible. It needlessly infuriates legitimate gun collectors while doing nothing to curb gun crime or make the public safer. This kind of inept, politically stupid approach is why the NRA is so powerful.
August 18, 2010, 12:35 pmMike P Wagner says:
As some other posters have said, it would be interesting to have better attribution.
I don’t think that any justification is needed for Americans to own Garand, but this seems like an extremely weak justification. It seems to me that a Garand is particularly ill suited to “defense” in urban areas like New Orleans after a hurricane. A shotgun or a handgun would be extremely useful.
A Garand was developed – and is superb – at taking out targets at 100s of yards on a battlefield. But the battlefield had certain attributes that most urban areas don’t have (or at least the battlefield was thought to have these characteristics when the Garand was designed): engagement at 100s of yards; and the assumption that there aren’t a lot of non-combatants running around in the battlefield.
Neither of those are true some place like New Orleans after Katrina. It’s hard to imagine needing to engage bad guys at 100s of yards (or even being able to tell the good guy from the bad guys at 100s of yards). And there will be a lot of innocents in the range of a Garand. It’s only only in movies that bullets fall harmlessly to the ground if they miss the target.
I have a hard time imagining a “community defense” scenario where anyone needs that kind of range. I’ve heard all about zombies in bullet proof vests released from ancient cemeteries in the French Quarter …
Don’t get me wrong – I really like my Schmidt-Rubin K31 (a Swiss WWII), and I was lucky enough to get one that had the tag under the butt that identified the original issuee’s name, DOB, and unit. On top of everything else, it’s doubled or tripled in value since I first bought it – my mutual funds have not.
I would also love to own a Garand – I really like the feel of the big heavy, well made militaria. Almost every shooter I know who doesn’t have one would love to have one.
But like the K31, if I owned one, it would be for hobby purposes (target shooting in my case).
Unfortunately I would shoot it about as much as I do my K31 – the range issue I mentioned above also makes it difficult to find a range that would let me shoot a Garand outdoors within less than 45 minutes of my house. Shooting a WWII battle rifle at 25 yards doesn’t do much for me, and developers seem to love building houses down range from existing ranges …
So I’d love to see those Garands come back to the US, and I have a number of friends who are aching to give a Garand a loving home, but I am not so sure that a Garand is “well suited to community defense” after something like Katrina.
Mike
August 18, 2010, 12:38 pmsome_say says:
forcing people to buy new guns keeps merkins employed and congressmen in office
August 18, 2010, 12:40 pmVic Paterno says:
If each rifle sold for $500.00 with an average tax of 7%, $35.00 goes to the government, times 100,000 equals $35,000,000.00. We don’t really need the money, do we?
August 18, 2010, 12:45 pmrosignol says:
Link?
While it is tedious in face-to-face interactions, it is good manners to cite your sources online, as hyperlinks allow such information to be referenced without interrupting the flow of the discussion.
Also, it helps distinguish between the ones who can think, and the ones who are just here to spread fertilizer around.
August 18, 2010, 12:49 pmJakeD says:
jgreene:
We can only hope!
August 18, 2010, 12:55 pmScott says:
Agreed – or, to be more precise, I would agree that the lack of presentation of such statistical evidence does. I’m not in a position to evaluate the absolute existence or nonexistence of statistical information regarding the safety record of older firearms. However, the statistics I objected to were presented as a response to the following:
According to a South Korean official, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.”
The phrase “aging rifles” in the first sentence implies that the concern is that older firearms are more prone to accidents. The statistics presented in rebuttal do not actually address that question. That’s all I’m saying.
August 18, 2010, 12:55 pmJakeD says:
Scott:
What do you think of the statistics presented so far as to Obama’s broken campaign promises?
August 18, 2010, 12:58 pmJakeD says:
How is that “Gitmo closing” coming along BTW?
August 18, 2010, 12:59 pmSigivald says:
The M1 Carbine and the M1 Garand are completely different rifles (despite an admittedly confusing name).
Both are also in current domestic production, though that’s of no collector interest.
August 18, 2010, 1:03 pmJay says:
Obama is just upset because to buy a rifle from the CMP he would need a valid birth certificate or military service card.
He doesn’t have either. :)
August 18, 2010, 1:05 pmJakeD says:
Sigivald:
There’s also an M1 Abrams tank I’d like to get a hold of myself ; )
August 18, 2010, 1:07 pmGaunilo says:
Also remember that the importer pays 11% excise tax on the first sale, so the revenue to the US government would be significant even if they do not receive any of the sales price to the importer as part of a negotiated permission to transfer the Foreign Military Assistance weapon.
August 18, 2010, 1:08 pmJakeD says:
Jay:
LOL!!!
August 18, 2010, 1:09 pm1040 says:
did you mean Reagan? or Bush? This policy has been going in since 1968. Reading is Fundamental.
August 18, 2010, 1:10 pmJ. Knight says:
I have to admit I’m a rifle enthusiest, and my love of the rifle started with a little Remington slide action but morphed into something bigger when my daddy bought me an M-1 Carbine to hunt deer. It is very light on recoil, though barely adequate for deer, but I took my first deer with it, and shot it this past Sunday, which spans a 40-year time frame.
I never use it to hunt deer these days, but my M-1 Garand suits me fine whenever I decide I want to use it. The 30-06 round is suitable for all thin-skinned, non-dangerous game in No. America, and I find myself attracted to this rifle more and more these days. I have many other modern deer rifles in more common calibers such as the .308, but the history of the Garand, and the feeling of connection I get to my dad, who carried one of them through Europe from 1944-45, makes the added weight worth it. I wish everyone could experience it.
Safety is not a factor with either rifle, and both are as safe as just about any modern firearm made today, perhaps safer than some. I see no good reason for not importing these rifles, but I doubt there is anything more insidious than perhaps gereral dislike of firearms. The Minneapolis guy is a case in point.
These are not rifles likely to be used by criminals or terrorists, nor are they unsafe. I would like to see some clarification on this subject from the Administration, and think it is possible in an election year to get them to relent. It would be a shame if these rifles were not allowed to return to the land in which they were made. Or not enjoyed by the descendants of those who made them famous.
August 18, 2010, 1:10 pmStrict says:
“If they had high accident rates, the US military would have never had them built in the first place.”
You’re probably right about the high quality of these particular guns, and it’s good you can make an argument for them on their merits. But why the blind trust in the government? US has certainly built several defective, dangerous, ineffective or discontinued products for military use.
Anyway, there’s not much here [except for the anonymous hearsay of an anonymous "bad guys might get them" expression] to show that the Administration is banning this import because of anti-gun reasons. There could be political, diplomatic, or economic reasons as well.
August 18, 2010, 1:10 pmJakeD says:
1040:
No, we mean OBAMA (assuming he is even legally President ; )
August 18, 2010, 1:14 pm1040 says:
i heard the obama administration is also preventing me from carrying a nuclear bomb around, and infringing on my 2nd amendment rights.
August 18, 2010, 1:14 pmMike says:
They’re not talking about mechanical failures, but negligent discharges.
If you want to talk mechanical failures with M1 Garands and Carbines, they’re quite rare. The Garand in particular was over-engineered and extremely robust (to the point the Kalashnikov “borrowed” very heavily from the design, and we all know how reliable and safe those rifles are). Both of these rifles were designed and built with conscript troops in mind, and so are made to take quite a lot of beating and abuse before failing. These are early modern designs with failsafes designed in. I do have a friend whose Carbine failed on him (bad ammunition – modern produced) and he walked away unscratched because of the way it was designed and built. The failure destroyed the action and stock of the rifle because it vented all of the gases down and away, not back into his face. These are designed to destroy themselves in the case of a failure in order to protect you.
August 18, 2010, 1:16 pmBill says:
Education has improved. Technologies have not. There has been little technological improvement in firearms since 1950.
So the decreased accident rate is more likely some combination of better education and, perhaps, a greater willingness to report suicides-by-firearm as suicides (rather than as “accidents”).
August 18, 2010, 1:21 pmScott says:
In this forum, I’m interested in discussing questions of law, and questions of research (hence the posts I’ve made about statistics). I’m not inclined to discuss politics here, with you or anyone else.
August 18, 2010, 1:21 pmKG says:
“It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.”
I would love to see a picture of a gang member or terrorist with an M1 Garand. How about a “Brown Bess” for a back-up? Other people with bad intentions? Pretty vague there. Who are they refering to?
August 18, 2010, 1:22 pm1040 says:
next up from david kopel:
obama has starved 500 homeless men.
obama consistently eats a second roll of bread at lunch. meanwhile, 500 homeless men were asking for just a roll of bread in washington dc. obama was elected to office on a promise of equality. why does he eat a second roll of bread when there are people who have no bread?
August 18, 2010, 1:23 pmtom swift says:
I see that Volokh commentors are a bit vague on the concept of the CMP and its relationship to free commerce in America.
In the good ol’ days, after a major war the Feds would dispose of much of the American stock of war materiel into the vast American civilian market. The CMP was a financial and administrative part of that system. However, after WW2 the government did not, as usual, dump this material on the civilian market. The small arms were instead distributed to postwar countries which had lost many of their standard weapons in the course of the war, such as West Germany, and to countries which were starting to have excessive trouble with revolutionaries, presumably Soviet-backed, such as Greece. The CMP still remained, and kept up a small supply of genuine US surplus guns for sale to the public under weirdly restrictive conditions.
In the mid-1990s, large quantities of both M1s, the Garand and the Carbine, were imported into the US. This was of course with Federal approval, as the Feds must approve each shipment of guns or gun barrels into the US. These guns went into the usual channels for surplus firearms, and were absorbed by the considerable surplus market (which is quite distinct from the market for guns in general). Due to normal supply and demand, some of these were quite inexpensive. I recall complete and functional carbines offered for $139. Garand rifles were nearly as reasonable. The importers are usually very cagey about the origins of the goods, so whether these all came from Germany, or Korea, or Brazil, was difficult to determine, as the guns are usually not marked for origin. Current federal law requires a permanent import stamp on imported guns, but that stamp is the name and address of the importer, not the country selling the guns. Import stamps were of particular interest in the case of these M1 Rifle and M1 Carbine imports, as one company, Blue Sky, incompetently used some sort of monster press to put a huge import stamp on the gun barrels, and many of the gun barrels were bent or distorted in the process, turning the guns to junk or converting them into “parts sets.” This stream of imports ended about 1999. The guns sold through the CMP are far more expensive than the ones sold through conventional commercial channels.
Were the topic anything but guns, the restraint of trade aspects would doubtless gain more attention. But of course there’s something about guns which brings out too many people’s inner sophist.
August 18, 2010, 1:46 pmKirk Parker says:
Mike P., the “well suited for community defense” is just a variant of the “peace through superior firepower” argument, isn’t it?
Surely the goal in community defense isn’t to actually get to shoot a bunch of (e.g.) looters, but rather that potential looters see how well armed the defenders are and don’t even try…
August 18, 2010, 1:47 pmreality check says:
It may not be irrational, but it is ignorant. There should be no problem using an older gun provided its properly maintained and handled – the same type of concerns with a newer gun. Even then, if a gun malfunctions, its likely to jam – not exlode in raging inferno, consuming innocent babies and liberals in its path.
Given that these types of guns are likely to be purchased by gun and history enthusiasts, and thus properly cared for and maintained, its highly unlikely that the accident rate will be any higher than with other guns.
August 18, 2010, 1:56 pmKirk Parker says:
(Can’t seem to edit… so continuing on in response to Mike P:)
Surely the goal in “community defense” isn’t to actually get to shoot a bunch of (e.g.) looters, but rather that potential looters see how well-armed the defenders are and don’t even get started.
August 18, 2010, 1:58 pmTyrone Slothrop says:
So the relevant data are the accident rates with DCM Garands and carbines. I don’t know what those rates are, but I would wager a year’s salary that they are ridiculously low, far lower than the rate for all guns.
August 18, 2010, 1:58 pmwtfo says:
I see an extremely high level of firearms ignorance in this thread from multiple commenters, most of whom should probably seek to educate themselves before making fools of themselves in public.
The M1 rifles and carbines are perfectly safe to use. MILLIONS of these things were built, and were used in harsh conditions with high round counts. They are a known quantity. It is somewhat ridiculous to hear someone who knows virtually nothing about them other than that they are “old” come on here and raise a fuss over whether or not they are mechanically safe.
These rifles are not just high quality, they’re also a piece of American history. Watching the government try to weasel out of approving them for re-import is infuriating, but par for the course.
As far as uses the rifles are suited for – there is a saying, don’t bring a pistol to a rifle fight. An idiot can hit a target at 50 yards with a rifle that 95% of people would miss at 10 yards with a handgun. Use the right tool for the job.
August 18, 2010, 1:59 pmJIMV says:
He is a democrat…they are overwhelmingly gun grabbers, ergo, this decision.
August 18, 2010, 2:13 pmtom swift says:
It is true that there are some guns made as wartime expedients which are considered unsafe to shoot. However, that’s not a new determination – most were believed to be relatively unsafe when made. Generally, these were destroyed as soon as it was practical to do so. British #4 rifles with barrels made up of separate pieces of tubing, Smith & Wesson revolvers with aluminum cylinders, and some Enfield revolvers are well-known examples. Guns made for Germany in occupied areas like Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Norway or Poland have long been suspect, as have very late Japanese rifles. There is no such problem with the M1 rifle or carbine. All government-issue specimens are rugged and well-made. One manufacturer of the carbine turned out work so bad that the government wouldn’t accept their product, but nobody is shooting those now, as they’re horribly expensive (due to rarity, not, obviously, quality.)
August 18, 2010, 2:15 pmJakeD says:
OK, Scott (although I was postulating a purely statistical, not policy, comparison of promises kept vs. broken).
August 18, 2010, 2:20 pmRochester says:
Seems to me YOU are the only one who brought race into this issue. Projection at its finest.
August 18, 2010, 2:23 pmSeaDrive says:
We can put the funds aside for math education.
August 18, 2010, 2:32 pmHarry O says:
tom swift says: “The guns sold through the CMP are far more expensive than the ones sold through conventional commercial channels.”
I would like to buy some cheap Garands and carbines through your “conventional commercial channels”. However, I do not believe they exist.
Every gunshow I have ever been to (and this is over the last 35 years) has substantially higher prices for Garands and carbines than what you can buy them for through the CMP at that particular time. When I first started, an M-1 carbine cost $35 from the CMP and $80 commercially. Nowadays, you can buy an M-1 carbine for $475 to $575 from the CMP while auction websites, gunshows, and gunshops charge $700 to $1,000 for a gun of the same condition.
Of course, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops to buy one commercially compared to what you have to do to get one from the CMP (you have to belong to a CMP approved organization, you have to shoot in a CMP sanctioned match, and you have to supply a LOT of documentation — one piece of which is a certified birth certificate). That is why there are two price ranges.
August 18, 2010, 2:32 pmhtom says:
There is a very good reason to bring a rifle to a gun fight, and if you think about it a minute you’ll figure it out; if you’re rushed it’s in the last paragraph.
You can learn things here. I was unaware of the existence of the M-15; for the details, Wikipedia’s M-14 article has the sad details. I meant, I suppose, a full-auto, bull-barrel, National Match trigger M-14A1. There was a time when Uncle Sam taught people how to handle full auto. Not easy, and even if I remember, I’m long out of practice. It would turn an expensive hobby into a ruinous one.
Oh, it’s that the bad guys might be shooting at you with rifles, of course.
August 18, 2010, 3:28 pmyankev says:
Anyone who does not think Obama is the messiah, or has intentions of voting against him or criticising him or his programs. You know, racists.
August 18, 2010, 3:38 pmBama 1L says:
I don’t understand why the unnamed Korean official’s account of the Obama Administration’s refusal to allow the imports is given any credit at all. Of course he would make a completely self-serving statement and omit the real reason: the Koreans lack the power to sell these rifles, which we in fact gave them and are entitled to have back if they are done with them.
August 18, 2010, 3:38 pmdarren says:
There are tens of thousands of these rifles already in the hands of American citizens. They’re very well built and very safe to operate. As a matter of fact, the ones that have been stateside since the 50s would have probably seen a great deal more use than the ones that were sitting in a storage warehouse in South Korea. Aside from a few cosmetic flaws, these guns would be well within military specifications and safe to shoot.
Guns themselves are rarely the cause of firearms accidents. Breaking the fundamental rules of firearm safety is what causes people to get injured or die when (mis)handling a firearm. These guns in no way would increase or decrease the number of firearms accidents.
August 18, 2010, 3:39 pmIt Begins: Obama Bans Over 100,000 Rifles - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum says:
[...] [...]
August 18, 2010, 3:45 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Perhaps, but the idea that the military ever “deployed a defective, dangerous, ineffective, or discontinued” weapon in the numbers in which it deployed the M1 Carbine and the Garand, and for the length of time those weapons were in service, is just completely absurd. You really owe it to yourself to read up on these firearms.
August 18, 2010, 3:48 pmderangement says:
i have no reason to believe that kopel and you are racists. given the evidence that this program has protectionist roots and is long standing, and still people persist in pretending that a. this is a new policy, and b. obama himself has personally orchestrated this, one has to wonder about the extent of derangement.
August 18, 2010, 3:51 pmDvldog says:
The naysayers out there complaining about weapons in the hands of the citizens are complete idiots. Ask the French and primarily the Germans what happened to their countries when their weapons were taken away. “If the weapon/s of choice are treated with the respect and care that is deserved of and from a dangerous weapon, then accidents DON”T HAPPEN.” Get smart people, remember our 2nd Amendment Rights.
August 18, 2010, 3:56 pmTonk says:
A couple of point:
August 18, 2010, 4:02 pmGunshot wounds and deaths are all recorded and readily available; there has been a substantial reduction in both as firearm density has increased. This is probably a function of education. Guns work about the same now as 100 years ago put in bullet, pull triger. Safetys have been around for a long time. Actually modern firearms and ammunition are probably more lethal; now than 50 – 100 years ago. True trauma centers have generally increased survival rates of all types of trauma but that would also imply that non-lethal injuries are increasing and that isn’t the case.
M1 garands and carbines are highly collectable and desirable “buff guns” Their combined contribution to gun crime and injury is about 0. Bring them in and deseminate them through the CMP.
As to the Presidents veracity see Jake D above
Joe says:
Yes!
August 18, 2010, 4:06 pmOwen H. says:
It is sad, but hardly surprising on the Conspiracy these days, that little things such as facts like this are ignored over and over, in order to attack the President.
August 18, 2010, 4:07 pmGuy says:
So what? An import’s an import, even if it used to be an export. That doesn’t make this less protectionist.
August 18, 2010, 4:10 pmM. Simon says:
I like the ping they make when the clip ejects. But I haven’t fired one since boot camp in ’63.
August 18, 2010, 4:11 pmJustin says:
Actual or implied statements by Kopel that are false:
Obama bans 100,000 rifles – false. Obama hasn’t banned anything.
Regarding the second objection, any firearm lawfully imported into the United States would eventually be sold by a Federal Firearm Licensee who, pursuant to the background check system imposed by Congress (and endorsed by the NRA) would have to contact federal or state law enforcement to verify that the gun buyer is not prohibited from possessing firearms. – False (loopholes exist, and, in any event, not everyone follows the laws on the books).
The second Obama administration objection is accidents. False. The first (alleged) Obama administration objection is about accidents.
(Implied) increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents = anything relevant. (Still can’t figure out the implication, but whatever it is, it’s almost certainly false.)
President Obama was elected on the promise that he supported individual Second Amendment rights. False as to implied causation. President Obama was elected President, and he promised to support individual Second Amendment rights, but the idea that a was caused by b is almost laughable.
His administration’s thwarting of the import of these American-made rifles is not consistent with that promise. False. As discussed by several people above, there’s nothing inconsistent between someone’s Second Amendment right, and an informal request to another country not to import a series of particular guns, especially, as Orin Kerr has shown, that similar guns are widely available online in the United States.
August 18, 2010, 4:42 pmBleh says:
I have a great deal of doubt about this assertion. And how do seemingly minor restrictions on imports have any effect on individual Second Amendment rights? Is there a gun supply shortage that I was unaware of? Or does the right to self-defense now also include a right to specific types of guns (antique M1s in this case)? If so, is it President Obama’s duty to reinstate the Springfield Armory and order it to begin producing more M1s, or does he only need to hunt down all of the M1s currently in existence and arrange for them to come back home to the USA? Additionally, is there a ban on replica M1s?
I guess I just fail to see how a decision not to allow the import of a specific shipment of weapons has any effect at all on the RTKBA.
No offense meant, but on the assumption that you know nothing about the condition of these particular guns, your position is just as uninformed as the one you’re criticizing.
I agree. But, well… This is a conspiracy site, I suppose…
Nonetheless, if we were to assume that all of the Korean official’s statements were true, and represented the full story, you could mark me down as one liberal who would disagree with the decision. I’d personally like to buy one. Certainly certain requirements could be placed on the imports, requiring QC and what not. But I wouldn’t see this as the end of the world, an affront to the Bill of Rights, or anything more than a bad policy decision on a very MINOR issue.
August 18, 2010, 4:57 pmPete says:
August 18, 2010, 5:36 pmJakeD says:
Justin:
Would you agree (if the South Korean official is being truthful) that the Obama administration is in the “process of banning” 100,000 rifles? To be honest, it wasn’t phrased very well (maybe vague on purpose to protect the guilty). At first glance, I thought it meant that 100,000 different types of rifles were being banned.
August 18, 2010, 5:42 pmJakeD says:
Pete:
Are you saying, therefore, that the M-1 Garand is actually LESS dangerous and accident-prone than some other “comparable” modern rifles?
August 18, 2010, 5:44 pmCarl N. Brown says:
If you wish a source beyond Korea Times, fine, follow up on the story. Personally I would prefer three independent sources each not quoting the other.
Safety. Not an issue. I have a M1 Carbine made by IBM in 1943 re-imported from Korea by Blue Sky of Arlington VA in the 1980s. If these guns have been in cosmoline since the end of the Korean War there is no reason to believe that they were not in good condition, properly maintained to arsenal spex before storage and as safe as any of the M1 Carbines and M1 Garands I see at modern and vintage military rifle matches.
Falling into bad hands. Not unless the export-shipping-import business is totally corrupt. Left unwanted in foreign depots they might be more subject to midnight liberation than if put in the hands of individual US collectors or CMP participants.
August 18, 2010, 6:00 pmzippypinhead says:
Just so nobody misunderstands the lethality of the M1 Garand battle rifle: The Garand fires a .30-06 round — probably the second most common deer rifle caliber over the past 100 years. The Garand is no better or worse for personal defense than any .30-06, .308, etc. high-power hunting rifle (except that hunting rounds are often loaded to a higher pressure and unlike USGI ball ammo have expanding bullets that are banned for antipersonnel use by the Geneva Convention). Like any high-power centerfire rifle, the Garand will overpenetrate at short ranges, so if you shoot at a bad guy and miss – and maybe even if you hit him – the round may well go through your wall, your neighbor’s wall, and the wall of the school a mile down the road. And like any deer-class hunting rifle, the round will pierce typical law enforcement soft body armor. So the Garand would be an EXCELLENT at taking out multiple, bullet proof vest-wearing zombies with a single round!
But seriously, the reason the Army came up with the M-1 Carbine at the beginning of WWII was because the Garand was simply too much gun for the needs of rear-echelon troops, specialists, and officers. Too big, too heavy, too much recoil for a personal defense weapon. Only they quickly discovered the carbine was also more than adequate for paratroopers and other combat troops who were willing to trade off stopping power for a lighter, more compact weapon. And before production ended in 1945, about 6 million M1 carbines had been manufactured. But because the carbine had a detachable box magazine (15 rounds in WWII, up to 30 rounds in Korea/Vietnam), it ended up on various “assault weapon” ban lists in the 1990s.
August 18, 2010, 6:03 pmSarcastro says:
Clearly proof of Obama’s evil and totalitarian intentions. Now can we get behind JakeD and change this thread from a discussion of Obama’s marginal (though Communist!) gun hatred to generally how he sucks and may not be a citizen? Cause that’d be super productive.
Though a few more people lovingly describing this type of rifle to show how the Korean official’s report of that the anonymous Obama administration official was wrong would also hit the spot.
August 18, 2010, 6:06 pmzippypinhead says:
Yes, exactly. The Garand was ridiculously over-engineered. The receiver is almost indestructible. There are very few firearms built today that can say that. And the WWII USGI M1 Carbine is almost as tough — although more recent knock-offs of the carbine built to “commercial” standards aren’t nearly as reliable or safe (google “Universal M1 carbine problems” if you are interested).
August 18, 2010, 6:12 pmSteve (CT) says:
Well, my extensive research on the internet (cough) indicates that there my be some question as to whether the Korean government purchased these rifles through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program or were loaned to them through the Military Assistance Program (MAP). If it was the former, they are free to sell them to whomever. If it is the latter, they are required to return them to the US for disposal.
Allegedly, the Koreans do not have paperwork proving they were purchased through FMS. Now, I would be surprised if the US documentation that could clear this up on either the sale or loan did not exist somewhere. My understanding is that all government paperwork (especially in the military) is done on 4 or 6 part forms so there are plenty of copies to cover butts. ;)
August 18, 2010, 6:19 pmLarryA says:
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation:
“JUNE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON FIREARM SALES . . . Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,005,876 checks in June. This figure is a 3.9 percent increase from the 968,145 checks conducted in June 2009 and a 22.7 percent increase over checks in June 2008.”
Each NICS check represents the sale of one or more new or used firearms through a dealer, meaning that U.S. shooters purchase about a million guns a month. (Though most of these firearms are not new to the civilian inventory.) So if all 100K rifles were sold in 30 days, it would represent about a 10% sales bump. That, of course, is unrealistic.
Loopholes? I suppose an importer could avoid selling through an FFL if he managed to get the military or law enforcement interested. All legal sales to civilians would have to be via FFL. The BATFE will take care of the folks who don’t “follow the laws on the books.”
You are correct in that increasing gun density didn’t necessarily cause the declining rates of gun accidents. However it does shut down the argument that increased gun density will necessarily cause an increase in accidents.
Just because a lot of red state folks didn’t trust Obama doesn’t mean the issue wasn’t important. There were a lot of good, union, gun-owning Democrats that took his “I believe in the Second Amendment” campaign pledge to heart, and counted on it when they voted for him, particularly in the primaries against Clinton.
August 18, 2010, 6:44 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
I’m assuming you aren’t a commercial or environmental litigator. :) Missing Documents R Us.
August 18, 2010, 6:45 pmzippypinhead says:
Whoa! Let’s start out with the following factual corrections:
(1) the predecessor to the CMP was the DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship in the War Dept.), which was established when Teddy Roosevelt was President. Its primary mission was to encourage civilian firearms proficiency, and as a sideline sold surplus rifles (and the the old days, pistols). During the Clinton administration, the DCM’s functions were transferred to an independent, Federally-chartered corporation outside DoD, the CMP. Same mission, different org chart.
(2) DCM/CMP has always sold surplus rifles. The requirements for purchase have changed over the years, but pricing was always very reasonable. Every rifle is inspected for safety by an armorer before it’s sold, which is more than can be said for a lot of commercial import houses. CMP sale proceeds are plowed back into supporting youth and adult shooting sports and competitions, including the National Matches at Camp Perry.
(3) DCM/CMP rifle pricing was and is below the “commercial” market. In fact, if one trolls the CMP on-line forums for any length of time, a common complaint by members to this day is that a few unscrupulous folks seem to have a business model of purchasing CMP guns and ammunition and quickly reselling them at gun shows at 25%+ markups.
(4) Firearms and equipment that were provided for free to our allies under the Military Assistance Program cannot be sold by the recipient country into the civilian market. They must be returned to DoD for disposition, and under Federal law, qualifying rifles are transferred to CMP and sold, with the proceeds dedicated to advancing shooting sports. The “Blue Sky” and other rifles that have been resold by commercial importers were generally purchased outright by the other country, and when they were surplused they could be sold to whomever wanted them. The U.S./Korean dispute that Dave Kopel got slightly wrong is over whether the USGI rifles Korea is trying to sell were MAP loaners or were purchased by ROK. There are also some commercial import interests (likely in cahoots with the Koreans here) who would love to get CMP entirely out of the rifle sales picture, because CMP has long been a significant constraint on their ability to price-gouge for increasingly-scarce and collectible WWI and WWII rifles.
(5) CMP is somehow involved in “restraint of trade?” Pursuant to Federal statute? Nice try, but the last time I checked, government-sponsored activities carried out pursuant to Federal law were still wholly outside the coverage of the Sherman Act.
Want to own an M1 Garand, which George S. Patton called “the greatest battle implement ever devised?” Qualify for purchase under CMP rules. CMP consistently has the highest quality and lowest price out there for these classic old war horses. I just hope the Korean scheme to sell their MAP loaners to get millions in unjustified cash from commercial interests is thwarted. These rifles should be returned and resold through CMP to support future generations of participants in U.S. shooting sports.
August 18, 2010, 6:53 pmzippypinhead says:
You got it exactly right. I just wish Dave Kopel had also done extensive internet (cough) research before he made his original, erroneous post.
August 18, 2010, 7:03 pmMark Horning says:
Yes/no/maybe.
The question is: Are these rifles MAP (Military Assistence Program) rifles or are they FMS (Foreign Military Sales) rifles.
If they are MAP, Korea does not have the right to sell them. They are technically “on loan” from the US Gov. and are not Korean property.
If they are FMS, the the Koreans paid for the rifles (even if they used foreign aid money they are still paid for) and are Korean property to dispose of as they wish.
I have seen no evidence either way, just wild speculating.
If they are MAP, they should be returned to the government and distributed through the CMP program in acordence with federal law. If they are FMS, they should aprove the import permit and be sold through Sarco, AIM, or SOG, or whoever is the highest bidder.
Im certainly not one to take the administrations side on anything, but a proper determination of the rifles status should be performed before an import permit is approved.
As an aside, most folks in the know seem to think that these rifles are in pretty poor shape, have not been maintained, and are generally worn out. They are certainly thought to be in much worse shape than the recent Danish re-import rifles. Many may not be servicable, so any dreams of a new batch of service grade rifles for the CMP (or from importers) is probably just that, dreams. That being said, even if the rifles themselves are unserviceable, there is still a lot of residual value in many of the components.
August 18, 2010, 7:19 pmJakeD says:
Sarcastro:
I realize that’s your shtick and all, but I never claimed that it would be “super productive” (at least not until the Republicans take back a majority in the House of Representatives ; )
August 18, 2010, 7:22 pmyankev says:
Or as Larry McMurtry wrote in Lonesome Dove:
I doubt that a dentist would be any more effective at stopping a 30-06 round.
August 18, 2010, 7:45 pmSarcastro says:
The important thing is that you keep on your topic of how Obama is awful in general, now that the premise of this thread has been eviscerated. Because constantly letting us how much you hate the President is the key to something or other awesome!
August 18, 2010, 7:51 pmzippypinhead says:
Indeed, the Koreans have a history of returning unserviceable hunks of rust barely worth converting into tomato stakes when they have to send back MAP loaners. But the USGI milsurp firearms the Koreans have managed to sell to commercial importers have generally been in much better shape. Must be a coincidence. Far be it from me to join the chorus of folks who suspect the Koreans of playing bait-and-switch between MAP and FMS weapons to maximize their profits, of course…
Even if the Korean returns are in poor condition, if they go to CMP some will be rebuilt, rebarreled, restocked, and sold as decent-shooting rifles at a good price. CMP is currently offering “special grade” Garands for under $1,000 that have basically been rebuilt into brand-new rifles. Commercial outfits like Fulton Armory who do the same thing can’t come close to CMP’s pricing for comparable Garands.
August 18, 2010, 7:57 pmJakeD says:
Sacastro:
I don’t “hate” the President (even if that is Obama).
August 18, 2010, 8:06 pmJakeD says:
Do you think that the people of PolitiFact.com “hate” Obama (that’s where I got the list of “Broken Campaign Promises)? Are you denying that Obama’s broken any campaign promises?
August 18, 2010, 8:08 pmSarcastro says:
Quite vigorous in your dislike, then.
August 18, 2010, 8:14 pmJakeD says:
Not at all, if he would simply authorize the State of Hawaii to release his “vital records” I would stop posting anything about him on the Web.
August 18, 2010, 8:17 pmArch says:
I live about an hour from the CMP at Anniston. Get there at 8:00 am on wednesday and you’ll see the racks full. I bought a Harrington & Richardson Garand with a Springfield bolt and trigger. It shoots great. Combat zeroed it last weekend (adjust it to hit 1.75″ high at 25 yards and it’s dead on at 200 yards).
It’s also a head turner on the range. The wannabe soldiers with their 5.56mm pop guns are amazed that the M1 can hit & kill at 400 yards.
One of the best deals at CMP is M2 ball ammo. I’m a handloader and I can’t buy 150 grain spitzers for what they sell a cartridge. I keep about 1000 rounds on hand. Hey, you never know.
August 18, 2010, 8:34 pmDaveR says:
Starting as early as 1903, the federal government was to actively support the ownership and use of firearms through the C(ivilian) M(arksmanship) P(rogram) by passing to the private sector obsolete firearms and ammo AT COST. This program was strengthened by the National Defense Act of 1916 and through the late ’50′s had, via organized shooting clubs, placed into the civilian sector millions of weapons. This included the M-1 in lesser quantities, the M-1 Carbine (no relation to the M-1 Garrand, really) in greater quantity and the 1903 Springfield in massive quantities. Of course, once the private shooting club sold the weapons to members, they were free to resell to anyone; I remember ads for the ” ’03 Springfield, sporterized, w/500 rounds. $25 ”
I saw on the internet a few weeks ago a picture from the mid-50s of a high school gun club member carrying his rifle at school. Funny, there was no swat team after him, no one was running away in terror, he wasn’t expelled and no one got shot.
Kennedy’s assination tipped the scales infavor of the anti-gun nuts. In a quest to show which of them really cared the most about the fallen president, members of congress outdid themselves in writing the most stringent firearms laws ever proposed, much less passed, in the US. Needless to say, support for the CMP program dried up as well, though there is a new version of the program. Passed in 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 made the CMP the ugly stepchild of a new private corporation which has no money and little support. It “opposed by anti-gun Members of Congress, who would prefer to abolish the program entirely, eliminating its firearm safety training activities and destroying its rifles and ammunition.”
So, the ROK weapons have several strikes aginst them. First, they are GUNS and everyone “knows” GUNS kill people! Second, the president is the political head of the party most aligned with a ban on personally owned weapons. But the final point is probably the most telling; distribution of such weapons and support for safe training in their use is a true American tradition and we know what this president thinks of American traditions.
August 18, 2010, 8:34 pmSarcastro says:
Despite all the campaign promises you listed him as breaking upthread? So if he turns out to be a citizen, you will no longer care about his socialist, totalitarian homosexual take-over of America, one Korean gun reimportation at a time? Wow, you sure are quite forgiving of your Presidents.
August 18, 2010, 9:29 pmSteve (CT) says:
My intention with the ‘(cough)’ was to imply that internet research should always be taken with a grain of salt. I wasn’t trying to impugn Dave Kopel.
I wish I had more definitive information but that probably requires more effort than I’m willing to invest.
August 18, 2010, 9:30 pmGreg in Allston says:
Per Dave R. at 8:34 PM;
“Needless to say, support for the CMP program dried up as well, though there is a new version of the program. Passed in 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 made the CMP the ugly stepchild of a new private corporation which has no money and little support. It “opposed by anti-gun Members of Congress, who would prefer to abolish the program entirely, eliminating its firearm safety training activities and destroying its rifles and ammunition.”
What I’d very much like to see is for the NRA board to propose amending the by-laws regarding members dues and call for $1.00 from every member’s annual dues be directed to the CMP. I think that $4Million/year directly to the CMP would be a nice shot in the arm for the program.
August 18, 2010, 9:55 pmOwen H. says:
You do realize that the State of Hawaii, through its officials, has declared on several occasions already that the document released by the Obama campaign is in fact accurate and valid? In other words, the relevant vital record is already out there. So stfu.
August 18, 2010, 10:12 pmzippypinhead says:
But I was… Sometimes Dave has an annoying habit of posting either inflammatory or cravenly self-promotional stuff, and this time he really stepped in it. One 2-minute phone call to his contacts at the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, or even reading some of the posts on topic at the CMP forum over the last few years (!) would have set him straight and saved him from repeating the half-truth spin the Koreans are now trying to put on the situation after having been caught with their proverbial hands in the cookie jar. And I say this fondly, as a Kopel fan…
But hey, at least this thread has predictably morphed into the usual amusing off-topic anti-Administration polemics — and surfaced Sarcastro at his finest, to boot! So it’s not been a total waste of time…
August 18, 2010, 10:22 pmJakeD says:
Owen H.:
As I said, not until he authorizes the ACTUAL relevant document(s), not the one you think is relevant.
August 18, 2010, 11:05 pmBruce says:
This is a joke, right? I have in my collection a number of British Enfield rifles dating back to pre-WWI. Every single one is completely safe, shoots perfectly, is accurate beyond what a rifle of that age should be, and has been thoroughly gone over by a competent gunsmith. To imply that for no other reason than age a rifle is “dangerous or accident prone” is the height of absurdity. Of COURSE a rifle is dangerous – it’s a weapon! Whether its use is dangerous or not depends on how the owner uses it. Tossing in “accident prone” is the most ridiculous red herring I’ve heard in quite a few years.
August 18, 2010, 11:11 pmcw says:
Bush also denied importation of these and neither action is a ban, you ignorant cuntwit.
August 19, 2010, 12:23 amMark Horning says:
Prior to 1996 the program was the DCM (Director Civilian Marksmanship), and was run directly by the Army. Whether you approve of the change to the CMP, at the time it was considered the only way to save to program from the massive anti-gun onslaught of the Clinton administration. (which is why it was burred in the “must-pass” DAA)
August 19, 2010, 12:34 amMike P Wagner says:
This sort of supports my theory that as much as I’d like to have one, I wouldn’t justify such a purchase on the grounds of that it was “well-suited to community defense in an emergency” – it’s very good in the right hands (not mine at 400 yards) for its intended job, engaging an enemy at the distances at which WWII planners thought troops would be engaging enemies.
If you are on a battlefield, and your opponent can only engage you at 200 yards, and you can engage him at 400 yards, and you are 400 yards apart with a decent sight line, he’s going to have a rough day.
On the other hand, if you are in a crowded urban area, a weapon that can make those kinds of shots is going to carry a lot farther than you’d like. I would think a shotgun/pistol combination would make a lot more sense as “well suited to community defense in an emergency.”
I guess that you could imagine seeing robbery going on 400 yards away, and shooting the bad guy , but for someone coming through your door or your neighbor’s door, I think a shotgun would be far better choice.
As I say, I’d really like one, but I don’t kid myself that theres much practicality – I want one because they are a legend. To be honest, I probably want a good friend to have one, so I can go shooting with him or her the small number of times I make it to an outdoor range. :-)
August 19, 2010, 12:41 amOwen H. says:
And not the one the State of Hawaii says is the actual relevant document, apparently. Why is that not good enough?
But on second thought, keep bringing it up whenever possible. It destroys your credibility.
August 19, 2010, 7:30 amBuck Turgidson says:
Open mind. Shut mouth.
August 19, 2010, 8:34 amBuck Turgidson says:
Do you really think that “Obama” had anything at all to do with this specific decision? This is a minor blip of commerce and trade policy at agency level that’s been preserved at least from 1992. I doubt anyone above undersecretary level even knows about this at all. But, of course, you are not ignorant of history so you already know all this. Your analysis shows such remarkable depth that I should be duly impressed … any day now …
Of course not! It is so much better suited for wiping bodily orifices!
August 19, 2010, 8:52 amSeaDrive says:
That’s my question as well. I know the President’s name has come to be a synecdoche for the executive branch, but IMHO a headline like the one DK used here suggests that he good reason to believe that the matter crossed the President’s desk. If he does, he hasn’t quoted it.
Y’all may remember the dustup about folding knives was that was basically a low-level bureaucratic decision that had not been subject to high level review.
August 19, 2010, 9:25 amPeter says:
It’s this precise reason why the Japanese did not invade the US Mainland.
August 19, 2010, 9:49 amPeter says:
I hope one day CMP offers some of those WWII 1911s, those that are not “shot out”.
August 19, 2010, 9:51 amBigFED says:
Obama should have been declared “not importable” and we wouldn’t be in the situation we are today. And he is also an accident waiting to happen!!!
Ban Obama!!!
August 19, 2010, 9:56 amLarryA says:
Not every “community” is a crowded urban city, and “community” doesn’t stop at your front door.
But in a city you could do much worse than an M-1 Carbine. If you and your neighbors have to build a barricade and secure a neighborhood perimeter a pistol-caliber carbine is much more effective than either a shotgun or handgun.
The neighbor with the Garand and the skill to use it can hang back and watch for rooftop snipers two blocks down the road.
August 19, 2010, 10:35 amMountainbear says:
Accidents?
Well I say! Ban all car imports at once! Cars are far more dangerous than guns! How many people die in traffic accidents every year in the US? It’s ~50,000 deaths in Europe every year.
If someone wants to kill, he will kill, with or without guns. Heck, all I need to do is take a knife on the early morning subway and start stabbing.
There is his agenda. He continues to copy Europe, where a lot of people have been disarmed by the governements. The result? Skyrocketting crime rates (the UK leads the world wide stats in violent crimes, 9 from the top ten countries with most violent crime in the world are European, the non-EU is South Africa), no-go areas, broken justice systems and castrated police forces.
August 19, 2010, 10:41 amSteverino says:
With all due respect to James Gibson, the Garand did serve in Vietnam with US forces. The US Navy used them in the Mark 2 Mod 0 and Mark 2 Mod 2 variants. The first had a press-in chamber insert that permitted it to use the 7.62 NATO round. The problem was occasionally it would eject the chamber insert, rendering the rifle useless. The Mark 2 Mod 2 variant actually rechambered the rifle to use the NATO round, a much better solution.
Regarding “Garand thumb.” What you need to do to avoid it is to make sure your hand is flat against the side of the receiver as your thumb drives the en bloc clip home. If you release the bolt, the heel of your hand will stop the op rod before it closes on your thumb.
In all cases, remove your thumb from the chamber by rotating your entire hand toward the muzzle, so that your thumb clears the chamber when your entire hand is parallel to the barrel.
If you make that a habit, you’ll never get “Garand thumb.”
August 19, 2010, 11:01 amMLS says:
See: See 22 USC 2778 and the implemention regulations known at the ITAR. Interestingly, while the DOS is delegated the responsibility under this and other sections, in real life it is the DOD that is calling all the shots and the DOS serving as basically a rubber stamp.
August 19, 2010, 11:31 amJakeD says:
Owen H.:
It’s not “good enough” because of the evidence of fraud already in the record. I couldn’t care less what you think of my “credibility”. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Obama’s paternal grandmother stated that she was present for his birth in Kenya. Obama’s half sister, Maya Soetoro — whom everyone knows was born in Jakarta, Indonsia — ALSO has a Hawaiian “birth certificate”.
Did you even know that children born OUTSIDE of Hawaii can obtain the same, exact type of “Certification of Live Birth” based simply on an unverified declaration?
August 19, 2010, 11:32 amJakeD says:
MLS:
Obviously, if Obama is not legally President of the United States, 22 USC 2778 and the implemention regulations known as the ITAR are not applicable.
August 19, 2010, 11:35 amBill C says:
anyone that thought Obama was second amendment friendly is an idiot and that includes the Great NRA if they also thought that.
August 19, 2010, 11:41 amAs a state senator he was 0 tolerance of the second amendment and all things firearms related , the only thing he tolerated on firearms are complete bans.
zippypinhead says:
Once upon a decade DCM was authorized to sell surplus pistols. But CMP’s current Federal charter only authorizes sale of rifles, not pistols. CMP gets regular inquiries about surplus M1911s, and the Chief Operating Officer ends up posting explanations 3 or 4 times a year on their on-line forum as to why they can’t sell them.
From a close-quarters usability standpoint, the M1 carbine is basically the WWII version of the M-4 carbine, or probably more accurately a semiauto version of the MP-5 or other 9mm police tactical carbine. Especially in M1A1 configuration with pistol grip and folding stock, it’s very compact, easy to maneuver for a long gun, and because it uses an intermediate power cartridge with less impact energy than a .44 magnum handgun round, it has far fewer problems with overpenetration than full size rifles. Especially with hollowpoint ammunition, the M1 carbine is still about as good a personal defense long gun as you’ll find this side of a Mossberg 590.
August 19, 2010, 2:02 pm1040 says:
Gosh. I feel like I am in a particularly pathetic remake of Groundhog Day, but your statement would only be correct if it was followed by a Borat-esque NOOOOT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Claims_that_the_certification_of_live_birth_is_meaningless
Some people claim that the certification of live birth produced by Obama does not prove that he is a natural born citizen because, they claim, foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (COLB), so that Obama’s possession of such a certificate does not prove that he was born in Hawaii; or that the information in such a certificate only has to be based on the testimony of one parent. However, the suggestion that this could have applied to Obama was rejected by Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health: “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate”.[31] Another fact that refutes this specific claim is that the law allowing foreign-born children to obtain Hawaiian COLBs didn’t exist until 20 years after Obama was born, while Obama’s published COLB says his birth information was recorded four days after his birth in 1961, and explicitly states that he was born in Honolulu.[54]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Obama.27s_paternal_step-grandmother.27s_version_of_events
Another incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father’s step-mother, Sarah Obama, told a reporter that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya.
The McClatchy newspapers gave an explanation of how the false story about Obama’s step-grandmother began. The tape relied on by Berg and others is cut off in the middle of the conversation, before the passage in which she clarifies her meaning: “‘Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America,’ the translator says after talking to the woman. … Another response later says, ‘Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii.’”[58]
Sarah Obama shed more light on the controversy in a 2007 interview with the Tribune Company. In the interview, Obama’s paternal step grandmother stated that six months after Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham were married, she received a letter (at her home in Kenya) announcing the birth of Barack Obama II, who was born August 4, 1961.[59]
August 19, 2010, 2:05 pmKhornet says:
Steverino beat me to it–M1 did serve in US hands in Vietnam. I have photos of Green Berets carrying them in the field. But even more interesting, I read somewhere that the last combat use of M1 was in the first Gulf War! M1D sniper rifles, I believe.
August 19, 2010, 2:08 pmzippypinhead says:
From Dave Kopel’s update:
Dave – your last clause is premised on a major legal misunderstanding. There’s simply no statutory authority for the Korean government to “share the revenue” upon U.S. Government disposition of surplus military equipment returned pursuant to the Military Assistance Program.
The law is clear. If these rifles were MAP loaners, they must be returned to DoD. DoD has discretion to dispose of them by transfer to CMP. CMP has authority to sell them, for the purpose of providing funds to support CMP’s marksmanship education and shooting sports support mission. Proceeds of CMP sales aren’t U.S. government revenue that is available for other purposes.
You should probably invest a few minutes to read the MAP legislation and CMP’s charter before deciding whether to offer this “win-win” solution.
August 19, 2010, 2:32 pmRandomAmerican says:
Wow. First off, these guns are not imports. They were made in the U.S. Most of them were shipped to Korea for training during the Korean War, and many were never unboxed. Some of these M1s have seen combat in WWII. Some are still original and some have been updated. Some are very late model manufactured M1s. My point is, all of these weapons are collector’s items that were made in the U.S. This is one of the last batches of M1s out there, where a collector could possibly find an early 40′s model M1 that’s never had a shot fired through it, or one that’s still all original and has seen action in WWII. For Obama to block this is ridiculous. When I heard these magnificent firearms were going to be shipped back to the states and made part of the CMP, I was excited at the possibilities of what might be in that shipment. But thanks to Obama, we might as well just throw more American history out the window.
August 19, 2010, 2:44 pmJakeD says:
1040:
The fact that she constradicted herself later on that tape does not DISPROVE that Obama’s paternal grandmother stated she was present for his birth in Kenya. Also, there have indeed been instances of people born BEFORE Obama who obtained false birth certificates from Hawaii. You really shouldn’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
August 19, 2010, 2:52 pmOwen H. says:
:
Can you show anything from the administration itself, that makes this “official”? I mean, besides an anonymous Korean official claiming reasons.
August 19, 2010, 3:39 pmOwen H. says:
No, it shows that the translator made a mistake, which was corrected. It also shows that you aren’t interested in facts, you already know the “truth”. The Certification of live Birth has been declared genuine and accurate by the state. But that doesn’t matter, any more than it clearly doesn’t matter what the real story with these guns is, if they can bash the President with the false story.
August 19, 2010, 3:45 pmJakeD says:
Fine, Owen H., either way it is a contradiction. You blame the translator, and I blame Obama’s grandmother. My claim is still true: “Obama’s paternal grandmother stated that she was present for his birth in Kenya.” Whether that is the truth, and the later clarifications are false, or the other way around, is the whole topic of inquiry. I don’t know the TRUTH. It is indeed possible that Obama was born in Hawaii, as he says, but he still hasn’t definitively proved it.
BTW: I’m not claiming that the “Certification of Live Birth” is a forgery or even disputing that Hawaii has declared it as genuine and accurate. It definitely was produced by the State based on the information the State was given. My question is did Obama’s mother give Hawaii false information?
August 19, 2010, 4:20 pmBrian says:
I’m not sure this was mentioned earlier on, but has anyone considered the Garands and carbines were blocked from reimportation into the USA, due to the UN pressure to limit international gun sales?
Seriously, that may be the real reason for the guns being denied sales in the USA. After all, Obama’s administration has shown they want to work with the UN on the whole international gun sales issue.
On the other hand, many collectors may ask if 100k new M1 garands and carbines in the USA would not devalue their collections (for those with basic garands and nothing special). I’m not a collector, nor do I know if 100k would even affect the prices, but as someone that’s wanted to get one for a while, I garuntee you I won’t be paying the 1k price many owners are trying to sell their garands for on gun sites when I can buy one fully assembled and working (vs. one I have to put together from the civilian marksmanship program) for $500.
August 19, 2010, 4:28 pmJakeD says:
BTW, 1040, here’s just one (in)famous example of someone actually born in CHINA obtaining a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii
August 19, 2010, 5:22 pmJakeD says:
There was also an EARLIER law in effect (from 1911 until 1972) which allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he / she were born in Hawaii.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0PjvG3BkcBAC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=ACT+96.+AN+ACT+To+Provide+For+The+Issuance+Of+Certificates+Of+Hawaiian+Birth&source=bl&ots=u1k4r9pMnA&sig=K_5dxGCGShV9jNlFmnz1cenke4s&hl=en&ei=PNDrSeiVKp_htgeen9zUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct#v=onepage&q=ACT%2096.%20AN%20ACT%20To%20Provide%20For%20The%20Issuance%20Of%20Certificates%20Of%20Hawaiian%20Birth&f=false
August 19, 2010, 5:46 pmSPQR says:
The people who appear to be searching for some way to justify the Obama administration opposition to South Korea’s actions never confront the fact that the Federal government is currently selling, through a non-profit corp, the exact same rifles.
August 19, 2010, 6:01 pmBama 1L says:
Regarding the virtues of the M1 Garand and M1 carbine, the Garand is really a study in excess as far as individual infantry weapons go. It was a great rifle but would have been almost as good were it half as great. It resulted from the early twentieth-century Army’s cult of marksmanship, which held that aimed rifle fire was the decisive tactical system on the infantry battlefield. Every man was therefore to be issued a powerful, accurate rifle capable of long-range fire. This was felt to be the best system for the U.S. Army because American citizen-soldiers were supposedly natural marksmen, apparently all having grown up hunting and shooting, and possessed a high degree of individual initiative.
Of course, the Army found in both world wars (and the rest of military history to date) that this was not quite true. For starters, aimed rifle fire generates few battle casualties compared to artillery and crew-served automatic weapons such as machineguns. It is just not that important, as every other army in the world concluded after a couple months of WWI. Rifles are mostly good for keeping the enemy’s head down and keeping the rifleman’s own morale up. You basically need to generate a large volume of fire. Engagement ranges are so close that hunting-rifle cartridges are not needed and you might as well use a pistol cartridge. American exceptionalism does not extend to infantry combat. If the American fighting man had a peculiar genius, it was for working with machines, not making incredible rifle shots or finding his way in the woods.
Despite being adopted as part of a flawed tactical system, the Garand turned out to be a pretty good rifle–probably the best of WWII–because of its semiautomatic operation and eight-round clip, not its range and power. It could generate a very high volume of fire to suppress the enemy. The American rifle squad certainly needed a good rifle, because its actual light machinegun, the M1918A1 BAR, was quite poor in comparison to its competition. That the U.S. Army could afford to issue every infantryman such a dream weapon is a testament to American industrial might. Every other country in the world basically gave up on the infantry rifle and continued to issue bolt-action weapons to most infantrymen, while making smaller issues of submachineguns and other automatic weapons. They structured their tactics around the squad machinegun entirely; Americans couldn’t quite do this and so had to rely on their rifles, as well as their lavish and effective artillery.
The M1 carbine shared the Garand’s principal virtues–generating a volume of fire–and was also lighter and handier. It seems likely that American infantry would have performed just as well had the carbine, not the rifle, been the weapon of general issue; paratroopers normally carried the carbine and were, of course, quite successful in combat. Pretty good for what was originally conceived of as a pistol with a stock.
Ultimately, the two M1s inadvertently presaged the future of infantry weapons, which would see every man issued an automatic weapon with a less-powerful cartridge. Nowadays the standard issue weapon is even called a carbine and has a shorter barrel and stock for easy handling. And of course infantry nowadays accomplishes its wholesale killing by calling in supporting arms.
August 19, 2010, 6:07 pmCarl N. Brown says:
Quote: Just so I am clear, because the Obama Amdinistration has blocked the import of 100,000 antique weapons from South Korea, it is evidence (FINALLY!) that the Obama Adminsitration is anti-2nd Amendment rights.
No, it is the fact that US-made M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines have been re-imported from European and Asian countries without objection, and even from Korea as my own M1 carbine is evidence — made in 1943, sold or given to Korea and re-imported in the 1980s, and now the government blocks the re-import of M1s from Korea, giving as reason or excuse a sudden concern about the guns somehow getting into the hands of terrorists or causing accidents.
(aside: Under US federal gun law “antiques” are guns made on or before 1898; WWII era M1 Garands and carbines may be legally classed as “curios and relics” collectibles, but not as antiques.)
Also, if the issue was whether the guns were military assistance loaners rather than foreign military purchases, why not state that as the reason for the hold up? The started claim of “accidents” or “bad hands” sounds like a made-up reason. The culprit is probably some mid-level bureaucrat and such does not require involvement at the White House level, but every president gets held responsible for the actions at all levels.
I don’t intend to get involved in the other three argument threads in this comment section. I consider them dilutions and diversions and some delusions.
The point is, Obama has shown alliance with the U Chicago Law School line of gun control (Morris-Hawkins-Alschuler-Zimring-Harcourt) and was a Chicago politician in the past and any Chicago politician is invested in supporting Chicago-style gun control; then, in an apparaent flap over loaner-v-purchase re-import question, the government raises a straw issue (accidents and terrorists). I hear quacks and think ducks.
August 19, 2010, 7:40 pmOwen H. says:
Again, please cite the US government making any such statements regarding the importation of these rifles.
August 19, 2010, 7:50 pmRandomAmerican says:
Yes, Carl. The other arguments in this thread are missing the point entirely. I agree it would be nice to get back on track instead of going off on tangents that, true or not, really have no affect on the outcome of anything.
As I am to understand it, these firearms were sold to South Korea for the training of South Korean troops during the Korean War. South Korea does not want them anymore, and the deal was supposedly to buy them back and sell them to collectors. Many have never even been unboxed. This is how I understand it, coming from an article in American Rifleman, from last year when the deal was getting ready to be done.
Would they devalue any M1s currently on the market? I doubt it. A majority of them probably aren’t even fit for collection while a minority of them are probably priceless. In reality, there would not be 100,000 M1s added to the market. Maybe a couple thousand would be worth it. According to the article I read, there was also going to be some time spent going through them to find out which ones were fit for the market and which ones weren’t. Personally, I was excited about the possibility to add an original WWII era M1 Garand, in good firing condition to my collection, and maybe pay a little less than market value for it.
It’s sad to me that something like that has to sit in a warehouse in South Korea because of the ignorance of bureaucrats. It’s also sad to me that we have an Administration that wouldn’t see these firearms as an important part of American History and wouldn’t want to try to preserve some of them for the next generation, but would instead see this as an opportunity to do something anti-gun.
August 19, 2010, 8:02 pmTim says:
“correlation does not mean causation” is a tired objection, often used to stop further debate.
No, correlation does not mean causation, but causation does result in correlation. In fact, a correlation between two variables likely results from one of three causal mechanisms: A causes B, B causes A, or a third variable C, causes both A and B (the dreaded spurious correlation). We should think about likely causal mechanisms beneath this correlation.
The fact that the correlation is negative certainly does not help those who would like to argue that increased gun ownership should result in an increase in accidents and death. It requires one to assume that there is an more powerful negative effect (one commenter proposes a improvements in trauma medicine decreasing deaths) that is stronger than the presumed positive effect of increased gun ownership on accidents and subsequent death.
On the other hand, I think the variable “time”, as in the passage of time, can often work as that third variable.
August 19, 2010, 8:04 pmcg says:
Wow, sounds totally biased and ignorant. Did Bush do better? Not saying Obama is perfect but Im working class so, definetly not ready for a full republican government!
August 19, 2010, 8:12 pmDean says:
36 USC §40728A Allows the Secretary of the Army to recover post 1961 surplus military aid rifles, etc. Section(c) REQUIRES the transfer of title of any such recovered weapons to the CFPRPFS (“The CMP”) Additionally, the statute forbids the destruction of any M1 Garand rifles which come back into US DoD hands, making them instead available for the CMP to obtain title to and to sell.
The Obama Administration is no doubt using the “may” recover language to avoid accepting title back for these rifles. Also, re-importation of US war materials is restricted by statute, however the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine are both Curio and Relics firearms. Curio and Relic firearms are more easily imported under law, which could serve to ease any statutory importation restrictions.
Questions worthy of lawyers, no doubt.
August 19, 2010, 10:40 pmOwen H. says:
yet again, where is there anything regarding what the administration is actually doing, beyond the claims of an anonymous Korean official?
August 19, 2010, 10:50 pmOwen H. says:
Your claim is not true. She never said he was born in Kenya. Simple statement of fact. A translator misunderstood what she said, and she corrected him. Not that it matters; by your logic, any mis-statement ever damns the speaker forever, as it must be given weight beyond any other statements ever made.
August 19, 2010, 10:57 pmAlso by your logic, every birth certificate everywhere is called into question, and no one is definitively authorized to become President. And also by your logic, there is clearly no way for anyone to prove otherwise. So prove to me that you are a citizen, and have standing to object here. Of course, your birth certificate may have been forged, in some long-term plan to cast doubt on an election.
RandomAmerican says:
Owen H., why don’t you find me something to discredit The Korea Times story, and the journalist who wrote it? Just because it’s not an A.P. story or the media in the U.S. didn’t cover it, doesn’t make it false. Do you think there is a press release for every decision made by our government? Maybe Obama didn’t make the decision himself, or maybe he did. The point is moot. It’s still the Obama Administration’s decision. And I have no reason to believe the South Korean media has a reason to print this story if it’s false. The fact is, it was announced last September that these firearms would be sold back to the U.S. to be sold to collectors. All of a sudden this story is printed in The Korea Times. There is no reason not to believe it. If you want to keep trolling this thread, at least bring some proof that it wasn’t the Obama Administration’s decision. Show me where our government says the report is false. You’ve already seen where a South Korean government official said it’s true. Show me one of our government officials saying it’s false. In fact, here’s the link to the story on The Korea Times. Now show me something saying it’s a lie.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_71329.html
August 20, 2010, 12:38 amJakeD says:
Anyone other than Owen H. (judge for youself):
MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.
(Since we know that Sarah Obama had never come to Hawaii, that means she said that she was present for his birth in Kenya. The transcript continues with “corrections” but there’s no other way to read the actual answer above)
August 20, 2010, 1:08 amj. Feinman says:
Not sure, but I can guarantee you that those citizens who would prevent their fellow Americans from owning firearms are completely irresponsible.
Anyone who disagrees should feel free to put this sticker on their front door.
They can also put this one on the front door of their children’s high-school.
August 20, 2010, 1:19 amAbsolutist for a Reason says:
This is why David, you should do yourself a favor; take a nice hot shower and wash the stench of the NRA off your body , leave it and start working that obviously superb brain can of yours for good rather than evil.
The NRA is the largest and most powerful gun-control advocacy group in the country.
If you have to ask permission to exercise a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege.
August 20, 2010, 2:42 amAbsolutist for a Reason says:
It doesn’t matter. To be a “natural born citizen” you do not have to be born on the continent per se but both of your parents have to be American citizens at the time of your birth. The birth certificate is a red herring.
August 20, 2010, 2:48 amSurvivalStation says:
Just reading the first dozen or so comments shows that most of you have no idea what you are talking about. The M1 carbine, M1A and M14 variants are United States produced weapons used in various conflicts from WWII up to Vietnam and still including US military ceremonies today.
The age of the weapon has no bearing on the safety factor of it. If the weapon is not loaded it cannot hurt you (unless you are whacked over the head with it.)
For many year the United States Civilian Marksmanship Program provided civilian versions of these guns for the general public to enjoy. Do the research and you will see these weapons are no more dangerous than your dad’s old Red Ryder BB gun when in the hands of an individual properly trained in the handling of a firearm.
August 20, 2010, 6:29 amOwen H. says:
The burden of proof is on he who asserts.
August 20, 2010, 6:31 amOwen H. says:
Refuted over and over. She was saying she was in Kenya when he was born, not that he was born there. But feel free to keep frothing at the mouth.
August 20, 2010, 6:33 amJakeD says:
Absolutist For A Reason:
You are aware that Obama’s (alleged) father was not a U.S. citizen, right?
August 20, 2010, 9:41 amAbsolutist for a Reason says:
That was my point actually.
August 20, 2010, 10:01 amJakeD says:
Just making sure.
August 20, 2010, 10:29 amOwen H. says:
Can you cite where in law that is? Not that it matters, seeing as the President was born in Hawaii. But where does the claim that to be a natural born citizen both parents have to citizens? That certainly isn’t how courts have ruled.
August 20, 2010, 11:16 amColcord says:
Anybody that is being convinced the administration has good motives for this ban should read about or remember the 750,000 M14 rifles destroyed in Anniston, Alabama at taxpayer expense during the Clinton years. Those fine rifles should have been reserved for later use by our forces, turns out it they were later needed and in short supply. Or, the rifles could have been provided to the citizenry (modified/refurbished by government or private industry where necessary). If you think the condition of the majority of those M14 rifles were a rational motivation for their destruction, you do not know much about the design and toughness of these firearms, or are being disingenuous.
It is a repugnant fact that a good number of our leaders do not trust current or retired military and police with the very firearms some of those people used to WIN WARS against treacherous enemies and save civilian lives! Excuse me… that our government does not trust the military and police that SURVIVED, and maybe had children. Whatever these few but powerful usurpers can get away with to mitigate, discourage, or eliminate the heritage of rifle marksmanship among the greater populace is part of their mission.
So what if the Korean government gets some revenue out of the sale of M1 rifles and carbines? Deduct from the pile of dollars our citizens send to them each year through other programs.
It was our property.
Son of a career U.S. Army combat veteran who served in Germany, Okinawa, Korea and Vietnam (he was originally drafted, his back was broken in 3 places for you)
August 20, 2010, 11:51 amA Son of the American Revolution
Owen H. says:
Like it or not the M14, as a selective fire weapon, could not and cannot be sold to the general public, even if modified. That was and remains th law, it was not some whim of President Clinton’s. In any case I have read that it was the military that wanted to get rid of them, long before Clinton took office.
The Korean government can’t sell those weapons because they don’t own them to begin with. They clearly don’t want to simply return them, which is the only way the CMP could get a hold of them.
August 20, 2010, 2:01 pmAbsolutist for a Reason says:
Pretty sure that’s exactly what they ruled in the case of the McCain question where somebody was challenging his status based on his birth in Panama.
August 20, 2010, 2:17 pmRandomAmerican says:
The Korean government does own them. They were sold to them by the U.S. government. I guess you just missed that part.
August 20, 2010, 2:48 pmyankev says:
The NRA said he was not. They were called all kinds of nasty names for saying so.
August 20, 2010, 2:52 pmyankev says:
Here we agree. There are plenty of true stories that one can ‘bash’ the president with. Like his impassioned defense in the Illinois Senate for the right of medical facilities to let unwanted infants die of starvation, dehydration and neglect. Or his lying about his position on second amendment rights and then having his campaign attorneys threaten any broadcaster who dared to air an ad exposing his true record. Or his lying about his association with the Reverend Wright or with admitted murderer and dicator admiring unreformed radical Bill Ayers. Or his pandering to the SEIU. Or subverting the rule of law in the Chrysler bankruptcy. I don’t need to even start on foreign policy matters. Why waste time on his parentage?
August 20, 2010, 3:01 pmOwen H. says:
McCain is a natural born citizen not simply because both parents were citizens, but also because statute clarified that such children born in the Canal Zone were natural born citizens. It is not a defining requirement, nor relevant here, particularly as President Obama was born in Hawaii.
August 20, 2010, 3:10 pmOwen H. says:
Nope, it seems these are not weapons they bought, but that were lend-lease. They claim otherwise, but can’t seem to document it. Much like so many other claims in this thread.
August 20, 2010, 3:13 pmyankev says:
Apparently you are either unfamiliar with the existence of the M1A (the semi-auto only version of the M14), or you are under the misimpression that an M14 cannot be modified to fire semi-auto only.
August 20, 2010, 3:18 pmRandomAmerican says:
Actually, none of this relevant. The only thing relevant here is the story at hand. Why the hell are any of you concerned with his citizenship? One way or the other, it does not affect anything that’s happening or has already happened. Put the citizenship argument to an end. Let it go. Concentrate on facts instead of rumors and innuendo.
August 20, 2010, 3:25 pmRandomAmerican says:
You are always telling people to back up their claims. Back up yours. You make all kinds of claims and you never back any of them up. Apparently, with you, the burden of proof is always on someone else.
August 20, 2010, 3:32 pmOwen H. says:
An M1A is no more an M14 than a CAR-15 is an M-16.
In any case, even modified it is not legal to sell such weapons to the general public.
August 20, 2010, 5:47 pmJakeD says:
Random American:
It’s relevant to the instant story because, if Obama is not legally President, then his “administration” does not have the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns. Next question?
August 20, 2010, 5:47 pmOwen H. says:
http://www.thecmp.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22783&highlight=korea+garand+sale
Apparently, this has been going on for some time (the CMP forums chime in with “not another Korean Garand thread!” on a regular basis. According to their site, they just got a large number of Garands back from Greece, which would be odd if the administration were actually trying to ban guns.
August 20, 2010, 5:54 pmOwen H. says:
I’m not concerned at all, I can see clearly that he is in fact a citizen, and is in fact President of the United States. You do realize I didn’t bring it up to begin with, right? Take it up with JakeD.
August 20, 2010, 5:56 pmSarcastro says:
I would like to add an anecdote of a liberal banning guns as reason for my evidence-less fear that Obama really, really wants to.
August 20, 2010, 6:26 pmOwen H. says:
And although I support the right of individuals to own and bear firearms, as enumerated and protected by the Constitution, I am saddened that no one seems willing to show some sensitivity towards the irrational fears of those that dislike and even hate guns. Just because it is our right, doesn’t make it right all the time, does it?
August 20, 2010, 6:59 pmOwen H. says:
I’d have sworn we were told he was going to ban them all and round us up by now.
August 20, 2010, 7:00 pmCarl N. Brown says:
The opening is “According to The Korea Times,…”
Yes, more independent sources would be preferred.
On the sidetrack, those Clinto-era M14s less the full auto receiver, could have been re-constructed on M1A-style newly made semi-auto receivers (of which there are more makers than just the civilian incarnation of Springfield Armory).
August 20, 2010, 8:35 pmchester arthur says:
Well.prof,they ARE American goods.So are you saying we shouldn’t be able to buy used American goods?These are heavily built guns that last a long time.The hunting discussion with these rifles reminded me of a story my dad told me about going deer hunting in Germany at the end of the war,and having a deer run circles around him while he fired away with a carbine.He used an older ‘liberated’ Mauser for his next hunt with better success.
August 20, 2010, 10:40 pmzippypinhead says:
A couple of corrections, before we turn every ill-advised military decision into a Fox News-worthy political fail:
1. M-14s are classified as machine guns under the NFA. Meaning it would be more than a little problematic to try to sell surplus ones to civilians. M-14s are semi-auto-only if they don’t have the removable selector switch installed, and many were actually issued to G.I.s without the full-auto selector switch, because 7.62 NATO is so hard to control on full auto in a shoulder-fired weapon. Even without the selector switch, the M-14 is legally considered a NFA weapon, because it can readily be converted into a machine gun.
2. The M1A that some believe is a sub-model of the M-14 is not a mil-spec firearm, but just a civilian semi-automatic-only knockoff of the M-14. A few different companies make them. The M1A receiver is fundamentally different in key ways from the mil-spec M-14, and it’s basically impossible to convert an M1A receiver to take the parts necessary to make it a machine gun. Some of these commercial knock-offs are not of nearly as high quality as the original mil-spec gun, but others are pretty good.
3. Many of the old M-14s still in arsenals were rebuilt and issued for Iraq/Afghanistan when it became obvious that there was still a need for a rifle that could reach out and touch the baddies at longer ranges than 5.56mm M-4s and M-16s can. Unfortunately many M-14s had already met their demise in the “Captain Crunch” crusher at Anniston 15+ years ago. But that was a decision made by the DoD chain of command, not President Clinton. It was generally believed at the time there never again would be a need for a heavy, full-power battle rifle, given how well the black mousegun class had grown into its job in ‘typical’ combat situations. DoD couldn’t transfer M-14s to DCM/CMP, so unfortunately decommissioning them meant destroying them. This wasn’t some nefarious anti-Second Amendment political decision made in the West Wing…
4. In a strange coincidence, Orest Michaels, the Chief Operating Officer of the CMP for several years now (and a hero to folks concerned about preserving vintage militaria), recently admitted on the CMP forum that he was the guy in charge of Captain Crunch at an earlier point in his career. Go figure…
I think this comment thread is about played out now, eh? Time to move on…
August 20, 2010, 11:12 pmJOSEPH MAROTTA says:
Doesn’t this fall under the “Legal commerce in arms act”? Barry isn’t obeying federal law again!
August 20, 2010, 11:19 pmOwen H. says:
No.
August 22, 2010, 10:25 amUlf R. "Ron" Heller says:
It is a bit ironic that the sale to the public of M-1 Garand rifles has been endorsed by the government for many years through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. http://www.odcmp.com/about_us.htm
August 22, 2010, 12:32 pmOwen H. says:
Ironic, how? The issue here isn’t the US government banning anything, it is the fact that S. Korea cannot show they own the weapons to begin with. If these are MAP-supplied weapons, they can’t sell them, they have to return them to the US, at which point they could be provided to the CMP and then sold to the public.
I’ve been perusing the CMP forums, and it seems that some time back, S. Korea tried a similar sale, with shoddy paperwork, such that they claimed not to be able to properly identify which weapons were theirs and which ours, and then claimed all the crappy, shot out rifles were ours while the pristine ones were theirs.
August 22, 2010, 3:41 pmr says:
I suppose Obama and the fray a while ago about surplus military brass be destroyed (at a loss) rather than auctioned off(at a gain) is indicating his good will toward shooting sports in U.S. We need to vote out the Democrat and Republican anti Constitutional(2nd Amendment) SOB’s
August 22, 2010, 4:48 pmOwen H. says:
As I recall that had nothing to do with President Obama at all.
August 22, 2010, 7:00 pmCharles Wetherbee says:
Your argument would be more plausible if those M1 weapons weren’t already made in the U.S.A. and supplied to the armed forces of South Korea by the U.S. Government in the first place.
August 23, 2010, 3:32 pmIt is, purely & simply, an unconstitutional ban arbitrarily imposed by the Obama administration.
Owen H. says:
Dangerous or likely to end up in bad hands have nothing to do with this situation. Sorry Charles, but you are wrong. So is Guy, because it isn’t about the issues he is justifying, but this isn’t about banning guns at all. S. Korea can’t legally sell us guns they don’t own. All they are permitted to do is return them to the government, at which point they can go to groups like the CMP and get sold, just like the thousands of Garands recently returned by Greece (and not banned), or the close to 1.5 million or so the CMP has in stock (which also weren’t banned when they were returned).
August 23, 2010, 6:51 pmArizona 1070 Supporter says:
These are not imports from a foreign manufacturer you idiot. WE sold the rifles in the first place! Your “proneness” is from lack of knowledge of fire arms in general. And your “doubt” will enslave all of us. Just like the millions of slaves on “welfare” programs.
August 24, 2010, 1:38 pmCarl N. Brown says:
“Protectionist”? There are no domestic manufacturers of fifty-year old military collector’s items to be protected.
People interested in purchasing Korean inventory M1 Garands or M1 Carbines might be interested in buying other original military collectibles, but they are not an economic threat to makers of new Garand or Carbine replicas as shooting guns. The collectible market stimulates the shooting replica market; it does not depress it. So protectionism does not apply here.
August 25, 2010, 9:50 amColcord says:
In reply to the thoughtful responses to my original comments,
1. The USGI M14 rifles in question were manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. Seems to me the original 1934 law applies to the USGI M14, though who could hardly track the many numerous abitrary decisions meted out by the ATF. Those newer laws passed by Congress do not seem to be justification for the destruction of 750,000 M14 rifles in Anniston, Alabama. Citizens can buy fully automatic 1919 Brownings, BARs, Thompsons, Grease Guns, and M14 rifles (all manufactured prior to McClure Volkmer) today just as they could in 1937 or 1956, when the darn things are available.
Neil Young’s music is fine, but his lyrics shouldn’t be considered when it comes to running the military or supplying the militia.
2. If the chain of command decided 30 caliber rifles are obsolete, then why not destroy 1903, P1917, and M1 rifles in the 1990s along with the M14? Many in high office, when considering arms available to the public, would like to obsolete anything that is particularly lethal. That is the nature of most rulers. If we wish for this nation to remain different, we must fight for it.
3. Parts of Chinese and other foreign manufacture come into the States uninterrupted. What says those parts are in spec? Who checks the arms assembled from foreign parts for safety? Where are the Federal regulators then?
4. Plenty of $10 .303 Enfields have been sold which easily swallow field reject guages. There was no organized program at taxpayer expense to eliminate those.
5. The government wants to discourage rifle marksmanship and make it cost prohibitive. Simple as that, and they are having some success. Very British of them.
6. If a Chinese invasion force were assembled the likes of British one sent to America in the 1770s, it would number around 10 million soldiers. We should’ve held on to those rifles. Farcical? I’m glad my Revolutionary generation sires thought out of the box.
August 28, 2010, 8:03 pmoutdoorsman300wsm says:
To suggest that gangsters and terrorists would use 50-year old M1 Garand rifles that our grandfathers carried is preposterous. I’m pretty sure a 2-foot-long, $400 AK pistol with a 30-round mag would be much more appealing to these lowlifes than a 4-foot long WWII battle rifle costing twice as much and holding only 8 rounds. I’m not bashing the AK, I’m just saying Obama’s premise in banning the M1s is ludicrous. I wonder what grade of crack you can get as Pres-a-dent?
September 1, 2010, 11:07 pm