civilian marksmanship program

M

Metal god

New member
Is the CMP a law congress passed allowing Americans to buy military surplus rifles ?

Is it just a Program that makes it easier to buy such rifles ?

The point of the question is . If a state outlawed all semi auto rifles would you still be able to own a M1 garand because of the CMP program . Meaning federal law trumps state law .
 
The short version:

CMP was originally run by the Army to sell off surplus rifles, and promote accuracy for the young kids who were going to be the next generation's soldier. After a while the Army was backed out, the CMP was spun off into it's own non-profit org, with a congressional charter. And no, you can't buy a CMP weapon if it's banned in your hometown.
 
yep and thats what I've read and here is my confusion
Any U.S. citizen who is legally not prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase a military surplus rifle from the CMP,
Click to expand...

Im sure there is more to it then this legally because of the purpose the act was started
The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military.
Click to expand...

It seems it could be argued that the CMP program is an extension of the 2a and all Americans allowed to own a firearm shall be allowed to own a rifle from the CMP .

My point is , would a court even listen to a case like this and is there a arguement to be made .
 
Nope, because A) There are multiple choices for firearms to buy... B)supply isn't guaranteed either.. when they run out, they run out. C) Not everything they sl is military surplus D) If you live in a gun ban state, that bans the M1 (their current offering) you are legally prohibited from owning that firearm.

The good news is that those M1's could fall through a crack known as curio and reic. COULD fall through.
 
The CMP is simply a program. The law that established the DCM- which later became the CMP- AFAIK do not trump state law in any way.
...federal law trumps state law .
Click to expand...
It is not that simple. Up until the D.C. v. Heller decision, it was a basic assumption of most federal-level firearms law that the states had an externally unchecked* power to restrict the possession, ownership, and carrying of firearms within their own borders. The Commerce Clause gave the Feds the power to pass minimum standards and taxes that affected interstate commerce in arms, but the states could enact whatever additional standards they saw fit to enforce within their own borders, and those regulations were not the Feds' business. Most federal firearms law is written with this in mind.

IOW most federal firearms law adds restrictions, but is carefully written to avoid overturning or preempting more stringent state restrictions.

*Many states have a counterpart to the 2A enshrined in the state constitution, but my point is that the checks on the states' powers to regulate arms came from within, rather than from without.
 
Last edited:
^^^

Life is still OK for Garands, even in New York: There are no evil features on the rifle, and there ARE 5 shot enbloc clips available for them.....

If NY et-al ban "magazione feeding devices" of more than 7 shots, that does not ban the rifle... just the clips (which *are* properly called "clips" in the Garand).


Willie


.
 
^^ Ok, it has one evil feature.. unless you change out the gas cylinder to one that has had the lug ground off. Then it has none.

I've shot these for about 4 decades... I know exactly what they are... ;)



You might want to re-check the *correct* and *accepted* definitions of:

"Service Rifle"
"Battle Rifle"
"Assault Rifle"

BTW.... so as to not appear foolish in the future. :rolleyes:


The bottom line is that the Garand is not something currently targeted even by New York.

Clips.. five shot ones are around, so scrounge them up.



Willie

.
 
Abraham Lincoln famously asked in a debate:

"How many legs does a dog have, if we call it's tail a leg?"

After some heming and hawing by his opponent, he spoke up and said:

"It has four legs, because no matter what we call its tail, a tail is not a leg".


And similarly, a Garand is not and never will be an assault rifle no matter what we call it's tail... :rolleyes:


A Garand is a Service Rifle, correctly defined in it's subgrouping as a Battle Rifle *no matter how it's configured*. If it were full auto .30-06 and had a removable magazine (such as certain pre-M-14 prototypes were set up), it would correctly be called an "Automatic Rifle". Didn't Mr. Browning design one of those critters in about 1918? :D

Anything of full size caliber fails to meet *any* definition of an assault rifle, as defined by anyone with any working knowlage of firearms.

Let's not fall into the nomenclatural traps set forth by our enemies.



Willie

.
 
Last edited:
^^ and further note that under the most strict law in effect at the moment, that of New York, Garand's are NOT a prohibited firearm and that there IS a substitute enbloc clip already available that meets the 7 shot rule.

It's a pain in the ass, but not a ban...



In fact, methinks that Garands will become the Patriots *service rifle* of choice in New York.

Poetic justice if they are provided by the US Government via the CMP to the Patriots... ;)
(Hint: Buy a dozen)


Thanks for the Snopes link. I think this joke ought to be on all of our lips, so we can use it to disarm our opponents with a smile when they speak of assalt rifles.


Willie


.
 
Last edited:
From my understanding, though to be fair I should read it again to be sure as 'm not a New Yorker and wasn't paying THAT much attention, if someone made a 2013 Garand, it could be banned based on the one evil feature test. I believe Garands only get a pass due to their age.
 
^^ You are mistaken.

"ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING"



So no detachable magazine... no "assault rifle" of the five-legged sort.


Now IF they propose to call a "clip" a "removable magazine" (another 5 legged dog trick, but let's think ahead)... all that would need to be done would be to grind off the bayonet lug. if I ever need to fix-bayonets in order to repel the enemy, methinks drawing-sidearms would be a better choice. In fact what better choice than a 1911 of the 7-shot variety... :rolleyes:





Smile,


Willie

.
 
Last edited:
IF Stripper clips are a magazine which could, and probably WOULD be argued, you still have to buy it first, before you can grind off the bayonet lug... and as it can accept the 8 round stripper clips, you're stuck in a chicken or the egg contest you can't easily win.
 
IF Stripper clips are a magazine which could, and probably WOULD be argued, you still have to buy it first, before you can grind off the bayonet lug... and as it can accept the 8 round stripper clips, you're stuck in a chicken or the egg contest you can't easily win.



Nonsense. Really.

"Tin foil hat off time"....


Let's use some of our "at least third grade critical thinking skills":

You buy a Garand.
It does not COME with clips.
Change out the gas cylinder.
Go buy 5 round clips.
Lock and Load.


And if it comes down to this being an issue, methinks the CMP will be smart enough to sell modified gas cylinders ab-initio to buyers in NY. My guess is that it will not be an issue.



Willie

.
 
I will point out that all the Garands come from CMP with an 8 round clip. Maybe we should tell them?

A dozen? I wish I could afford a dozen. Still, an excellent price for an excellent rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top