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
 
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.
 
Wikipedia said:
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.
 
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"
 
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.
 
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
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top