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
2/23/2017 5:55:53 PM
Posted: 12/26/2001 3:15:31 PM EST
is it legal to purchase a stripped preban lower and put a preban upper on it? somone told me it becomes a postban lower if it is sold stripped
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 3:19:06 PM EST
It is legal as long as the stipped lower was at one time assembled into a complete rifle before 1994. So, most likely, if it is a brand new stripped lower, then most likely it has never made into a rifle.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 8:53:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 8:54:01 PM EST by Dave_G]
Per a recent BATF letter ruling, a 921(a)(30) semiautomatic assault weapon with a 922(v)(2) exemption, a preban rifle, when stripped of enough parts that it no loger qualifies as such, then sold as a stripped lower, loses it's status as a "preban" and can only be built as a "postban." You take your chances building it as a preban.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:51:20 PM EST
I've posted this before, but here goes again. The recent BATF rule is not law. It is only an opinion. A lot of government groups continually rewrite rules pertaining to established law and try to go around the only body with the authority to make legislation. From this day forward, let all preban receivers be delivered with pistol grip and collapsible stock installed. I believe that would thwart the "stripped of enough parts that it no longer qualifies as such" nonsense.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 9:45:03 PM EST
The BATF letter ruling stands until successfully challenged in a federal court. The letter ruling also indicates that it must be a complete weapon. "Named' assault weapons manufactured/assembled prior to 9/13/1994 are 922(v)(2) exempt regardless of their state of assembly.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 1:13:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/28/2001 1:14:21 AM EST by Kissel]
I confess---I'm lost. If the new "rule" states that it cannot retain preban status when sold as a stripped lower, then doing as I suggested satisfies that particular requirement. Stripped means stripped. Or are we to divine that "stripped" means "upper receiver removed"? How can they demand that the weapon be complete when complete assembly was never a requirement for grandfathering in the first place? IIRC, the stipulation was that all of the necessary parts be packaged together. As far as the complete weapon provision, perhaps the BATF should institute a change in their own Form 4473 to show that a weapon is complete. Right now, all you see is a serial number and a caliber. By BATF's own definition, the lowers IS the weapon! There is no way for a citizen to show proof of complete assembly, even with the government's own registration....err, ummm, I mean transfer form. As I understand this foolishness, you can change parts on your privately-owned AW, but cannot purchase a lower and reassemble as an AW. Bottom line is that there is no way for a citizen to prove prior conforming assembly other than having a letter from the factory. Without that piece of paper, these things become one-owner artifacts. Unless I'm mistaken, this new rule is intentionally designed solely to take AW's out of circulation.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 2:23:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_G: The BATF letter ruling stands until successfully challenged in a federal court. The letter ruling also indicates that it must be a complete weapon. "Named' assault weapons manufactured/assembled prior to 9/13/1994 are 922(v)(2) exempt regardless of their state of assembly.
View Quote
Dave, The letter is just an opinion on what a government agency [i]thinks[/i] the law reads; IT'S NOT LAW and does not "stand" as anything but hearsay in a court of law. Now, ATF may act in accordance with the letter, since it's how they interpret the law they are sanctioned to enforce, but that is a far cry from actual legislation or a writing with precedential authority in a court of law. At a trial, it would have NO place in a courtroom. The AUSA trying the case would or would not argue in accordance with it, depending on his/her own take on the law.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:40:52 AM EST
Kissel is right but I think Dave's point is that it must be challenged in court to invalid it. That will be costly and require an organized militia of gun owners funding a lawyer or more.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:34:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/28/2001 7:36:35 AM EST by Dave_G]
Steve, I agree that it is not law until they successfully defend it in court as they did in the "once a machinegun" issue. Then again, they may lose it like they did the Thompson-Center buttstock issue. Until then, people take a risk that BATF will enforce the law as interpreted by the letter ruling. They, the defendants, could prevail in court, but that is a potentially expensive defense. As for the complete weapon question, until you attach a functional, semiautomatic upper receiver to the lower receiver, or have all the parts to one in your possession, the receiver fails to meet the definition of a [red][b]semiautomatic rifle[/b][/red] capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and is therefore not a 921(a)(30) assault weapon and not subject to exemption under 922(v)(2) regardless of the original data of manufacture/assembly. Of course, that doesn't apply to a named assault weapon. BATF's interpretation of the law appears to be a narrow, and very literal one. A successful arguement of the "Once an assault weapon, always an assault weapon" theory would appear to require the arguement that legislative intent was that the 922(v)(2) exemption be permanent and not rely on the weapon remaining in 921(a)(30) configuration to retain exempt status. Just how important is legislative intent? (Edited because my fingers are typing "x" instead of "s".)
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:54:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Steve, As for the complete weapon question, until you attach a functional, semiautomatic upper receiver to the lower receiver, or have all the parts to one in your possession, the receiver fails to meet the definition of a [red][b]semiautomatic rifle[/b][/red] capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and is therefore not a 921(a)(30) assault weapon and not subject to exemption under 922(v)(2) regardless of the original data of manufacture/assembly. Dave G: This discussion is all over the place. Until there is consenus on the language, there will never be clear resolution. The receiver is the controlled device. That being the case, if it is equipped with a pistol grip and a collapsible stock (since it already accepts a detachable magazine), it meets the criteria for an "assault weapon"--it already exceeds, by itself, the number of permissible post-ban features. I argue that removing the upper receiver and selling the lower in this condition would fully meeet the letter of the BATF rule du jour. The definition of a semiautomatic rifle is one of function, not configuration. The definition of assualt weapon is the reverse.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 8:36:18 AM EST
I don't know why we keep this going.Let the (SHEEP) do what they will.It's just more cheep pre bans for the rest of us!
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 9:01:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Steve, Until then, people take a risk that BATF will enforce the law as interpreted by the letter ruling. They, the defendants, could prevail in court, but that is a potentially expensive defense.
View Quote
Agreed! Call me a puss, but my feeling is the risks are too great and potentially too expensive to be a test case in most instances.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 1:19:04 PM EST
Steve, 100% agreement on your last! Meooooowww! Kissel, The official designation is [b][red]"semiautomatic assault weapon"[/b][/red]. The sections even read "A semiautomatic rifle" and "a semiautomatic shotgun." To qualify as a [b][red]"semiautomatic assault weapon"[/b][/red]," it must be a semiautomatic rifle, shotgun or pistol. Without an upper receiver group, an AR lower is just a firearm by definition and 921(A)(30) and 922(v)(2) do not apply.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:05:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2001 10:06:46 PM EST by cc48510]
What IF...The Lower is from a Pre-Ban Colt AR-15.
(30) The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -       (A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -             (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);             (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;             (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);             (iv) [b][red]Colt AR-15;[/red][/b]             (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;             (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;             (vii) Steyr AUG;             (viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and             (ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:12:50 PM EST
Here is an interesting WHAT IF:
(28) The term ''semiautomatic rifle'' means any repeating rifle [red]which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round[/red], and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
View Quote
WHAT IF, someone could design a rifle that did not meet the LEGAL defintion above. Let's say, perhaps it could use a rechargable gas or electromechanically-operated mechanism to reload rather than utilizing the energy of the fired cartridge. Perhaps, if the Gas tube wer removed and the port covered with an electronic sensor that determines when the gun is fired, the utilizes a solenoid, or similar electromechanical device to reload the next round. Then would it be no longer a Semi-Automatic Rifle, and therefore exempt from 922(v). Just bouncing that around in my head.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:17:36 PM EST
Better yet, how about this. WHAT IF, you utilize a special trigger. The gun would operate like this: You fire the gun and the bolt locks to the rear, then you pull the trigger twice. The first pull drops the bolt so as that the reload is 'manual', then the second fires the gun. Or, would this somehow in the ATF's twisted world = an Open Bolt Firearm.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 10:35:34 PM EST
From a little higher up in this topic:
The BATF letter ruling stands until successfully challenged in a federal court. The letter ruling also indicates that it must be a complete weapon. [b]"Named' assault weapons manufactured/assembled prior to 9/13/1994 are 922(v)(2) exempt regardless of their state of assembly.[/b]
View Quote
cc, Your ideas all qualify as semiautomatic by the definition provided. Gas pressure trips your sensor and functions the action on your first example. On the second, gas sends to bolt to the rear and compresses the action spring. The force of the spring, compressed through the action of the gas then chambers the next round.
Top Top