[fwdude]

Good. I loaded up on 30-round magazines several years ago when the prices were still quite reasonable. I won’t be giving them up, or even registering them anytime soon.

[apillar]

This could be big for any future legal challenges of state or the national gun bans. Because when the Supreme Court overturned the DC handgun ban in “Heller” their reasoning was handguns had a self-defense use. That is also why the gun grabbers have started this mantra “Assault Weapons are weapons of war with “no practical use”.

[dirtboy]

The DHS will just carve out a double standard for its enforcement officers, just the way NY cops are aghast that the recent New York gun bill doesn't grant them such:

Cops Are Outraged That New York's New Magazine Limit Could Apply to Them

[coloradan]

That’s nice, but they ain’t playin’ nice. It doesn’t matter what the DHS deems or doesn’t deem. All it would take is for the BATFABCDE to decree that the AR-15 with a 30-round magazine “has no sporting purpose”.

[JoeProBono]

[SampleMan]

Nice to know, but their opinion doesn’t matter in the Constitutional sense.

[newgeezer]

An AR-15 is good for personal defense for LEOs. But, we're not LEOs. We're nobodies.

Everyone knows LEOs (as well as celebs, politicians, other elites and their children) are potential targets. That's why THEY need personal defense and WE don't.

/sarcasm

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“The United States Department of Homeland Security has stated a rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO (compatible with .223) with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds
is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…”

I would strongly suggest wearing hearing protection especially when firing indoors. Deafness and/or tinnitus are not your friends.

[freeandfreezing]

Yep, DHS wants select fire NATO 5.56mm rifles with folding stocks, rails, and 30 round magazines for "personal defense" use but wants to deny weapons without the select fire capability to citizens. I guess from the government's point of view only they need to defend themselves.

Whatever argument the federal government is making that citizens don't need modern rifles for personal defense is completely undercut by their own purchase request. DHS has no military role, simply protection of life and property in the USA, which is a right of other citizens too. If citizens don't need rifles with 30 round magazines to protect themselves, neither do the DHS employees.

And realistically, DHS doesn't need select fire weapons, nobody should be laying down suppressive fire in a typical law enforcement situation.

[Charles Martel]

I think the RFQ in question was for “personal defense weapons” based on a number of parameters other than the caliber. Such as: sub-16” barrel, 20” overall (collapsed/folded) length, etc. In other words, NFA-registerable “short-barrelled rifles”, where we peons are concerned.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

**** is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…”****

Back in 1934, there was an attempt to place handguns on the taxed list along with machine guns. It was claimed that people preferred to use rifles for home defense.

I believe the NRA was instrumental in removing handguns from the taxed list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[JimRed]

Basically, the site posts a request for proposal (RFP) for personal defense weapons for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Personal defense for ME, not for THEE, PROLES!

[puppypusher]

The M16 would not be my First Choice for a PDW.My First Choice would be an FN P-90.

The P-90 is designed for Close quarters combat and if someone has broke into your home that’s what your going to have.

[Still Thinking]

Oh, golly. The elite have spoken. We have permission to accept what our eyes and brains tell us now. Woo hoo!

[fractionated]

Department of Homeland Security: Sport rifle (AR-15) “suitable for personal defense”

Uh, oh... looks like somebody at DHS didn't get the memo LOL.