A couple weeks ago, I blogged about an article in the Korea Times reporting that the Obama administration was blocking the import of American-made M1 Garands and M1 Carbines which the South Korean government wished to sell into the U.S. market. The Korea Times reported that an unnamed Korean official said that the American government was blocking the imports because of objections to increasing the gun supply in the United States. Some blog commenters speculated that the Korea Times was wrong, and that the real objection must have been that since the rifles were probably gifts from the United States government, the terms of the gift required that the rifles be given back to the U.S. Army once the Koreans did not want them any more.
Today, Maxim Lott’s reporting for FoxNews confirms that the Korea Times accurately characterized the American government objections:
The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.
A State Department spokesman said the administration’s decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.
“The transfer of such a large number of weapons — 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines — could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com.
“We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms.”
The article quotes the Brady Campaign’s Dennis Henigan, and me, regarding the policy issues raised by the import ban.
Bob Stump says:
Hitler would be in full agreement with the Obama Administration here.
September 1, 2010, 5:58 pmGaunilo says:
The authority to approve or disapprove the importation is strictly in the hands of the President, vested by the Arms Export Act of 1958, and exercised through the Department of State. I guess we should not expect him to do anything different. If he has a chance to block guns, he will do so.
The fact that Obama has the right to block this does not in any way speak to the stupidity of doing this now. It will anger millions of gun owners just when the Democrats need whatever friends they have left before the elections.
And of course the decision will be made by people who have never held a M-1 or M-1 Carbine in their hands, and who could not pick one out of a pile of bolt-action rifles. Such is the course of self-government.
September 1, 2010, 6:05 pmOwen H. says:
I read the article, and it sounds verbatim what the “unnamed” Korean official in previous articles said. I don’t care what the Brady guy said, he isn’t in the loop. So it still seems unclear. We are still dealing with “unnamed” officials, and this looks as if they simply removed mention of the Korean official in quoting what an administration official supposedly said.
It simply doesn’t square with the fact that other such weapons have been imported recently.
And is it a record to go from Obama to Hitler in the first comment?
September 1, 2010, 6:13 pmZack says:
That’s got to be some sort of Godwin’s law record.
[DK: I agree with your Godwin's point. However, it is almost certain that Hitler wished that Americans didn't have so many M1 Garands and Carbines. :) ]
September 1, 2010, 6:14 pmPhelps says:
Last time I looked, M1 Carbines and M1 Garands were going for around $1000 each at the CMP. The CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is a Congressionally mandated non-profit responsible for selling these on behalf of the government. How exactly does this administration justify again defying the legislative power of Congress and letting almost a billion dollars of revenue slip away?
September 1, 2010, 6:20 pmruuffles says:
That might actually make sense if American civilians were fighting in Europe.
September 1, 2010, 6:22 pmTomHynes says:
The Koreans have had these guns for fifty years or so. They aren’t going to throw them away; they will just wait until President Palin approves them. Of course, I already have two Garands and a carbine from CMP. STBU.
September 1, 2010, 6:36 pmTomHynes says:
The Koreans have had these guns for fifty years or so. They aren’t going to throw them away; they will just wait until President Palin approves them. Of course, I already have two Garands and a carbine from CMP. STBU.
September 1, 2010, 6:36 pmrkh says:
Even if imported, these rifles will never be sold through the CMP.
That’s because the CMP resells US Government property that was loaned to foreign nations then subsequently returned. These rifles are apparently property of the Korean Government, and would have to be imported through the regular process and resold through distributors like any other imported gun.
This wouldn’t be problem if the guns were new manufacture, but GCA ’68 put additional limitations on the reimport of milsurp rifles. The State department has to sign off on the import. Hence the current absurd situation.
September 1, 2010, 6:37 pmrkh says:
As a consolation, I’ve read that most of these rifles are in rough shape.
I’m not happy about the current situation, but would be truly upset if Obama was actually stonewalling import of a load of mint, matching M1s.
oh well.
September 1, 2010, 6:41 pmMark T. Tillar says:
“A State Department spokesman said the administration’s decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.
“The transfer of such a large number of weapons — 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines — could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes,”
_____________________________________________
State Department spokesman has a good point, citizens in Arizona might end up with them and use them defending their ranches or other such Administration deemed illicit purposes. Or perhaps a citizen of Chicago or Detriot might want one to defend themselves against the gangs running their neighborhoods.
One of the legal eagles here ought to file a lawsuit and take it to the Supreme Court to see if Justice Kagan believes in, and will rule for, the 2nd Amendment.
September 1, 2010, 6:41 pmMark Horning says:
My contacts at CMP tell me that:
1) these are indeed FMS, not MAP rifles. I.e. they are not borrowed and Korea does have the right to sell them.
2) Korea does not seem to have the paperwork to prove that these are FMS rifles.
3) Rough Shape is an understatment. They are well below CMP field grade.
September 1, 2010, 6:48 pmNorris. says:
“A State Department spokesman said the administration’s decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.”
And because government “could fall into the wrong hands”, the 2nd. Amendment was wisely included in the Bill of Rights.
These M1 “rifles” and M1 “carbines” are of WWII vintage. The M1 “Garand” Rifle, I suggest, would be the minimum requirement for a “well regulated (equipped) militia”. The M1 Rifle takes only eight rounds of the very common .30-’06 or .308 “NATO” ammunition and the Carbine takes a smaller cartridge that is almost pistol-like and is not suitable for hunting any critters bigger than coyotes. Carbines were issued mostly to paratroopers during WWII. It is obvious that the Obama administration does not have any expertise regarding these very collectible firearms. Especially the Garand.
The Mexican drug gangs would not be interested in the Garand rifle because of its limited ammo capacity and it’s “kick” is considerably more than an M-16. The Mexican drug gangs like M-16′s, but they like AK-47′s more. They buy them unhindered from North Korea and not South Korea.
September 1, 2010, 6:55 pmLarryA says:
Now that legitimate dealers don’t have a shot they’ll be snatched up by Mexican drug gangs, some will be captured, and the MSM will be saying they came from Texas gun shows. ;-)
September 1, 2010, 6:57 pmNorris. says:
Regardless of the context, situation, condition and suitability of these firearms for the US public, Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Diane Sawyer will spin this story, with suitable diabolical innuendos regarding firearms, and add their own subtle kudos for the Obama Administration.
September 1, 2010, 7:12 pmOwen H. says:
1 and 2 seem to be contradictory. How can anyone know they are in fact FMS, if the paperwork does not exist to demonstrate that fact?
September 1, 2010, 7:15 pmBama 1L says:
I disagree. Hitler was pathologically incompetent at both weapons procurement and gauging American strength. He probably thought giving every American a Buck Rogers rifle would guarantee Nazi success.
September 1, 2010, 7:26 pmPhatty says:
Good point. And it will be obvious that they came from the United States because they are all American-made rifles.
September 1, 2010, 7:42 pmBill Ayers is just a guy from his neighborhood. says:
The country has fallen into the wrong hands.
September 1, 2010, 7:51 pmGaunilo says:
If the press reports are correct, I do not understand the legal basis for the decision. If the rifles are FMS, then the authority for importation is the Imports Branch of the BATF. The ruling would be based on whether they are curio and relic, which they are. They would not have the authority to deny the Form 6 application, though they could of course sit on it for months if the political currents are blowing that way.
Only if the rifles are MAP would State have the right to deny the importation. If they are MAP, the President has the absolute authority to do this.
State does not have a legal basis to deny FMS rifle importation because “they might fall into the wrong hands.”
If there is an in-between legal situation, I am not aware of it.
September 1, 2010, 8:21 pmOwen H. says:
You don’t even understand that 30-06 and .308 are different rounds, and the M1 doesn’t take the NATO .308? And you are complaining about someone else’s lack of expertise?
September 1, 2010, 8:22 pmOwen H. says:
As far as I can tell, this is little more than a FOX regurgitation of the original story from Korea. The CMP forums certainly don’t seem to think it is a matter of banning guns.
September 1, 2010, 8:27 pmAnon314 says:
In other news, a large shipment of paper from Canada was banned by the Obama Administration, on the grounds that it could be potentially used for illicit purposes.
September 1, 2010, 8:30 pmSteve2 says:
The M1 didn’t originally take NATO .308 (officially 7.62x51mm – NATO uses SI units). However, a non-trivial number were rechambered to it after the cartridge was introduced. I’ve seen them for sale in stores and at gun shows, and it’s likely the Garands that saw use in Vietnam were 7.62×51, not .30-06.
The Garand was originally a .30-06 weapon, and most Garands are .30-06 rifles, but some Garands are .308.
September 1, 2010, 8:35 pmrkh says:
According to Wikipedia, gun ownership is a capital offense in South Korea.
It’s a little disturbing to think that the Koreans would be happy to sell the rifles to American citizens, but would execute their own people for the same behavior.
September 1, 2010, 8:44 pmOwen H. says:
And not one of these weapons from Korea had that mod done, I would bet. Point is, that was a modification done to a relatively small number of weapons, and later than the era of this batch.
September 1, 2010, 8:49 pmrkh says:
Lots of competitive service rifle shooters have their M1s rechambered in .308.
The .30-06 case is too big, and leaves too much air space when loaded with modern powders. The position of the powder in the case actually has a significant effect on the burn rate of the powder, so completely filling the case is a desirable thing. That’s easier to accomplish in .308.
September 1, 2010, 9:03 pmKamal says:
They trrrrrk ourrrrrrrrrrrrrr gunnnnnnnnns!
September 1, 2010, 9:35 pmreference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzivCJ9pzU
zippypinhead says:
What I heard from folks at CMP’s Camp Perry operation (and seems to be confirmed by CMP Forum posts by CMP’s COO, Orest Michaels) is simply that the Koreans are claiming these rifles aren’t MAP loaners, and in fact have already lined up commercial importers willing to pay millions of dollars for the rifles.
But what the Koreans are claiming in the pursuit of Big Buck$ and what DoD suspects about these rifles are two different things. At various points during the past 60 years ROK received a lot of MAP loaners and also made some FMS purchases. In the past there’s been some suspicion that the Koreans have swapped rifles so they could sell the good ones to commercial importers (e.g., BlueSky), while returning the crummy ones to the Army for disposition through CMP/DCM. If there’s no paperwork indicating the remaining rifles were FMS purchases, then by process of elimination they must have been MAP loaners. MAP loaners are supposed to be returned to the Army (which can then transfer them to CMP). MAP equpment can’t be sold by the recipient country absent special permission – that typically hasn’t been forthcoming from Administrations of either party. MAP loaners were paid for with U.S. taxpayer money, after all.
FWIW, this story as now spun by Fox sounds fishy – they call all the involved agencies for comment and confirmation, and the only person they can get any information from is some un-named press flack in the State Department – who comes up with a facially ridiculous excuse, especially given that in the past couple of years the Army has taken back and CMP has then sold tens of thousands of M1s and M1 Carbines returned from Denmark, Greece, Italy, Austria, and other countries? Hmmm…
September 1, 2010, 10:29 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
According to no less an authority than Wikipedia, we made something like 6 million of the things. I don’t think we had 3,000,001 paratroopers.
September 1, 2010, 10:59 pmJohn Stephens says:
The carbine was originally intended for issue to troops who’s job wasn’t primarily fighting (truck drivers and such), but who needed something more useful than a pistol to defend themselves with. Paratroopers had problems managing both a parachute and a full size rifle, so they were issued the carbine as well.
September 1, 2010, 11:45 pmSebastian the Ibis says:
They still exist? I thought they closed years ago.
September 2, 2010, 12:02 amDon Meaker says:
The big advantage of the Carbine to paratroopers was the small size and light weight of the ammunition. WWI .30/06 rounds weighed an ounce each. 16 rounds weighed a pound. Ammunition weight adds up quickly. Before WWII the round was changed from 174grain bullets to 150 grain, reducing range slightly, but still, some 20 rounds make up a pound.
.30 Carbine rounds are a lot less, and Paratroopers expected to initially be surrounded, normally to occupy close terrain (short range) and defend. Ideal to have lots of little bullets on hand.
September 2, 2010, 12:12 amGeorgiaboy61 says:
Very well-said, that sums up our current situation rather nicely, I’d say.
Stalin once said of guns and ideas, “The only real power comes out of a long rifle,” and “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
Given the Obama administration’s adherence to communist doctrine and ideology in these sorts of issues, it is well that the people are well-armed with firearms and ideas. Together, they are the surest bulkwark against the kind of tyranny of which Obama dreams.
September 2, 2010, 12:21 amnaman says:
Too bad because I would love to own a M-1 carbine. If those 770K carbines had hit the US market, the price would probably have been reasonable too. I think the Dems are doing this just to spite conservative America. It’s not like another 857K guns added to the US market would make much of a difference in a country that already has over 200 million guns.
September 2, 2010, 12:22 amGeorgiaboy61 says:
Correct, the .30 caliber carbine was issued in lieu of a pistol, for paratroopers, tank and artillery crews, support personnel – and also was envisioned as a light-weight rifle for Filipino and other smaller-stature irregulars, guerillas, partisans and resistance members. It was also carried by many officers and NCOs. It was comparably accurate to a .45 caliber ACP pistol, but much less accurate than a Garand, especially in the full auto version.
September 2, 2010, 12:26 amPhantommut says:
I’m sorry, I think the pertinent question to ask is, in the last ten years, how many guns in this class have been used “in the wrong hands”.
These are ground combat guns. Pretty outdated ones. Pack a punch, but slow. NOT what the gangbangers are slinging under their hoodies.
Show me the stats.
September 2, 2010, 12:30 amThomasD says:
This will all be sorted out once the Koreans cut Soros in for a piece of the action.
September 2, 2010, 12:33 amYou Know What I Hate? | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] poor people are able to obtain cheap rifles to help them put meat on the table. [...]
September 2, 2010, 12:35 amiconoclast says:
In other words, you have no idea. Bluster doesn’t replace facts very well.
September 2, 2010, 12:52 amRobert says:
September 2, 2010, 12:58 amCalifornio says:
Is not the pen mighter than the sword? Cannot faith move mountains? Better keep these weapons from the people as well. They might (mis)use them.
September 2, 2010, 1:00 amGS says:
Absolutely agree. Not concealable, very loud, pack a kick, useless in a drive-by, and the cartels already have lots of AK’s, AR’s, and M-16′s/M4′s. They wouldn’t want to go to war against another cartel or the Mexican army with a vintage semi-auto. Granted, in the right hands these bad boys are deadly, but gangbangers and cartel sicarios aren’t typically plucked from the Sniper School at Ft. Benning.
September 2, 2010, 1:13 amKevin R.C. O'Brien says:
The Navy “Rechambered” some few Garands (possibly one or two thousand) for shipboard use, using a sort of annular plug that was seated in the chamber by firing rounds (not sure if they were regular or proof rounds). The Garands issued by the ARVN (it was their main battle rifle until 1970) were always .30-06 rifles. The Garands used by the Army National Guard likewise (ARNG got rid of Garands in the early seventies, many units going straight from M1 to M16A1).
A lot of the 7.62 Garands in shops are new barrels on surplus guns that came back with bad barrels. Like a lot of Garand variations, “tanker” Garands and so forth, they’re an artefact of the private market, mostly.
I don’t think it’s news that the Obama administration will oppose gun rights to the extent that they can, politically. No one expects this leopard to change spots.
The name of the Fox reporter caught my eye; I wondered if he might be the son of self-defense researcher John Lott. Sure enough, he is. How much of a gun nut do you have to be to call your son Maxim? Does he have three brothers, Lewis, Hotchkiss and Thompson?
September 2, 2010, 1:43 amtsotha says:
Antique rifles are hardly the kind of weapons gang-bangers are going to use to shoot up the neighborhood. It’s a shame they won’t be hitting the market – there are probably quite a few people (like myself) who’d like to pick up a cheap rifle for the range.
September 2, 2010, 2:17 amdennymack says:
Even if one were to stipulate the truth of every argument made in favor of gun control, there still would be no reason to keep out the Garands.
Ever been to a range and had someone firing a 5.56 or 7.62×39 on one side, and another guy sighting in his 30-06 deer rifle on the other? Use one illegally and you are screaming “Here I am! Come and get me!”
Anyone ever seen a concealable Garand? Neither have I.
I would love to hear one reason that these “wrong hand”ed folks would chose an expensive, old, loud rifle over an easy to acquire modern gun. Does the criminal element have more interest than I thought in American history?
BTW, Kevin, you should publish a book of baby names. You could add Krag, Mosin, Nambu and Galil to be more multicultural, but nobody is ever going to name their kid Stoner. I hope.
September 2, 2010, 2:29 amWhatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
Shifty1 says:
All ya’ll chasing the gang-banger angle are barkin up the wrong tree. When the State Department toady worried about the guns “falling into the wrong hands” he/she/it meant into the hands of the nassssssty, raaaaascist, “tea-baggers” who might, you know, use them to oppose the total destruction of our Republic.
September 2, 2010, 2:50 amBuck Turgidson says:
This has got to be one of the dumbest 2nd Amendment comments ever made, on par with Sharron Angle’s “second amendment remedies”. These guns are yet to even make it into the US. No individual rights are implicated in the ban. How, exactly, do you plan to apply the 2nd Amendment to this situation?
Kopel’s post made no sense the first time. It still makes no sense now. We are faced with a strictly “international commerce and trade” issue under the purview of the State Department. And it follows precedent from at least three preceding administrations. There is really nothing to see here.
September 2, 2010, 3:11 amSarcastro says:
Good point! Only tyrannical governments try to prevent armed insurrection, and only awesome people use 50 year old Korean leftovers to do it!
But clearly Obama hates guns, as can be seen by all the anti-gun rhetoric and actions he’s taken! There’s this trade thing…and the one other thing on the first thread…
Well, if there aren’t so many examples that just proves he’s scared, cause guns are totally a top priority of him, being a tyrant and all.
Only be personally handing out free guns to every American would he prove to me he’s gun friendly.
September 2, 2010, 3:11 amRobert says:
CMP can use the parts of even very rough guns. They are building Garands now out of parts. American citizens paid for these guns and thats who they ought to go back to while funding marksmanship and safety programs.
September 2, 2010, 3:46 amGuy says:
Where is this “grown up conversation” you’re talking about? I see irrational hysteria, unless you seriously think the Second Amendment means that the United States can’t pursue protectionist policies with respect to gun manufacturers. Also, as was pointed out on the last thread, the Bush administration took the same position with regard to this exact same set of firearms. Oh, that’s right, it’s different because Obama is an evil liberal and he has to be out to eliminate all guns, and not permitting the reimportation of these weapons is a significant impact on people’s abilities to arm themselves.
September 2, 2010, 4:03 amWade says:
We know that the South Korean government is corrupt and has no qualms about lying to get its way. We know that the US State Department lies to get its way whenever it believes it’s necessary. With principled folks like these as the sole sources of information, I have to wonder if there are even any rifles to argue about.
September 2, 2010, 6:25 amajacksonian says:
There is another thing about these guns if sold directly to the population and not being in great condition: they are great candidates for ‘project rifles’. A ‘project rifle’ is a rough rifle needing lots of TLC, replacement of worn parts, refinishing the stock, either getting a new barrel or re-lining the old one… you can spend weeks… months… doing that as a Cruffler or fan of the rifle. Buy two of each so you can get a ‘before’ and ‘after’ sort of deal going!
The 30 Carbine also saw action in the US for those folks having to guard certain military sensitive installations and yet too old to be put into the services. Almost all of those were absorbed decades ago into the market. I believe that some variants of them made by companies pressed into war manufacture (ex. Singer, Underwood, IBM) of carbines are quite rare and can fetch a bit more than a larger production run versions.
Really this entire thing could be turned around and called the ‘Historical Arms Stimulus’ done absolutely for free so as to get tens of thousands of firearms restorers doing something and spending money on parts and supplies. That would take a fiendishly clever politician to figure out, of course… more proof that none of those are available in the administration.
September 2, 2010, 6:30 amcbunix23 says:
Start crying. One of the wholesalers reported, based on photos, he estimated 10% of them are in excellent condition, the rest in very good, good and fair. How about just importing the very good and excellent condition ones ? Gang bangers aren’t going to spend a lot of money on excellent condition collectible firearms. Only about 10% of the Blue Sky Productions imported Garands from the 1980s were excellent.
Part of the problem is domestic manufacturers have been and continue to be against importation of surplus arms. They want you to buy their current production. Not something made decades ago. This only helps ammo makers and consumers.
September 2, 2010, 6:32 amHankmeister says:
Heil Obama!
Himmler would be proud.
September 2, 2010, 6:43 amDr j says:
If you believe in the concept of citizen soldiers then American civilians were fighting in Europe. US soldiers traditionally have not been professionals.
September 2, 2010, 6:51 amOwen H. says:
Yes, the CMP could use such guns. They won’t get them if S.Korea gets its way to sell them. That’s the real issue here, whether or not they have the authority to do so, whether these are weapons they bought or were loaned. The FOX article reads like little more than a regurgitation of the original Korean article, with a degree of separation taken out.
September 2, 2010, 7:33 amOwen H. says:
In other words, .308 Winchester (which is actually not exactly the same as 7.62×51 NATO) and 30-06 are different cartridges.
September 2, 2010, 7:36 amKarensky says:
Ah, protectionism, buy American first hand not second hand. After all, if we want foreign weapons we can wait for the “Mexican” importers.
September 2, 2010, 7:51 amKeith_Indy says:
You’re not going to convince the Obama administration to change…
They saw “Gran Torino,” they don’t want crazy old b@stards taking pot shots at poor misunderstood yoots…
September 2, 2010, 7:58 amFred Fry says:
Just to make this issue even more relevant, I got an email from the CMP last week noting that they are sold out of M1 Carbines:
September 2, 2010, 8:06 amDaily Pundit » Obama the Dull-Shooter says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Obama import ban on rifles confirmed “The transfer of such a large number of weapons — 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines — could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com. [...]
September 2, 2010, 8:33 amJohn McG says:
Alright I have a question.
What would happen if the Koreans, holding the weapons in Korea were to put up a website and sell them piecemeal to all comers limit of 5 to a customer. In light of the recent cases by SCOTUS how would the govt stop me if I hold title awaiting receipt of the weapons?
September 2, 2010, 8:56 am11-B.2O/B4 says:
Points follow:
1: This is largely a non-story. I have no doubt Obama dislikes guns and would ban them if he could, but the Dems remember the electoral hell the last assault weapon ban put them through, with no results to show for it, and no explosion of violence when it ended. He hasn’t made a move, for that reason.
2: This IS indicative of what he’d do if he ever had the chance. Illicit purposes? With Garands and Carbines? Are people going to illicitly impersonate Korean War reenactors?
3: This is a blunder, no doubt. He shows his hand to the part of the electorate which is careful about the 2A, without getting any real gun control done to satisfy his base. It may be worth some votes to the Repubs, but the recent case with the EPA regulating bullets could have been explosive, until they dropped it.
Bottom line, this isn’t a big deal, except as a weathervane for Obama’s feelings on guns, and if you expected him to be a big NRA supporter, you were deluding yourself.
September 2, 2010, 9:12 amBizzyBlog says:
[...] there’s this (HT Volokh): Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique [...]
September 2, 2010, 9:29 amgahrie says:
I for one would really really like to buy one (or more) of those Garands………
September 2, 2010, 9:43 amChurchSox says:
At the time it was buying the .30 carbine, the Army said it would replace several weapons, including the .45 pistol. I always thought officers carried sidearms to establish jurisdiction and discourage bug-outs. You could use the carbine for that, but it wouldn’t have the same panache.
September 2, 2010, 9:51 amyankev says:
What matters is not that the story apparently turned out to be accurate. What matters is that David Kopel and a significant number of VC commenters dared to criticise President Obama. How dare you? Anyone who would do such a thing is an unpatriotic dangerous tool of the dreaded Fox News menace.
September 2, 2010, 10:11 amMartinned says:
Yes. Why would he alienate all those millions of NRA members who would otherwise vote Democrat in November?
September 2, 2010, 10:13 amyankev says:
Maybe not, but you could discourage the bug-out from a much greater distance.
September 2, 2010, 10:13 amSPQR says:
The bulk of the firearms in question are M1 Carbines. These days these are quite sought-after by collectors and quite expensive in decent condition. They would not fall into “the wrong hands” but be snapped up by collectors who are of higher moral character and of less criminal propensity than the current ruling party.
September 2, 2010, 10:14 amruralcounsel says:
Best comment of the day!
September 2, 2010, 10:26 amPhelps says:
We’ve never had officers carry weapons to “discourage bug-outs”. This isn’t some conscript Soviet army. Officers carried sidearms because they are loaded down with so much other stuff that the average grunt doesn’t need (maps, binoculars, orders, manuals, flares, etc) that they don’t need a rifle that they, in most situations, would be the worst one to put to use. It’s slander to insinuate that the only thing keeping our men on the line was the threat of getting shot in the back by their officers, and that the officers were prepared to do it.
Same with the carbines. They were issued to people who didn’t need the utility or the weight of a full battle rifle. It’s the same niche served by the M4 carbine now.
September 2, 2010, 10:47 amPhelps says:
Actually, this thread has convinced me that law-abiding, patriotic American citizens is exactly what the State commenter had in mind when he said “wrong hands”.
September 2, 2010, 10:50 amgunnerasch says:
The guns,the M1 Carbines in particular, are worth a lot of money, which is why the Koreans are anxious to sell them. But if the Carbines are MAP guns they still belong to the U.S. Army, so the Koreans can’t sell them to anyone. If the Koreans want to dispose of guns they received through the Military Assistance Program, they can give them back to the U.S. Army.
Bottom line: It looks like the Koreans want to sell us guns that we gave them.
September 2, 2010, 11:25 amBarry D says:
Maybe there’s something different at play here. Obviously, we can’t say it in public, but maybe the real word in the White House is, “Well, they might not THINK they need them, but those old rifles might come in handy when we abandon them to the Norks. If they’re real nice, we might send them some ammo for the things…”
September 2, 2010, 11:27 amBleh says:
Yes, because unnamed sources totally always know the complete story. Your suspicions have been completely confirmed!
September 2, 2010, 11:30 amMark Horning says:
I’d make that bet too. It’s a very safe bet. The 7.62 NATO madofication was performed on some match rifles, and on US Navy rifles. It was never performed en masse on infantry rifles.
September 2, 2010, 11:35 amOwen H. says:
http://www.guntotinhippies.com/2010/08/17/update-on-the-garands-and-m1-carbines-from-south-korea/
September 2, 2010, 11:39 amGaunilo says:
Martinned
I think you do not understand the demographics of gun-owners and those who find this a compelling issue.
Of course confirmed Republican voters will not change their vote over this issue. But remember, elections are won at the margins. Of the 80+ million gun owners, a significant number are Democrats and Independents. Not all of these are politically engaged, but there is a not-insignificant number who follow these issues closely, and this can affect both their proposed choices in November and their marginal inclination to actually go to the polls.
This importation denial and the recent attempt to ban the use of lead in ammunition (which would raise the price of ammunition dramatically, not much different in effect from a ban) will have a tendency to move fence-sitting gun owners against the Democrats, and make the mad ones much more likely to actually vote in November.
You cannot equate NRA members with Republicans. If you look at the distribution of gun-owners and and NRA members, you will find that they are all across the political spectrum. Many liberals and other Democrats own guns. You should also be aware that fewer than 25% of gun owners hunt. The approach of the Democrats on this issue has been very off-base.
Since IANAL, and don’t have search access to legal databases, does anyone have any insight into the apparent contradiction between State having the jurisdiction and the reported reason for the denial of the importation? It could be that since State has the unquestioned right to disapprove re-importation of FAS arms for any reason, the reason given is as good as any other for arbitrary rulings. But normally denials by State for an import permission for FAS arms is couched in terms of these having retained ownership by the US government under the original transfer, not “falling into the wrong hands.” It may be just typical tone-deafness by political appointees, but it does make me wonder.
September 2, 2010, 12:38 pmGaunilo says:
The catch-22 here is that there is never any incentive to simply give the MAP units back to the US. They will sit and rot forever, or be quietly disposed of informally.
The actual solution is a compromise in which the possessing government is allowed to sell the rifles in exchange for some other good and valuable consideration, either financial or diplomatic. Actually returning all of a lot for distribution through the CMP is actually pretty rare.
September 2, 2010, 12:53 pmBrian Dunbar says:
True. 8th Army, 1950 edition, was worse than a conscript Soviet Army.
No esprit, no leadership, no security troops with machine guns to keep the troops on the line.
September 2, 2010, 1:01 pmThe Korean M-1s are back in the news | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] at the Volokh Conspiracy – where Dave Kopel’s post gets a new world record by going from 0 to Godwin by the first comment. Which leads to the funniest [...]
September 2, 2010, 1:08 pmSigivald says:
The “could be exploited … illicit purposes” thing would be a lot more compelling if those rifles weren’t essentially obsolete in military terms, being of a sort replaced 50 years ago*.
And the M1 Carbine being vastly underpowered in military terms, as well.
(* Yes, I know the Garand was in use until the late 50s… but it was obsolete by the early 50s. And the M1 Carbine, while a useful small arm for non-combat troops [and a wonderful plaything!], was arguably obsolete from the moment it was issued, in the scheme of global arms standards.)
September 2, 2010, 1:18 pmTatil says:
An unnamed source who is not even commenting on whether the guns were loaned to Korea, but taken as proof that they were not loaned. Lobbyists hard at work?
September 2, 2010, 1:27 pmTatil says:
I’d think the gun manufacturers would rather sell you brand new ones, so I doubt any party, regardless of how pro-gun rights it might be, is gonna be working on such a solution.
September 2, 2010, 1:30 pmGaunilo says:
The firearm and ammunition importers trade group has been hard at work on this issue for many years. They have enough money and clout to make the bureaucrats pay attention.
September 2, 2010, 1:34 pmThedeadcat says:
This is the most absurd argument I can imagine. There’s no reason to believe that these rifles have any more risk of being sold illicitly than anything else. By that logic all guns should be banned.
September 2, 2010, 1:49 pmyankev says:
As opposed to bad and valuable consideration (perhaps a fully automatic weapon, a carton of cigarettes, a truckload of child pornography, or some hijacked uranium)?
Or as opposed to good and worthless consideraton (campaign promises, free legal advice, a peppercorn)?
September 2, 2010, 1:51 pmMebaman says:
“Illicit purposes?” Does the average criminal even know how to load a stripper clip? And .30 caliber carbine ammunition? That’s not exactly ammo that can be found at the local Wal-Mart. But if we save just one life . . .
September 2, 2010, 2:01 pmDennis N says:
They don’t really compete with any production guns. Springfield used to sell a M-1 rifle, but they’re not in their current catalog. They probably ran out of surplus parts. The closest you see is tha M-1A, a M-14 design, modified for civilian use. Anyway, the availability of surplus rifles wouldn’t do much to their trade. I suspect most of the M-1A fans either already own an M1, or would like to in addition to their M-1A.
Both the M1 rifle and M1 carbine are pretty much neat pieces for collector-shooters. Aren’t they classified as Curios & Relics, now?
September 2, 2010, 2:02 pmgunnerasch says:
I see your point, and I’d like to see a solution myself. Since Korea acquired countless small arms through both programs, perhaps a percentage of the guns could be declared MAP and the rest considered FMS and thus importable. Or maybe the MAP guns could be “sold” to Korea in exchange for additional logistical support to U.S. troops stationed there. I’m sure the Army would prefer something like that rather than the return of the guns, which would be a logistic headache. But I doubt Obama’s State Dept. has any interest in a solution to this problem. So we are back to where we started; an anti-gun president is blocking the importation of firearms with bureaucratic stonewalling.
September 2, 2010, 2:18 pmRich says:
This is technically true but the 30-06 requires a long action and to properly load the .308 required that the action be cut down. This was done as a trial but supposedly caused many problems in reliability. Not cutting the action down and just re-cutting the chamber or using an insert often would cause mis-feeds and jams, partially due to the insert loosening. My understanding is that was done but not very much, the problems outweighed the benefits.
September 2, 2010, 2:24 pmBut for all that it could have been done.
Owen H. says:
Back to where we started? This han’t even been confirmed. And given that Garands from other countries have been brought back recently, and that the CMP does not consider this an issue, I think this is far from an “anti-gun” move.
September 2, 2010, 2:26 pmalgie says:
I agree that Big O’s reason that “They might fall into the wrong hands” is valid. If you know what he believes who the wrong hands belong to. The M-1 and the Carbine while cutting edge in their day, are not weapons that gang bangers or drug cartels would find too attractive. Tec 9s, MP5s. Uzis, and other smaller faster firing concealable firearms are the rage in that bunch. No the wrong hands are the veterans who remember these guns and would like to have them for both memorabilia and protection. These are the wrong hands that Big O and his anti 2nd amendment cabal are referring to. Like most things said by this administration the high rhetoric is to conceal low intentions.
….uuuu..’o^o’..nn!n….algie
September 2, 2010, 2:27 pmIllegitimi nOn carborundum
DAve says:
Besides the M1A’s start at about $1500 for the CHEAPEST which is why the M1 and M1A aren’t even in the same class…
September 2, 2010, 2:29 pmRecovering Law Grad says:
This post is a near low-point for this otherwise excellent blog.
1) Maxim Lott is not a journalist, he’s an advocate, and his tone throughout the article is egregiously one-sided (e.g., his suggestion that the guns are to be physically destroyed, for which he presents not one shred of evidence).
2) Lott cites no sources or authority whatsoever for the factual statements in the first two paragraphs of the story.
3) Lott does not name the State Department spokesperson, which is just bizarre.
In short, Lott has not “confirmed” anything. He’s stated as fact that which he wants to be true – with no supporting authority – and then asked various people what they think of his facts. It’s a shame that Kopel would Drudge-ify VC by citing to this article as fact and by deceptively failing to indicate that he had a lot to do with its being written in the first place.
September 2, 2010, 2:30 pmjeffrey says:
If you read the article you will see that while that is usually the case, special circumstances dictate that the state department approve the sale.
September 2, 2010, 2:57 pmOtto Maddox says:
If I were the current clowns-in-control, I’d very much want to reduce the number of guns too.
September 2, 2010, 3:33 pmzippypinhead says:
This is consistent with my understanding of the situation, also heard from the CMP folks (who should know better than just about anybody).
Dave, I would encourage you to do some independent journalism here – make some calls and see if you can get an official position. Ask your NRAILA friends to see if they can get the true story from their Hill contacts. Talk to the DoD MAP people and to the CMP, and see if you can identify the commercial importers who have already agreed to buy the Korean MAP rifles. That would be better than holding forth as gospel a facially slanted piece on Fox News by John Lott’s son that quotes an un-named “spokesman” in the State Department allegedly spouting exactly the line that gives RKBA supporters shivers. Remember, standard operating procedure for real press office spokespersons in Executive Branch agencies is to comment for attribution.
Not that I’d ever suggest the un-named State Dept. spokesperson quote really came from the Lott family’s old friend, Mary Rosh…
September 2, 2010, 3:37 pmCarl N. Brown says:
Quote: That might actually make sense if American civilians were fighting in Europe (in WWII).
A lot of the conscripts fighting in Europe were essentially American civilians put in uniform, not real professional soldiers.
There was a discussion on a gun board on the subject of what was the standard of markmanship of the WWII American soldier. Quite a few people reported that their fathers and grandfathers told them they had fired as little as twenty rounds in training before being sent to a combat zone.
My father volunteered “for the duration” before Pearl Harbor; he hunted squirrel with a rifle before going to war, and I suspect it was his civilian marksmanship experience that was the reason he survived the duration of the war.
These guns are historic relics of the Korean War and WWII, but also could be useful for civilian marksmenship training. Even in 1966, military training was often three classroom classes mixed with other basic training, ten round sight check at the firing line, and twenty rounds prone, sitting and standing for the marksmanship qualification medal, hardly true marksmanship training. In the 1960s, the Arthur D. Little Co. was asked to evaluate the civilian marksmanship program, and the combat commanders in Viet Nam told them that civilian training was a plus factor for those who had entered military service.
September 2, 2010, 3:38 pmCarl N. Brown says:
So the Fox/Maxim Lott story is a vast right wing conspiracy including Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign.
September 2, 2010, 3:50 pmOwen H. says:
No, the Brady Campaign are a bunch of idiots that want to believe it is true, just as those attacking President Obama for supposed anti-gun activities (quick, name some; I thought our guns were supposed to gone by now?) want to believe it is true.
September 2, 2010, 5:12 pmOwen H. says:
Please quote President Obama, or any other administration official actually saying it. A real quote, not an “unnamed source”.
Anyone doing so would be simply stupid, given that there is a perfectly valid reason to deny Korea selling these weapons; they can’t prove they own them.
September 2, 2010, 5:14 pmOwen H. says:
It reads as nothing more than a regurgitation of the original Korean article, citing an unnamed Korean official citing an unnamed State Department official.
September 2, 2010, 5:17 pmSarcastro says:
[I think this is stupid fear-mongering, and has nothing to do with Obama.
That said, I'm skeptical of the skeptics. FOX may have an agenda, but it does still check it's sources.]
September 2, 2010, 5:36 pmmack says:
I have it on authority that Seward will change his mind on importation if they sweeten the deal and throw in Alaska.
Obviously the right “charitable donations” have not been made to the right “charities” to allow these guns to be imported yet.
September 2, 2010, 5:43 pmNorris. says:
(sigh) Yes, Owen, I do know that the .30-’06 and .308 are different rounds. Specifically they would be nominally termed as being 7.62x63mm and 7.62x51mm, respectively. The .308 is therefore shorter and slightly fatter than the .30-’06 to further accommodate the same .30 caliber bullet to automatic fire. Automatics like short ammunition. Now, FYI, there were SOME M1 Garand’s chambered for the .308 NATO round and they were issued to NATO countries before they were replaced by the M-14 rifle that was designed for the .308 round and had a 20 round detachable magazine. I have shot both of them.
When I was stationed on a Nike site in Korea, I saw Republic of Korea (RoK) soldiers with both M1′s and M-14′s using .308 NATO ammunition. We had M-16′s. However, 15+ years prior, during the Korean War, the USA supplied the RoK army with M1′s in 30-’06 caliber, the same as the US Army and Marines during that conflict. The “NATO” .308 round had not been developed and issued yet so the tried-and true .30-’06 round was the “ammo-of-the-day”.
I’ll refrain from any comment regarding “expertise” in the future.
September 2, 2010, 6:22 pmCarl N. Brown says:
Fox TV News just carried the rifle story, blaming the State Dept for the reversal of the sale, not Obama. Then they carried a story on a “Hurricane Earl” obviously another right wing hoax, because it is Fox after all.
September 2, 2010, 6:39 pmOwen H. says:
No M1 rifles were ever originally chambered for 7.62×51. Nor is .308 Winchester exactly identical to 7.62×51 NATO. To my knowledge, no Garand rifled RECHAMBERED for 7.62×51 were ever provided to other countries. Any such would almost certainly have been rechambered by the receiving country. Not that it matters to this non-story.
September 2, 2010, 7:07 pmNorris. says:
Naw, I stand by it. I think in the broad context of the Founding Fathers meaning of the 2nd. Amendment my comment rings true. And, what’s even worse is I don’t care if YOU don’t like it, but “General Ripper” probably would. POE.
September 2, 2010, 7:11 pmM. Report says:
The M1 Carbine was issued to Officers
too wussy to carry a Garand, or hit anything with a M1911. :)
The only bright spot would be if the Koreans
September 2, 2010, 9:32 pmaccidentally shipped back some of the full-auto
variant, and the Feds were too ignorant to notice.
Carl N. Brown says:
The magazine Leatherneck has featured marines saying they preferred the M1 Carbine over the Reising M50 and Thompson M1928A1 as a combat weapon.
The Navy had a small number of .30-06 M1 Garands with chamber inserts to accept 7.62 NATO.
I have fired 7.62 NATO in a .308 Win. Savage 110 Tactical.
I have fired .308 Win in a 7.62 NATO FN FAL.
Stay on topic. Irreleveant asides don’t answer the original puzzle: why was the sale on-track, then off-track? Why do the relevant agencies pass the question in a complete circle?
September 2, 2010, 10:13 pmPeter says:
Well, I can see that the Washington City types would want to keep all those Garands out of the country. Just think of all the people walking the streets with an M1 Garand in a shoulder holster, armed without anyone knowing. Think of the children!
When I was a kid the back pages of the American Rifleman were filled with ads for 1903 Springfields, Mausers, M1s, .30 Carbines, Colt 1911 .45s, P-38s, Webley revolvers, etc. All those are gone. Notice how much more peaceable our streets are since the 1950s?
September 3, 2010, 2:03 amReed the Viking says:
I’ll Take Her, A Rare Ribeye, and a Nice Glass of Jew’s Ear Juice…
I didn’t post yesterday, so I’ve got lots of great news to write about today! I always had a little bit of an issue with the current Iranian regime, particularly due to their feelings towards the jooooz. But then, lots of people hate the jooooz, so t…
September 3, 2010, 3:44 amOwen H. says:
That has already been answered. The weapons aren’t S.Korea’s to sell, as they cannot document having paid the US for them in the first place. Over at CMP, they are tired of hearing about this non-issue. Other countries have recently returned Garands, with no problems from the government.
September 3, 2010, 7:38 amObama Bans 100,000 Guns - Page 2 says:
[...] [...]
September 10, 2010, 4:02 pmAndrew says:
These Garands and Carbines are so used, that most are unsafe to shoot. A dealer friend of mine ordered 12 and wound up sending every single one back because of various problems ranging from bent op rods to bursted barrels.
September 20, 2010, 9:07 amMelanie Morrissey says:
Owen, you’re wrong about the .308 but you’re consistently wrong.
September 26, 2010, 9:36 pmWilly says:
Quote from news source: “Now State Department officials claim these antique, collector rifles could be used to commit crimes.”
You mean like the present congress?
September 30, 2010, 5:41 pm