Results 1 to 27 of 27
  1. #1

    Default Obama and Holder destroying weapons destined for CMP?

    A good friend of mine said he had heard that the CMP is having trouble getting Garands and Carbines because Obama and Holder are having them destroyed.I hope this is not true and as I have not heard it myself I wonder has anyone out there have any information on this.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    696

    Default

    This story has more twists and turns in it and they grow every day. I claim no great knowledge of this topic and am more than likely more ignorant of the real facts than most here but here goes. The Obama administration some time last summer? approved the import of these rifles by some or one gun importer. Apparently there was a problem with the Koreans being able to prove these rifles in question had actually been all bought by the S.Korean Gov.. There lies the original problem. If the Koreans bought them fair and square then the only issue is getting permission from the U.S. government to sell them to a qualified country or group that the U.S. government approves. This goes to end user certificates etc. as per the Arms Import and Export control act of 1975 I believe. Everything was apparently okay to this point and then legal and obvious political issues came up. As I understand it the Koreans could nort absolutely prove all these rifles were bought and not part of a MAP program. There is where the fun begins. Generally speaking a foreign government that recieves military aid under a MAP program is not allowed to sell them and if they wish to dispose of them they have to get permission from the U.S. government before they can transfer them to another country or they have to return them to the U.S. government. If this sounds vaguely familar it was some part of this mess that the Iran Contra affair was tied up with Israel being told to give the Iranians certain weapons by the reagan gov. etc. Anyway CMP rifles if I am not mistaken are returns from MAP which is where the rifles were given as aid. Unless the country in question wishes to destroy them or transfer them free of charge to a country approved by the U.S. with all the end user certificates they have to be returned to the good old U.S.. The lions share of the m1s released in the last few years are Greek rifles. The 03s of a few years ago were all Greek returns. Most recently they have got more nice m1s from the Greek airforce and the carbines were either from Italy, Germany, a few from S.American sources and the lions share being Greek.
    I suspect that these M1s and carbines some of which are suppose to be in remarkably great shape will end up being sent to a Korean steel mill if the Obama administration has there way as I understand it the Koreans cannot do anything else with them. I suppose it is possible that the Koreans could simply agree to return the m1s. However, I suspect they will not as they paid for at least some of them. Furthermore now that a political scene has been made of it I doubt the Obama administration which is trying to mobilize it's base will allow them to be returned even if they were to be given to the CMP.
    Now if some political muscle could be mustered and there was a different administration in power I suspect it might be possible for this to be resolved for the rifles to make it to the CMP but in reality these rifles are not legally or politically candidates for the CMP return program. I suppose if the Obama admin or powerful members of Congress stepped in and could persuade the Koreans to simply return them to the U.S. then the CMp would have a shot at them but there would have to be several understandings. Unless the Obamas see it to their advantage politically to save some members of congress etc or to not provoke the gun lobby they might do something but i just don't see it happening. Maybe if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi werer to step in something might change but these rifles really don't stand a chance of coming to the CMP althought that would be the best place for them. Someone please feel free to correct my reasoning.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,631

    Default

    Last I read the US was coordinating with SOuth Korea to destroy the arms. The reason was not anything other than they could fall into the wrong hands here -- the Obamas were particularly concerned about high-cap weapons and the fact that all these guns could be made into such. You know, those Garands for drive-bys...

    I would like to think the (87k?) Garands could at least find their way home. Rest assured the (770k?) M-1 Carbines will be torched in half before Obama leaves his third term as Presidente of Middle America...

    Al

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    209

    Default

    I'm continuing to dig into this issue. I really haven't heard anything about the South Koreans stating that they're considering destroying the M1s. Chances are they'll remain in storage for a while.

    I suspect this issue is going to continue to stay underground at least for a while. Most of the mainstream media just don't seem that interested, but there is a chance that the anti-gun fanatics will make such a big deal out of this that the MSM will have to pick up on it.

    I'll continue to dig into this. I have calls into the South Korean government.
    www.firearmstruth.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    153

    Default

    If all these rifles were imported back into the states and sold, theres a potential for somebody to make a quick $510,000,000.00 if all rifles are sold at an average of $600.00 a peice. Surely you'd think the obamba admin would see the light....... I guess not.
    All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
    --Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by herringbone View Post
    If all these rifles were imported back into the states and sold, theres a potential for somebody to make a quick $510,000,000.00 if all rifles are sold at an average of $600.00 a peice. Surely you'd think the obamba admin would see the light....... I guess not.
    No no no no no...you are overestimating their worth. They should be sold at $400 apiece.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Central Joisey
    Posts
    713

    Default

    Regardless of price - are they WMD (per Obama Bin Laden) or left-over cold war small arms? Since no one knows, they will be listed as WMD and now we can invade S Korea as well as N Korea.

    Amazing !!!
    Seen on U.S. Forces bumper sticker:
    Its Gods job to judge the terrorists, its our mission to arrange the meeting.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    14,021

    Default

    The reason obummer and holder don't want those rifles here is because communist dictators don't want the public to own firearms. Same as North Korea, Vietnam, many African countries..

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    North of the Great White North
    Posts
    6,156

    Default

    CMP doesn't have many rifles left because it only received enough from the Government to keep it going for a few years. Sales of Garands are popular and the CMP is simply going through its inventory.

    The Koreans aren't stupid....they can read the writing on the wall vis a vis the Obamunists. Look for them to put the guns back in storage and wait for the next administration.
    Geal ‘us dearg a suas!

    Member since Gunboards v1.0

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    209

    Default

    I spoke to the head of the CMP while researching my stories, and he said they continually get M1s from the Army. Of course, like everything those are going to run out.

    It continues to be a shame that South Korea won't just return those M1s to the US Military, who in turn would support them anyway. This remains a truly stupid situation.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by herringbone View Post
    If all these rifles were imported back into the states and sold, theres a potential for somebody to make a quick $510,000,000.00 if all rifles are sold at an average of $600.00 a peice. Surely you'd think the obamba admin would see the light....... I guess not.
    Piker! We currently spend, what, $500,000,000,000.00 in INTEREST on the debt, ANNUALLY. The Saudis spend $10,000,000,000.00 per year building mosques here. See how unimportant the hundreds-of-millions of dollars you propose are compared to the tens and hundreds of BILLIONS vs. how important keeping more arms out of the hands of citizens is?

    Alden

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    mad After a while regular people start believing the big lie.

    Same old tired "Koreans trying to sell back what we gave them " BS .
    That old rumor comes from a speech by Senator Metzenbaum ( D , Ohio ) in 1987. Get a copy of . 'The Best of the GCA Journal , Book 1' and read about what Congress & Ronald Reagan did to force BATF to release 40,000 Garands and M1 Carbines that BATF had seized and held for over a year. That same action allowed an additional 160,000 USGI to come home to US buyers.

    Imports of M1 Carbines through commercial channels go back to the 1960's and beyond..
    www.bavarianm1carbines.com/imports.html
    Info on imports from overseas going back to the 1960's . " Military Assistance was sometimes a loan , sometimes a sale , and sometimes for free".

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    209

    Default

    The latest is that a House Resolution could allow the guns to come home:
    http://www.firearmstruth.com/2010/up...s-to-come-home

    I think the irony of the Korean situation is that South Korea wants to sell guns that were given to them, but they want to do so to balance their budget. Frankly I think the US should just give them something in return (we already do anyway) and let the guns come home.

  14. #14
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    57,049

    Default

    I'm not sure yhose were given to the Koreans or sold to them. In any case, it does appear that actual title transferred, rather than remaining with the USG as was/is the case with some forms of military assistance. And that means that (unlike the situation with the Danish Garands), those will never wind up in CMP hands unless the US governement buys them, repatriates them and sends them to CMP as surplus for disposition by sale to qulified buyers.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    Default

    ROK units were quite active in the mostly Kurdish northern part of Iraq. They shifted to A-stan and took their first A-stan KIA last wnter.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    I do know a little about the subject.

    The CMP has nothing to do with this issue. The rifles which the CMP sells come through the US Army. Recently rifles that were given as foreign aid to various countries (Denmark, Greece, Italy, Austria, and some South American) were returned to the US Military (saves the foreign country the storage and destruction cost) at the request of the CMP. The CMP pays for the inventoring, packing, security, and shipping of these rifles (little doubt that foreign politicians find some way to get a kick-back)- i.e. the US Govt pays nothing. I reiterate - the US Govt pays nothing for the returning of firearms.

    There are reportedly only 80k more M1 Garands in US Army storage. How many the CMP, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard, and National Guard have - ?????

    The above apparently did'nt appeal to the Korean Govt - particularly since much of what they have was bought, and paid for, by them, and not given as aid. They clearly want to get back some of their money (if not make a profit); while elimintaing the storage cost they incur annually. The US Govt first gave permission for their import. The State Dept, under Hillery Clinton, later recinded the import permits - claiming they posed a danger as high capacity semi-auto firearms (what a liberal would call an "assault rifle").

    Needless to say the importers got screwed - probably loseing a good amount of cash. Next time you complain about an importer charging too much - think about the risk they incur.

    This was back door gun control by our anti-2nd Admendment Govt. Dont let anyone lie to you about it.
    Last edited by Tom-M; 10-07-2010 at 09:01 PM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    14,021

    Default

    The State Department even under previous leadership has always been to the left of lenin.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    Cool

    A number of people in Congress , including Sen. Jon Tester and Rep. Lummis are working on the problem. This is from senator Tester's website ; " NRA throws support behind Tester's gun bill ".

    www.tester.senate.gov/Newsroom/pr_100110_nra.cfm

    A draft copy of the proposed law is here:
    http://www.tester.senate.gov/Legisla...arm_Import.pdf

    The law would remove the power of gungrabbers in the State Department and Pentagon bean-counters to meddle with legit C & R imports.
    If the allied government or business owns the guns legally , then they get to sell them to people/companies in the US.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    Good news. Another reason to get out an vote this Nov. Make sure it passes in both the House and Senate, and gets put on Obama's desk. See if he can still claim to be pro-2nd Admend and not sign it!!
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,621

    Default

    so when do they vote on this?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    Certainly not till after the election. They have adjorned.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    Question Who would want to kill the deal ?

    The Clintonistas are freaking about the number of Garands , 1911seriies pistols , and M1 Carbines that are owned by allies in Asia . After the election victories this issue deserves a place on the front burners.
    Lots of M1 Carbines and 1911 pistols at fire sale prices?
    What's not to like about that ?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by campperrykid View Post
    The Clintonistas are freaking about the number of Garands , 1911seriies pistols , and M1 Carbines that are owned by allies in Asia . After the election victories this issue deserves a place on the front burners.
    Lots of M1 Carbines and 1911 pistols at fire sale prices?
    What's not to like about that ?
    The key is that the "allies in Asia" don't actually own the firearms. They were loaned, and now they want to sell them. I have suggested that the South Koreans give the firearms to CMP to sell, and the United States continues to give aid and loans to South Korea. We're giving them money and aid anyway!

    But this is just another back door gun ban.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    Default

    We shall see as time goes on:
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter_Suciu View Post
    The key is that the "allies in Asia" don't actually own the firearms. They were loaned, and now they want to sell them. I have suggested that the South Koreans give the firearms to CMP to sell, and the United States continues to give aid and loans to South Korea. We're giving them money and aid anyway!

    But this is just another back door gun ban.
    I expect that more info will become clear in the future .
    The '' ownership issue ' ( to be tactful ) seems no more true now than it did in 1987 .

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by campperrykid View Post
    I expect that more info will become clear in the future .
    I doubt that the issue will become any clearer in the future. No one is covering the story. FoxNews and The Washington Times picked up on it for a day, and it has died. Other than some news on forums it is a dead story.

    The media cares about US guns going to Mexico, not the US guns coming home from South Korea. So the guns will stay in storage and in another few years the Koreans will try to sell them, but I bet this is a dead issue until 2013 (if Obama is voted out of office).

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    548

    wink2

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter_Suciu View Post
    I doubt that the issue will become any clearer in the future. No one is covering the story. FoxNews and The Washington Times picked up on it for a day, and it has died. Other than some news on forums it is a dead story.

    The media cares about US guns going to Mexico, not the US guns coming home from South Korea. So the guns will stay in storage and in another few years the Koreans will try to sell them, but I bet this is a dead issue until 2013 (if Obama is voted out of office).
    No one ?
    The 2nd Amendment coalition is just getting warmed up.
    Congress makes the laws.

    Google :
    ATF : Surplus Korean Firearms imports 'pose threat...
    and:
    Collectible Firearms Protection Act
    and:
    BATF Reform and Modernization Act

  27. #27
    cpw's Avatar
    cpw is offline Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    23,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by campperrykid View Post
    No one ?
    The 2nd Amendment coalition is just getting warmed up.
    Congress makes the laws.
    True ----- only if not vetoed by the president.
    Charlie

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •