The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 30, 2008, 10:24 PM   #1
PhoenixWright
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Posts: 3
Is the M1 Garand an "assault weapon"

I live in New York City. We have an assault weapons ban that's 'tougher' than the 1994 federal ban. Are the following rifles considered "assault weapons"?

M1 Garand
Yugo SKS
PhoenixWright is offline  
Old November 30, 2008, 10:49 PM   #2
roklok
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2008
Location: Fort Yukon, Alaska
Posts: 696
Not generally, but I have no idea what NYC thinks of them. I hate the term. I was watching mythbusters (dont get me started on them either) and they were doing a shooting experiment and called the M1 Garand an "Assault Rifle". I lost what little respect I had for them with that.
roklok is offline  
Old November 30, 2008, 10:51 PM   #3
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,185
When it comes to your local firearms laws.. It is best to read and print a copy of the actual law..
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old November 30, 2008, 10:54 PM   #4
hoytinak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,710
Quote:
Are the following rifles considered "assault weapons"?

M1 Garand
Yugo SKS
Not here in Texas but your country may vary.
__________________
"Four wheels move the body. Two wheels move the soul."
hoytinak is offline  
Old November 30, 2008, 11:00 PM   #5
DaveInPA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2008
Location: Berks County, PA
Posts: 1,106
Get the **** out of NYC. Why would any gun owner stay there? Unbelievable.
DaveInPA is offline  
Old November 30, 2008, 11:30 PM   #6
gustav129
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term, separate from the military definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military or police firearms. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Barrel shroud
The M1 Garand is a military semiautomatic, which can accept an "en bloc" clip from above, Has a bayonet mount, some came with grenade launchers, and I'm sure they use the "front hand gaurd" as a Barrel Shroud. Thus the classification of an Assualt weapon.

And the SKS is definately an assault weapon. Also you have the 922 compliance to deal with also, which means you assemble an assault rifle and have more than 10 imported parts. So if you modify one thing on your SKS, you got to modify it a whole lot to meet the 922 compliance.
gustav129 is offline  
Old December 1, 2008, 06:53 AM   #7
540mope
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2008
Location: yonder
Posts: 334
Quote:
Get the **** out of NYC. Why would any gun owner stay there? Unbelievable.
that was my very first thought too!!!!

the fruitcake libs that infest NYC consider any and all firearms to be "assault weapons"
540mope is offline  
Old December 1, 2008, 10:26 AM   #8
Bitmap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2001
Posts: 388
In general, the term "assault weapon" is used by gun banners as a code for "all guns, or at least all that we can ban this time." I don't know what the NYC definition is.
Bitmap is offline  
Old December 1, 2008, 10:40 AM   #9
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,540
PhoenixWright, you're gonna have to check both state laws and city ordinances to find the answer to your question. It's pretty much blind hogs and acorns to have some other NYC person know the answer, here.

Art
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old December 1, 2008, 11:37 PM   #10
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,326
That's one of the many problems with "assault weapons"...they seem to be whatever the guy who writes the law wants them to be! There is no single definition as to what makes an "AW."
raimius is offline  
Old December 2, 2008, 09:22 AM   #11
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
Obviously it would depend on NYC definition of assault rifles

but I will say that my first thought when reading the subject of the post was....

A hell of a lot of people (soldiers) have been assaulted with those two rifles.

In stead of trying to do an end run around what some polititians opinion of what an assault rifle is... I think we would be better off arguing that there is nothing wrong with the average citizen owning 'true' assault rifles.
blume357 is offline  
Old December 2, 2008, 10:01 AM   #12
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
That's one of the many problems with "assault weapons"...they seem to be whatever the guy who writes the law wants them to be! There is no single definition as to what makes an "AW."
Absolutely. This is why one AWB the Dems attempted in the last couple of years (HR 1022 if memory serves) defined an AWB as any semi-auto that had been used by the military or was based on such a weapon. So, the M1 Garand would be banned as well as any weapon derived therefrom (the M1A, the Mini-14, the Mini-30). Of course, such weapons as the Remington 1100, anything based on the Colt 1911, all Sig P-226s or variants, etc.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old December 2, 2008, 11:05 AM   #13
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
I'm too "old school" I suspect. For me, there is the military definition of "assault rifle" and then there is the political definition of "assault weapon." The former definition being fairly consistent and static, while the latter changes on the whims of the politicians.

That being said, the M1 Garand is defined by an even older military standard: It's a battle rifle. In its day, it was the main battle rifle (MBR) in use. Just as the K96 was in its day or the Springfield '03.

As others have said, the answer to your question is strictly the political definition given by the politicians (always with agendas) of your State, County or even City. Makes it confusing when we use definitions that change on a whim.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 12, 2008, 12:23 PM   #14
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
I'll say it again and try and define it 'better'

We need to stop playing the lawyer/ polititian's game of this on a gun or the way it looks makes it bad and so we take it off and put this on and it is okay....
We need to argue and defend that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the average American Citizen owning an Assault Rifle no matter who's definition you use. That is the only way to ultimately win this game... playing into and by 'their' rules is only going to end up badly.
blume357 is offline  
Old December 12, 2008, 01:55 PM   #15
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by blume357
We need to argue and defend that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the average American Citizen owning an Assault Rifle no matter who's definition you use.
In order to argue that, public perception needs to be changed. Or am I stating the same thing?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 12, 2008, 02:41 PM   #16
Erik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
The left's been at work for generations; there is a long row to hoe. When will we know we've made progress? When politicians stop using and succeeding in using anti-2A tactics; when soccer-moms no longer reflexively think danger at the though of a firearms; when academics no longer fear adhering to pro-2A positions; when other academics no longer penalize their students fro taking pro-2A positions; when you cannot remember the last time a media outlet used a "gun graphic" reference a general-crime story; and on and on and on.

"Guns are bad." What's that about repeating a big lie long enough? Well, its been repeated for a long time.
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective
Erik is offline  
Old December 12, 2008, 03:12 PM   #17
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,733
Some academics have arrived and speak their mind.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old December 13, 2008, 05:47 PM   #18
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
The MILITARY/TECHNICAL definition of Assault Weapon, see standard reference texts that deal with small arms, and or Britannica.com, you must subscribe to this is as follows:

Assault Weapon, A selective fire weapon, usually of rifle configuration, chambered for an intermediate power cartridge. End of definition.

Being that the Garand fires the 30-06 round, which is a full power cartridge, and the Garand is not selective fire, semi-automatic only, it is not an "assault weapon". Who knows who or what drives legislation and or legislative definitions in New York or NYC, which I departed from in 1967. It is most certainly not fact.

Of course, if that is what the law says, yiou either obey it, you violate it, you get the law changed, or you remove yourself from it's jurisdiction. I removed myself, and never looked back, though not everyone can do this.
alan is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 06:25 PM   #19
rkba_net
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2000
Posts: 153
Here is a copy of the defintion of an "Assault Weapon" in NYC...


16. "Assault weapon."
(a) Any semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifle or semiautomatic
shotgun which has one or more of the following features:
1. folding or telescoping stock or no stock;
2. pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
3. bayonet mount;
4. flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash
suppressor;
5. barrel shroud;
6. grenade launcher; or
7. modifications of such features, or other features, determined by
rule of the commissioner to be particularly suitable for military and
not sporting purposes. In addition, the commissioner shall, by rule,
designate specific semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifles or
semiautomatic shotguns, identified by make, model and/or manufacturer's
name, as within the definition of assault weapon, if the commissioner
determines that such weapons are particularly suitable for military and
not sporting purposes. The commissioner shall inspect such specific
designated semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifles or semiautomatic
shotguns at least three times per year, and shall revise or update such
designations as he or she deems appropriate.
rkba_net is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 07:15 PM   #20
jamieg25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 5, 2008
Posts: 2
nyc is strange anyway

i am waiting for them to try a assault knife ban to stop people from getting stabbed since nyc tries to classify everything under the term assault as a way of banning things but all they do is make the problem worse since criminals do not care about the law anyway so all you do with bans is make things easier for the criminal to kill you
jamieg25 is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 07:58 PM   #21
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,926
According to rkba net's list, yes the Garand would be considered an "assault weapon" because it has a bayonet mount. The strange thing is, a Garand is usually exempted because it does not have a detatchable magazine, but I guess that NYC has decided to limit it's gangs' weapons to '03 Springfields, K98's, and SMLE's
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 09:50 PM   #22
ro2
Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2008
Location: S.E. Mi.
Posts: 29
the fact that NYC has Hillary is enough to make me run for a different state
ro2 is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 10:55 PM   #23
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
Ladies if there here be any, and gentlemen:

For the type of prose that can aptly be described as Kafkaesque, might I suggest in post # 19, item 7. I submit that this would take first prize in The International or Worldwide Kafkaesque Trials.
alan is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 11:37 PM   #24
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 16,923
Not by California standards (thank God). No detachable magazine and no flash suppressor.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old January 2, 2009, 01:34 AM   #25
El Paso Joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2006
Location: Spokane Valley
Posts: 327
16 (a) (7)

In post 19, the reference to NYC's assault rifle definition made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The only thing that scares me worse than politicians trying to legislate some form of morality is handing the final word on what is moral to a civil servant (the Commissioner). I read Huxley and Orwell in high school with an amusement that I now see as naivety. I agree that there is a limit to free speech even though it is guaranteed - if it is used for harm (e.g. screaming fire in a crowded theater) for example. Most of the useful laws regarding RKBA are already on the books (and some that aren't reasonable).

I am not sure that a common sense definition of an assault rifle would be useful to the current politicians who feel an need to define these things for partisan purposes.

My most recent post graduate degree was in Social Work - I was the Vietnam vet in the back of the class who would discuss these issues (2A & RKBA) in the context of culture and diversity. And often answer questions with "I am the NRA and I vote..." I did complete the course. And was not forgotten... In that context, when asked about assault weapons I would talk about Trapdoor Springfields and rolling blocks and put them in a historical context where they were highly effective assault weapons... The hope was to bring the discussion in the classroom to the point of reductio ad absurdium. Most of them did not know what a common sense definition of an assault rifle was.

On a personal note, and agreeing with other posters, I am not sure how I would identify one. And if I understand the mindset of the authors of the Constitution, assault weapons were EXACTLY what was meant. In my (not so) humble opinion...

Kafkaesque???

Last edited by El Paso Joe; January 2, 2009 at 01:37 AM. Reason: just 'cuz
El Paso Joe is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13028 seconds with 7 queries