civilian marksmanship program

^^ I'm sure they will be happy to keep the clip if it becmes an issue.

Really, a clip is not "a removable magazine"... by any four-legged definition anyway.... :o

We will see.


Garands are probably the only "sure bet" for investment. Not affected by the buying-panic price-gouging, not really ever going to be subjected to any EBR bans, they will never sell for less than they sell for now, and quantities are not unlimited. One day the CMP will be out of them.


Willie

.
 
Metal god said:
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 .
Click to expand...

No. 36 USC § 40732 - Sale of firearms and supplies:

(b)(2) Except as provided in section 40733 of this title, sales under this subsection are subject to applicable United States, State, and local law.
Click to expand...
 
JimDandy said:
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.
Click to expand...
M1 Garand en bloc clips are not stripper clips. Stripper clips are not "magazine feeding devices." They do not remain in the firearm when it is operated. Stripper clips are cartridge storage devices.

The M1 Garand en bloc clip is also not a magazine. The M1 has an internal magazine. The en bloc clip simply organizes the cartridges so they can be loaded into the internal magazine in groups, or blocks -- hence, "en bloc."
 
Let's back up a bit...

I've taken an intense interest in the new law and I've read it several times. IANAL, but here's my interpretation of how it will affect the M1 Garand.

The M1 Garand is NOT an "assault weapon" because it does not accept a detachable magazine. However, this doesn't mean it's exempt from the NY Safe Act. Let me explain.

The main issue is the definition of "large capacity ammunition feeding device" or LCAFD for short. A LCAFD is defined as follows:
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, or (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammunition, or (c) is obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which amended this subdivision and has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than seven rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition or a feeding device that is a curio or relic...
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

A subsequent section says that "Curio or Relic" (which I'll call CoR) LCAFDs may be legally brought into NY but must be registered.

I believe that the internal box magazine of an M1 Garand is considered an LCAFD since it can hold over 7 rounds, and only rimfire tube mags are exempted.* An original Garand qualifies as CoR because the rifle has been out of production for over 50 years, so it may be lawfully transferred into the state, but the internal box magazine must be registered.

As I read it, the definition of LCAFD clearly includes en bloc clips (and stripper clips for that matter).

8rd Garand clips that qualify as a CoR may theoretically be brought into NY legally, but proving that the clips are over 50 years old may be tricky. Once (if?) that hurdle is cleared, they still have to be individually(!) registered.

Due to the registration requirement, I foresee many New Yorkers sticking with 5rd clips from this point forward, until someone comes up with a special 7rd clip.

*Yes, this apparently encompasses 10rd Lee-Enfield magazines as well!
 
And these laws are written by emotionally reacting individuals who may or may not have general firearms knowledge, let alone specific to the firearms they're trying to regulate... Do you think THEY were taught that the clip feeds the magazine feeds the device? Or care? They're only going to care about getting the guy with the scary gun arrested and taking away his RKBA. And probably everyone else's.
 
Know what?

The only definition that counts is the one that is accepted in a court of law.

That definition will be set when expert witnesses from both sides each give their expert opininions under oath in a proceeding requiring the answer to be sought. Sadly this will probably take place when someone is charged, and their defense rests on the definition.

When that time comes, the "expert" for the state will need to come up and testify that a dog has 5 legs because they state has decided that a tail is a leg, and the defense expert(s) will have reams of technical manuals, army publications, and an entire suite of history on their side to show that a clip is not a removable magazine, and that a M1 Garand is not an assault rifle.

All of this is based on the presumption that "some" LEO will be stupid enough to arrest someone for shooting one, and "some" prosecutor is stupid enough to try to make a case that an enbloc clip is a removable magazine. The decision will be made by a jury of 12 citizens. I have sufficient faith in the system that they will not ALL believe after it's explained to them in simple language that a dog does not have 5 legs just because the state says so. If it were me, I'd hire someone who was retired from the Army Research and Development Command at Aberdeen MD as my expert witness, but that's just me.

A "Feed Strip" feeds a few obsolete machine guns. It has a formally accepted techncal definition as well. A Garand enbloc clip is not a "feed strip". See Japanese Type 92 as an example.

There's enough really bad stuff in this bill to concentrate on, the Garand issue is just chicken-little stuff. Move on.


Willie

.
 
You're still saying Assault Rifle, when the law in question uses the term Assault Weapon as defined by the law in question. If the law calls for the timely cropping of all 5th legs on English Springer Spaneils, then further defines the fifth leg of an English Springer Spaniel as it's tail then it calls for the timely cropping of all English Springer Spaniel tails.

You're right, and it was my first answer... some poor schlub will have to volunteer to be the test case, the hard way... but when the law says all things with A and B are C, and C is illegal, saying such and such isn't D doesn't really matter.
 
M1 Garands don't have a remiovable magazine. No matter how you slice it, they do not have a removable magazine. They are therefore NOT ADDRESSED by the NY Law and if any DA were stupid enough to try to make a case about them, he would be laughed out of court.

There are enough real things to worry about on behalf of New York residents without making more stuff up that has no bearing on anything.

Scaring off CMP clients and potential CMP clients when we should be ENCOURAGING folks in NY to buy Garands in order to excercise their Second Amendment Rights is counterproductive to the effort.


Willie

.
 
With regard to CMP sales of Garands to NY customers, the CMP's Chief Operating Officer posted the following to the CMP forum on 1/16/2013:

guys, I have been on travel and not reading the forum. Answer to question is that we will comply with the law, federal or state. NY just passed one and we need time to digest it - give us a week at least. Locking thread - since there should be nothing else said after my answer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top