NRA reports M14's can't be destroyed

[jobu07]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5258

Appropriations Wrap-Up

Friday, December 18, 2009

Rider Passed Protecting Military Firearms, Ammunition, and Components

With the holiday season upon us, and the end of the year fast approaching, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3326—the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010. With the passage of this bill, NRA-ILA wraps up its appropriations work for the year.

Our efforts on the huge spending bill were rewarded with the restoration of a longstanding rider to protect M-1 carbines, M-1 Garands, M-14s, .22 caliber rifles, and others from being destroyed.

This language also includes a prohibition on the destruction of small arms ammunition and components, and a response to the short-lived concern over destruction of spent brass casings earlier this year.

Section 8019 of the bill reads: "None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe for further use."

NRA-ILA would like to thank U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA) for his help in getting the rider restored and expanded.

To read the full bill, please click here.

 

[General Geoff]

Too bad it's 16 years too late to save the bulk of our M14s

 

[wishin]

Good news. At least some of the horses are still in the barn.

 

[Story]

NRA-ILA would like to thank U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA) for his help in getting the rider restored and expanded.

No wonder it's snowing like crazy...

 

[janedoedad]

"It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. . . . "

Now, How does one go about obtaining an M-14? I don't think CMP will see them anytime soon. :banghead:

Hmmm.... a "real" 1911. . . . {faint}

I do hope that the few that left are made available to us John & Jane Q. Public citizens.

OTOH, If SECARMY says these are unsafe. . . .

JDD

 

[highorder]

The CMP cannot sell handguns per their charter.

 

[General Geoff]

An act of Congress is what created the CMP; an act of Congress can change their charter I'm sure. And the way things have been going (well) for us, I don't think it's out of the question to get Congress to modify their charter to include surplus sidearms.

 

[Brimic]

Our efforts on the huge spending bill were rewarded with the restoration of a longstanding rider to protect M-1 carbines, M-1 Garands, M-14s, .22 caliber rifles, and others from being destroyed.

This language also includes a prohibition on the destruction of small arms ammunition and components, and a response to the short-lived concern over destruction of spent brass casings earlier this year.

Section 8019 of the bill reads: "None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe for further use."

NRA-ILA would like to thank U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA) for his help in getting the rider restored and expanded.

Civillians are never going to see anything other than maybe some of the M1 garands, .22s and maybe a few m1 carbines. If Murtha had his crooked fingers in in this bill you can bet that somewhere in Pennsylvania, the $100 million John P. Murtha underground arms storage bunker is being built right now- just as effective as cutting the guns up and melting them down, except that it brings home pork for Murtha.

 

[trickyasafox]

Eh I'll remain conservatively optimistic. Selling us surplus is an EASY way to recoup money to the government. They are selling us things we bought with our tax dollars. . . . really not a bad system.

Fat chance of us seeing those m-14s though.

 

[Tinpig]

And the Senate passed the bill today, 88-10.

Tinpig

 

[Mike OTDP]

I keep thinking that the Army could sell the .45s at price that would pay for brand spanking new pistols. A cheap way to reequip.

 

[52grain]

I don't understand why they wouldn't sell us the M-14s. They can be reworked such that they couldn't be returned to select fire (at least no more easily than it would be to convert a standard civilian grade AR-15 to select fire) and they could sell them to us for more money than what a new M-16 would cost them. Not to mention that our tax dollars paid for them in first place.

Unfortunately it's been a long time since logic carried the day in Washington.

 

[Jim K]

The Army once planned to sell M14 rifles with the selectors welded through the old DCM, and actually had some marked as M14M's. (The government, as the legal manufacturer of the M14, was simply a manufacturer issuing a new model, so the M14M was not a machinegun.) Things were set to go when JFK was assassinated, and the purely political decision was made to cancel the sales. (And also the sale of M1903A4's with scopes.)

The same situation is still in effect, which is why the NRA hopes that someday a gun friendly administration (OK, we can hope) will release those M14s for sale through CMP.

Jim

 

[Maj Dad]

It's the ATF

According to the ATF, once a full/select fire auto, always, thus they cannot be sold to you & me after 1986 (lotsa details in the regulations). M2 Carbines, the receivers of which were identical to M1s save the marking and whose only full-auto parts were in the trigger group/slide etc cannot be sold without having been liberated before 86 and with a tax stamp transfer. :banghead:

This is a really short distillation of pages of verbose & obtuse regs, so I'm sure it can be picked apart by keen eyes and lawyers...

 

[52grain]

Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 295

It's the ATF
According to the ATF, once a full/select fire auto, always, thus they cannot be sold to you & me after 1986 (lotsa details in the regulations). M2 Carbines, the receivers of which were identical to M1s save the marking and whose only full-auto parts were in the trigger group/slide etc cannot be sold without having been liberated before 86 and with a tax stamp transfer.

This is a really short distillation of pages of verbose & obtuse regs, so I'm sure it can be picked apart by keen eyes and lawyers...

Right but an act of Congress created the ATF, so an act of Congress could instruct the ATF to treat converted M14s differently.

 

[mustang_steve]

Best answer is to get the law changed so that post-86 full-autos are legal for civillian purchase. Perhaps it can be done with enough pork, as is the norm for our congress. Same goes for the full-auto tax-stamp/approval process.

Then after that, we may be able to see this stuff hit the market. I really think the biggest problem is these backwards laws are also interfering with the govt being able to make a clean sale.

To sell them as NFA items, even if they are old enough would involve a lot of work on their end. This could prove to be marginally profitable at best, costing more than the return. If this is true, then that's why we aren't seeing it. After all, govt runs like a corporation does....take that as you will.

 

[mgkdrgn]

"None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used"

They'll just take the $ out of a different bucket is all ... Homeland Security, BATFE, Health & Human Services ....

Until they pass a rider saying they will not be destroyed ... period ... its all flash and panache.

 

[danprkr]

Unfortunately it's been a long time since logic carried the day in Washington.

Sadly all too true

 

[hso]

The recently produced M14s started life as semiauto rifles intended for marksmen within a unit.

Those may see CMP some day after they're retired from a long life in service (especially since most of them don't have the "M14" designation). Prepare to pay far more for them because of their service history than you would for their commercial cousins.

 

[steveracer]

In my 13 years in the Navy, I have seen hundreds of M-14 rifles. Nine out of ten of them are Semi-auto only.

 

[Cap'n Jack Burntbeard]

I dont want no teenage queen, I just want my M-14.

 

[Bronx]

Gents, question for you.

I've been looking at Springfield's offerings.......Why would anyone want an 11.5 pound gun? Seems awfully heavy to lug around. For other than bench.

Espouse some knowledge for a noob.

Thanks,

Martin

 

[The Highlander]

Most are closer to 9lbs. You must have been looking at their tacticool Socom II with like 10lbs of picatinny rail on it. Also what kind of rifle are you comparing it to?

 

[Bronx]

Most are closer to 9lbs. You must have been looking at their tacticool Socom II with like 10lbs of picatinny rail on it. Also what kind of rifle are you comparing it to?

Well....I forgot which ones I looked at but your right they range from 9.6 to almost 12 pounds...Isn't such a short barrel silly for a .308?

Considering that you can get a .308 bolt action at 6-7#'s and shoot from a standoff range where I'd say rapid fire isn't required as much......why degrade the bullet performance with a shorter barrel, all the while adding significant weight (ammo and action) when their are lighter higher capacity weapons that are designed for much closer range engagement?

Sorry for the thread drift, I know this is the Legal section, I just don't understand the rationale behind a light & fast assault weapon configuration for a relatively heavy longer range projectile.

If I was to buy an M-14 I get it with a long barrel. Then again with the way I'd think I'd employ it, I'd shed the 5 or so pounds that semi-auto and large magazines bring to the equation.

 

[jobu07]

Discussion of SOCOM II's isn't really the intent I had for this thread guys. We're just discussing the possibility of M1's, Carbines, .22's, M1911's, M14's, et al becoming available through the CMP as a result of the legislation the NRA worked to push through.

Thanks.