Apparently there has been a lot of debate about that. the US Army claims some of them were lent to the Koreans
Is CMP still selling M1 carbines
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
Apparently there has been a lot of debate about that. the US Army claims some of them were lent to the Koreans
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
"They are Korean property to do with as they wish."
You obviously don't know about end user certificates.
Under the end use agreement that the sales were contingent on, Korea cannot dispose of them other than by destruction without US State Department approval. I get into this regularly with US manufactured military aircraft that I am trying to buy from foreign military sources. Example: I was trying to buy some French manufacture military jets from El Salvador. They had been sold to El Salvador by Israel. No problem, right? Except they were US Foreign Aid to El Salvador, taken in on trade from Israel as value against a F-16 sale. So the US State Department had end use control and would not let El Salvador sell them to me. Pity, as they were simply scrapped. I had no idea about the US side of the deal until I applied for a Form 6 from BATFE for the import permit and had it denied. The US doesn't advertise who it's helping, especially when it miht be sensitive from a diplomatic standpoint.
There ain't no free lunch from Uncle Sam when he sells you weapons. He holds end use strings forever.
Willie
.
You obviously don't know about end user certificates.
Under the end use agreement that the sales were contingent on, Korea cannot dispose of them other than by destruction without US State Department approval. I get into this regularly with US manufactured military aircraft that I am trying to buy from foreign military sources. Example: I was trying to buy some French manufacture military jets from El Salvador. They had been sold to El Salvador by Israel. No problem, right? Except they were US Foreign Aid to El Salvador, taken in on trade from Israel as value against a F-16 sale. So the US State Department had end use control and would not let El Salvador sell them to me. Pity, as they were simply scrapped. I had no idea about the US side of the deal until I applied for a Form 6 from BATFE for the import permit and had it denied. The US doesn't advertise who it's helping, especially when it miht be sensitive from a diplomatic standpoint.
There ain't no free lunch from Uncle Sam when he sells you weapons. He holds end use strings forever.
Willie
.
Last edited:
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
I am sure AirCraft and weapons of mass destruction fall under differnt rules than old surplus firearms.
No they don't. You can believe whatever you like, but that don't make it so.
Garands ,carbines etc have been imported by various US Importers previous years, Korea sold them in the 1980's
That's because the US State Department issued a Form 6 for their import, which they do based on EXECUTIVE POLICY as determined by the Executive Branch of our Government. They issued them then, but they won't issue them now. It's ENTIRELY at their discretion. And if they say "No" there isn't anything you can do about it. They don't care about the collectors market here, the present leaders of the executive branch simply don't see any value in flooding the USA with more cheap military small arms for sale to the public. You *really* think your president will direct State to approve the import of Garands and Carbines when a "No" answer has zero precentage chance of being appealed?
The legalities and political policies of the international arms trade is part and parcel of my business. This is not an amateurs opinion. I pay serious cash to an attorney to help me navigate the laws on arms trade, and I can tell you *for certain* that military small arms are one of the MOST HIGHLY REGULATED areas of concern.
Example: It's funny, but I *can* import a MiG jet from Russia (And I actually own and operate three of them and flew one today) but I cannot import an Arsenal AK. Go figure that one out.
Willie
.
No they don't. You can believe whatever you like, but that don't make it so.
Garands ,carbines etc have been imported by various US Importers previous years, Korea sold them in the 1980's
That's because the US State Department issued a Form 6 for their import, which they do based on EXECUTIVE POLICY as determined by the Executive Branch of our Government. They issued them then, but they won't issue them now. It's ENTIRELY at their discretion. And if they say "No" there isn't anything you can do about it. They don't care about the collectors market here, the present leaders of the executive branch simply don't see any value in flooding the USA with more cheap military small arms for sale to the public. You *really* think your president will direct State to approve the import of Garands and Carbines when a "No" answer has zero precentage chance of being appealed?
The legalities and political policies of the international arms trade is part and parcel of my business. This is not an amateurs opinion. I pay serious cash to an attorney to help me navigate the laws on arms trade, and I can tell you *for certain* that military small arms are one of the MOST HIGHLY REGULATED areas of concern.
Example: It's funny, but I *can* import a MiG jet from Russia (And I actually own and operate three of them and flew one today) but I cannot import an Arsenal AK. Go figure that one out.
Willie
.
Last edited:
I am sorry I didnt read the part in your first post that read "US State Department Approval. This I do agree with.
I still say the rifles are Korean property and while they may not be able to sell to US Importers they can sell to another country or do as they please
I wouldnt be a bit surprised if they dont end up in Canada as atleast parts
I still say the rifles are Korean property and while they may not be able to sell to US Importers they can sell to another country or do as they please
I wouldnt be a bit surprised if they dont end up in Canada as atleast parts
HRnightmare
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2014
- Messages
- 630
I think you mean free market capitalists.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
I still say the rifles are Korean property and while they may not be able to sell to US Importers they can sell to another country or do as they please
*No they can't*
The US Government sold these with the standard restriction that ANY TRANSFER at ANY TIME needs Dept of State approval as it's a *modification of the end user certificate*. Bottom line is that you don't buy weapons from the USA "cash and carry", you receive material in return for payment, but those weapons are ones that the USA retains the right to control for ALL FUTURE INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS in perpetuity.
That's what End User Certificates are all about. The ORIGINAL SUPPLIER retains control over who is the END USER based on a complex set of rules that are essentially made up at the time of sale, and which can contain enormous restrictions. We simply don't hand over rifles in the normal routine business between nations without formal end user certificate agreements. Yes, we also feed weapons into the "black" covert supply system and these are "off certificate". But that's not the case here.
Bottom line? The Koreans may own them, but they are not theirs to transfer unless State Department approves it. That's not only for complete rifles, it's for any residual parts left over after demil as well. Sorry... no parts sets either. This is *precisely* why you don't see US manufactured rifle parts sets sold as a norm.
Always a little segue for war stories to add salt to the conversation: The RVN Air Force had a bunch of A-37 attack jets provided to them by the USA. When South Vietnam was overtaken by the north, the north got them. Years later they were sold to an Australian private concern. One was exported to Canada. That one was sold to an American who tried to have it trucked into the USA for restoration. He served time in prison. The jet ended up in a museum here after the *real owner*, the USAF, got it from US Customs and placed it on display. Don't screw around with this stuff. Some time later, interestingly enough as we normalized relations with Vietnam, we agreed by formal diplomatic means that all material abandoned in VN is the property of VN. So now? They can sell all the jets and M-16's they like. Funny, isn't it? They can sell them but the Koreans can't. Tough noogies...
Willie
.
*No they can't*
The US Government sold these with the standard restriction that ANY TRANSFER at ANY TIME needs Dept of State approval as it's a *modification of the end user certificate*. Bottom line is that you don't buy weapons from the USA "cash and carry", you receive material in return for payment, but those weapons are ones that the USA retains the right to control for ALL FUTURE INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS in perpetuity.
That's what End User Certificates are all about. The ORIGINAL SUPPLIER retains control over who is the END USER based on a complex set of rules that are essentially made up at the time of sale, and which can contain enormous restrictions. We simply don't hand over rifles in the normal routine business between nations without formal end user certificate agreements. Yes, we also feed weapons into the "black" covert supply system and these are "off certificate". But that's not the case here.
Bottom line? The Koreans may own them, but they are not theirs to transfer unless State Department approves it. That's not only for complete rifles, it's for any residual parts left over after demil as well. Sorry... no parts sets either. This is *precisely* why you don't see US manufactured rifle parts sets sold as a norm.
Always a little segue for war stories to add salt to the conversation: The RVN Air Force had a bunch of A-37 attack jets provided to them by the USA. When South Vietnam was overtaken by the north, the north got them. Years later they were sold to an Australian private concern. One was exported to Canada. That one was sold to an American who tried to have it trucked into the USA for restoration. He served time in prison. The jet ended up in a museum here after the *real owner*, the USAF, got it from US Customs and placed it on display. Don't screw around with this stuff. Some time later, interestingly enough as we normalized relations with Vietnam, we agreed by formal diplomatic means that all material abandoned in VN is the property of VN. So now? They can sell all the jets and M-16's they like. Funny, isn't it? They can sell them but the Koreans can't. Tough noogies...
Willie
.
Last edited:
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
^^ See my first comment, recited again now that it's proven more true:
You obviously don't know about end user certificates.
It's not surprising, as it's an arcane area where law and policy collide. You can let lawyers deal with laws, but when you come up against policy... good luck. You need lobbyists and that's more than I can pay for.
Now:
Working with defense material at the international import/export level is my full time business. I specialize in aerospace material but have worked with many other defense articles, and have worked with many different countries as well as the US Dept of State. My attorney for these matters costs me nearly $1K an hour. Take the information for free that I have paid many multiples of $1k's for, or not. Your choice.
I guess people value information according to what they have paid to receive it....
Fact of the matter is that empirically YOU can observe that the Koreans aren't selling "their property" to *anyone*. Ask yourself "why?". Answer? "because they can't".
Willie
.
You obviously don't know about end user certificates.
It's not surprising, as it's an arcane area where law and policy collide. You can let lawyers deal with laws, but when you come up against policy... good luck. You need lobbyists and that's more than I can pay for.
Now:
Working with defense material at the international import/export level is my full time business. I specialize in aerospace material but have worked with many other defense articles, and have worked with many different countries as well as the US Dept of State. My attorney for these matters costs me nearly $1K an hour. Take the information for free that I have paid many multiples of $1k's for, or not. Your choice.
I guess people value information according to what they have paid to receive it....
Fact of the matter is that empirically YOU can observe that the Koreans aren't selling "their property" to *anyone*. Ask yourself "why?". Answer? "because they can't".
Willie
.
Welding Rod
Member
Keep in mind purchase requires signing a sworn statement. See the first line:
"I further certify that I am a current member of a gun club or state association presently affiliated with the CMP (or that I am a parent or guardian of a junior shooter under the age of 18 who is a member), and that I am purchasing this rifle for my (or my junior shooter’s) personal use. I hereby consent to allow the CMP to submit the information I have supplied with my application to the FBI national instant criminal background check system (NICS) to verify that I am not prohibited from buying this rifle, and I authorize the FBI to inform the CMP of the result. I acknowledge that this sale is further subject to final approval by the CMP within its sole and absolute discretion."
Madcap_Magician
Member
I sure hope I can save up the cash for a Garand before the CMP is out of those, too. 
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
^^ Better than robbing banks ... ;-)
"Dassault Ouragan?"
Good guess! Two choices meeting the criteria that I set up (French, thru Israel to El Salvador) would be that or the Fouga Magister.
I worked at the training center for Dassault for 12 years as an Instructor Pilot. Beautiful equipment.
The End User Certificate stuff is, as I said, a mix of being able to negotiate law, and conform to whatever Department of State policies are being followed at the time. You can argue in front of a judge on matters of law, but when it comes to dealing with policy that's in conflict with your business plans, there's not usually a lot you can do about it. It's legitimately the business of the Dept. of State to follow policies that conform best to our international political policies, and we do restrict in perpetuity the end use of weapons that we provide, either by gift or sale, directly or indirectly.
Willie
.
"Dassault Ouragan?"
Good guess! Two choices meeting the criteria that I set up (French, thru Israel to El Salvador) would be that or the Fouga Magister.
I worked at the training center for Dassault for 12 years as an Instructor Pilot. Beautiful equipment.
The End User Certificate stuff is, as I said, a mix of being able to negotiate law, and conform to whatever Department of State policies are being followed at the time. You can argue in front of a judge on matters of law, but when it comes to dealing with policy that's in conflict with your business plans, there's not usually a lot you can do about it. It's legitimately the business of the Dept. of State to follow policies that conform best to our international political policies, and we do restrict in perpetuity the end use of weapons that we provide, either by gift or sale, directly or indirectly.
Willie
.
talldragon
Member
Wow, that's crazy.
Thanks for sharing, Willie Sutton. I learned something new today.
I would like to buy a cmp garand someday.
Sadly, today is not the day .
Thanks for sharing, Willie Sutton. I learned something new today.
I would like to buy a cmp garand someday.
Sadly, today is not the day
.- Status
Similar threads
- Locked