PDA

View Full Version : M1A/M14 - AW?


JimWest
01-05-2011, 7:03 PM
These guns have a unique military history and should be exempt from AW laws for collectors. OK-sans high cap mags and no full auto but, come on, put the original muzzle can on and it becomes an assault weapon? What can be done to change this? How can we get this feature exempted?

Librarian
01-05-2011, 7:11 PM
Patience.

AW law will take some time to get fixed.

chickenfried
01-05-2011, 7:25 PM
As far as CA neutering goes, muzzle brake instead of flash suppressor is probably the least annoying.

garandguy10
01-05-2011, 7:44 PM
These guns have a unique military history and should be exempt from AW laws for collectors. OK-sans high cap mags and no full auto but, come on, put the original muzzle can on and it becomes an assault weapon? What can be done to change this? How can we get this feature exempted?

Since when was the M1A ever used by the military???

If you are referring to the USGI M14, they are selective fire weapons and are considered Machine Guns under Federal and State of California laws and as such are already exempt from California's Assault Weapon ban.

Flash hiders will not be legal on non AW registered semi automatic M14 clone weapons in California anytime soon.

Maybe Jerry Brown will change that.........LOL

753X0
01-05-2011, 9:00 PM
Since when was the M1A ever used by the military???

If you are referring to the USGI M14, they are selective fire weapons and are considered Machine Guns under Federal and State of California laws and as such are already exempt from California's Assault Weapon ban.

Flash hiders will not be legal on non AW registered semi automatic M14 clone weapons in California anytime soon.

Maybe Jerry Brown will change that.........LOL

Yeah, I think we all know all of this. I routinely refer to M1A rifles as '14's just because MOST adults understand.

rob1105
01-05-2011, 9:08 PM
I like the muzzle break instead of the flash suppressor anyway

JimWest
01-05-2011, 9:36 PM
Thanks guys but my question was how to help facilitate a specific change in this regard. That is, could there be a legal challenge? Or, if I want to call in a card for some political favor, where should it be directed for effect? If I want to throw some money for this particular issue, should I put out to SAF, CalGuns F, lobbyist with NRA? I know it may be chipping at the side of a mountain but that's how I like to waste my time.

Apocalypsenerd
01-05-2011, 9:54 PM
Not sure what the limitation is here except the flash hider and 10 round mags. Standard M1A/M14 with the traditional stock suffer from none of the AWB issues.

In another thread they appear to be ready to go around the 11+round ban. M1A's therefore are only limited in the flash hider and if you want a EBR.

ke6guj
01-05-2011, 9:58 PM
What can be done to change this? How can we get this feature exempted?get legislation passed that changes it. That is the only way that it could be done without involving the courts.

I wouldn't expect a law change to be easy. The Brady bunch don't like it that guns like the M1a and Mini-14 are legal the way they are now, and you want permission to make them "more evil"?

Librarian
01-05-2011, 10:08 PM
Thanks guys but my question was how to help facilitate a specific change in this regard. That is, could there be a legal challenge? Or, if I want to call in a card for some political favor, where should it be directed for effect? If I want to throw some money for this particular issue, should I put out to SAF, CalGuns F, lobbyist with NRA? I know it may be chipping at the side of a mountain but that's how I like to waste my time.

get legislation passed that changes it. That is the only way that it could be done without involving the courts.

I wouldn't expect a law change to be easy. The Brady bunch don't like it that guns like the M1a and Mini-14 are legal the way they are now, and you want permission to make them "more evil"?

Just not the first thing on the agenda - first, we get some Federal Circuit to acknowledge McDonald and whack a state law or two on 2nd Amendment grounds.

Then we get CCW.

Then we get other things.

Focusing on this issue is like complaining about a hangnail on your foot without acknowledging the gangrene in your leg.

dfletcher
01-05-2011, 10:22 PM
Thanks guys but my question was how to help facilitate a specific change in this regard. That is, could there be a legal challenge? Or, if I want to call in a card for some political favor, where should it be directed for effect? If I want to throw some money for this particular issue, should I put out to SAF, CalGuns F, lobbyist with NRA? I know it may be chipping at the side of a mountain but that's how I like to waste my time.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to do. If you eliminate the "want" for anything full auto the "M14" in your original post is not involved. If the goal is an M1A get a Springfield M1A with a brake instead of the FH. Or go slightly different, I have a Scout and a friend has a SOCOM - the SOCOM has a brake as standard, I dumped the issue brake and use a direct attach Smith with their proprietary front sight.

So far as hi caps, they're perfectly legal to possess and use in CA on the M1A or Scout with a brake or the SOCOM. Plenty of folks have and use them.

bwiese
01-06-2011, 12:22 AM
These guns have a unique military history and should be exempt from AW laws for collectors. OK-sans high cap mags and no full auto but, come on, put the original muzzle can on and it becomes an assault weapon? What can be done to change this? How can we get this feature exempted?



Guns that are true M14s are classed as full auto and are generally illegal Federally as well.
.
Semiauto M1As are perfectly legal in CA without a flash hider. (Folks who registered their M1As w/
flash hiders as SB23 AWs in 2000 are allowed to keep them intact.) A muzzle brake or a fake flash
hider can come pretty close, appearancewise, to the original.

From a practical standpoint, FHs don't do always do that much good, and any real efficacy may well
depend on powder mix.
.
Why do you want "special privileges" for your particular pet gun, at the cost of other guns/gun owners?
(Especially given #2 above.)

Why are you and your M14 clone any better than someone else and his off-list AR15 or FAL? You and
it ain't, sorry. The M14 is not even really that historically significant in terms of production numbers
and combat usage as compared to the AR15 platform and the Garand, which further moots your
argument.

Furthermore, why would any rational gun rights organization attempt to protect one specific gun whose
status is dependent on one specific feature, when there are far bigger game to take down? Why not go
work on the whole AW ban instead of wasting powder on trivialities?

I'm certain CGF would not do a carve out for your pet M1A. I'm confident CA NRA and the new CRPA would
not either, given I know they have a general "we don't support special categories for guns" treatment (your
proposal would politically help affirm the rest of the AW laws). I'm pretty sure SAF wouldn't be part of this
nonsense either. Some other BS organization may want to collect money for this but they wouldn't have any
political weight/skill nor likely access to quality gun lawyers.

What you propose also is likely unpopular in the overall CA gun community - many of us recognize how we were
"sold down the river" by what I call the "Old Fart Thirty Caliber Idiots" - politically naive sellouts who were so
desirous of protecting their precious Garands and M14s (and Mini14s) from AW bans when Roberti Roos and SB23
bans were being floated that they sold the rest of us shooters out: they were quoted in ads, "I don't need an
assault weapon for target shooting" and appeared along with the 'duck hunters' voicing the same opinion.

As much as I hate gun laws, it was kinda sad-funny to see a few good ol' boy M1A folks get popped for AW
violations over the last decade thru stupidity - and they thought their sellout protected them.

[This was a dupe of the same strategy brought to us by the SASS folks, whose sellout to protect their special
single-action revolvers led to the passage of the handgun Roster. (Roster wouldn't have passed without their
connivance, either: SASS even hired traitorous former NRA antigun staffer Richard Feldman as their lobbyist.)
The antis were happy with this because they could show the gunrights community as fragmented - "see even
those good ol' boy shooters support our new gun laws."]

garandguy10
01-06-2011, 6:05 AM
Yeah, I think we all know all of this. I routinely refer to M1A rifles as '14's just because MOST adults understand.

I refer to a SAI M1A as a "M1A", I refer to a semiauto, civilian legal M14 as a "M14".
and when speaking generically about them, I refer to them as "M14 TYPE" weapons.

When I refer to a USGI M14, I refer to as a "USGI M14"

When I refer to a Chinese manufactured, select fire M14, I refer to them as a Chicom select fire M14 or M305 depending on the receiver markings (if any).

I do that so that MOST adults don't confuse them...........

klmmicro
01-06-2011, 6:17 AM
If your rifle has a standard stock and is equipped with a muzzle brake (not a flash hider) what is the fuss? I switched my M-14 (I do not own an SA M1A) over a long time ago and it shoots just as good as it ever did. My 40+ year old 20 round magazines work like champs still and no-one says anything about the big boxes.

B Strong
01-06-2011, 6:32 AM
Thanks guys but my question was how to help facilitate a specific change in this regard. That is, could there be a legal challenge? Or, if I want to call in a card for some political favor, where should it be directed for effect? If I want to throw some money for this particular issue, should I put out to SAF, CalGuns F, lobbyist with NRA? I know it may be chipping at the side of a mountain but that's how I like to waste my time.

Keep you powder dry and stay tuned.

The best approach is to make sure we have all or as many as possible of the cards in our favor, and then act.

B Strong
01-06-2011, 6:36 AM
I refer to a SAI M1A as a "M1A", I refer to a semiauto, civilian legal M14 as a "M14".
and when speaking generically about them, I refer to them as "M14 TYPE" weapons.

When I refer to a USGI M14, I refer to as a "USGI M14"

When I refer to a Chinese manufactured, select fire M14, I refer to them as a Chicom select fire M14 or M305 depending on the receiver markings (if any).

I do that so that MOST adults don't confuse them...........

I and my guys, who go back to Devine Tx. SA's, refer to all of 'em as 14's.

JimWest
01-06-2011, 7:28 AM
Keep you powder dry and stay tuned.

The best approach is to make sure we have all or as many as possible of the cards in our favor, and then act.

I'm beginning to understand the positions here. My motivation was self-interest to be sure regarding that particular rifle and I thought there might be some benefit in advancing the overall cause by incrementally dismantling the ban due to some inconsistencies and illogic. But it seems this approach is too vague and narrow to be effective. So as stated above, I'll be patient and keep the M14 at my place in AZ until this state comes to its senses.

So where do the cards stand right now? Are we waiting for the legislature in this state to change (which will not happen in our lifetime)?. Or are there specific lawsuits forthcoming to challenge a law (AW) that defines law abiding citizens differently here than in Texas?

B Strong
01-06-2011, 7:44 AM
I'm beginning to understand the positions here. My motivation was self-interest to be sure regarding that particular rifle and I thought there might be some benefit in advancing the overall cause by incrementally dismantling the ban due to some inconsistencies and illogic. But it seems this approach is too vague and narrow to be effective. So as stated above, I'll be patient and keep the M14 at my place in AZ until this state comes to its senses.

So where do the cards stand right now? Are we waiting for the legislature in this state to change (which will not happen in our lifetime)?. Or are there specific lawsuits forthcoming to challenge a law (AW) that defines law abiding citizens differently here than in Texas?

As different Fed. cases play out, it all lays the groundwork for future challenges - there are no AW specific cases to point you to, but it's a cumulative effort and effect.

As more of the floor is laid, we figuratively paint the anti's into a corner, and as this progresses, AW laws everywhere will be the focus of litagation.

It's just not to that point yet.

Aldemar
01-06-2011, 7:54 AM
If your rifle has a standard stock and is equipped with a muzzle brake (not a flash hider) what is the fuss? I switched my M-14 (I do not own an SA M1A) over a long time ago and it shoots just as good as it ever did. My 40+ year old 20 round magazines work like champs still and no-one says anything about the big boxes.

Pay attention here: if you replace the standard stock with an aftermarket one with a pistol-grip, you now have an AW since it has a detachable magazine.

klmmicro
01-06-2011, 8:06 AM
Pay attention here: if you replace the standard stock with an aftermarket one with a pistol-grip, you now have an AW since it has a detachable magazine.

This is correct. I was issued one with a standard stock and would not change from the old wood anyway.