My AR (soon to be two of them) is post-ban.  But I technically own three pre-ban configured barrels, two of which are being properly modified to post-ban status.   I want to save the original Colt SP-1 barrel in its unaltered form just in case the AW ban is allowed to sunset in two years.    

As far as anyone can determine, would I be in violation of any BATF ruling by having a preban barrel in my possession when all my rifles are post-ban only?

The extra barrel isn't a complete upper, it's a barrel with threads on it, and nothing else.  Not even a barrel nut.   A part.

The extra barrel is in the care of my gunsmith until it is determined what the legal best course of action is.

Anybody know the answer to this one?

CJ

just a barrel, not installed on an upper, should be ok.

Just keep it completely separate and apart from the lower, as in a different location.

Steve's right.  BATF considers storing all of the parts necessary to assemble a 921(a)(30) assault weapon together as possessing such an assault weapon, at least for the purposes of the 922(v)(2) exemption.  Whether they would prosecute if they stumbled on such a thing is unknown.

I figured that would be the case, but somehow I doubt they'd say anything about having a stripped pre-ban barrel in storage with no other parts.

CJ

Dave_G,
I know that the BATF considers possession of full-auto parts in proximity to a  semi-auto to be illegal.  But can you cite the law that says you cannot have preban-configuration parts under the same roof as a postban rifle?  I have never heard such a thing.  

What if one owns preban and postban weapons and keeps parts for both?

The BATF has been known to use the argument that possession of parts that can be used to create an illegal configuration constitutes INTENT to create that configuration.  They have used that argument successfully in SOME prosecutions.

The biggest problem with the BATF is that they are an agency which is tasked with the dual responsibilities of both making the rules, and enforcing them.    No government agency should be given enforcement power over the rules that they make.  It leads to abuse of power and in the case of the BATF such abuses of power have unquestionably occurred.   I wouldn't have a problem with it if the BATF made the rules and the FBI enforced them, since the division of responsibilites discourages them from making up rules (and therefore, laws, in effect) on the spot.

I'm quite sure you could maintain pre-ban parts if you had a pre-ban gun, and you can maintain post-ban parts if you have a post-ban gun, but if you have both, well, that can get kind of hairy, depending on the asshole factor of the agent inspecting.


CJ

cmj,

Most government agencies tasked with enforcong laws are also delegated the authority to promulgate rules and regulations regarding the enforcement of those laws.  You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

kissel,

I never said such a thing.  Go read the BATF letter ruling under [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=74364[/url] and make up your own mind, and take your chances.

Steve, what is your definition of ?

A different box, different room, different floor? The garage?  Tool shed?  Address?

Thanks...

My gunsmith is just going to keep the extra barrel for me in his safe until the fate of the AW ban is settled in late 2004.  If it sunsets, this unmodified pre-ban barrel and bayo lug will be installed on one of my rifles immediately just because I can.

And then, maybe I'll just sell it.  If anybody wants an A1 profile FNMI chrome lined barrel in nearly unfired condition...

CJ

Back40,

The closest actual LAW on this issue is a case that I have cited many times before on this forum (don't have it right now- it's midnight and I'm not anywhere near a law book).  The case involved parts to assemble an SBR.  The parts were in different drawers of the same dresser.  That's pretty clear- same room and same dresser.  If it were me, I would keep it in a different room, different floor, locked away, etc. . .  Best case scenario would be to keep it in a different house, but that might not be practicle and a little on the paranoid side.

Bottom line is there is no clear rule of law as to actual geographical safe distances.  There are opinions, but, like assholes . . .

I wouldn't wait for the sunset of the AW ban.  Why not just get a preban now while prices are "reasonable".  If the ban doesn't sunset the prices will only go up.

I have both pre and post ban AR's but realistically speaking I haven't really had the need for a FS or bayo lug.  If I needed to, it is quite simple to add a bayo lug and a FS to my postban upper.

And while I'm at it just where are these swarms of ATF agents searching houses for illegal FS's and bayo lugs?[:D]

Actually, I am looking for a preban lower but I keep finding the ones that are owned by idiots who think they're worth 1800 bucks!

The mere fact that I'm not allowed to have a collapsible stock, flash hider, bayonet lug, or grenade launcher makes me want to have them!

CJ

[url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/thompson.txt[/url]

I don't see anything wrong with having a preban barrel or even a preban complete upper and having a postban rifle. I mean if that is illegal then no one could have a preban rifle and a postban rifle. Thats ridiculas, you'd have to either own all pre or all postban.

If you've got NO legal way to assemble the parts in your possession, and at least one illegal way, you might have a problem.

With pre-ban and post-ban uppers, the government cannot make a case that you intended to illegally assemble a post-ban "SAW" if you've got a pre-ban lower on which to assemble your uppers - even if you've also got a post-ban lower.  If all you've got is a post-ban lower and a pre-ban configured upper, it'd be best to keep them well separated, or ATF might be able to make a case for "constructive possession".

A bare pre-ban config barrel shouldn't be a problem, if kept separate from the other stuff, since installing that barrel on an upper is not a matter of a minute without tools - although a complete pre-ban config upper half with no pre-ban lowers to assemble it on would be an easier case for the government to make.

The jest of the Thompson case is that if you have all the parts together to ONLY make a regulated gun, then it is a regulated gun. But, if it can be assembled into an unregulated gun, then it is not a regulated gun. In their case a pistol kit packed with carbine conversion can be made into a rifle, so the kit is not an SBR.

In this case, you could install the barrel as long as you remove the Pistol Grip, so in fact it should be OK following SCOTUS's ruling.

Your best best, though is to make another stripped lower and make it w/ a Hex nut in the safety detent hole. Store the Barrel w/ it. Then, you can argue you could build it into a unregulated gun.

If you have the authorities coming to your house with a search warrant for your gun safe, where your post-ban rifles and pre-ban uppers are kept separated and not assembled illegally, you've got bigger problems. However, expect to see the charges appear in an idictment if they can't find anything else on you.