"We know that the [ship's] destination was North America, but we don't effectively know if that's where the [suspect] arms were going," one customs official told Italian state television.
The weapons were confiscated by the Italian authorities because of problems with the ship's customs forms. For example, the arms had been described on some of the forms as "common guns" instead of assault-style.
They are common. There is nothing unusual about the type or quantity of these arms being imported to the U.S.
The AK-47s had been tampered with so they couldn't be rapidly fired, but the modification was one that could easily have been reversed, authorities said.
Easily? Only if you have the right parts and illegally without a Fed type III license which is also required to purchase or own said parts. Those parts cost money too.
Again, common. Hundreds of thousands of semi-auto rifles, already legally owned, are capable of being converted to full-auto. If you have the parts and the license and the tax stamps.
The United States has banned such military-style semiautomatic weapons since 1994.
Not really true. Only specific models from specific origins with certain specific features have been banned from import, manufacture or sale since 1994. For example; an SKS from Russia or Romania is legal but an SKS from China is not. All arms of this type imported or manufactured before '94 remain legal except where specifically banned. VT ain't one o' those places. Georgia neither AFAIK.
As several gun-savvy FReepers have already suggested; the type of gun and the conditions they were being shipped in (bayonets attached, loosely dumped in a cargo container) strongly suggest that they were being imported for parts. Extremely common practice. Paperwork SNAFU's happen. Self serving busts by eager Euro-weenie LEO's happen.
When you blithely repeat the meaningless buzz words of the anti-gunners, such as 'cache' and 'assault guns' (other than full-auto, which these were not, there is no such thing from a functional POV and only a cosmetic definition from a legal POV) it calls into question your sincerity and/or your knowledge-ability of the subject. This article was an anti-gun slam aimed directly at the upcoming sunset of the AWB in Sept. from start to finish.