Quoted: Out of curiousity, how in the world would the ATF KNOW if your rifle was converted prior to the ban? I mean, isn't it their burden of proof? If so, why wouldn't anyone be able to convert them and sell for the higher price?
James
|
BATF only has to prove that you are in possession of a rifle in AW configuration. That is their burden of proof, but obviously that bar is set very low, due to the way the law is written.
You may then present a defense that your rifle meets the law's criteria to have been grandfathered under the law. It is up to you (or rather, your lawyer) to present evidence to support this claim. If you had a GB model, a letter from Ruger stating the rifle's configuration when it left the factory, and the date it did so, would be sufficient to make your case. On a regular Mini, you'd need some evidence, such as a pre-ban-dated receipt for a folding pistol-grip stock, AND you'd need to be able to testify that you installed the stock prior to 9/13/94. If you didn't own the rifle on that date, you'd need the person who did to testify to the assembly, given that you legally wouldn't have had first-hand knowledge of that happening.
While I'm sure there are a few people who could in fact prove that their rifles were grandfathered, the bulk of those rifles were not. Remember: "preban" is NOT about manufacture date, but instead about the date the gun was assembled into "assault weapon" configuration.
There's plenty of information regarding this in the Legal section. Even Righteous_Kill, who refused to believe the above was true, has now, after a year of study, come to understand that it is.
-Troy