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
Posted: 6/1/2001 3:01:00 PM EDT
Is it legal for me to purchase a pre-ban AR-15? I live in TN and have become interested in buying one but would like a pre-ban model. What are the general stipulations? What should I lokk for from the seller and what should I do after I purchase? Thanks, USMC_LB
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 5:33:41 PM EDT
Fellow Tennessean: You can legally buy or own a "grandfathered" pre-ban assault rifle in Tennessee. Actually, TN is even a class III friendly state. If you want to be absolutely, positively sure of your purchase, buy a Colt or Bushmaster from a FFL. An individual is OK as long as he can prove it isn't stolen. You can easily verify that Colts and Bushmasters left the factory as complete rifles prior to the ban. There's been some discussion on this site concerning the legality of assembling a SAW from pre-ban lowers. Again, if you want to be absolutely, positively sure, buy the complete rifle. Good Luck
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 6:43:37 PM EDT
Thanks Opie I missed an opportunity to buy one many years ago and have kicked myself in the rear since. I have decided to buy one now but I want to be up to date on all the issues.
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 9:37:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2001 4:33:01 PM EDT
So, if I purhase a Colt that has a pre-ban serial number I can be sure that it WAS a "complete" rifle before the ban since Colt only manufactured "complete" weapons ?
Link Posted: 6/2/2001 6:51:38 PM EDT
USMC_LB Yes that is correct
Link Posted: 6/2/2001 11:05:14 PM EDT
No, not entirely - Colt began selling lowers only and stripped lowers sometime around 1992, iirc. Anything pre-89 is certain to have been sold as a complete pre-ban grandfathered assault weapon. After that, you need confirmation from colt that it left as a complete rifle from the factory, or a letter from someone further down the supply chain, verifying it was built into a grandfathered AW before the ban.
Link Posted: 6/3/2001 6:43:56 AM EDT
Circuits The first I have seen Colt's sell lowers from the factory was 1995 If you have documentation of earlier sales please advise. Also any information on serial number prefixes and number ranges would be appreciated. I must assume that you are mistaken though, unless these numbers are a secrete and the lowers were never carried or advertised by a distributor in SGN, GUN LIST, and never in the Colt's catalog, etc.
Link Posted: 6/3/2001 8:47:37 AM EDT
AFAIK Colt did not sell lowers prior to the AW ban. All lowers that left the factory prior to the ban were assembled rifles and are "grandfathered SAW's." If you call Colt's customer service number they will verify the status by the SN over the phone and tell you the date of manufacture. For a fee they will document the actual configuation when it was assembled.
Link Posted: 6/3/2001 1:13:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2001 1:19:00 PM EDT by Righteous_Kill]
Originally Posted By Troy: Unless it was a factory-assembled rifle that the factory can confirm (in writing) was in AW configuration before the ban, you'll need some kind of paperwork with any pre-ban you buy.
View Quote
That’s not exactly true.
Originally Posted By Troy: An affidavit from the person who owned it on 9/13/94 that it was in AW configuration is good enough.
View Quote
You seem pretty sure about that.
Originally Posted By Troy: If you can get any of these, then know that the rifle would NOT be considered to have been grandfathered if you were to be charged with possession of an AW. -Troy
View Quote
Another big assumption.
Link Posted: 6/3/2001 2:16:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/3/2001 5:44:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: The only claim you've made, which has been refuted by both lawyers, is that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that it your gun was not assembled before the ban.
View Quote
That is not my claim, and I have never regarded “innocent until proven guilty” as a defense for anything. I agree with Steve and Shaggy, if you are charged with possession of an illegal semi-AW you will need to provide a defense.
Originally Posted By Troy: Myself, Steve in VA, and others have pointed out that they need only prove that the rifle is in AW configuration, and that the defendant must then prove that the rifle qualifies for the grandfathering exception.
View Quote
That is a way over simplification. They just can’t say, “Troy has an AR-15 with a pistol grip and bayonet lug”, let’s charge him with possession of an illegal rifle. They’re going to have to show some illegal intent or activity on your part first.
Originally Posted By Troy: We've also discussed, at length, what kind of evidence is acceptable in court. I've seen nothing from you to refute that.
View Quote
There has been speculation on what would be acceptable, but it’s not the absolute you make it out to be, nor is it the only possibility. You content that without proper “documentation” it is an illegal firearm. And that is where we disagree. The law does not state that proof it required, only the firearm in question be a legally possessed on or before the Sept 1994 enactment. The assault weapon ban makes a clear exceptions for legally possessed weapons. The intent of the law is not to make felons out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, only to stop the new manufacture of assault weapons. Lets say I purchased a PWA preban AR-15 last month, the serial number was within the proper range and the seller stated to me, that it was a grand fathered assault weapon. It is my contention that I have committed no crime. According to you, I’ve committed a felony. What say the lawyers? (I’ve asked similar questions several times with no reply) RK
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 4:19:39 PM EDT
Huh?
Link Posted: 6/5/2001 5:45:01 PM EDT
RK--not trying to pick a fight with you pardner, but you've been on this same line for some time, over many many posts, and you have no one with any authority to back you up. At least I haven't heard of anyone who has any credentials, or any time in the courtroom as an attorney or LEO witness back you up. You sound like an intelligent person. You appear to have read the law. I don't get it that you don't get it. You are, in my opinion, encouraging those of lesser experience on this board to get themselves in trouble. I'm not going to argue the law with you, because that doesn't ever get anyone anywhere, except to continue the same old tired tired tired argument. Again, nothing personal, and I sincerely wish you were right, but in my opinion, as a non-lawyer but as someone who has spent much time in the company of judges, attorneys and prosecutors, you are flat wrong about the burden of proof issue. No offense. Just a difference of opinon.
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 8:37:15 AM EDT
TEXN, I appreciate your comments on this. Why do I keep at this? I’m suborn, and think it’s important. I would hope those with lesser experienced would study the situation and make the right decisions for themselves. Yes, they’ve established the affirmative defense and you’re most likely guilty until proven innocent. I’ve been shown that repeatedly, and don’t dispute it. But I would like to move on and discuss a more pertinent idea. The situation I posted previously has never received a response. I’ve posted a similar circumstance several times and never received an answer.
Originally Posted By Righteous Kill: Lets say I purchased a PWA preban AR-15 last month, the serial number was within the proper range and the seller stated to me, that it was a grand fathered assault weapon. It is my contention that I have committed no crime. According to you (Troy), I’ve committed a felony. RK
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 8:55:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TEXN: , you are flat wrong about the burden of proof issue. No offense. Just a difference of opinon.
View Quote
I don’t know if it’s my writing, or peoples reading. Have you read anything I’ve said? I’m not contesting the burden of proof, that is not the point. I want to know, are there hundreds of thousands of preban assault weapon owners in violation of the law because they can not prove their status?
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 9:57:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2001 9:57:23 AM EDT by Circuits]
RK: I thought we'd covered this, or at least agreed to disagree. The answer to your question is no, they're not in violation of the law by not having proof of the pre-ban status of their "aw-configured" rifles, so long as the weapon is a legitimate pre-ban. The acquisition of proof is related to your peace of mind, and the guidelines shaggy and steve and others and I have promulgated are what we feel is consistent with acceptability to the courts in the event it's ever required to fend off a criminal prosecution. Remember, you don't have to be guilty of a crime to be convicted... Remember, you don't have to have committed a felony to be made a felon by the courts... Any such prosecution that goes to court will likely bankrupt the defendant, personally, whether they win or lose. In a case where the prosecution only needs to meet its prima facie case, and then you must prove an exception to the law as your defense, it only makes sense to obtain some kind of proof for your defense. Such proof might be the difference between a prosecutor dropping the case before indictment and you going to court. Your tolerance for risk may vary.
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 12:03:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2001 12:10:02 PM EDT by Dave_G]
I once knew someone, let's say his name was Jim, who actually spent $50,000 to recover $5,000 in a civil suit. The $5,000 ended up in the lawyer's pocket. It was the principle of the thing, you see. The other party owed Jim $5,000 and Jim was going to recover it at any cost. Moronic, eh? Jim still thinks he did better on next one. He settled for just under $100,000 after racking up legal bills of just over $100,000. So he almost broke even...Except that he had been offered what would have amounted to $160,000 or even more without any strings before he hired the lawyer. OH...Who got the $100,000? The lawyer, again. RK appears to have the same kind of personality. Not a moron, just very, very stubborn. Logic and common sense don’t seem to penetrate once the mind is made up.
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 3:00:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Circuits: RK: I thought we'd covered this, or at least agreed to disagree. The answer to your question is no, they're not in violation of the law by not having proof of the pre-ban status of their "aw-configured" rifles, so long as the weapon is a legitimate pre-ban.
View Quote
[b]YES, THANK YOU! That’s what I’m getting at.[/b] Yes, we did cover this, and I think we share about the same opinion on the subject. However, Troy likes to make it sound like you’re a freak’n felon if you can’t produce proof positive Johnny on the spot, and yes that rubs me the wrong way. And I like your statement: [i]"Your tolerance for risk may vary."[/i] I think you should also add,[i] Your perception of risk may vary.[/i] Maybe growing up around firearms and in a free state has warped my reality, but I just don’t see all the fuss. There’s never been a single incidence of someone being prosecuted for having a semi-auto assault weapon built on a preban lower.
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 3:10:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2001 3:09:25 PM EDT by Righteous_Kill]
Principals? I know guys that will lie, steal and cheat for $50. I also know guys that will, and have spent more that a new house to protect their integrity. What’s your price Dave?
Originally Posted By Dave G: RK appears to have the same kind of personality. Not a moron, just very, very stubborn. Logic and common sense don’t seem to penetrate once the mind is made up.
View Quote
Why am I labeled the radical, stubborn one and not the rabid, proof-positive guys? Where is their common sense and logic? They cry “black” and I say “grey” and it pisses them off.
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 4:53:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Righteous Kill: They cry “black” and I say “grey” and it pisses them off.
View Quote
I think you do a disservice to the uninitiated, on occasion. As we've gone over before, it's one thing to go in eyes wide open, and accept the potential risk of an undocumented preban. It's another entirely to presume legality in what's really a gray area. The buyer of a "preban" doesn't know if it's legitimate or not without some sort of proof, so is accepting a level of risk that the original owner is not exposed to. It's to that unaware, second-hand buyer, that most of the comments here have been intended.
Link Posted: 6/6/2001 7:01:18 PM EDT
RK, I'm not piling on and this isn't directed at you necessarily. But I'll tell you why this issue is important to me and many others. When those of us who know the law--and I include you in that group--don't take it seriously, we do a disservice to those who don't, or who are too unaware (stupid?) to do so. Thumbing ones nose at the law feels good for awhile, and we all do it in some way. Even LEO's do it (more than most). But when one refuses to educate themself in the AW law, then goes out blindly and purchases, say, a "preban" AR, they often get burned. I am seeing this much much too often lately, and some of the unsuspecting are going to be prosecuted. As gun people this affects the future rights of us all... since we are all painted with the same brush. I have not attended a large gun show in over two years where I did not see one or more illegally created AW's--most so blatantly postban as to question the intelligence of the purchaser. The most recent examples last week: A Hesse lower with every evil feature known. Of course, Hesse never made preban receivers. A Bushy lower stamped "95 xx xxxx" and as you know they didn't stamp a year on lowers until after the ban. A National Ordnance lower with a folding stock and a f/h. NA has only been made for two years. And on and on.... Some of us are thumbing their noses at the wrong law, making and selling illegal AW's, and making good money while putting someone else at risk of acquiring a felony indictment and conviction. Do you think that the people who own these guns, and were told they were illegal, did anything about it? Of course not. Once you pay $1200 for a $500 rifle you are likely to keep it, and then one day your number is up. In closing--if we don't keep the law in mind, whether we like it or not, we're destined to have even fewer rights than we do now. No, I'm not saying be sheep, I'm saying fight back at the polls and with money, but don't do stupid things that give the anti-gunners all the press material they want. And where do you think this AW thing will be won or lost--on the front pages, in the legislatures, and at the polls.
Link Posted: 6/7/2001 8:54:12 AM EDT
I do not cry “white” I would never advocate people throw caution to the wind. Some newby buys a legitimate preban PWA last week and shows up here asking about it. Troy tells him it’s illegal because he can’t prove it’s status. What kind of disservice is that?
Originally Posted By Circuits: ... accept the potential risk of an undocumented preban.
View Quote
Let’s put the risk in prospective. What is the risk of having a legal problem with an undocumented preban? How many people have been convicted on possession of an undocumented preban? Spare me potential risk argument, because in reality it’s next to nothing. You people have made up “the monster under the bed”, and are scaring yourself silly over it. I’m not here to debate risk. Only that an undocumented preban is not necessarily illegal.
Originally Posted By Circuits: It's another entirely to presume legality in what's really a gray area.
View Quote
Is that like presuming everything in the “gray” without documentation is illegal? I don’t advocate “entirely to presume legality”. Only to acknowledge that both exist. TEXN, We’re not talking about postban assault weapons, only prebans. Yes, there are a lot of illegal semi-AWs built on postban receivers, buyer beware. I suggest people study, learn and follow the law.
Link Posted: 6/7/2001 2:09:39 PM EDT
922r is a cheezy, confusing law and sux big time. You can ask your local BATF agent, but he won't have a clue. You shouldn't need an attorney on retainer to "keep and bear arms" in an "uninfringed" manner.
Link Posted: 6/7/2001 4:33:23 PM EDT
Not sure I'm adding anything to this discussion that hasn't been said before, but.... One can have an undocumented, built-with-all-preban-parts, and have either [1] an illegal weapon, with lower and other parts collected together and assembled after the ban or [2] a legal weapon, with lower and other parts collected and/or assembled before the ban. On their face they have the same legality, UNTIL YOU ARE IN COURT. Then, as we've mutually acknowledged, the burden of proof is borne by the possessor. Until that point, the probability of having a legal problem with rifle [1] are low. But if you are prone to having conversations with people wearing blue, brown or black uniforms, your odds of having to prove the status of your rifle go up considerably. If you live in a cave in Alaska, and never encounter another person, you can probably assemble anything you want, all from parts made last month. Yes, in my opinion, if you cannot verify the legal preban status, you may have a problem, and only your personal risk tolerance can dictate if that is the rifle for you. If you cannot assure yourself with a sales receipt or owner's statement, etc., that your preban lower can't be traced back to a dealer who sold it as a lower only in, say, Oct '94, I would be a little concerned. If you are absolutely certain that your Uncle Joe bought the gun as a preban in 1979, then you are somewhere in between, risk wise. So.... you may or may not have a legal problem with an undocumented "preban" AR. But you will never know until you are in the legal system. Anyone who wants to test their convictions there is welcome to do so, but I'll personally stick to guns that can be documented. Why? To me, personally, it just ain't worth the hassle to do otherwise.... My point in the previous post about postban "prebans", though it may not be clear, is that if we don't take the law seriously, others won't either--which I feel is leading some to create these blatantly illegal guns and feel they can do so with little or no risk.
Link Posted: 6/7/2001 10:01:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 9:33:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
Originally Posted By Righteous Kill: Some newby buys a legitimate preban PWA last week and shows up here asking about it. Troy tells him it’s illegal because he can’t prove it’s status. What kind of disservice is that?
View Quote
Answer these two questions, RK: [b]How did you determine that the lower in question was a legitimate pre-ban? What exact criteria did you use?[/b]
View Quote
It was a hypothetical situation I made up, that’s how.
Originally Posted By Troy: What I've been saying is that if you didn't use the same criteria that BATF or a court of law would use, then your method of determination is invalid under the law. This is exactly where we disagree.
View Quote
Sorry, I’m unaware of any official criteria any court or the ATF has established.
Originally Posted By Troy: You seem to be operating that something is pre-ban because you *believe* that it is, based on criteria that aren't applicable under the law, like when the lower was manufactured, as opposed to if and/or when the lower as assembled into an AW. I'm saying that, in court (which is the ONLY place it ultimately counts), your belief alone means little or nothing; evidence is what matters. -Troy
View Quote
You’re the one who said manufacture date was irrelevant, not me. An obvious post semi-AW is illegal, duh. My believe has nothing to do with it.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 12:09:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 10:02:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2001 10:03:21 AM EDT by Righteous_Kill]
Originally Posted By Troy: The text of the law specifies the criteria to be used, and that criteria is not the manufacture date, but the date (if any) that the gun was first assembled (or part of a complete kit) in AW configuration.
View Quote
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here. In your earlier posts are you talking about the “criteria” that defines a semi-automatic assault weapon, the “criteria” for a legal grand-fathered semi-automatic assault weapon, or the “criteria” used to determine compliance with the law? Since the subject is legal compliance, I assumed that was the reference.
Originally Posted By Troy: I believe you've posted, in reference to several specific recent examples, that a gun is "obviously pre-ban",
View Quote
Could you be more specific, maybe a link? If I did say such a thing, was it hypothetical or an out right statement? If somebody came on the board and posted “I bought a preban PWA from my buddy who assembled the rifle in 1988.” I might then say it’s “obviously pre-ban”. What’s your point?
Originally Posted By Troy: [b]I infer therefore that some kind of court-admissable proof (generally paperwork, unless you were the owner on 9/13/94) is ultimately needed to prove a gun's status, even though that proof is not specifically mentioned in the text of the law.[/b] The lawyers here seem to agree.
View Quote
Court admissible evidence could include more that what you call “paperwork” as evidence. Not only is “that proof” not specifically mentioned in the text of the law, there has not been a court case to establish what “that proof” may, or many not entail. Although, I suspect that anything admissible would be entertained.
Originally Posted By Troy: I'm still genuinely interested in why you disagree, specifically. For example, let's say that in 1999 you bought an AR15 built on a PWA lower, serial number 1062, that you were told by your FFL was a pre-ban. The gun was in AW configuration when you bought it. And, in fact, [b]though you have no way of knowing this[/b], the lower was first sold in 1991 and was actually assembled into AW configuration, with the same parts that you have now. You received no paperwork with the gun. Pac West Arms has been out of business since 1996. You took the gun to the range, and a BATF agent there decided you had an illegal AW, arrested you, and you now find yourself charged with possession of an illegal AW. What do you do? -Troy
View Quote
[b]Before I answer, let me ask you something. In your above example, do you think I commit a crime when I purchased that PWA rifle?[/b] RK
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 5:23:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 5:25:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 5:59:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 6:32:12 PM EDT
RK, I'm getting lost in all the back and forth. Could you bring us back to your point/thesis/assertion? And that is...?
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 6:48:08 PM EDT
I've tried to stay out of this one, but I'm just going to throw in one point here. You can use anything you want as proof (assuming its admissible); receipts, testimony, manufacturers records, whatever. The whole thing boils down to credibility; who is the jury going to believe? If you don't have any receipts, records or paper documentation of any type you would probably have a problem if charged. The jury will listen to your testimony that you assembled prior to 1994. But if you have no records or proof, they may likely think you're just lying to save your own skin. Think about it; how credible is testimony by the accused if their testimony is the only thing that can exculpate them? Compouinding that is the problem that you'd be charged with possession of an assault weapon. Think of the effect on the jury when Mr. Prosecutor holds up your black, evil looking AR15 in front of a jury full of soccer moms and other people too dumb to get out of jury duty. They're going to think you're a nutcase for wanting to own something like that to begin with (regardless of when it was made or if it has a bayo lug). And you want to base your defense on them taking your testimony as credible? I'm not a litigator, but that doesn't sound good to me.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 7:07:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 6:59:47 AM EDT by back40]
Originally Posted By shaggy: (Horror story of sitting in the hot seat while your evil black rifle is held up for 12 gasping soccer moms who keep glancing at their watches hoping they can get home by 3:30 to take little Johhny to practice, deleted)
View Quote
Which is why you want to buy only lowers that have manufacturer's proof of assembly. That should be "iron clad" enough to not even have that charge brought to court. A good lower (Colt, BM, Eagle Arms) that you can easily get such proof for, is only $100-$300 more than a lower that is "questionable" (plus, these lowers are of the best quality anyways). With lawyers charging $150-$200/hr, even just an inquery by the ATF will more than make up the difference. The easiest and most likely instance the average Joe will probably be in a situation to be charged with this crime, is if you use your preban in a self defense situation. Some states are hard enough on justifiable shootings, add in a questionable Assault Rifle.... I agree that this law is unconstitutional, but it's what we have to live with for the moment.
I'm not a litigator, but that doesn't sound good to me.
View Quote
I thought you were??
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 7:25:34 PM EDT
I thought you were??
View Quote
Nope - I'm a lawyer, but I do mostly transactional work and shooting paper at the USPTO (Patent & Trademark Office). Litigators are the guys who spend most of their time in court; I try to stay out of court.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 10:34:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: No, *I* . . . . -Troy
View Quote
Excellent!
Originally Posted By TEXN: RK, I'm getting lost in all the back and forth. Could you bring us back to your point/thesis/assertion? And that is...?
View Quote
My point is this, just because a preban semi-auto assault weapon is “undocumented”, doesn’t mean it’s illegal. to be cont. . . . RK
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 11:46:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: I'm still genuinely interested in why you disagree, specifically. For example, let's say that in 1999 you bought an AR15 built on a PWA lower, serial number 1062, that you were told by your FFL was a pre-ban. The gun was in AW configuration when you bought it. And, in fact, [b]though you have no way of knowing this[/b], the lower was first sold in 1991 and was actually assembled into AW configuration, with the same parts that you have now. You received no paperwork with the gun. Pac West Arms has been out of business since 1996. You took the gun to the range, and a BATF agent there decided you had an illegal AW, arrested you, and you now find yourself charged with possession of an illegal AW. What do you do? -Troy
View Quote
Ok, I’ll play along, even though the chance of this happening are nearly zilch. First I’d like to point out, the same situation could happen even if you had a factory letter, signed statement or otherwise. You’d still be arrested, taken to the slammer, spend money on an attorney or take the states appointed attorney. Either way you gonna get taken for a ride. Don’t convince yourself that little piece of paper is a get out of jail free card. I’m not exactly sure how this part works, but I suspect: The ATF would have to show some sort of cause, evidence, or other reason for the arrest (Lawyers have a fancy Latin term for it.). I doubt the prosecution is going to go to court with, “Agent Dickhead thinks this guy’s has an illegal AW.” Where is the basis? They can’t start a case without evidence. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume they get past that and into court. I find the best hard hitting pro gun attorney I can afford. Hope he can convince the court of the absurdity of the whole thing, and get it tossed. If that doesn’t work, and we end up in court. The prosecution presents it’s case. It’s star witness, Agent Dickhead explains how he thinks the gun is illegal. (For the life of me, I can’t figure out what the explanation would be, or what this mock prosecution’s case is, Troy?) I suspect we’d show the court how the firearm was manufactured before the ban, in 1991. And that in all likelihood had been configured as an semi-AW before the ban. I testify to purchasing the rifle in question from the said dealer in it’s present configuration, and how it was represented to me as a legal “preban”. The FFL testifies to the same, and to how when he received the rifle it was configured the same and represented to him as being a legal grand-fathered semi-aw.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:25:15 PM EDT
So what you lawyers are saying is that if your serial # decodes to a pre-94 date you should still have a receipt reflecting that you or someone else purchased it in aw configuration before 1994.? What is there to stop someone from forging a receipt from john smith to you with a pre-94 date? For that matter, What is to stop a person form building a pre-ban from an 80% receiver,date stamping it pre94,forging a receipt from john doe with a pre-94 date? I'll answer that, your concience. How do most AR-lovers conciences feel about the constituionality of the Ban? Basically its like a retired sheriff told me one time. If you keep your mouth shut and cover your tracks you can get away with anything. I am not advocating anything here, but I hate it when people tell other people that they do not even know, that you absolutely-positively have to do something a certain way. Laws are like algebra problems, change one variable here or there and your result can be different.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 1:36:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 1:58:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 2:15:58 PM EDT by TEXN]
RK, are you sitting down? I totally agree with you. However... there is no such thing as "undocumented". All AR's (all guns) have a paper trail (e.g. documentation) but you may not know where the trail leads. If your "undocumented" preban-serial-numbered AR lower leads from the manufacturer to distributor X then to dealer Y and then to customer Z, and the sale date of the "receiver only" on the dealer's books is Sep 14, 1994, where are you when--next week--you are found to be in possession of a completed preban AR, built on that very same lower? In fact, how do you, or I, or my uncle Bill know you're not presently in possession of SOME lower falling into the same category that was illegally used to build a weapon you now own? I think what we're all saying here is that you MAY have to prove its legality. You wouldn't want to find yourself with the above weapon, if called upon to do so. And how do you avoid getting caught with such a weapon? Documentation. Establish your own paper trail. Get something to use in your favor. Ask questions of the seller. Get a signed statement from the seller. Get a photocopy of the owner's carry permit or ID. Get a sales receipt. Buy a Colt or a Bushmaster that can be factory verified as a complete preban rifle. The fact that some of that can be faked doesn't mean one should totally disregard its value. Whether or not this is all wasted effort I can't say. I can say that I choose to spend my money carefully, and then I don't need to worry about what I buy. If someone else doesn't, that isn't my decision to make. Just saw Troy's note which appeared while I was writing this. I think we're saying very much the same thing, and as usual Troy is saying it better. By the way, RK--and others--I consider this an exchange of views, not an argument. We're all friends here, and all on the same side. Let's keep it in perspective.
Link Posted: 6/11/2001 4:07:54 PM EDT
I am in this 'proving innocense of a preban' situation. I have posted this story many times on many boards, but I think it's important that I post it here too. It relates directly. This may take two posts to complete, but I'll try to keep it short and to the point. My stepfather died alone of natural causes in his house in NY earlier this year. A friend discovered his body and called 911. The dumba** never bothered to look around the house to hide any questionable items. Paramedics and the sheriffs responded. Lying next to the couch where he died was a loaded illegal greasegun. Upon further investigation, the sheriffs found an AR15 SP1, Valmet M78 semi, and a few other guns not worth mentioning - the others were obviously legal. Along with these goodies were found two other goodies - a bag of weed on the entertainment center and a garbage bag full of weed in the den. Luckily, you can't arrest a dead man. The guns were confiscated as 'illegal assault weapons'. The sheriffs do not know the law of preban versus not preban. Also, because of their distrust with assault rifles, they want to see receipts or records for the two assault rifles and the 35 or so high capacity magazines. In these words, I was told by the sheriff, "If you find a receipt for the AR and 2 mags, you get the AR and two mags. If you don't find receipts for the other 15 AR mags, you won't get the other 15 mags." You are right. There is no law about keeping receipts by private owners. But the sheriff wants them for liabilty reasons, just to be sure. At this point, I have now proven to the police that they are, indeed, legal prebans. They still have the guns and want to see receipts. This has been going on for 6 months now. I will be filing for federal civil rights violations and arbitration under article 78 of NY law if the guns and mags are not returned by July 1st. I read a post about a guy that spent $10000 to get back $5000? Well, that's going to be me soon. These bastards will not get over on me. I will drag them through the dirt until their fingernails bleed as they grasp for solid ground. Keep receipts, don't keep receipts, whatever. This situation has taught me a lesson. Although I will keep my receipts, they will try, legally or not, to take my guns. It will always be "us" and "them", legal or not. Hide'm.
Link Posted: 6/11/2001 8:00:53 PM EDT
Sounds like they’re just jerking you around. I’ve talked with different people over the years that have had guns confiscated by the police for various reasons. Seem like in most cases it’s a real pain getting them back. Like they want to keep them for themselves or something. You should ask shaggy, I think he’s in NY, or lives there part time, and he’s an attorney. He might know something about the legal aspects of your situation. Good luck to you. RK
Top Top