"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed."

This week there were two interesting articles about two separate firearms issues that bear commentary here.  First was an article published on the FoxNews website titled "Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale Of 850,000 Antique Rifles " authored by Maxim Lott.  The second article from the Philadelphia Daily News titled "Guns of Contention: If Philly says no, Florida can say yes " authored by Stephanie Farr.

On the first - the Obama Administration had previously approved the sale and transfer of Korean War firearm relics from the South Korean government  to the United States, ultimately to be made available to the public for sale here domestically.  In March of this year, the State Department 'disapproved' the approval and banned the transfer of 87,310 M1 Garands, and 770,160 M1 Carbines.  These Korean War weapons are obsolete semi-automatic military weapons.   They are not fully automatic firearms, and never were.  Both the M1 Garand, and it's smaller higher ammunition capacity sibling, the M1 Carbine, are legal to own in the United States, in as much is as there are no Federal regulations barring ownership.  Furthermore, due to the age of these rifles, they are classified by the Federal government as relics.  Though my research is incomplete, it appears that only one state in the US bans the M1 Carbine - New Jersey.  The M1 Garand is legal to own in all states, including New Jersey.

The M1 Garand :
                                  
This rifle is renowned the world over as the work-horse battle rifle of American Armed Forces during World War II, and the Korean War.  It is heavy - nearly 12 pounds when loaded, and has an internal fixed magazine with a maximum capacity of 8 rounds of ammunition.  Among firearms owners in the US, this rifle is revered for the role it played in smashing the armies of the Axis powers, and it is a highly sought after firearm.  In fact, I have wanted to own this rifle myself for many years, and hope one of these days to purchase a fully restored M1 Garand.

The M1 Carbine :

                              

This rifle was introduced to the battlefield in 1942 as a lightweight rifle (just over 5lbs) for special service forces such as paratroopers.  It had a higher capacity detachable magazine, and smaller caliber bullet.  While it was really never intended for front-line troops, it's light weight and higher ammunition capacity made it a favorite alternative weapon to the heavy, larger M1 Garand with it's limited ammunition capacity.  The M1 Carbine is also very popular among US firearms owners.

Through what I will describe as a flaw in Federal regulations, the US State Department gets a say in civilian firearm sales involving the military of foreign nations.  It doesn't matter that these firearms are perfectly legal to own in the US.  The State Department, run by notorious anti-gun Hillary Clinton, claimed that they reversed the approval of this sale so as to prevent these firearms from falling into the "wrong hands".  Wrong hands?  Whose wrong hands?  When pressed for further explanation, Clinton's State Department refused to answer, instead referred the reporter to the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) who then referred to the Justice Department, who in turn referred the flaming football back to the State Department.  An inquiry to the White House won a referral to the Pentagon who referred to the US Embassy in South Korea, who kicked the now crispy football back to State Department HQ.   The initial lame argument offered by the State Department was that these firearms had the capability of being used with higher capacity magazines, and were therefore of special concern.  But wait, first of all, the M1 Garand has a maximum capacity of 8 rounds, and cannot be modified to increase this capacity.  The M1 Carbine has a detachable box magazine which can be replaced with a higher capacity magazine....which is perfectly legal to do in the US under current Federal law (State laws may vary on this).  Soooo, what's the problem Hillary?   We know the answer nobody at State, the White House, or the other agencies wants to say:  the problem is that Hillary is a gun hater, Obama is also hostile to gun ownership, and this was simply an opportunity to block the sale of legal firearms just for the sake of blocking the sale of legal firearms, because they could. 

The next article from Philly is far darker with far more onerous undertones.   In the Philadelphia metro area, nine men who lawfully owned a firearm, and who each had a lawful valid permit to carry a concealed weapon were arrested, tossed in the slammer, and had their firearms confiscated by Police.   At issue with these nine: all but one had a carry permit issued in the State of Florida, which apparently the Philly Police hate, because it is a legal way to by-pass obtaining a permit from the hostile Philly government.  These Florida permits are perfectly legal under Pennsylvania law, but that didn't stop the Philly police from arresting these men, charging them with a crime (which was dismissed by the DA), and confiscating their guns.  The legally owned, lawfully carried guns have not been returned to their rightful owners.  Eight of the nine have engaged the lumbering process of  suing Philadelphia in civil court; one person settled his claim out of court.

The Second Amendment has been argued about since it's inception.  Some framers were opposed to the individual guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, and we have been arguing about this right ever since.  In both these cases discussed above, the government has willfully interfered with lawful activity by ordinary citizens of this country, and that's what I find disturbing about this.  The State Department injecting itself into domestic US policy is wrong, and they should never have been granted authority over these sorts of transactions in the first place.  In the case of the Philadelphia police apparently falsely arresting these men, falsely imprisoning them,  confiscating their firearms and subsequently refusing to return them, is far more disturbing.  As far as I am concerned, the arresting Officers were themselves committing a criminal act, and they should be the ones being prosecuted.  The fact that the State is not investigating the officers involved speaks volumes.

Whether you agree with firearms ownership or not,  government officials who use their position of power to ignore the law and set their own course, without fear of retribution, represent a societal malignancy that places everyone at risk.  As our Government gets bigger and bigger, individuals get smaller and smaller. 

In these cases, it turns out the "wrong hands" were those of the Government.  It's a warning 'shot', and we all need to pay attention.