DHS ordering 7,000 rifles “for personal defense use”

The Department of Homeland Security is currently soliciting RFP’s to purchase 7,000 “personal defense” weapons, also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. From Radio Vice Online:

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…”

Well smack me up-side the head. First, a hat tip to Breitbart’s Awr Hawkins who pointed us to a posted General Services Administration (GSA) business opportunity solicitation posted and updated last summer. 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).

The irony is staggering. The actual text from Solicitation HSCEMS-12-R-00011 has been excellently marked up by Radio Vice Online’s Steve McGough:

Notice the term assault weapon or assault rifle is not used anywhere in the document. The “assault weapon” terminology is only used for non-LEOs and non-military who own those firearms.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …

In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a 30-round magazine.

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

In paragraph 3.21.2, they again specify the requirement for a 30-round magazine.

The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

If you did not catch the interesting part in one of the quoted sentences above, let me point it out to you. The personal defense weapon should be select-fire capable.

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…

The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).

From the Fire Control Section, paragraph 3.10.1.

The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic. The selector shall have positions which are clearly labeled for the mode of fire.

This formal DHS RFP – which is specific concerning requirements – clearly indicates a select-fire rifle is appropriate for personal defense in close quarters.

They will get the good stuff, a selector switch for full auto to blow through all 30 rounds of each magazine included in the request in no time flat. We have to pull the trigger one shot at a time yet ours are the “assault weapons,” not “personal defense weapons,” when we own the same firearm minus the full auto design.

Are they planning on going to war? It sure would seem that way with the ammo they recently purchased.

Who will be the enemy? Those who have only “assault weapons” that fire one shot at a time? I believe the DHS should have the term “assault weapons” since they are the assaulters and we should get the term “personal defense weapons” to defend ourselves and our families.

posted by tracker · tags: , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/George.Phillies George Phillies

    These appear to be M16s or the like. The more modern weapon only does burst fire.

    • editor

      The article has been updated to use the generic term “rifles” and not AR-15s.

      Thanks for the clarification.

  • http://twitter.com/epigrammaticus john galt

    It sounds like they want something new, because a M-16 is NOT a “close quarters” weapon, you’d want a SMG or bullpup for that. Of course, then we get into some serious stupidity, as a 5.56MM NATO is NOT a pistol round and would be a horrid waste. Most SMGs now are 9MM (.357) with good reason…

    • Zachary

      M4 is suitable for CQB.

      • http://twitter.com/epigrammaticus john galt

        I’ll take your word for it. CQB in the Navy meant a Mossberg or a M1911 in my day, FWIU, they changed to a (spit)Beretta now though. I still stand by my statement that a 5.56 NATO is a waste for CQB, it should be pistol ammo

  • electedface

    40% of guns sold do not perform background checks on the buyer. These are acquired illegally through online gun sales, gun shows, etc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_hZQPpCJ1M

  • http://www.facebook.com/eliot.bladderbaum Josh Paul

    Which scummy manufacturer sold them to the evil DHS?

  • Solid US citizen

    We shouldn’t sell the Gov any guns. If they are trying to take our guns…..keep them to arm the US malitia when the Revolution starts.

  • Tackleberry

    Such B.S hypocrisy!!!

  • High Country Gunsmithing

    Right in line with Feinstein exempting government employees, past, present, and future from the ban she proposed.

  • James Best

    More like preparing for a potiential civil war…