Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:18:53 AM EDT
Tell me why is it many people still think you can buy a pre-ban lower and put a pre-ban upper on it and be in compliance with the Federal Assault Weapon law? How are you going to prove that this lower was assembled as a complete rifle before the cut-off date in 1994? And now that it's the year 2001, a stripped pre-ban lower has to be a near impossibility. Why buy a $500 "pre-ban" lower that can only legally be built as post-ban?
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:22:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2001 8:23:27 AM EDT by markm]
Depending on the manufacture of the lower there may be no way to prove that it was not assembled into a complete weapon. And... i'm doubtful that anyone would go to the trouble to try and prove otherwise. I agree with you... if i were new to AR's i would not pay a premium for a pre. i would just buy a post ban and assemble it into pre.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:22:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2001 8:22:44 AM EDT by SWIRE]
Last time I checked, people innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:22:44 AM EDT
well atomic punk, you find a dealer that has documentation of it being a rifle before the ban, as you would have to do with a full rifle. also, the numbers can tell you if it left the factory as a rilfe, again, just as a rifle
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:23:05 AM EDT
Atomic..........It is my understanding that one can do whatever the F one wants with a pre-ban lower, stripped or not...........
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:23:52 AM EDT
Wouldn't any pre-ban paperwork be kept with the rifle (lower)? If I had a preban rifle and needed the money, I would strip it apart, sell the lower and buy a postban receiver. Maybe pre-ban is not that important to some of us. Im not sure what you don't understand? As long as the paper said that SN****** was an assembled rifle before 94 then what would the problem be? Mike
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:24:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SWIRE: Last time I checked, I'm innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date.
View Quote
unfortunatly, the ATF has decided the bill of rights dosent apply to us, the "law" says you have to prove it is preban, what a load of sheit
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:25:40 AM EDT
Speaking for myself and Bushmaster, here's my experience. I found a beautiful pre-ban Bushmaster for a great price. I called Bushmaster to verify the serial number. It took about 3 minutes to get an answer from them, and they told me the year it was made, and that it had left the factory as a complete rifle. I don't know how the others AR makers deal with this, but Bushmaster seems pretty willing to verify a rifle if you just ask.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:26:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattsd:
Originally Posted By SWIRE: Last time I checked, I'm innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date.
View Quote
unfortunatly, the ATF has decided the bill of rights dosent apply to us, the "law" says you have to prove it is preban, what a load of sheit
View Quote
Do you have a link to that law? I don't remember it saying anything about proving it was a preban.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:33:30 AM EDT
Swire...you're absolutely right. Also totally irrelevant. Neither the IRS nor the BATF have to prove anything to wreck your life. If you think differently, you've missed the last twenty years and you're living in a fantasy world.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:34:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 8:49:10 AM EDT
The lower would be considered preban even if it weren't assembled into a rifle. All you need is a "collection of parts". That, together with a receiver, in the eyes of ATF, is sufficient.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 9:02:31 AM EDT
this has got to be the stupidest crap law still that I have heard out of those people, If I have to go through a nics and yellow form to buy a lower it IS the firearm itself, and it's date of manufacture is not when I put a buncha detent pins and a barrel on it (which any felon can legally buy, up to a full minus lower parts kit) but when IT the lower was actually manufactured, bunch of crap read garandman's thread "i think this says it pretty well" our federal government for their own interest is in the business of MANUFACTURING CRIMINALS.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:25:12 AM EDT
SWIRE -
Do you have a link to that law? I don't remember it saying anything about proving it was a preban.
View Quote
18 USC 922(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection. Note how its written - the gov't merely has to prove you were in possession of an assault weapon as defined by 921(a)(30) - doesn't matter if its a bonafide preban or not. Subsection 2 creates an affirmative defense to a charge of possession, but ultimately the burden does fall on the accused to plead and prove it was lawfully possessed on or prior to 9-13-94.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:30:06 AM EDT
Ericm -
this has got to be the stupidest crap law still that I have heard out of those people, If I have to go through a nics and yellow form to buy a lower it IS the firearm itself, and it's date of manufacture is not when I put a buncha detent pins and a barrel on it (which any felon can legally buy, up to a full minus lower parts kit) but when IT the lower was actually manufactured
View Quote
Yeah, but unfortunately (...or maybe fortunately) the law defines an "assault weapon" by when the gun had certain features, not by when the gun or receiver was manufactured.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:43:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2001 10:50:10 AM EDT by punkatomic]
Taking a pre- or post ban and adding any two of the five characteristic assemblies would constitute manufacturing a semiautomatic assault weapon and would be a violation of 18 USC: Section 922 (v) (1), which states... "(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection." See this link: [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html[/url] Shaggy mentions this above and it is important since it is your butt you will have to defend and this is how the law reads. The ATF does not have to come to your defense nor do they have to get documentation for you. If you buy a pre-ban anything in the year 2001 it will appear as though you are trying to skirt the law, especially with an incomplete rifle and certainly with a stripped lower receiver.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:45:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Atomic Punk: Tell me why is it many people still think you can buy a pre-ban lower and put a pre-ban upper on it and be in compliance with the Federal Assault Weapon law? How are you going to prove that this lower was assembled as a complete rifle before the cut-off date in 1994? And now that it's the year 2001, a stripped pre-ban lower has to be a near impossibility. Why buy a $500 "pre-ban" lower that can only legally be built as post-ban?
View Quote
Are you on drugs? Why cant I strip my fully assembled preban lower and then sell it?
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:57:37 AM EDT
Ripmeyer, You can do whatever you like. Would you sell it at a premium and make an enormous profit and leave the buyer to defend his purchase and subsequent assembly into a pre-ban configuration because you implied it's legality due to the premium you charged him for pre-ban status?
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:03:01 AM EDT
It left the factory fully assembled in 92. Whats your point? once an assault weapon always an assault weapon. You worry to much. Steer you effort towards fighting this law not defending it.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:08:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2001 11:07:17 AM EDT by MOD]
Atom: I posted an explanation to some of this it may help [URL]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=20744[/url]
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:12:55 AM EDT
Atomic Punk wrote: Taking a pre- or post ban and adding any two of the five characteristic assemblies would constitute manufacturing a semiautomatic assault weapon
View Quote
Wrong!!! Assembling parts is [b]not[/b] manufacturing. Creating a serial-numbered lower is manufacturing. Norm
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:13:58 AM EDT
Atomic - There are types of receivers that are just obviously bonafide preban because thats the only way they left the factory. For example, Colt never sold stripped SP1 lowers- they all left the factory as completed rifles with enough features to meet the statutory definition of a "assault weapon". I have a Colt Gov't Carbine receiver I'm thinking of selling; just by looking at it, any doofus can tell its a preban. Colt never sold stripped "Gov't Carbine" receivers - they all left the factory as complete rifles (hence the "carbine" designation) and by virture of the fact that there's no sear block, its obviously pre-89. Withother manufacturers and models it can be a little more problematic, but all it takes is a quick call to the manufcturer to find out when it left the factory and in what configuration. Failing that, it may still be a bonafide preban, but you should get some sort of documentation from the seller and make sure you have some sort of recourse against him should it turn out to be a post ban.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:18:40 AM EDT
Norm -
Wrong!!! Assembling parts is not manufacturing. Creating a serial-numbered lower is manufacturing.
View Quote
Norm, for purposes of creating an "assault weapon", assembling parts IS manufacturing. See my post above to EricM and see 18 USC 921(a)(30), 18 USC 922(v)
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:31:32 AM EDT
As Rip pointed out, there ARE stripped preban lowers. Any other stupid statement you want to make? Maybe you should seek council first.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:31:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Originally Posted By mattsd:
Originally Posted By SWIRE: Last time I checked, I'm innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date.
View Quote
unfortunatly, the ATF has decided the bill of rights dosent apply to us, the "law" says you have to prove it is preban, what a load of sheit
View Quote
Do you have a link to that law? I don't remember it saying anything about proving it was a preban.
View Quote
Actually I beleive the law states that the burden of proof falls on the ATF, I will search for an online reference. If anyone knows where I can find it please help.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:37:03 AM EDT
slt223- The burden of proof falls on BATF to prove your hi-cap mags were made after '94 (18 USC 922(w)), but the burden runs the other way for assault weapons (18 USC 922(v))- see my post above - I copied the relevant parts of 922(v).
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:40:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:41:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2001 11:41:23 AM EDT by shaggy]
RK -
As Rip pointed out, there ARE stripped preban lowers. Any other stupid statement you want to make? Maybe you should seek council first.
View Quote
You talkin' to me or Atomic?
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:44:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By vicg1: The lower would be considered preban even if it weren't assembled into a rifle. All you need is a "collection of parts". That, together with a receiver, in the eyes of ATF, is sufficient.
View Quote
This is incorrect. The '94 AW ban states that a complete set of parts that could be used to assemble an AW, cannot be assembled into AW configuration if assembled after the '94 bill.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:53:38 AM EDT
Hey Shaggy, can you send me a link to the Federal AW ban? Do you know where I can get a copy of it a it appears in U.S. Code?
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 12:04:35 PM EDT
slt223 - try this... http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html Thats the 94 AWB and other related gun laws in the same section of the USCode. Note however that many of the terms in the law are defined terms, so refer to back to 18 USC 921 (just change 922 to 921 in the URL) for the statutory definitions which are in operation in 922.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 12:08:55 PM EDT
It's always a good thing to rile the choir members. I'll state for purposes of those who wish to try to understand my intentions that I had an ATF agent (friendly guy, and is not the "enemy", that title goes to others who write legislation) research this very question and that's how it came back. Yes, assembling for purposes of trying to own or possess the legal definition of "Assault Weapon" after the ban by putting together a pre-or post ban receiver with a pre-ban upper will get you in trouble. That's the bottom line. Do I disagree with the intent of the assault weapons legislation? YES!!!! Furthermore, is it ethical to sell to a fellow gun owner something that could get them in trouble for mere possession and for you to take a profit?
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 12:22:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2001 12:25:43 PM EDT by oneshot1kill]
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 12:40:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Atomic Punk: It's always a good thing to rile the choir members. I'll state for purposes of those who wish to try to understand my intentions that I had an ATF agent (friendly guy, and is not the "enemy", that title goes to others who write legislation) research this very question and that's how it came back. Yes, assembling for purposes of trying to own or possess the legal definition of "Assault Weapon" after the ban by putting together a pre-or post ban receiver with a pre-ban upper will get you in trouble. That's the bottom line. Do I disagree with the intent of the assault weapons legislation? YES!!!! Furthermore, is it ethical to sell to a fellow gun owner something that could get them in trouble for mere possession and for you to take a profit?
View Quote
I dont think you phrased your question to the BATF correctly. Try asking them if you can put a upper with evil features on a Verified Pre ban Semi-Automatic Assault weapon lower. This should be legal because all you really are doing is replacing parts on a grandfathered weapon.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 12:57:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2001 12:57:12 PM EDT by CPL_Punishment]
Only grandfathered if the weapon was already a fully built AR15 with all the evil features before the 94 AW ban. Pre-ban lowers by themselves dont count. If it wasnt assembled as such before the 94 ban, you will need to have your pre-ban lower built into a post ban rifle.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 1:00:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shaggy: RK -
As Rip pointed out, there ARE stripped preban lowers. Any other stupid statement you want to make? Maybe you should seek council first.
View Quote
You talkin' to me or Atomic?
View Quote
Sorry Rip, I was referring to the statement “No such thing as pre-ban stripped lower!” by AtomicPunk Looking back my statement was vague.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 1:08:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: The problem is that you need SOME kind of proof ON PAPER regarding your gun's status. -Troy
View Quote
Care to elaborate on that statement? Who, what, where, when and why? I was not aware of any such requirement. RK
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 1:59:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 4:14:25 PM EDT
For Pete's sake, people..if the ATF decides to, they can kick in your door, trash your house, cuff you, your wife, your kids and your dog, toss all your guns in a trashcan and haul you off. You then have to spend every last dime you have on a legal defense while they stall and postpone. When it's finally decided that they can't "Prove" the thing was a postban, you can go home to what's left and try to scrape up money to mount a legal attempt to reclaim your guns. Oh, and your job is long gone too. There is nothing in the above that they haven't already done to innocent people. Now who really gives a rat's ass about whether you were innocent or not? The last Jews to be taken were found arguing about whether it was technically legal for the Nazis to do so.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 4:22:26 PM EDT
Let's beat another dead horse to death! There are those that think/say that you must be able to proce your weapon is pre-ban. There are still others that think/say ATF must prove it is not pre-ban. As a police officer and a licensed FFL I'm with the folks who think ATF must prove it is not pre-ban. Don't get me wrong, though I defiently welcome any supporting documentation when dealing with pre-ban items.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 4:48:54 PM EDT
Well I wonder what was in that package that I just sent off to DPMS to have re-finished then, if there is no such thing as a stripped Pre Ban lower? When I get it back, I still have not decided if I will build another AR (pre ban) or sell it to fund a different type weapon purchase. Either way, it is pre ban, and it is stripped.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 5:02:47 PM EDT
Just be warned that building an AR15 with evil features after the 1994 (even though you are using a "pre-ban" receiver assembly)is NOT legal. Unless that preban receiver was a whole rifle with bayo-lug, etc. before the ban. Who has the burden of proof (You v. the Gov't)? Lets hope none of us has to find out.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 6:10:52 PM EDT
There is nothing in assault weapon ban that says you must provide proof of status. Do you have proof your preban mags are indeed preban? There has been after all accounts of postban mags without the leo/govt marking or a date of mfg stamp. There are also thousands of preban mags without dates. In unlikely chance I’m questioned about the status of my preban AR-15. First I’ll show how the serial number falls within the range of preban. If for some really far fetched chance the inquisition continues, I’ll tell it to the judge and/or jury. If it goes on even further, I’ll testify under oath the rifle in question was represented to me by the seller as a grandfathered preban assault rifle, and I have know reason to doubt that it was anything else. That’s a lot more than the prosecution will have. The most they will have is the lower left the factory stripped and was sold sometime before the ban stripped, that hardly proves the rifle was never assembled. You think some letter written by a former owner proves anything? Get a clue, there are FFL dealers out there who will sell what they know is an illegal postban lower configured as an assault rifle and smile while they tell you it’s preban. I’m sorry, but some of you are paranoid beyond reason. And people with paranoid delusions love nothing better than convincing everyone else to be paranoid along with them. Celt is also very correct, if the ATF, IRS or any other govt agency wants your ass, you’re going down, right, wrong or indifferent, that’s the way the system works. Even if you’re right, you can not afford to fight the government. I’ve seen it happen several times.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 6:13:23 PM EDT
There is nothing in assault weapon ban that says you must provide proof of status. Do you have proof your preban mags are indeed preban? There has been after all accounts of postban mags without the leo/govt marking or a date of mfg stamp. There are also thousands of preban mags without dates. In unlikely chance I’m questioned about the status of my preban AR-15. First I’ll show how the serial number falls within the range of preban. If for some really far fetched chance the inquisition continues, I’ll tell it to the judge and/or jury. If it goes on even further, I’ll testify under oath the rifle in question was represented to me by the seller as a grandfathered preban assault rifle, and I have know reason to doubt that it was anything else. That’s a lot more than the prosecution will have. The most they will have is the lower left the factory stripped and was sold sometime before the ban stripped, that hardly proves the rifle was never assembled. You think some letter written by a former owner proves anything? Get a clue, there are FFL dealers out there who will sell what they know is an illegal postban lower configured as an assault rifle and smile while they tell you it’s preban. I’m sorry, but some of you are paranoid beyond reason. And people with paranoid delusions love nothing better than convincing everyone else to be paranoid along with them. Celt is also very correct, if the ATF, IRS or any other govt agency wants your ass, you’re going down, right, wrong or indifferent, that’s the way the system works. Even if you’re right, you can not afford to fight the government. I’ve seen it happen several times.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 6:29:13 PM EDT
RK - I believe you, me,Troy, and a few others went through this in the legal section before. Read my previous posts in this thread and read the relevant sections of Title 18. All the gov't has to do is prove you possessed a gun that meets the statutory definition of an "assault weapon". Doesn't matter if its preban or not. The burden of proof is on the accused to prove it was a legally possessed assault weapon (as defined) on or before the date 922(v) took effect. With mags the burden of proof runs the other way and is on the gov't to prove the hi-cap mags possessed by the accused were made after the ban. Its not about being paranoid, its about knowing the law (regardless of whether you like it or not). If someone wants to break the law, thats fine, but at least they can make an informed decision.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 6:33:46 PM EDT
Troy has it right, people. Listen to him. What the law should be, and what we want the law to be, doesn't mean anything. If you want to debate this, first read the law. Or ask an attorney who has spent some time in court defending someone on an illegal possession charge. Or do some research on this very forum, since this question has been done to death. The Legal forum probably has 10 million words on this subject. Just don't ignore the facts--you'll get yourself into more trouble than you ever dreamed of.
Link Posted: 5/8/2001 1:32:57 AM EDT
There are still people advertising for sale pre-ban lowers at substantially higher prices than post-ban lowers. Is it greedy to charge these prices and then steadfastly believe that what you're doing is within the law without even bothering to get the facts? Isn't it obvious that some choose to read the law one way, others are unsure, and some interpret the law to mean anything other than a complete pre-ban rifle is not grandfathered? I guess wishful thinking gets in the way of what really is written as law.
Link Posted: 5/8/2001 1:46:27 AM EDT
simple solution, the law is unconstitutional, therfore i won't recignise it. case and point there are a lot of me out there.
Link Posted: 5/8/2001 2:31:29 AM EDT
Well, to really answer your question: If I take my SP-1, strip the receiver and sell it as a pre-ban receiver, then I believe that I should be able to charge whatever the market will bear for a pre-ban stripped receiver. I find nothing unethical about that. Another good reason to own Colt. If I take a "bare" receiver (as opposed to "stripped" which used to be assembled) that was manufactured before the ban, but doesn't qualify for pre-ban status because it has remained "bare" since then, and try to sell it as a "pre-ban" receiver, then I'm not accurately representing the item I'm selling. So to answer your first post: Yes, you can sell a "stripped pre-ban receiver at a premium and there's nothing wrong with it (I have seen SP-1 stripped receivers for sale). The way I read the law is: The Govt has to prove it's an AW. Once that's done you will have to prove it's a legal AW. Sort of like self-defense shooting. They have to prove you shot the guy. Once they do that, you have to prove you did it in self-defense. Ross
Link Posted: 5/8/2001 2:37:23 AM EDT
There's serial numbers stamped on the lower. Wouldn't the manufacturer keep records of when that serial number was produced?
Link Posted: 5/8/2001 3:35:47 AM EDT
The “default” theory is interesting, I’ve even suggested it, but I have never seen anything that supports it. No case history, nothing in the law, not even wild stories about someone who knew this guys brother kinda thing. Why everybody seems to think there is some crime being committed when a person does not have proof of status? There is not. Someone has made this fallacy up. I”VE READ THE LAW. I”VE READ THE LAW. I”VE READ THE LAW. There’s nothing in there about proof of status. Why is this so hard for you to believe? All you people can do is keep droning on me, proof required, proof required, yet you never can back that statement up. You insist I’m in the wrong here, yet once again provide nothing.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top