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
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/22/2001 2:21:45 PM EDT
I can buy a Bushmaster complete lower w/push pin and stock for $450. However, the date of mfg is 6-27-94 and was sold as a receiver. The ban kicked in after 9-13-94. Should I be concerned about purchasing this and adding some of the preban features to it? Thanks.
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 2:26:34 PM EDT
did the seller ever have a upper on it? was it ever a compelete rifle? was it even with a complete parts kit? if u can answer yes to any of these go ahead.
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 2:41:03 PM EDT
The seller was not the original owner back in 1994. However, yes, he did have it made into a complete weapon.
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 2:45:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/22/2001 2:44:48 PM EDT by norielX]
Boy does this ever get sticky... Hopefully this lower was part of a rifle at some time before the ban. I know you can check serial numbers to find out. If this was bought as a lower before the ban, proving it was a rifle may be a little hard. I don't know how much proof you need. Just being part of a kit doesn't mean that its legal as a pre ban. The original owner could have been lazy, bought the kit and lower, but never assembled it all into a complete rifle. From what I've read on the FAQ's, this rifle is not a pre-ban. Go read up on the ban, though, because ignorance of the law is no defence.
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 2:54:33 PM EDT
Actually, being part of a kit is good enough, provided it had ALL the parts necessary to make it a grandfathered assault weapon in the box with it on or before 9/13/94... It need not necessarily have been assembled. If it was never set aside in a box with all necessary parts, though, it did have to have been assembled. Fun, eh?
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 2:58:21 PM EDT
Yep, I figured this was sticky. How can I or the government prove that this was or wasn't made into a weapon or placed as a kit before the ban. All Bushmaster could verify is the mfg date. Is the price of $450 worth this hassle? Very GOOD condition complete lower. Looks new.
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 3:28:33 PM EDT
well odds are good that it was a gradfathered AW and since the serial number is pre CB and the seller said it was configered pre CB i would go ahead and buy the dang thing and config it with all the stuff i want. 450 is a damn good deal on a pre ban reciever
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 5:54:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 9:45:56 PM EDT
Too new to mess around with. Not unles you get a "build sheet" and the original dated sales reciept. I know that people disagree, I feel that IF you buy a preban that was made at least 3 years before the ban then you would be safe in assuming it is a grandfathered AR15. The way I feel is that the older the better. Sometimes I get the feeling that certain people are selling Sept 94 lowers as prebans just to pigfuck unknowing people.
Link Posted: 6/22/2001 10:34:45 PM EDT
Hate to bring it up, but screw worrying about pre-ban vs post ban. There can't be a ban constitutionally. Just buy it and do what you want with it and don't tell anybody. the feds don't have the authority over it, anyway.
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 6:21:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Hate to bring it up, but screw worrying about pre-ban vs post ban. There can't be a ban constitutionally. Just buy it and do what you want with it and don't tell anybody. the feds don't have the authority over it, anyway.
View Quote
Tell that to a friend of mine, Pete Baxer. He lost everything he had and is currently doing 7 years in a fed. prison in Mass. as the result of the 94 assault weapons law (he was a deputy in the sheriffs dept.). I think Pete would have a different point of view. Trust me guys, if you not sure, walk away from the deal, it's not worth it. (BTW, Pete did get a "good deal" on the purchase price of the AR if that's the only thing your are concerned about)
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 6:51:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2001 6:49:22 AM EDT by phonegunner]
scotd1, Not to embarass your friend Pete. But could you post more details and information pertinent to this infraction as an example for those that might want to know? Thanks, Ted...
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 7:21:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By phonegunner: scotd1, Not to embarass your friend Pete. But could you post more details and information pertinent to this infraction as an example for those that might want to know? Thanks, Ted...
View Quote
Ted, I have probably over spoken already, but I think Pete would want the good people of this board to learn from his experience. This case was complicated, involved numerous facets over a time frame of a couple of years and it's not my story to tell. But the point is: these things are prosecuted, there are real people doing real time for violating these laws. I want people to know this and think about it when giving advise out to others to "screw it, it's unconstitutuional anyway" when it comes to these assault weapons laws. If people decide to go that way they at least need to go in knowing the possible outcome to them and their families.
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 7:39:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By scotd1:
Originally Posted By phonegunner: scotd1, Not to embarass your friend Pete. But could you post more details and information pertinent to this infraction as an example for those that might want to know? Thanks, Ted...
View Quote
Ted, I have probably over spoken already, but I think Pete would want the good people of this board to learn from his experience. This case was complicated, involved numerous facets over a time frame of a couple of years and it's not my story to tell. But the point is: these things are prosecuted, there are real people doing real time for violating these laws. I want people to know this and think about it when giving advise out to others to "screw it, it's unconstitutuional anyway" when it comes to these assault weapons laws. If people decide to go that way they at least need to go in knowing the possible outcome to them and their families.
View Quote
Sounds like bullshit to me. Why not try this: Once upon a time a guy named Pete bought a rife and went to jail..... or No shit my cousin new a guy named Pete.... or I read this on the internet, this guy Pete....
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 8:07:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QCMGR:
Originally Posted By scotd1:
Originally Posted By phonegunner: scotd1, Not to embarass your friend Pete. But could you post more details and information pertinent to this infraction as an example for those that might want to know? Thanks, Ted...
View Quote
Ted, I have probably over spoken already, but I think Pete would want the good people of this board to learn from his experience. This case was complicated, involved numerous facets over a time frame of a couple of years and it's not my story to tell. But the point is: these things are prosecuted, there are real people doing real time for violating these laws. I want people to know this and think about it when giving advise out to others to "screw it, it's unconstitutuional anyway" when it comes to these assault weapons laws. If people decide to go that way they at least need to go in knowing the possible outcome to them and their families.
View Quote
Sounds like bullshit to me. Why not try this: Once upon a time a guy named Pete bought a rife and went to jail..... or No shit my cousin new a guy named Pete.... or I read this on the internet, this guy Pete....
View Quote
Well, it's certainly no concern of mine whether you believe it or not. I assume you are big boy and you can do what you want. I'm sure you can find alot of "good deals". Pay your money and take your chances. Good luck.
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 8:33:39 AM EDT
For arugument sake, let's just assume that I bought that receiver. How can I trace the history of the gun so that I might get in touch with someone who possessed it prior to the ban? From what I understand, all that had to happen was that a person (whether the owner of the receiver or not) had to put an upper on it for a split second, or have the parts for a full gun together in a box as a kit for a time. I would like to get an affidavit from someone who contructed this receiver in the above fashion to put in my file. (That is had I actually bought this receiver). For one thing, Bushmaster should have slapped an upper on all of those receivers just as a *fitting test* then we wouldn't have any issues, right? I wonder... The real question is "With whom does the burden of proof lie?" The "innocent until proven guilty" phrase comes to mind. On my side I have a receiver that WAS built 2.5 months before the ban, most certainly being waited on by a dealer, and a picture of this receiver contructed into a weapon before the seller purchased it with no date on the picture so for all I know this picture could have been taken 7-4-94 before the ban. What proof would the government have otherwise? Am I a crazy man in denial? LJ
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 8:58:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2001 8:59:22 AM EDT by drfcolt]
I believe "Pete" must have done some other no-no's and had the weapons charge just piled on. Sounds more like a penality for a first-time NFA violation. I believe that if you do get caught, the penality is a real stiff fine and confiscation of your gun and certainly not 7-years in the pen. I don't think it's even a felony, just a misdomeanor (sp).
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 9:01:57 AM EDT
TN-LJ, Just buy the damn lower! $450.00 is an excellent price these days for a Bushmaster dated prior to Sept 94. It would be difficult if not impossible to prove whether that lower was assembled or not or wether it was boxed up with the neccessary parts, making it a "legal" pre-ban. The fact is, it [b]WAS[/b] made prior to Sept 1994 and would be all but impossible to prove that it isn't a pre-ban. All these stories about a guy named "Pete" or whoever are fine and dandy but I'm sure "Pete" did something more than buy a rifle made in early 94 and snap pre-ban upper on it. You are not getting all the facts from scotD1 and it smells like bulllshit anyway. Buy the lower or turn me on to the seller and I will. Coltshooter out
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 9:08:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2001 9:08:04 AM EDT by drfcolt]
Let's face the facts and be realistic. The Fed's are not going to tie up their prosecution resources over any pre-ban manufactured receiver. It's just to darned hard to prove and they don't have the resources. Besides, the judge would probably throw it out right-away, anyhow; he's probably got a full docket, too, and he knows it's a waste of the tax-payer's money. Now, building a pre-ban with a post-ban receiver. That would be a gravey prosecution for them. Compelete paper trail. No possible defense. Your screwed.
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 9:40:23 AM EDT
First I’d like to say you guys and debating something that hasn’t happened once since the assault weapon ban in Sept 1994. That is, someone being prosecuted for an illegal configured assault weapon built on a receiver manufactured before the ban. NOT ONE in seven years. So at this point it’s basically academic. scotd1, I guessing “Pete” had a preban upper on a postban lower? And it sound like some other really serious problems. No disrespect to your friend, but QCMGR is right, you give us vague single puzzle piece. What are we suppose to do with that? Pete went to jail because he committed a crime. What the heck does that tell us? We don’t know the crime or circumstance. What was your point? That people who commit crimes go to jail??? RK
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 9:46:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: Negative. Unfortunately, since the rifle was shipped as a lower only, you need to have some other kind of proof of pre-ban status, or you should consider this a post-ban lower.
View Quote
That’s just plain poor advice. The law doesn’t say you’re required to have proof of preban status. We’ve gone over this, just because there is a lack of absolute proof does not make the weapon illegal. The rifle only need to have been assembled (or part of enough part to do so) in order to be considered a legal preban assault weapon.
Originally Posted By Troy: Since the current owner didn't own the rifle on 9/13/94, a statement from him means nothing, as his statement would not be admissable in court. All that you have left is to either track down the original owner and get an affidavit from him, or get receipts from him.
View Quote
Why wouldn’t the current owner’s statement be admissible, huh?
Originally Posted By Troy: Anything less, and you take the same exact risk as buying a brand new post-ban lower and putting pre-ban features on it.
View Quote
That has to be the stupidest statement I’ve ever read on this board. There is a considerable difference between an obvious illegal postban and a preban receiver. (I still can’t believe you said that.)
Originally Posted By Troy: The prosecution's burden of proof is to prove that you were in possession of a rifle that is configured in such a way as to be regulated by the Assault Weapons ban. In other words, a detachable magazine semi-auto with more than one evil feature.
View Quote
That is based on shaggy’’s comparison to a case involving a machine gun. Granted the law is written in similar terms, but there is huge difference between the way legal machine guns and legal semi-auto assault weapons are defined. Mainly the tax stamps and the NFA registry. I would think most lawyers would agree in the case of a semi-auto AW the prosecution would also need to show some sort of cause, and/or evidence as to there being a crime committed. Otherwise cops could arbitrary arrest anyone who owned a ““preban”” assault weapon and with no other reason than they owned the weapon in question.
Originally Posted By Troy: As the defense, you may present any evidence to prove to the court that your rifle qualifies for the grandfathering exemption. Failure to submit this evidence means that the court will decide based only on the evidence of the prosecution. -Troy
View Quote
And what evidence does the prosecution have? That they suspect is was never assembled before the ban? Boy, with that strong case the jury is gonna give you the death penalty for sure. [rolleyes] RK
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 9:55:59 AM EDT
Man, I love this discussion. I also hear that the ban will run out in the next year or so..? Is that true, does it have to be renewed by Bush? Would that make this irrelevant? LJ
Link Posted: 6/23/2001 11:52:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/26/2001 10:00:53 PM EDT
If the federal ban sunsets, what about the states that mirrored the AW ban as state law (NYS comes to mind)? I don't think those sunsets, unfortunately.
Link Posted: 6/26/2001 10:53:06 PM EDT
Whe I put in the name Pete Baxer into my search engine I get [url]http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/11/18/00845627.shtml[/url] who is also listed number 20 here... [url]http://www.foprangeinc.com/1998ipsc.htm[/url] Maybe its a different Pete Baxer in ClubFed? What are the odds? Conspiracy? Its FOUR years NOT seven...While they DONT list specific charges, selling stolen firearms is NOT a good sign ....
Link Posted: 6/26/2001 10:53:16 PM EDT
There is NO way to prove that a lower was never in a complete configuration at some time before the ban. Though, I shy away from anything that is close. I give a few months. Preferably, the lower would be late 1993 or earlier. But, unless it was less than 30 days before the ban, I would say there shouldn't be a problem. A) Burden of Proof: The prosocution would have to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt the lower was not assembled prior to the ban or in a legal configuration prior to the ban. B) Factory: Did somebody at the factory place an upper on it. Even if not, proving otherwise would be hard, but not impossible. C) Previous Owners: The factory might have a record of who purchased it from them. But, who owned it in between. The prosecution would have to produce every last person who handled that lower. D) September 1994: Why the hell wouldn't somebody have assembled the lower, when the ban was proposed. I cannot think of anybody who invested the money and effort to purchase an AR-15 in parts, who wouldn't assemble it. It's possible, but prove it. E) Dubious: At least if it had a tele. stock installed before. There are 2 deadly features on many lowers even without the upper. Simply put, if the lower was complete with grip and tele. stock then the lower was an AW, even w/o an upper. After all, there aren't serial numbers on stocks. F) Tracing the information: Presumably, if the receiver was ordered from the factory and delivered directly to an FFL who kept it for himself and sold it to you. Then it would be easy to trace. But, if it was ever sold. The trail ends there. Dealers do not keep build sheets in general. Even if they did, maybe another part was temporarily placed on. The lower could be traced from owner to owner, presuming it was sold only by FFLs and not at a Gun Show, etc. But, none of the features could be traced. For all they know the original dealer sold it with the deadly features on it. And if he sold it 7 years ago or more, like hell if he'll even remember owning it. Much less, what was on it (Threaded barrel, etc.) G) Intentional Violation: In general, if you reasonably believe that it was assembled prior to 9/13/94 then you shouldn't have a problem even if it wasn't. Ignorance only applies when you don't know the law. If you reasonably believe that the upper was on there at some point, then you are not breaking the law. You have to not believe it was assembled at some time and the prosecution has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In general, if they trace it and you believed it had been previously assembled, They'll probably confiscate the gun or at least the illegal parts. But, prosecuting the case would be impossible. Proving the gun is illegal would be next to impossible. Basically, don't worry abbout it. If the lower was produced before the ban, you are fine. I am not planning on buying any pre-ban lowers any time soon. Basically, I don't have the money. But, if I should get the extra money, I will look at the manufacturing date and reasonably believe that it was fitted at the factory and is therefore legal. Please do not state otherwise. As long as I reasonably believe and he reasonably believes they are fitted at the factory, we aren't breaking any laws. And right now I reasonably believe so.
Link Posted: 6/26/2001 11:12:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2001 11:31:52 PM EDT by Dave_G]
scotd1< Is this the "Pete Baxer" you were talking about? [url]http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/11/18/00845627.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/press/field/fy01/111700gundealer.htm[/url] Saturday, 11/18/00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dealer charged with receiving 20 stolen guns By KATHY CARLSON Staff Writer A Nashville gun dealer surrendered to federal authorities yesterday on charges of possessing stolen firearms, falsifying his books and conspiracy, officials with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said. Edward Mason, owner of the Gun Mart II store at 6682 Charlotte Pike, was charged in an indictment issued Wednesday with receiving 20 stolen handguns and with six counts of making false entries in his books about the sources of some of the guns. The indictment also alleges that on several occasions, Mason asked a man, [blue][b]Pete Baxer[/blue][/b], to provide him with specific guns. On seven occasions, Mason received a stolen firearm from [blue][b]Baxer[/blue][/b] and paid $100 below wholesale, the indictment alleges. [blue][b]Baxer[/blue][/b] was sentenced in May 1999 to more than four years in prison for federal firearms violations, ATF Special Agent Todd Reichert said in a news release. Mason appeared yesterday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin, who released him on a $25,000 "own recognizance" bond. Masonís attorney, Vince Wehby, declined to comment except to say he "will look into the charges and defend them appropriately." "Itís an important indictment because it involves multiple firearms," said ATF Special Agent in Charge James M. Cavanaugh. "Weíre trying to stop the flow, in this case, of stolen guns, or any guns used in crime or destined for crime." Cavanaugh said Masonís federal firearms license, which allows him to sell guns, remains in effect unless he is convicted. About 3,000 people hold federal firearms licenses in Tennessee, he said. Licenses must be renewed every three years, and ATF inspectors try to inspect each license holder once a year, he said. If convicted, Mason could be sentenced up to 10 years in prison and fined $250,000 Hmmmmm...
Link Posted: 6/26/2001 11:55:41 PM EDT
Uuuuuggggghhhhh.......
That is based on shaggy’’s comparison to a case involving a machine gun. Granted the law is written in similar terms, but there is huge difference between the way legal machine guns and legal semi-auto assault weapons are defined. Mainly the tax stamps and the NFA registry.
View Quote
RK - you missed the point of US v. Just and US v. Gonzalez. The difference in the two classes of weapons (MGs and semis) and the way they are defined is irrelevant; its not the point of the cases. Those cases merely show the defense has the burden of proof to prove his own defense. It doesn't matter if its for possession of an unregistered a machinegun, for possession of a semi-assault weapon, or for littering on federal property - the defense must prove his defense. It is not the burden of the prosecution to disprove all of the defendants possible defenses. If it were, they wouldn't be defenses, they'd be elements of the offense.
I would think most lawyers would agree in the case of a semi-auto AW the prosecution would also need to show some sort of cause, and/or evidence as to there being a crime committed. Otherwise cops could arbitrary arrest anyone who owned a ““preban”” assault weapon and with no other reason than they owned the weapon in question.
View Quote
The only "cause" a prosecutor has to show is to make his prima facia case. To do so for a 922(v) violation, he needs to allege 3 things: 1.defendant was in possesion of a rifle. 2.defendant knew he was in possession of said rifle. 3.rifle had a detachable mag and two or more assault features. That is all the prosecutor has to prove to win a conviction. So yeah, if the feds wanted, they could crack down and start arresting people for no other reason than they owned the weapon in question.
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 12:07:12 AM EDT
cc48510 -
Burden of Proof: The prosocution would have to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt the lower was not assembled prior to the ban or in a legal configuration prior to the ban.
View Quote
The prosecution has to do no such thing - proving the date of manufacture and assembly as a statutorily defined "assault weapon" is a defense - the defendant must prove it to escape conviction. See my post above to RK.
Please do not state otherwise. As long as I reasonably believe and he reasonably believes they are fitted at the factory, we aren't breaking any laws. And right now I reasonably believe so.
View Quote
You can reasonably believe anything you want, but ignorance is not a defense.
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 12:25:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2001 12:26:23 AM EDT by cc48510]
Since when did the law become guilty until proven innocent. In the words of a lawyer I knew, the defense doesn't have to do anything. The prosecution has to prove the defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor doesn't do so, the defense doesn't have to do anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove it wasn't assembled. The owner doesn't have to prove anything. Though, presenting a decent defense doesn't hurt.
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 6:20:35 AM EDT
cc48510 - Its not so much "guilty until proven innocent", but rather its all in how the law is written and what the elements of the crime are. Here the elements of the crime are few, and the burden on the prosecutor is small. Think of it like a charge of murder and a defense of insanity. A prosecutor only has to prove the defendant knowingly/willingly committed the act. If the defendant wants to use a defense of insanity, the defendant must prove his defense and produce enough evidence to that effect to convince a jury.
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 9:11:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shaggy: Uuuuuggggghhhhh....... RK - you missed the point of US v. Just and US v. Gonzalez. The difference in the two classes of weapons (MGs and semis) and the way they are defined is irrelevant; its not the point of the cases. Those cases merely show the defense has the burden of proof to prove his own defense. It doesn't matter if its for possession of an unregistered a machinegun, for possession of a semi-assault weapon, or for littering on federal property - the defense must prove his defense. It is not the burden of the prosecution to disprove all of the defendants possible defenses. If it were, they wouldn't be defenses, they'd be elements of the offense.
View Quote
No I did not miss the point. The case you refer indicates the defense on possession of a machine gun is an “affirmative defense”. Further the machine ban and the semi-auto assault weapon ban are written in similar terms, thus it’s your contention that an “affirmative defense” will also be required during a case involving a semi-auto assault weapon. The legal definition of the two separate types of weapon is very relevant. With a machine gun, it’s rather black and white. Either the weapon is question has a tax stamp and/or is in the nation NFA database or it has neither. On the other side, as we all know, the laws definition of a legal, grand fathered semi-auto assault weapons leaves a rather grey area. The court, judge, attorneys, and/or jury cannot ignore the legal definition of the item in question, can they? In retrospect, If I accept yours and Troy’s believe (which I don’t) that proof of status is compulsory, then there is no “grey” area, it’s either legal or it’s not. However this leaves open to debate what that proof may comprise. Receipts, signed statements, and other “paper” trail items are not absolute in their proof of status. So you’re still back to a grey area in the law.
Originally Posted By shaggy: The only "cause" a prosecutor has to show is to make his prima facia case. To do so for a 922(v) violation, he needs to allege 3 things: 1.defendant was in possesion of a rifle. 2.defendant knew he was in possession of said rifle. 3.rifle had a detachable mag and two or more assault features. That is all the prosecutor has to prove to win a conviction. So yeah, if the feds wanted, they could crack down and start arresting people for no other reason than they owned the weapon in question.
View Quote
That last sentence made my blood run cold. RK
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 12:15:12 PM EDT
There is no grey area, at least in the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon." The weapon is either a semiautomatic assault weapon or it isn't. It's status as a grandfathered weapon depends on whether or not there is proof that it existed in the configuration as a semiautomatic assault weapon prior to the date of enactment (9/13/94). Initially, the prosecutor will decide if your proof is adequate. If he believes it is, the charge will be dismissed. If he doesn't, then it is up to the Judge to admit the proof at trial. In the case of a jury trial, the jury will then decide whether or not to accept your proof. Otherwise the judge will both admit and decide the acceptability of the proof offered.
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 2:48:56 PM EDT
As much as i hate these laws,dave and shaggy are correct.i have after researching this matter,come to the same conclusion.should the need ever arise,you best be able to PROVE how your firearm was configured on sept,13,1994.mmk
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 3:33:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2001 3:35:28 PM EDT by rkbar15]
I think it's time for Steve in VA to give us a lesson on the governments "burden of prove". A prosecutor must establish every element of the crime in order to win a conviction. The defense doesn't have to prove anything but they usually have to present a case in order to prevail. They only have to establish "reasonable doubt" in the eyes of the jury in order to win an acquittal for the defendant. Expert testimony, business records, witnesses or testimony of the defendant that tends to establish reasonable doubt is what a defense is all about. Suppression of evidence is another tool the defense will use if it will fly. No evidence, no case. Don't count on the jury making the correct decision. Any experienced trial lawyer will tell you they've lost cases they should have won and won cases they should have lost. In any case very few criminal cases ever go to trial. The government has unlimited funds and resources. Very few defendants do. If you are charged you will most likely accept a plea to a lesser charge out of financial necessity. The bottom line is, with so many easily verifiable legal SAW's around why put yourself at risk with a rifle of questionable status?
Link Posted: 6/27/2001 4:45:49 PM EDT
Yes, there is a grey area. Status is NOT based on whether or not there is proof. Status is based on whether it was configured as a semi-auto assault weapon and legally possessed on or before the ban. We’ve been over this. The law is not black and white, and there are no absolutes, the faster you figure that out, the better off you’ll be. The grey area is what this whole debate is about. And just because you have a letter or some receipts from a previous owner, don’t think you’re out of the grey area. Because the reliability of that “proof” can also be under question. Just because someone testifies that it was configured before the ban doesn’t make it anymore so than saying it was not. And like I’ve said before, you’re all still worrying and debating something that as not happened since the ban was enacted.
Top Top