Posted on 11/16/2002 12:02:39 AM PST by JohnHuang2
ASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — The federal gun control bureau is strongly opposing a proposal to let gun sellers and owners import as many as two million World War II era infantry weapons that were made in the United States and exported to the world's armies decades ago.
The objections from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms come as the State Department is considering the proposal, which is being pressed by a trade association that lobbies for gun importers. The bureau says the idea, which would lift a 50-year-old ban, would flood the market with outdated but deadly weapons that could fall into the hands of criminals and would be hard to regulate.
A letter from the firearms bureau, part of the Treasury Department, warned that the change would prevent it from stopping the criminal use of "particularly dangerous" old guns: pistols that are readily concealed and carbines and Garand rifles, which can be easily converted into automatic weapons. Moreover, the letter warned, the carbine and Garand can fire bullets capable of piercing the soft body armor worn by police officers.
The weapons, exported to Asia, South America and countries elsewhere and still available around the world, have generally not been allowed back into the United States, though there is a legal exception that permits the import of equipment classified as "curio or relics."
The State Department, which by law regulates trade in United States defense equipment, is weighing a proposal made last year by the Firearms Importers' Roundtable Trade Group, which is led by a top dealer in and collector of machine-gun parts and accessories. The group, set up in the wake of import restrictions by the Clinton administration, argues that the imports would be used by collectors, in shooting competitions or for other legitimate purposes.
A briefing paper prepared by the firearm importers says the guns "are not crime guns" or "weapons of choice among criminals," an argument based on the group's analysis of crime reports by the firearms bureau.
But the bureau warned that the change could allow as many as two million weapons, many of them able to shoot the deadlier kinds of bullets, to enter the private commercial market legally for the first time. The bureau cited a recent report of its own that found that 7,243 American-made weapons intended for military use had been used in crimes, even though it was unlawful to re-import most if not all of them.
John P. Malone, the assistant director for firearms and explosives at the bureau, cited this statistic two months ago when he wrote the State Department to oppose the proposal.
A department spokesman declined to discuss the proposal, saying it was still under review.
"It is a matter of interagency discussion, and it would be inappropriate to comment," the spokesman said on the condition of anonymity.
At issue are rifles and handguns sold to United States allies more than 50 years ago. The potential universe, a 1998 federal report says, includes more than 950,000 Garand rifles, more than 1.2 million M-1 carbines and nearly 300,000 M-1911 pistols. A firearms expert who supports the policy change estimates the market at 1.5 million, but says many of them may not be capable of being fired.
It is not known how many of the weapons still work.
The firearms trade group says "there will not be millions of guns flooding the marketplace" because "market forces will control what is imported" and there would be "unusually lengthy" reviews by the firearms bureau and the State Department. The group also says buyers would be subject to the "same requirements that apply when purchasing other firearms," like background checks.
But Mr. Malone, in his letter to the State Department, said the group's proposal "would open the United States commercial market to potentially 2.5 million new weapons" which "A.T.F. generally has no authority to control."
Mr. Malone's letter was provided by an official opposed to the policy change.
The gun trade group was set up in 1994 after the Clinton administration imposed an embargo on the importation of firearms and ammunition from China. The group's goal, according to reports in the specialized gun trade press, is to open United States gun markets and provide as many choices as possible. Commercial manufacturers make firearms similar to the old military models.
The trade group's president is Charles Steen. A profile of Mr. Steen's company, Sarco Inc., in the magazine Small Arms Review, says the business, which is based in Stirling, N.J., and licensed by the firearms bureau, focuses on the accumulation or collection of surplus military material. The profile describes Sarco as "the leader in machine-gun parts and accessories" and "arguably the largest dealer in surplus war material in the country."
Sarco's Web site draws attention to a new feature: "Machine Gun Dave's Machine Gun Page," where the top item is a 1928 Colt commercial water-cooled tripod listed for $1,250.
On June 27, 2001, Mr. Steen's group petitioned the State Department to "lift the import restrictions historically imposed on `obsolete and historic U.S. military small arms, ammunition, and demilitarized equipment,' " according to Mr. Malone's letter.
The trade group's lawyer is Mark Barnes, a leading firearms lobbyist in Washington. Mr. Barnes provided a copy of the trade group's background paper — which echoes its 2001 proposal — but Mr. Steen declined to be interviewed for this article.
After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the proposal sat idle, but more recently the trade group has met with State Department officials, including once late last summer, a person who attended said.
On Sept. 10, Mr. Malone wrote to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, saying that the proposal would "undo over 50 years of established policy governing the transfer and import of these weapons."
Surplus military firearms have been banned from import under federal gun control laws. But in 1984, the Gun Control Act was amended to create an exception: firearms classified as "curio or relics," which include weapons and ammunition more than 50 years old.
Since 1949 there have been strict limits on the ability of foreign governments to distribute equipment they receive under United States military assistance programs. In 1987, the State Department restated its general ban on the initial retransfer of United States military weapons, but created an exception.
Foreign governments could sell to private entities if they could show "significant public interest," including guarantees that the equipment would be used for its intended purpose, such as being placed on "static display in a museum and demilitarized," Mr. Malone's letter said.
Mr. Steen's group maintains that the State Department has interpreted the law too narrowly and should approve as "the rule, rather than the exception," imports of United States military equipment.
For cryin out loud! What the heck are these people thinking! (like there is a safety bullet or something!)
Bumpola!
Jeff Gerth is fast losing what clues he had.
Five brownie points to whoever can find the press release first!
1. There are something like 5 million guns sold in the US each year, and something near 250 million in private hands. Why the F do they really think that 2.5 million more or less will make a difference?
2. Criminals already get all of the weapons they want - again, why the F do they think it will make a difference?
3. BATF should have no authority to control any weapons at all - it should be the BAT, and even the very existence of the organization is of questionable Constitutional legitimacy.
The potential universe, a 1998 federal report says, includes more than 950,000 Garand rifles, more than 1.2 million M-1 carbines and nearly 300,000 M-1911 pistols.
1. There are already millions of each in private hands. Once again, why the F do they think it will make any difference?
2. Springfield recently started producing new Garands and dozens of manufacturers make 1911 clones. Again, why the F...?
A letter from the firearms bureau, part of the Treasury Department, warned that the change would prevent it from stopping the criminal use of "particularly dangerous" old guns: pistols that are readily concealed and carbines and Garand rifles, which can be easily converted into automatic weapons. Moreover, the letter warned, the carbine and Garand can fire bullets capable of piercing the soft body armor worn by police officers.
1. Isn't it a crime to convert any firearm to full-auto mode? Wouldn't someone who was inclined to do this simply buy (or, more realistically, steal) one of the millions of existing carbines or Garands to do this?
2. The carbine and the Garand fire the exact same cartridges which are fired by literally dozens, if not hundreds, of models of rifles. Rifles already in private hands that fire these cartridges number in the tens of millions. There are literally dozens of models of rifles, numbering in the millions in private hands, which fire more powerful cartridges? Again, why the F...?
3. The government itself has sold, and continues to sell, surplus ammunition that was specifically designed to pierce light armor (which is substantially more resistant to piercing than "soft body armor.") This ammunition was made to fire in the Garand! Can you say "HYPOCRISY?" Does the right hand know what the left is doing?
Does anyone know where to get the actual text of this BATF letter and, more importantly, where to write in opposition to it?
If the libs can get away with imbuing firearms and other inanimate objects with human characteristics, they should allow us to do the same. Having said that, it's time to bring these honorable veterans back home. These weapons have done far more to defend this nation than all the members of the democratic party over the past 50 years.
This is just the TRIPOD!!!!!. IT IS NOT A FIREARM!!!! If I wanted to spend $1,250 for a weapon, I would not buy a tripod to club people with.
The BATF is a department of the Treasury which is a cabinet dept. The BATF is not given the job of making policy on gun use or gun control. Their job is to inforce the law.
Since they are apparently trying to make policy decisions it would indicate Bush is allowing them to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.