Virginian squares off against Poland over rare rifle

[Double Naught Spy]

Things happen during war and things are lost, so they need to get over it.

It was lost, but now is found. If truly theirs, then why should they "get over it?" Would you not want your property back, especially if it had some sort of specific sentimental value? Of course you would. Would you try to get it back if there was a nice legal means to do so? Sure enough. I don't understand why some folks are faulting Poland for trying.

It very well may turn out that the collector in this case is the unwitting victim of being in possession of property for which he actually had no right to own.

 

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Double Naught Spy,

According to what has been revealed so far, the gun was brought here, legally, just as any other weapon or war trophy that was captured, and was made legal by the US Government. There is a big difference in the legality here between truly stolen, and what our own government made US property, by saying someone could legally keep an item, and claim ownership. There are too many cases of this that are too numerous to mention here. I know of several in my neighborhood.

If it was indeed, truly stolen, which would be that it was brought to the US, without the governments knowledge, then I am all for returning it. However, from everything I've read, that is not the case. As soon as our government signed off on it, they declared that weapon as someone's legal property. That is then on the back of the US Government, and not ours.

There is a big difference in stolen gold and paintings, and weapons of war. How may weapons has every country seized during a conflict, and either used, kept, or destroyed? What I'm looking at, is this backfiring on any of us who may own war relics, or own historical items that were made legal by our own government, and we citizens being left holding the bag.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"spoils of war" are, by definition AND international treaty, stolen property.

"Last, why doesn't Poland want any other weapons back"

That's been more than amply explained. Try reading the Polish complaint again.

But, what it comes down to is that you'd be perfectly fine with someone kicking in your door, throwing a personal declaration of war against you on your coffee table, and taking a bunch of your stuff.

THEN I go to your next door neighbor and sell him your most prized (insert bauble here). He buys it in good faith, thinking that I legitimately own the object. The third party bought property stolen from you but all of a sudden POOF! Its provenance is now magically legitimate and you are screwed AND out of luck because what once was stolen... isn't.

Very.... curious.

Where do you live? I could use a new stove, and I have these great declarations of war that I downloaded from the internet...

As has been repeatedly explained, stolen property doesn't gain legitimate status just because it has passed through a third party's hands, someone who bought it in good faith.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

According to what has been revealed so far, the gun was brought here, legally, just as any other weapon or war trophy that was captured, and was made legal by the US Government.

No. According to what has been revealed so far, the provenance is unknown.

From the OP's article...

Gasior said he bought the rifle legally in 1993 from another collector, paying $9,500 for what he considered “probably the best piece of my personal collection.”

and

The case is not one that will be easily decided. Gasior, himself a sort-of Polish firearms expert, said his research shows the weapon was most likely issued to Polish soldiers during World War II, then taken by Germans.

In short, Gasior can't vouch for the weapon being what you consider to be a legal spoil of war. So your repeated claims that this is somehow made legal are not substantiated. Gasior as a nicely fabricated scenario with no documentation.

 

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

t, what it comes down to is that you'd be perfectly fine with someone kicking in your door, throwing a personal declaration of war against you on your coffee table, and taking a bunch of your stuff

No, Mike, I never said that, but that is what has happened, and is still happening, many times, by every country, including ours, and our government got us involved in it. On my street, I know of several relics from WWII, that has the legal US documentation with it. Those same items, by what I understand, can be taken at will, by our government, and given back, even though they were made the property of someone during WWII, by our own government. Some of these items were handed down to others, and some were sold, legally, to others. So, who should the fault lie with, the people who now own them, or our own government, for saying they could have them to start with? Who should owe who, since money has changed hands? Our own government can't have it both ways, giving something to someone, legally, and then taking it back without paying its value for it, especially after it has changed hands, and or was purchased. Lets not forget how our own government declared war on drugs, kicking in peoples doors, confiscating cars, homes, etc, and putting them up on auction, and they're doing it as I write this. Some argue this is right, and some don't.

Also, this can open up plenty of doors on the liability of our government, over the things they took. Our government says legally, but the other country says illegally. Look at all we took out of Germany; all the new designs and finished jet engines, and the nuclear projects and rocket programs they had started. Wouldn't our own government be considered a thief, or is that spoils of war? What about Project Paperclip?

This is the thing, our own government got us involved in it, and now, they're going to leave the citizens left holding the bag, for what they have allowed to be done, and that's not right.

It was pointed out that there's no proof that the gun came over legally, but there's no proof that it was illegal either, and the owner says it was legal. It's up to the US Government or Poland to prove otherwise, but I will not say the owner is lying about it. However, if it was legal, as claimed, then who owes who? How can it be the fault of the owner? How does he regain his money if it was our own governments fault?

 

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Double Naught Spy,

Nobody has shown any proof that it was illegal, either, and the owner says it was legal, so who am I to judge? I go with what I know, and the rest is up to our government and Poland to decide.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

This is the thing, our own government got us involved in it, and now, they're going to leave the citizens left holding the bag, for what they have allowed to be done, and that's not right.

Sadly, this happens with guns with some regularity here in the US where a gun is lost or stolen, reported, changes hands behind the scenes one or more times and eventually ends up resurfacing and the current "owner" has no knowledge that the gun is stolen. He often doesn't get his money back, but if he does, it is from the person who sold it to him.

With that said, you don't know that the government has allowed anything to be done. GIs have smuggled back contraband booty and souvenirs from numerous wars.

It was pointed out that there's no proof that the gun came over legally, but there's no proof that it was illegal either, and the owner says it was legal. It's up to the US Government or Poland to prove otherwise, but I will not say the owner is lying about it. However, if it was legal, as claimed, then who owes who? How can it be the fault of the owner? How does he regain his money if it was our own governments fault?

Of course Gaisor says it was legal, LOL. That does not mean that it is. Poland says otherwise. All Poland has to do is to say that they never sold the guns to the general public and that the gun is one of their military pieces and then you have a gun that is theirs. Germany had no right to it and if Germans took it and it was taken by an American, then the American had no right to it either.

The only fault of the current owner is being the one left holding the proverbial bag. As noted in the pattern above, he is an unwitting victim. He doesn't get his money back unless he can get it back from the seller from the 1990s when he purchased it. There are some risks in dealing with used property.

 

[44 AMP]

That's NOT the way it works, even under US law. Stolen property is recoverable at ANY point in the chain of possession, even if the current possessor bought it in good faith.

There is NO legal precedent for "Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers," not even if you thrown in a "Neener Neener Pork and Beaner" exigent circumstance.

In other words, the old school ground rights of possession don't apply.

OK, I got this. Stolen is stolen, no matter by whom, or when, right?

But, I have to wonder, who gets to decide if a claim of stolen is valid? And, who speaks for those who are not here to speak for themselves? In some circumstances, that would be a function of governments, right?

What I'm curious about is how the principles might be applied in other situations. Not that "they aren't being applied, don't worry about it.." (today), but whether they could be...tomorrow....

first case: I recently saw a thread about a WWII bringback Luger, taken in the Phillippines from the Japanese. The gun was a Dutch contract gun, issued to their garrison in the far east, taken from them by the Japanese, and then later taken from them by us. Who "stole" if from whom?

second case:
A friend I know has actually been approached by some Japanese wanting him to return his "war trophies" to Japan, so the families can have them. Swords, flags, and such. Assume there is no official "permission" document for most of it (never required?)

To date, no hint of any "stolen property" claim, but could they?

Now, in the second case, the guy told those seeking the return that he personally took them from "(ethnic slur) that was trying to kill him", and that they would be destroyed before ... and I understand his heirs are of similar opinion...

Spoils of War are stolen property? I guess what is legitimate depends on what it is, who you are, and when?

 

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

44 AMP,

Here is a quote from "Prize of War" on Wikipedia:

"Prizes of war at sea are unlikely in major modern conflicts due to changes in the way wars are fought and financed, international law and oversight, and the possibility of a prize being booby trapped. However the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 do allow for war material to be claimed as trophies of war as does US law.[2]"

Since the 1907 one was the one they were under, as it wasn't updated until 1954, the convention said:

"Article 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907,[3] stated:

"The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

"All seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings."

Nowhere does it state anything about an instrument of war or a weapon. This is how the US got out from under Project Paperclip, plus they called it war reparations too.

Prize of war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war

War trophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_trophy

Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

Hague Convention of 1954 (PDF):

http://www.hcch.net/upload/conventions/txt02en.pdf

War Trophies, Intro to law of war, US:

http://armyintelligence.tpub.com/IS1805/IS1805-A0017.htm

 

[Tejicano]

The other angle to this that I don't see discussed yet.

The "Poland" that produced this rifle was invaded by Nazi Germany and no longer existed for a number of years. During that time this rifle changed hands and disappeared.

The "Poland" which is now filing a claim is a different nation - the map is even different from the version of 1939 - so do they really have a claim?

 

[4V50 Gary]

This was discussed on another gun board. Initially my position was that if it was stolen from a museum, it should be returned. It turns out that these guns were issued to the police and then captured. As a prize of war, it is legitimately captured and should be kept by the present owner.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I never mentioned the concept of it being a war prize because Poland has very neatly, and legally, skirted that concept by claiming that the gun is of cultural signifigance to the nation of Poland.

By doing so they trump the Hague Treaty and put it firmly into the category of art and antiquities.

This very subject has come up before regarding medieval weapons and armor that were looted during World War II.

Sure, they're weapons and armor, created by the state for use in warfare. But, they were claimed, and the claims were upheld, under the concept that they had significant historical and cultural value to the requesting nation.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The "Poland" that produced this rifle was invaded by Nazi Germany and no longer existed for a number of years. During that time this rifle changed hands and disappeared.

The "Poland" which is now filing a claim is a different nation - the map is even different from the version of 1939 - so do they really have a claim?"

Yes. They do. That's also a concept that is codified by treaty.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It turns out that these guns were issued to the police and then captured. As a prize of war, it is legitimately captured and should be kept by the present owner.

Cultural resources laws generally do not have provisions for war trophies, which is likely why Poland is arguing that the gun falls under the guise of being of cultural or scientific significance. From the Washington Post article cited in the OP...

The Polish government views the Maroszek as a “great piece of cultural and scientific significance.”

Such a claim, if honored, would negate the notion of this rifle being just a war trophy. From the information provided, this appears to be the strategy that they are taking. I would contend, as I noted above, that if this rifle was not of great cultural or scientific significance at the time of the loss, then it does not quality now for repatriation. Poland obviously feels differently.

 

[Skans]

The Feds should never have gotten involved. This is yet, just one more abuse of federal power against its citizens. It's a civil matter. The collector is a bona fide purchaser for value. If Poland thinks the rifle was stolen 75 years ago, then let them sue the guy, just like anyone else would have to. For the feds to threaten a citizen's life and property is out-and-out wrong.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry Skans, but that is not how it works with international conventions regarding cultural heritage. If it was a citizen of Poland wanting the gun back, that would fit your scenario, but it is the country of Poland.

 

[Mike40-11]

As often seems to be the case, the moral of the story appears to be "Do try to avoid attracting the attention of the government. Any government."

 

[44 AMP]

I would propose that the Browning designed 1911 (or the BAR, or the M2, etc..) is a

“great piece of cultural and scientific significance.”

 

[Crazy88Fingers]

By Gasior’s account, the weapon was one of only 150 when it was made for Polish troops in 1938 and 1939, and today is one of about nine remaining.

On a side note, I think I figured out why the Nazis invaded Poland so quickly. They only had 150 rifles!

 

[Patriot86]

Molon Freakin Labe!

I can't believe Poland won't just buy the rifle if they want it so bad. I guess those of us with anything from "The old country" that has been handed down generation to generation better never advertise it.