View Full Version : Is the M1 Garand an "assault weapon"

November 30, 2008, 10:24 PM
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

November 30, 2008, 10:49 PM
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.

November 30, 2008, 10:51 PM
When it comes to your local firearms laws.. It is best to read and print a copy of the actual law..

November 30, 2008, 10:54 PM
Are the following rifles considered "assault weapons"?

M1 Garand
Yugo SKS

Not here in Texas but your country may vary. :)

November 30, 2008, 11:00 PM
Get the **** out of NYC. Why would any gun owner stay there? Unbelievable.

November 30, 2008, 11:30 PM
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.

December 1, 2008, 06:53 AM
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"

December 1, 2008, 10:26 AM
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.

Art Eatman
December 1, 2008, 10:40 AM
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.


December 1, 2008, 11:37 PM
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."

December 2, 2008, 09:22 AM
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.

December 2, 2008, 10:01 AM
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.

Al Norris
December 2, 2008, 11:05 AM
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.

December 12, 2008, 12:23 PM
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.

Al Norris
December 12, 2008, 01:55 PM
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?

December 12, 2008, 02:41 PM
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.

Glenn E. Meyer
December 12, 2008, 03:12 PM
Some academics have arrived and speak their mind.

December 13, 2008, 05:47 PM
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.

January 1, 2009, 06:25 PM
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
3. bayonet mount;
4. flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash
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.

January 1, 2009, 07:15 PM
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

January 1, 2009, 07:58 PM
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 :rolleyes:

January 1, 2009, 09:50 PM
the fact that NYC has Hillary is enough to make me run for a different state

January 1, 2009, 10:55 PM
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.

4V50 Gary
January 1, 2009, 11:37 PM
Not by California standards (thank God). No detachable magazine and no flash suppressor.

El Paso Joe
January 2, 2009, 01:34 AM
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...


January 2, 2009, 06:19 AM
I had a guy at my gun club last month who moved down here from NYS a few years back and his 'solution' to our 'gun control' problem was we need someone in government who actually knows about guns and which ones are good and which ones are bad to determine this for us. I was just lost and could only give him that blank look.

January 2, 2009, 07:29 PM
El Paso Joe:

Kafkaesque??? , as in Kafka.

My former girlfriend, back when our hair was dark, ad long suffering wife has an MSW from Columbia University, circa 1964. She has been known to "blaze away" with ponderous dignity, using a Smith Model 15, which she shoots double action. Used to be she could take the upper half of the "A" zone out of a standard IPSC target at 25 yards. I would NEVER offer ANY discretionary authority or power to ANY Civil servant, appointed, elected or otherwise. BTW, I lived in NYC for many, many years, leaving it in 1967.


One finds passing strange legislation/regulations in any number of locales. For instance, as memory serves me, it is or used to be that Glock Pistols couldn't be sold in South Carolina. Seemed they failed some sort of "melting point test". I don't especially care for Glocks, a subjective judgement, however they do seem to work.

As for this business over/about "Assault Weapons/Assault Rifles, most individuals in "public life", haven't the proverbial clue re what it is they speak of. Ignorance is simply a lack of information. The syndrome they suffer from is very much worse, which brings interested parties to the following question. How is it that such creatures obtain public office.

January 3, 2009, 01:03 PM
Post 19-

That's scary. In NYC the M1 is an assault weapon. And even if it weren't, the commissioner can declare it one.

Tucker 1371
January 3, 2009, 03:48 PM
FBI's Crime Report Bad News for Anti-Gunners

Friday, September 19, 2008

This week, the FBI released its crime report for 2007 and, once again, gun control supporters are taking it on the chin.

It's not just that the nation's violent crime rate decreased slightly between 2006 and 2007. It's that every year since 2002 it has been lower than anytime since 1974, leading the Justice Department to say that violent crime is "near a 30-year low." Since 1991, violent crime has dropped 38 percent. Murder is now at a 40-year low, lower than anytime since 1966 every year from 1999 to the present, and down 43 percent since 1991.

"More guns means more crime?" Only in anti-gunner "La-La Land." Violent crime has fallen as the number of guns has increased 4.5 million a year. There are more gun owners, owning more guns than ever before, and violent crime is lower than anytime since Gerald Ford became president!

We can hardly wait to see the Brady Campaign try to spin this one with its asinine "state grades" stunt. In 2007, the major U.S. cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control. The top three? Detroit (where Michigan law requires a permit to purchase a handgun), Baltimore (where Maryland law restricts private handgun sales and requires a seven-day waiting period on handgun sales by dealers), and the District of Columbia (with its handgun ban and its firearm registration law). Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and D.C. had the highest robbery rates.

In 2007, as in years past, Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country with total violent crime lower by 24 percent, murder by 28 percent, robbery by 50 percent, and aggravated assault by 11 percent. Further, in 2007, 32 percent of murders were committed without firearms of any sort--knives accounted for 12 percent, hands and feet six percent, and blunt objects four percent. Rifles and shotguns (semi-automatic and otherwise) accounted for three percent each, and typically "assault weapons" have accounted for about one percent.

If this doesn't convince the anti-gun crowd nothing ever will. In 2007 more people were killed by attackers using their bare hands than with people using "assault weapons". Eat that Libs

January 3, 2009, 07:24 PM
The Garand is banned in NYC. Only exemptions were for gun clubs or vets that already had them registered before the ban.

January 3, 2009, 07:28 PM
Well it sure as hell was one at Normandy.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 5, 2009, 12:28 PM
Crime in New York as decreased dramatically because of banning Garands. No landing craft full of criminals carrying Garands stormed Brighton Beach or established beach heads on Staten Island. See, it is a good policy.

Long Island and the Hamptons are safe also because of this policy.

January 5, 2009, 11:24 PM
Glenn E. Meyer writes:

Crime in New York as decreased dramatically because of banning Garands. No landing craft full of criminals carrying Garands stormed Brighton Beach or established beach heads on Staten Island. See, it is a good policy.

Long Island and the Hamptons are safe also because of this policy.

I removed myself from NYC, where I had been born, raised and lived for many years in 1967, however even in those fargone years, neither I had niot taken note of the city being invaded, perhaps by the British coming down from Canada, so there would be no "need" for the possession of "assault weapons", such as the Garand, by the citizenry.

As for The Hamptons being held safe, I think it's more a question of attitude, rather than the banning of so-called "assault weapos" that keeps them safe. In any case, The Hamptons are somewhat removed from NYC and it's ordinances.

As to Brighton Beach, were we used to play outdoor handball during the summer, as I understand, that area has been pretty much taken over by what is sometimes known as The Russian Mafia, gun control didn't work there either.