wz. 38M Maroszek rifle that was seized by the Department of Homeland Security from a gun collector in Virginia. The gun but got seized after Polish goverment requested it, and called it “a great piece of cultural and scientific significance” that it was likely stolen by invading soldiers.
Posted by Dear_Implement6304@reddit | ForgottenWeapons | View on Reddit | 61 comments
After a 6 months of negotiation, the collector would get $25,000 in compensation for the wz.38M Maroszek rifle, along with a promise that it will be displayed in the Warsaw Uprising Museum. They also agreed to send Kristopher Gasior, the 54-year-old Virginia collector, a thank-you letter noting his “valuable contribution to preserving Polish historical memory and to honoring Polish heroes and freedom fighters by saving and preserving this unique rifle.”
Gasior had initially listed the gun for sale for $65,000, though he said in several previous interviews that he would have given Poland a steep discount had the country sought to buy the rifle initially.
WalkerTR-17@reddit
Wait so why did DOH seize it exactly I’m a little unclear on that?
Correndell@reddit
Seized it based on request by Poland becoming aware that the rifle became available on sale by Mr. Gasior.
The reasoning being that it was a stolen rifle that got captured first by Germans then again by Americans to be brought into the U.S. as a war trophy.
However it is a point of contention because that would mean at the time it was a legal acquisition since war trophies were a pretty universally accepted thing.
Most likely someone threw a hissy fit in Poland and made enough demands of the U.S. through official or unofficial channels to make the rifle a priority for the DoH.
Dudicus445@reddit
They really should have just asked him “hey we want to buy this rifle, what’s your price” less hassle and good press all around
IMMILDCAT@reddit
Bear in mind there's still probably a fair amount of the Soviet mindset in post-Soviet countries around some upper management types, it comes more naturally to them to press with the heavy hand of the state first. Not a judgment on anyone's character in the slightest, just the odd little cultural disparities that hung around after the Cold War.
HerrGronbar@reddit
Poland is not a post-Soviet country.
ACCESS_DENIED_41@reddit
It was a satellite state of in post-WWII. Interesting and turbulent history.
There were a few examples of satellite states in post-World War Two Europe along with Poland, including the People’s Republic of Hungary, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the People’s Republic of Romania, the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, the People’s Republic of Albania, and East Germany.
Satellite states are countries which are formally independent in the world, but are under heavy political, economic, and military influence or control from another country – in this case the Soviet Union.
wysoft@reddit
Sort of like how it would've been monumentally cheaper in terms of monetary cost, loss of life, and global public perception if Russia had just offered to purchase Crimea from Ukraine.
I'll never understand that one. I'm sure there's a value that the two could've agreed upon. It's not like Russia couldn't have afforded it.
Just not how the Soviet/Russian mind operates. Not saying that this directly applies to Poland here, but your statement is still very true.
KaijuTia@reddit
I mean, he DID get a payout and it looks like it was a mutually agreed upon decision.
Occams_Razor42@reddit
Kinda gives "Polish version of eminent domain" vibes tbh. Like take this fixed amount or nothing
KaijuTia@reddit
It’s more akin to looted artifacts. Those get seized all the time and repatriated and generally there’s not a lot of compensation. But in this case, it looks like Poland was willing to pay out because they were likely afraid that if the collector sold it like he planned to, it would disappear for good into some anonymous collection. And it seems like the guy was willing to take a payout for it, so that probably helped his case.
Dudicus445@reddit
Actually the law favors the new owner in cases of stolen cars, as it’s likely they had no idea it’s stolen
KaijuTia@reddit
You not knowing it’s stolen isn’t a defense for you to keep it, because the fact is, had the car not been stolen in the first place, you would never have been able to buy it. A thief doesn’t legally possess the thing they stole, so they have no right to transfer ownership. That means that even if you didn’t know the car was stolen, the sale to you was illegal and the rightful owner can absolutely have the police seize the car from you and return it to them, provided they can prove it was theirs and that they never gave up rights to it (ie, it was stolen).
And if that were the case, you could then attempt to sue the person you bought the car from together money back. You not knowing a car is stolen doesn’t legally un-steal it,
TonySopiano@reddit
But that actually is a defense for you to keep stolen property. It’s called being a purchaser in good faith, and it is a legal doctrine widely accepted by most jurisdictions in the US. If person A owns a car, person B steals said car, and person B sells it to person C, then person C is the legal owner of the car (so long as person C had no reason to believe that the car was stolen).
KaijuTia@reddit
Purchaser in good faith actually specifically exempts stolen property, because it’s trumped by the legal principal of “nemo dat quod non habet” (“no one may give what they do not have”).
Because the thief was never in possession of the car, they cannot legally sell it. And because they cannot legally sell it, no one can legally buy it. That includes people who are unaware for its stolen status.
Purchase in good faith means that if you bought a stolen car without know it was stolen, you can’t be legally prosecuted for something like “receiving stolen property”. It does not give the buyer legal right to keep the car because, in the eyes of the law, the original owner never stopped owning the car and were it not for the illegal actions of the thief, itnwouldnnever have come into the possession of Person C in the first place. So the car can be legally seized and returned to its rightful owner. Persons B and C can then pursue legal action against the thief to try and recoup any money they might have paid. But given most thieves don’t have many assets to seize, Persons B and C are unlikely to get anything back. Which is why provenance and legal documentation are essential.
TonySopiano@reddit
That’s not exactly true. In the car example, I ignored the paper title aspect of stealing a car to provide a quick example (although I realize it was now a poor example because of that aspect).
If someone steals a car via fraud, and in the process of doing so obtains title to the car, and then subsequently sells the car to someone and passes the title to them, then the final purchaser would be the legal owner of the car. This is because the final purchaser had no reason to believe that the car had an issue as to ownership, i.e. it was stolen.
The legal principle you cited would only apply if the final purchaser bought the car without simultaneously obtaining title from the thief/seller, as purchasing a car without an accompanying title serves as constructive notice that the car could have issues relating to its ownership (such as being stolen).
Purchasing a stolen good in good faith could be a defense from prosecution for possession of stolen goods, but that is not its main purpose. Its primary function is to shield innocent purchasers from the bad conduct of others.
For a real world example, pawn shops often utilize the good faith purchaser doctrine when buying stolen items. Pawn shops are required to check the serial numbers of firearms which they purchase (at least they are where I live). If someone steals a gun, then sells it to a pawn shop before it is reported stolen (meaning the serial number won’t be flagged in the stolen firearm database), the pawn shop will be the legal owner of the gun, as they had no actual or constructive notice that the gun was stolen. However, if the gun is reported stolen before it is sold, the pawn shop would receive actual notice that there is an issue with the firearm before they buy it, and the pawn shop would not be the legal owner of the firearm because of said notice (assuming they went ahead and purchased it and/or didn’t fulfill their obligation to check the serial number).
While I appreciate your reference to the Google search, the information there is not correct. I have litigated this exact issue with a car, where the thief stole a car and its title, then subsequently sold the car. The car was sold before it was reported stolen. As a result, the good faith purchaser who bought the car from the thief was found to be the legal owner of the car.
You are correct in that paperwork is essential when buying things like a car or a gun. However, if you buy an item that was stolen, and the accompanying documents to said item seem to be in order, the law (in most jurisdictions) is clear that you are the legal owner of said item.
tearjerkingpornoflic@reddit
Huh? Where are you that that is true? Never heard that. Know of someone that bought a stolen trailer...with fraudulent paper work and whatnot. Had to give the trailer back to owner it was stolen from. If your stolen car is found it goes back to you. It doesn't favor the guy the thief sold it to.
Dudicus445@reddit
If the thief sells the car to a customer and tells them they own it, the law will let them keep it, as they believed the sale was legal. Might differ from state to state and country to country though
tearjerkingpornoflic@reddit
That's why I am asking where you are because it's not like that anywhere in the US. That law wouldn't make any sense because it would be very easy for a thief to steal a car then "sell" it to someone they know to legitimatize the sale.
KaijuTia@reddit
This is incorrect. Nowhere allows this. Look up “nemo dat quod non habet”. It’s Latin for “one cannot give what one doesn’t have” and it’s the legal principal at play. If a thief steals a car from Person A, the thief does not have legal ownership of the car. Because they don’t HAVE legal ownership, they cannot GIVE legal ownership. Legal ownership stays with Person A.
If the thief then “sells” the car to Person B, who doesn’t know it’s stolen, Person B does not legally own it (the thief cannot give legal rights he doesn’t possess). So Person B has no right to the car. If they sell it to Person C, who also doesn’t know it’s stolen”, Person C ALSO doesn’t own it.
Legally, the right of ownership remains with Person A and Person A can legally have the car seized and returned to them. B and C can try suing the thief to recoup their money, but Person A owes them nothing.
The idea of them not knowing it was stolen is called “purchase in good faith” and would protect them from something like being charged with receiving stolen property, but purchase in good faith specifically excluded stolen property, because the principal of non dat quod non habet trumps purchase in good faith.
PsychoTexan@reddit
If you have something seized and then half a year later offer compensation I don’t think “take less than half the asking price or nothing” is a “mutually agreed upon decision.”
Emiian04@reddit
The item itself was seized from poland in the first place so...
tostuo@reddit
But likely seized by Americans, and both times as war booty, which generally is considered acceptable. For instance. International Committee of the Red Cross lists Military weaponry as acceptable War Booty under Rule 49 of International Humanitarian Law.
KaijuTia@reddit
Legally speaking the vet took stolen property. Unknowingly, I’m sure, but still stolen. The Nazi invasion was illegal, so anything they did during it, like take the rifle, was also illegal. The American vet then took it, not knowing it was illegally stolen before it got to him. It’s like buying a car that turned out to have been stolen before it made its way to you; the legal owner of the car can legally seize the car back from you, even if you genuinely didn’t know it was stolen when you took possession of it. Possession is not legal ownership in this case.
tostuo@reddit
War booty is legal under international law.
Today that has been supersceeded by
In international war, specifically arms and a few other effects, such as military equipment is certainly legal to take. Otherwise, how could you legally disarm a surrendering or captured foe? (Also, the Nazi invasion, no matter how illegal it was, still falls under this.)
KaijuTia@reddit
The difference is that things that are taken as war booty can be seized if it was originally looted illegally. You see this situation more often with things like art. A soldier takes a pretty painting off the wall of a German HQ and sends it home as a “war trophy”. But later in, it’s discovered that the painting was originally stolen by the Nazis from its original owners and hung up in that HQ. And years later, the original owners, or more often their descendants, will petition to have the art seized and returned to their original owners. And more often than not, the courts come down in favor of the descendants.
The Nazi invasions being declared illegal wars of aggression means that anything they did as a result of that can be legally claimed to be fruit of the poisonous tree. In this case, the gun would never have wound up in the hands of the collector is the Nazis hadn’t illegally invaded Poland. That’s the legal framework that underpinned Poland’s argument. The vet might have genuinely believed he had a right to claim the rifle off the Nazis as a war trophy, but from a legal perspective, he was actually unknowingly taking possession of looted (ie stolen) property.
tostuo@reddit
Again, that analogy doesn't count, because standard property law is incongruent within the context of international rules of law. The weapon was taken during warfare, and legally, as outlined by both the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, parties are allowed to take arms and other military equipment. The rules of war always apply during warfare, even if the offending party is staging an illegal war.
Emiian04@reddit
is it likely seized by US troops? if it was Taken by invading forces that probably wouldnt be US, not in poland, it's probably either Axis or soviet forces which comited a lot of looting.
Countries don't generally take kindly to that especially with something so rare, if it was a simple standard issue rifle there wouldnt be any issue, but here it makes sense they pulled some strings to make sure the thing didnt dissapear with some other buyer, theres only 5.
KaijuTia@reddit
Think about it like this. Your car gets stolen. The thief sells it to Person A, who does not know it’s stolen. Person A sells it to Person B, neither of whom knows it was stolen. You realize Person B has your car. You are legally entitled to reclaim your car and Person B doesn’t have to get any bc compensation. If Person B wants compensation, they’d have to take it up with the thief, not you.
That’s what happened here. The Nazis stole it during their illegal invasion of Poland and then it eventually made its way into the collectors hands. If property is stolen, all transactions that happen after that are essentially null, because the Nazis can’t give away or sell something they never owned.
You see this happen a lot with art looted by the Nazis being reclaimed from private collections by descendants of the former owners.
SLON_1936@reddit
Have you seen the experimental AK with a retractable bipod?
This one: kalashnikovgroup .ru/media/kalashnikov100/kalashnikov100-opytnyy-avtomat-kalashnikova-1950-goda
They literally sawed it off from the wz.39 Mors from the museum, and attached it to it.
KaijuTia@reddit
Here’s where the war trophy argument runs into legal trouble and why Poland was able to make their claim.
The Nazi invasion of Poland was an illegal war of aggression. That means anything the Nazis did during that invasion is also illegal; its fruit of the poisonous tree. So if a Nazi stole the rifle during the invasion (which is almost certainly true), then it’s stolen property and the Nazi has no legal claim of ownership. And because, in law, you cannot give what you do not have, there was no legal transfer of ownership when the American vet took the rifle from the Nazi. It wasn’t a war trophy - it was, legally speaking, receiving stolen property unknowingly. And even if the vet didn’t know it was stolen, he has no legal right to it. The original owner does; that owner being Poland. So it can be legally seized as stolen property.
So how is this different than a guy taking an Arisaka as a war trophy? Because America’s war in Japan was a “legal” defensive war. Also, an Arisaka was never a stolen item prior to being taken as a trophy. The Arisaka was legally transferred to the soldier, who then lost it to an American as part of a legal war, so ownership is transferred as a war trophy.
Legal war + never stolen = legit war trophy
Illegal war + stolen in said war = stolen property.
Correndell@reddit
I admit I'm not as vetted into the legality of that, so if what you say is true, then it's a fair situation. I will defer to the merits of your arguements.
bobbobersin@reddit
Finders keepers if you ask me, they should have paied in full what he requested, hell set up a trade of similar value (fancy sporting grade polish rifle/shotgun that is export legal), I think its insane the DOD can sieze it when legaly at the time there were laws in place that let trophies be taken (i think its stupid we dont have that as a thing anymore, people who cant drink and can barely vote who already volunteer to give up sevral rights cant bring back a trophy? It's been a thing since the dawn of time, apocalypse now style hypocrisy if you ask me (we cant paint "fuck" on the airplane that drops napalm on people))
RamTank@reddit
Generally speaking, we accept stuff taken from the Germans and Japanese as legitimate. However, things that the Germans or Japanese took from someone else first gets a lot more iffy.
KaijuTia@reddit
They're treating it kinda like a modern-day 'looted antiquity'. Looted artifacts get seized and repatriated all the time. It just so happens that this particular artifact is younger than most. And from what the post is saying, it doesn't seem like it was 'seized' in the sense that they came and forced him to give it up for free and more 'seized' in the sense of 'the government officially took possession of it'. And it looks like this was a mutually-negotiated settlement.
snoman72@reddit
With the negotiating point being "Or else..."
NotanumberNow@reddit
Straight from forgottenweapons.com. It's a real relic, One of 150 made and 7 known to still exist, and 1 of 4 thought to be in the USA. They must want it for its historic value in their country, at least..
"Polish wz.38M
The wz.38M, designed by Józef Maroszek, was the winner of Poland’s 1934 self-loading rifle trials. Production began in 1938, but only about 150 examples had been produced when Germany invaded and production was halted (the Germans decided not to continue production). Only 7 examples are known to survive to this day, in various conditions – 4 in the US, and one each in Poland, Russia, and Germany. The highest series number currently known is 1054, and all the known rifles are marked “Zrb.2”, indicating manufacture at Zbrojownia Nr. 2 (Arsenal No.2) in Warsaw. Mass production would have been done at the Radom factory, but it appears this was never begun." - forgottenweapons.com
shark_aziz@reddit
This can't be the exact same gun that Ian reviewed a while back, can it? Since not many of them were produced in the first place.
WesterosIsAGiantEgg@reddit
LFTL
To my completely unqualified eyes, it looks like the wear on the receiver's finish behind the dust cover is more pronounced than the specimen Ian handled.
anderson2553@reddit
It’s not the same one. Different SN’s. I saw the confiscated one when I went to Warsaw a couple years back. https://youtu.be/AtUJzQRPq6s?si=CtP6gsqAkBMZhhgp
WesterosIsAGiantEgg@reddit
Your use of the term "confiscated" lacks specificity for two reasons. First, all known extant specimens were already confiscated from Polish hands before reaching collectors. Second, as mentioned in the video you linked, the specimen you visited was #1019 which was returned to Poland before 2017. We can deduce that the specimen OP posted was the remaining #1030.
anderson2553@reddit
This dude is asking if Gasior’s gun the DHS took was the same one from Ian’s video from the James Julia Auction House. I’m simply clarifying they’re not.
CSBD001@reddit
The whole “theft thing” usually centers inside of the same regime and jurisdiction.
This gun was “stolen” by an individual from a country (that that doesn’t exist anymore) from a company (from country that doesn’t exist) anymore and was requested “back” by a new country.
Seems clear as mud…
HerrGronbar@reddit
You totally don't know what you are talking about.
ShotgunEd1897@reddit
I would've asked to include a Polish Random 9mm, with the $25,000.
Brown_Colibri_705@reddit
Just a random 9mm?
ShotgunEd1897@reddit
Meant to say Radom, the pistol from 1935.
Swordfish-44@reddit
Such a gun, does not exist. Radom is a city in Poland.
Polishgunfan303@reddit
VIS. Not 'Radom 9mm'.
RADOM, IS WHERE VISES WERE BUILT-
It's like saying 'I sure do love a Springfield' when talking about a 1911.
ShotgunEd1897@reddit
Am I wrong to assume context clues don't apply to this sub?
yeetylad@reddit
But you know what he’s talking about People do this all the time it makes sense
deformedcactus@reddit
I had heard about this specific rifle for a while, glad it’s being sent home. Others say he was compensated which also seems incredibly fair.
End of the day, better than being seized and destroyed which unfortunately happens to so many artifacts like this.
Vodnik-Dubs@reddit
The fact that the government can come to your property and seize a rifle because another country said so is extremely concerning.
Thelifeofnerfingwolf@reddit
What is the legality of this, and what does it mean for gun ownership in America. Is the doh going to start seizing all ww2 and ww1 bring back. For bs reasons?
7isagoodletter@reddit
No, because those aren't rare weapons of which there are a few dozen in existence.
Brown_Colibri_705@reddit
A lot of the more expensive ones are, though.
Regal-30-@reddit
No, this is an extremely rare rifle with very few copies left of it in existence. This would be akin to an American Pedersen Rifle, not an M1 Garand.
Also, the fact that it was seized by the Germans before being captured by the Americans makes it a more complicated matter than simply being another war trophy.
DukeOfGeek@reddit
I guess you could say that it being looted by the Germans makes it different from other "issued equipment".
Kamikaze-X@reddit
That doesn't sound very Freedomville to me
BeaverBorn@reddit
This particular rifle (serial number 1019) is currently on display in the Warsaw Uprising Museum in Warsaw, Poland.
Useful_Inspector_893@reddit
I’ve bought guns from Kristopher on a couple of occasions at gun shows. He always has unusual, obscure European arms on his table! Not surprised he had this gun.
AutoModerator@reddit
Understand the rules
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.