TRW National Match att CMP

[Lt1]

I as reading Emmerson book concerning Sauerman person of interest regarding the Ohio SD, A trial to determine if the TRW NM rifle 1453711 was legal to own . I downloaded the minutes of the trial off Wilipedia & would suggest others download the case REREAD THE CASE CLOSELY and comment As A jurist I read it this way The subject of the trial was the Legality of the TRW NM rifle to include rifle 1453711 On trial was NATIONAL MATCH TRW SEMI AUTO RIFLE ie TRW produced NM rifles SEE "ANY " in the conclusion below #4 Sauerman was the party of interest & not on trial, The subject was one 'One U.S. TRW 7.62"NATIONAL MATCH Rifle . Note comma before 1453711 For identification . A TRW built SEMI AUTO NM M14 rifle . Here`s what Emerson says

Civilian Ownership of the M14 NM - The 1980 court case, U. S. v. One U. S. (TRW) 7.62mm M-14 National Match Rifle, Serial No. 1453711, is worthy of mention. This federal court case was not appealed, and is not “controlling legal authority” for other situations, even within the Southern District of Ohio. Though this case applies only to this particular M14 NM rifle, it does establish that one court has determined that the M14 NM rifle as manufactured by TRW and Springfield Armory is not capable of and is not designed for automatic fire. The rifle in question was originally manufactured as a M14 National Match model, in contrast to rack grade M14 rifles converted into M14 NM configuration.

A side note The army did intend to sell NM rifles at Camp Perry in 1965


Section 920-25 Army regulation the Director of Treasury removes M14NM rifles from the 1934, 5845, 26 u.s.c. code 1934 Machine Gun Act & is not subject to tax Dated Feb 1963 . Google Army regulation 920-25 to print a copy . Then come the 1986 clause Once a MG always a MG .

Referring to the actual minutes of the case C-3-78-125 One TRW National Rifle

"Quote by TRW All NM rifles that were manufactured by us were designed by the United States Government and were manufactured and intended for use in the semi -automatic mode only Unquote "

" Quote We believe ,, in summary , that it is clear on this record that the NATIONAL MATCH was designed to shoot in the semi-automatic mode that both the United States and the Manufacturer intended that would be permanently impossible for it to operate in the automatic mode and such is the case . unquote

The NM cannot be restored to a MG since you cannot restore something that never was

Conclusion by Federal Judge Honorable Timothy S. Hogan

1. The Defendant NM was designed as and is a Semi-automatic weapon

2. The defendant NM was not designed to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading. by a single pull of the trigger.

3. the same two conclusions apply to the frame or receiver of the defendant .{ the frame or receiver is simply that might be called in ordinary parlance the section of the gun containing is chamber ,trigger ,firing, mechanisms .

4.The court cannot determine on this record what it would take to convert the Defendant or "ANY" OTHER NM to a machine gun. There is no evidence on it .Since the United States claims the conversion one readily made and has the burden at least initially on that issue . the court must find to the contrary { there being no proof} Accordingly it is found and concluded that the Defendant cannot be readily restored or converted to a fully automatic weapon

Take note The Defendant or "ANY OTHER NM " Applies to" ALL" TRW NM rifles .
Remember Army Reg 520-25 Treasury declared them legal without tax



5. The Defendant is neither a machine gun as defined by u.s.c. code 5845 {a} nor a firearm ,as defined by 5845 {a}

6.
The possession of the defendant by Robert E. Sayerman on Sept 27, 1977 at Bob`s Gun Shop ,Dayton < OH was not a violation of U.S.C. 5812 {d} and the defendant is not subject to forfeiture under 26 U.S.C . 5872

The NM rifle was returned to Sauerman without appeal .

I believe any reasonable person would agree that "ANY" means all TRW & Springfield NM marked rifles not just 1453711 . The conclusion does " Not" include any M14 that was converted to NM specs . BATF concluded they are machine guns under 1986 OAMGAWAMG.. To identify a NM rifle the marking will be moved to the left to include the letters "NM" in the roll stamp before heat treating . NOT hand stamped or marked M .It appears the serial # range is 1440000 thru 1470000 for TRW NM rifles Un-conclusive

The Defendant is a TRW National Match Rifle ,

Thanks Lt1

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Bob Seijas]

Yes, the case was disappointing in that it has been interpreted to apply to this one rifle only. It is likely that a similar rifle would also be so judged but IIRC the BATF said it wold prosecute any other TRW NM found. So if you want to spend the $30K he spent you would likely win. As a layman, I would have thought the case would legalize ALL TRW NMs but apparently it didn't.

[Lt1]

"Yes, the case was disappointing in that it has been interpreted to apply to this one rifle only"

Not to stir the pot "to much" but I believe any first year law student or even a person that stayed in the Holiday Express would agree "ANY" NM means all It is obvious the case was not simply about 1453711 referring to paragraph 4 of the conclusion,, the inclusive word "ANY " I have no dog in the hunt and don`t have 30K I have been informed several thousand TRW club guns languish in the Anniston depot waiting Cpt crunch. One would think CMP with deep pockets would take this at least to a pre trial opinion ." Pick one NM from the depot for a test case" One federal judge could knock this in the head based on the precedence set already with C-3-78-125 .The TRW NM is over fifty years old & now qualifies as a Curio Relic plus is exempt from the 1934MG act via 920-25 These rifles could produce millions to fund the Civilian Marksmanship Program if CMP would drag BATF back to court on this "ALL" technicality . Obviously if it walks like a duck it may not be a duck .

[Bob Seijas]

CMP has always been in a touchy situation... it depends on the Army which owns all the guns and gives them to CMP. It also depends heavily on the government to authorize importation from foreign countries (like the Korean M1s). They cannot afford to confront either, least of all by taking them to court.

[Lt1]

Thanks Bob . I see your point . I fail to see the resistance to the NM . Stranger ruling have been made . The G series FN FAL comes to mind .Now a Curio Relic. Go figure

[TDH]

They actually did it!!! They actually took a firearm to court. Not the owner the firearm. Are you sure this isn't today's news and not 1980? Sorry if that's to political.

[wjkuleck]

Keep in mind that this TRW was never the property of the US Government; it was a presentation by a company (TRW) to a private person (as yet unidentified). Thus, even if the case were to be a precedent, it wouldn't help DoD-owned rifles at the CMP; the DoD would never surplus them in any case.

Regards,

Walt

[Lt1]

To follow up . TRW Jet & Ordnance Div. did loan /present "wink' wink" nm rifles to civilians under Army OD regulation 520-25 for use at the national matches & Camp Perry in the years 1963-5 . How many shipped out the back door is unknown . it did happen. One of the essential reasons the contract for NM semi auto rifles ,, requested by Army DCM program was to allow army shooting teams to travel freely WITH THEIR RIFLE to shooting events world wide .The M14 had been around since 1957 & is a MG .The M14NM was developed by the Jet & Ordnance div of Thompson Ramo Wooldridge Inc . for accuracy & competition with select parts and was so marked un-mistakenly NM during the roll stamp procedure , The NM has been mistakenly caught up in the once a MG always a MG passed by congress in 68 .

Hundreds of NM rifles were loaned to shooting clubs & individuals during the 80s-90s Some are still out there I am told . The DCM never considered them MGs .. As one knows simple possession of a un-registered m14 MG would have placed the individual in possession of the rifle in jeopardy . It`s easy to understand the Armys / DCM reasoning behind the TRW NM semi auto rifle. Now to convince the DoD & BATFE dead horse

V Owens

[Frederick303]

I had a NM M14 issued to me by the PA state rifle association back in around 1992. It was a TRW NM contract if my memory serves me correctly. No transfer, it was given to me on a signature card. I was a civilian.

Rifle had a medium weight barrel, installed at Camp Perry in 1990. I believe to was a SGW in 1-11 twist. Had a GI stock, likely epoxy impregnated and epoxy bedded. It did not shoot as well as either of my SA NM-1A rifles with heavy Douglas 1-10 twist and Macmillan fiberglass Match stocks, so it ended up being a loaner at the CMP club I shot at. A significant number of the guys coming in the NM shooting world in that era had trained on the M14 in the 1960 to 1972 era (basic). They got a kick out of shooting a real M14 as opposed to a SA M1A or M1 rifles our club had.

Turned it back in 1996~97, when they were collecting them to issue to the Juniors. Guy came to collect it was a PR&PA member, I knew his name prior and issued it to him on a signature card along with 2 magazines (which had not been issued to me) .

Sometime around 2001 all of them were gathered up by the CMP and returned to the Army. It is my understanding that they were returned because of liability issues. As such it is my understanding none are still on issue to state associations as of this date or since around 2002.

When I was involved with being a coach at the Fort Benning Squad Designated Marksman program, I had a chance to take a tour inside the arms room at the USAMU. They only had a few of the old NM M14 rifles. A question to the chap giving us the tour yielded the response that most of the NM TRW and SA NM M14 rifles had been sent to Anniston for destruction. By that time and 4 decades of use many of the action bodies were well worn.This would have been around 2006 or 2007. As such I very much doubt many of the purpose built NM M14 rifles are left, most have been sent to Anniston for destruction.

Now unlike the de-mill procedures of the early 1990s, from the late 1990s on, the procedure at Anniston with "captain crunch" is to ensure each and every part is destroyed. As in nothing that comes out of the machine is usable or recoverable, not even the sights, gas ;logs or other small bits.

In addition to the approximate 121,000 M14 rifle left in stock, around 40,000 M14 rifles are on long term loan to one of the Baltic states. Technically they are to property of the US, and like the many returned M1 rifles could be brought back if a sales program was ever started. There are likely many other rifles issued to other countries that have the permission of the US government to be disposed of. But all of these rifles were made as full automatic rifles, the selectors were not welded like the purpose built NM-14 rifles, and as such would be classified as full auto by the ATF under the "once a auto always an auto" rule. I do not think the case referenced above applies to the M14 rifles.

Now it would only take a rule change, and folks should be aware of this:

Donald Trump Junior is (or was as of 3 years ago) a classified NRA high power shooter. He is the reason Donald Trump Junior changed his mind on guns going from anti gun to pro gun around 2006.

[ed skeels]

Donald is still a classified NRA ATC competitor.
He and his brother were castrated by the press for an African hunt not to long ago.
Don is Facebook friends with one of my High Master/Distinguished friends. Shot together at Perry and Butner.
He appears to be genuine, unlike others.
Ed