Above question.

I am under the understanding that a preban lower is not really a preban unless it either left the factory as a complete rifle or I can prove it was assembled into a complete rifle before the ban.  

How can I prove it was assembled into a rifle before the ban?  I am not aware there is any way to prove it was NOT assembled before the ban.

Thankx

Depends on what manufacturer you're talking about. Colt, for instance, didn't begin selling unbuilt lowers until after the ban, so any preban serialed Colt left complete. Re the aftermarket makers, if it's anyone still in business (Bushie, Olympic, DPMS, etc) their records will tell you if it went out as a rifle or a stripped reciever.

Where it gets aticky is where you know that it went out stripped, and have no evidence about whether or not it was built up before or after the cutoff. I have no idea what BATF's position on this is.

It's not necessarily a question of "innocent until proven guilty". They may take the position that it's "stripped unless you can prove it was built" before the ban. Obviously, it's best to have some kind of evidence from the person who owned the piece before the curoff date. Failing that, I suspect it's more a question of trusting (hoping?) that your piece never comes to the attention of the BATF. [:D]

[url=http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/serialNumberList.html]AR serial numbers[/url]

Well, then I don't understand it when someone posts a pic, and people start screaming that it is not a PreBan????  They can tell simply by looking at pic???  Maybe I missed something??

Well, cerain brands, like Rock River, simply did not exist before the ban, so any RR rifle is by  definition post ban. Others, like Bushmaster and Colt changed their serial number and/or model number IDs at the ban. If the picture shows a brand, model number, or serial no. prefix that's in the post ban area, you'll get the posted comments[:D]

Newbe,
Use Thinmans serial number list. I recently asked 2 BATF agents the same question, and got two differant answers. The best thing to do is check for yourself using the serial number list.

Actually I did make sure (by contacting BATF) that the serial # was in fact preban befor I bought the rifle.

I think I have mistated my question.  It is my understanding that even though the lower was manufactured before the ban, it ALSO had to be  assembled into a complete rifle with the "bad" features.  So a guy can not buy 100 lowers on a Monday...have a ban go into affect on a Tuesday...and then suddenly have 100 prebans.  For all those lowers to actually grandfather the ban I could swear they (all 100) had to be full rifles including restricted features.

What if a guy just had one complete upper and used it to take 100 pictures (digital w/date) each picture with a different lower clearly showing the serial #'s?

Every time my friends and I argue this, it lasts for hours.  

Make sure the FFL who transfers it to you writes "complete preban rifle" on your receipt if he is who you are buying it from.  Get a notarised statement from any individual that he owned the rifle in preban configuration before the ban if you purchase from an individual.  Either of those are enough for "proof" that the rifle in question is preban.

You dont have to have had the rifle assembled before the ban.  Only all the parts needed to assemble it into a complete rifle.  If someone bought a stripped lower and complete parts kit on the same receipt that is proof enough on that receipt.  However if the lower was never assembled it cannot be transfered as a preban lower in its stripped form.

If you did not assemble the rifle then you cannot be held accountable. If a rifle was transferred to you with features that may not be legal then you do not have to remove those features. They can only take away your rifle. This was a huge debate over on the AK board for a while.

Basically the way the law reads you only have to prove weather or not you bought it as a rifle- if you bought in the current configuration and that configuration was illegal then you would have to surrender the weapon however if you were the one who put those features on that weapon then you could be held accountable. The fact is that they have never prosecuted someone just for having an illegal assembled rifle. Only case I ever heard of was a State case in New York where a guy had accidentally put a pre-ban upper on a post-ban lower. The idiot claimed he was the one who actually did this so they could prosecute just on that factor alone, he got 5 years. They use section 922 only for stacking charges in order to get someone to plea because seperately the charge itself may come into question as to weather or not the BATF even has the authority to pass such a regulation. The reason is because the legality of 922 as a whole comes into play- its very definitions of features were written by BATF and amended by BATF. The reality is that the BATF is not an elected governing body so should someone be charged with a violation of 922r then they could contest the law based on the fact that BATF does not have the power to make law. The lower courts would probably prosecute anyway as they feel they are above the law- however take it to the Supreme Court level then the Constitutionality comes into play.

One reason I believe the Ban will sunset is because of the very reason that should someone ever be prosecuted for a 922 violation then they could contest the very ability for BATF to make a ruling. Second if a case like that ever went as high as the Supreme Court then the very Constitutionality of the Ban itself comes into play as well- since now the position has been corrected as individual right not collective. "The People" in the entire Constitution means the individual public except according to the liberals that just in the 2nd Amendment "The People" suddenly means Government- clearly not the case then and clearly not the case now. "The People" means the public- the Constitution was set up as a documentation clearly for outlining the rights of the people under the new government and the restrictions for which the government should abide.

However as such- never tempt fate. Verify your weapon is Pre94 or Pre89 and you have nothing to worry about. I don't mind paying a little extra for one that is verifiable Pre-Ban just to keep your my mind at ease. The headache of worrying is not even worth. Also never buy just a stripped reciever. Make the idiot transfer the upper in Pre-Ban configuration then you send back just the upper once you add a new one. This avoids another hassle of he says, batf says etc.    



   

Troy,

How does one determine whether or not a pre-ban was [b]ever[/b] transfered as just a lower.  I know how to determine whether or not it was assembled by the factory prior to 9/13/94, but if buyingf a used weapon/rifle, how could one positively determine?

Ahhh...  The plot thickens.

Can I buy a stripped lower from a factory, then wait for a ban to go into affect, then I assemble the lower into a complete rifle and transfer it as a "complete rifle"?

Who's to say I did'nt assemble the lower into a complete rifle the day before the ban?

I'll be glad when this ban goes away.  It gives me headaches.

Now I understand why so many serial #'s are photoshopped out when pics are posted on this site.

I'll be so happy when this ban goes away.

I think Creeper is confusing sec 922(r) with the 94 AWB.


922 is what defines what is an imported rifle and what is not for the sake of the 89 ban.

AR 15 is not banned by name. The law says "Any of the firearms, or
copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as:"

AR15.

That covers the Colt brand models and everyone elses.

Not my opinion, but J Bardwells.

A bushmaster is a XM-15E2S is a duplicate of a AR15. I guess it is banned?

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/semi_auto_faq.txt

This is where I received my info. Im  going to find and read the "vauge part". I havent seen it yet.

It did not have to be assembled to be pre ban. As long as all the pre ban parts were possesed antes the crime bill it is legal

Assume that a rifle left the factory as a preban.  It has a threaded barrel, flash hider, and A2 stock.  Can other "evil" features be added, say a telestock?

Hey there Troy.  You sure about that?  I have read it.



You say "enough to keep it an AW"?  Where is that required?  Last I knew it was only required that it was lawfully possessed on date of enactment.  At least that is what the statute 18 USC section 922(v) actually states:

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

I must be missing the section where it requires it to remain a "AW" in order to retain it's exempted status.  If you can show me where this provision is in the law I'd be very interested in seeing it.



You left out an important part.  Yes, it is required that it be a semiautomatic assault weapon on 9/13/94, but in addition it must have been lawfully possessed.  Hey, and look there, you added something too!  The part were it must never have been transferred as something other then a semiautomatic assault weapon.  If you can show me where this provision is in the law I'd be very interested in seeing it.



If you can show me where this provision is in the law I'd be very interested in seeing it.  Last time I checked the statute only makes this requirement:

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

Very well - so how can the current owner prove the weapon 1) met the definition of a semi-auto assault weapon and 2) was legally possessed on that date, provided said current owner did not himself possess the weapon on 9/13/94?

So, however unlikely, assume you are arrested for posessing an illegal AW. Couldn't you get off simply by raising reasonable doubt?

Ekie, you can respond to this in either discussion or both.[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=226134&page=2[/url]

Let's try this one more time.

[blue]18 922(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture,

   transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.[/blue]

This part of the law states that it is illegal to possess a SAW. Don't you agree?

[blue]18 922(v)(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer

   of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed

   under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.[/blue]

This section states that the first statement doesn't apply to SAW's that are possessed or transferred, as long as the SAW was lawfully possessed when the law went into affect.

Correct?

[blue]Sec. 921. - Definitions

(a)

As used in this chapter -

(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)

Colt AR-15;

(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;

[red](B)

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -

(i)

a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii)

a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii)

a bayonet mount;

(iv)

a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v)

a grenade launcher;[/red][/blue]

These are the features needed to make a SAW correct?

If your rifle is a SAW and it isn't a Colt AR15, then it is the features that make it a SAW, correct?


If you answered yes to the previous questions then continue.

[blue]From the Bartlett Letter:
A frame or receiver of a semiautomatic assault weapon, meets the definition of a "firearm" in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3);...[/blue]


[blue]921(a)(3) The term ''firearm'' means (A) any weapon (including a

   starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be

   converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;[red] (B)

   the frame or receiver of any such weapon;[/red] (C) any firearm muffler

   or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.  Such term does

   not include an antique firearm.

So the frame or receiver of a SAW meets the definition of a firearm, correct?

[blue]From the Barlett Letter:
...however, a firearm frame or receiver alone, without the additional qualifying features, does not meet the definition of a "semiautomatic assault weapon" in section 921(a)(30). Therefore, a firearm frame or receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2).[/blue]

This part seems to be saying that a firarm without the features listed 921(a)(30) isn't a SAW, correct?

This would be one reason that post-ban AR's can be sold. They are firearms without the features listed in 921(a)(30), correct?

So back to the letter:
[blue]Your second question concerns a semiautomatic assault weapon that also meets the exemption in section 922(v)(2). However, this firearm was disassembled and the receiver, without other components, was sold.[/blue]

So someone has removed the features listed in 921(a)(30) from the receiver of a SAW that was exempted by 922(v)(2). They then sold this stripped receiver to someone else. That person now has just purchased a firearm according to 921(a)(3). Correct?

If you answered no to the last question, how does the firearm under 921(a)(3), meet the requirements of 921(a)(30)? I'm not asking if the receiver was exempt under 922(v)(2) when it still had the features listed in 921(a)(30), and was owned by the original owner. I'm asking how a the firarm under 921(a)(3) that was purchased by the next person, meets the requirements of 921(a)(30)?

If a receiver meets the requirements of 921(a)(3), and is transfered as such. Can it be assembled by the owner with the features listed in 921(a)(30)?  

I purposely left out when the receiver was made because it doesn't matter when sold as just a firearm under 921(a)(3).


So in closing, if the receiver from a SAW that was exempt under 922(v)(2) is sold without the features listed in 921(a)(30); it is no longer a SAW and the exemption no longer applies to the new owner. Why? Because the new owner didn't buy a SAW as defined in 921(a)(30); he bought a firearm as defined in 921(a)(3).

Back to the letter that is under discussion. You should now see that the new owner would be guilty of "possessing" a SAW as defined in 921(a)(30), if the new owner were to "assemble" the firearm he purchased as defined by 921(a)(3), with the parts listed in 921(a)(30). I don't think it gets any clearer then that.

Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes, assembly is not regulated in 18 USC section 922(v).  



There is no law that says in order to possess a SAW lawfully you must purchase it as such.  As long as this SAW was lawfully possessed on 09-13-94 it is exempt.  You may recall that is what the law says any way.  I mean really, what is up with this conditional standard?  Why must you have purchased a SAW to lawfully possess one?



Yes, he would then possess a SAW, but there is an exemption for SAWs lawfully possessed on the date of enactment though.  You may recall that this one was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment.



Oh yes it does.  If you take a look at the exemption:

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

So, when you possess a SAW the only question is does it meet this standard.  There is no more, that is that standard, that is the law, that is the statute, that is the real deal written by Fienstien herself.

You can impose what ever additional requirements you would like, but that does not change what the statute actually requires.  In the end it is the law, regulation, and legislative rulings that are binding to the public.  All these others you guys make are important to you, but are not law, regulation, or legislative ruling, and us such are not binding.

[banghead]

This will be the last time I will write this.
If you buy a lower receiver as defined by 921(a)(3), you haven't purchased SAW as defined 921(a)(30).

Since you keep saying that certain wording isn't included in the law. Can you show me where it says a frame or receiver is defined as a saw in 921(a)(30). You can't include the ones that are banned by name. I am talking about the ones that aren't named in the law.

There must be a reason you keep arguing over this.

It is either you are to stupid to understand what is written in the law? I don't really think that is the case, because you seem to be smart enough. You just feel like arguing about something. I think the real reason is that you have bought some stripped pre-ban lowers over the years, and you just don't want to face the fact that they are no longer exempt under the law.

It was fun, but I don't see this discussion going any further.

I understand where Elkie is comming from. I think you are stating what the opinion of the ATF currently is. What Elkie states is probably a good defense if it ever when to court. The truth is I don't think anyone charged with violating the AWB has ever fought it in court. Probably since it was alway part of a plea agreement for what they REALLY did. Truth is you are both probably correct and the only way to know would be to reference case law, which does not exist yet (and hopefully not ever).



I somehow think WE take this AWB alot more seriously then anyone else (including federal procecuters and the ATF). The point is going to be moot anyways soon.

Yes, nothing a little bit of unregulated assembling can't fix in a jiffy.



Well it ain't. No where in law, regulation, or legislative ruling does it say that the exemption for possession is conditional based on wether or not the possessor purchased it as a SAW.  Once you assemble your newly purchased "pre-ban" lower as a SAW you done got a SAW.  The exemption is still good in that your newly assembled SAW was a lawfully possessed SAW on the date of enactment as required.  Or in other words, in the case of any particular SAW the question as to wether or not it is exempt is to ask was it lawfully possessed on the date of enactment, or it was not.  Any additional requirements in order to be exempt are not binding to the public and will not be considered by a court because there are no other requirements found in law, regulation, or legislative ruling (besides that it must have been in the US as found in the implementing regulations).



No, you would have to assemble it to make it into a SAW again.  This sort of assembly can be done in seconds.



Guess I could have explained my agenda up front to avoid such confusion.  Thing is there are quite a few pretend federal firearm laws out there that are enforced thru intimidation at gun shows and now the Internet.  This intimidation works only because the vast majority of firearms owners are by there very nature a law abiding crowd, and few of them have actually cross referenced these contentions.  The proponents of pretend laws are similar to a Pharisee (made legendary in the NT), in that they derive more importance from pretend law then from actual law, regulation, and legislative rulings.  Couple of years ago I took it upon myself to write out all these pretend laws that I have observed over the years.  Had to in that the proponents would never write them out themselves, thus making it difficult to engage them.  Even posted it in the legal section of ar15.com, but this great compilation has since dropped off the bottom.  As a matter of fact an early draft of the pretend law that you are now defending was categorized as number 1 and written out by myself in 2002.  It reads as such:



The problem with this pretend law is that it is not binding to the public.  The actual statute is, and thus is relevant to the court.  The actual statute reads differently in that it does not have the requirement that the SAW be a SAW on any day other then the date of enactment.  It reads as such:

(2), Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

So you see, I take it upon myself to defend the law over pretend law, and to defend the victims of cyberspace pretend law enforcers, AKA Assault Rifle Pharisees (ARP).

BTW VA-gunnut, I must admit that your defense of a pretend supplemental conditional exemption was uncharacteristically devoid of shrillness, and you never once fell back on the usual defense, that being ATF letter equates law.  For this achievement you have my admiration.  



I hope not, in that I can't help but wonder if your version differs slightly from the previously defended version I "codified" above as:



In that I am a stickler for detail, and a new version of the pretend law guide is way over due, I would not want to update it without including your version, for you have earned it.  While the above covers the condition you impose, you are  very interested in subsequent transfer, or "purchase".  So how does this sound?

2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection, except in the case were a semiautomatic assault weapon is possessed by an individual whom purchased it on a date proceeding the enactment of this subsection in a configuration that is not a semiautomatic assault weapon on the date of said purchase.

There is a big difference between the two.  With the original pretend version if you were to bust your firing pin on your exempted semiautomatic assault weapon and had no spare then it would no longer be a semiautomatic assault weapon and would fall out the exemption.  In the version you appear to be introducing it would still be exempted in that exemption is not lost in this situation unless it was purchased by someone in this condition.  

Ah gee, you probably are not going to help me understand your version now, not with me showing all my cards here.  Should have been sneaky and asked you telling questions here and there, to get at your version, now it is lost to the ages.  I was more interested in defending the law then trying to figure out what version you were playing off of.  Heck Troy has caught on and won't even respond any more, last I knew he was still stuck on the letter = law misconception.  If you look at Troy's posts you will see that is the angle he is taking.  If this letter equaled law then it would be binding to the public and you could be prosecuted, hence he is a very adamant proponent of being obedient to this letter.

The problem is that the exemption that Ekie keeps quoting, "...shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

The exemption says possession or [red]transfer[/red] of a SAW. It is legal to  transfer a SAW that was lawfully possessed on the date the law was enacted, this is why people can buy and sell SAW's. The problem is that the receiver alone doesn't meet the legal definition of a SAW. When the lower is transferred to a new owner that owner isn't taking possession of a SAW, he is taking possession of a firearm. I know it sucks, but that is a "reasonable interpretation" of the laws. This is what the Bartlett letter is discussing, not the assembley of a SAW, as Ekie keeps acerting.

I agree that we are picking this bullshit to death, and that it probably won't amount to much in the end. It is still entertaining though. [:)]

I don't see how the law itself is the problem.



Nothing that can't be fixed with a bit of assembly.



Bartlett discusses the illegal assembly of a SAW in his letter, I quote:



Bartlett clearly states that assembly would be prohibited.  Notice how he says "assembly" and then "prohibited"?  That is why the letter is not a binding legislative ruling, because the section then sited does not prohibit the act of assembly.

Only that you are now guilty of possessing a SAW that you didn't lawfully own on the date of the laws enactment, and that wasn't transferred to you as a SAW. Unless you think you can prove that you owned the SAW on the date of enactment, or that it was transferred to you as a SAW.










Even if your interpretation of the letter were correct, it still could be a mute point. As you stated in the other discussion, the Federal Prosecutor is the one that will decide to prosecute you and he can interpret the law in the same way that I, and everyone else seems to interpret it. So you could still be charged, prosecuted, and found guilty of possessing a SAW, because you can't prove that you legally possessed the SAW on the date of enactment, or that a SAW was transferred to you.


One last point to consider. If your idea that the receiver of SAW that was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment will always retain its lawfull exemption, no matter the configuration of the receiver when transferred were true. Then why is it possible for everyday people to buy receivers that were taken from rifles marked LEO/GUO, and then assemble them into post ban rifles? I mean the LEO marked receiver had been assembled into a SAW after the date of enactment. If your idea about receivers is true, then the LEO marked receiver will always be classified as a SAW that can't be possessed by ordinary people, no matter what parts the rifle has on it, correct?

That is correct, in your version of the law that goes like this:

2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection, except in the case were a semiautomatic assault weapon is possessed by an individual whom purchased it on a date proceeding the enactment of this subsection in a configuration that is not a semiautomatic assault weapon on the date of said purchase.

You version is not binding to the public though.  The version of the law that is binding does not contain the added verbiage about having to purchase it as a SAW.  Here is the real deal:

(2), Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

So you just purchased a lower that was a lawfully possessed semiautomatic assault weapon on the date of enactment.  Once you assemble it again it does not change the fact that it was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment, so your newly assembled SAW is still exempt.  According to the real law anyway.



So a DOJ Federal Prosecutor might get the idea to prosecute a guy for possession because someone did not follow your version of the law?  Again I must point out that your version is not binding to the public in that it is not law, regulation, or legislative ruling.



You can do this because the transfer, possession, and manufacture of what may be called a "post bans" is not regulated under 18 USC section 922(v).  Only semiautomatic assault weapons are regulated under 18 USC section 922(v), widgets and "post bans" are not.  You have to have a SAW before this possession thing comes into play.  You know, like you could assemble one, then the question comes in, is this newly assembled SAW exempt?  As long as it was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment it is.



No, the law is quite clear in that a receiver is not a SAW.  You sure bring that up a lot.

How can I tell a preban is really a preban?

Lets give this a try using the law as a guide.  So here we go, complete with a visual aid!

[IMG]http://members.cox.net/dlong41/guns/M16.jpg[/IMG]

All right, pictured above is a semiautomatic assault weapon.  We want to know if it is legal to transfer and possess this semiautomatic assault weapon.  Here are some questions that can be asked as to wether or not it is exempt from 18 USC section 922(v) and there fore "pre-ban".

1) Was it a semiautomatic assault weapon on a date prior to 09-13-94?

2) Was it ever fired on the Sabbath?

3) Does the same person own it today as did on 09-13-94?

4) Was it a lawfully possessed semiautomatic assault weapon on 09-13-94?

5) Was it a complete and functional semiautomatic assault weapon on each and every day from 09-13-94 to the present, and for every second of each of these days?

6) Was it ever transferred as a lower only, and thus not a semiautomatic assault weapon upon transfer?

7) Did it leave the factory as a complete semiautomatic assault weapon?

8) Was the Federal Excise tax paid in full on a date prior to 09-13-94?

9) In the case of a Bushmaster were the receivers properly waxed?

10) Was it in the US on the date of enactment?

11) Does it have the proper US parts count?

All right, lots of questions here.  Only two of these are relevant.  The reason only two are relevant is that as far as the court is concerned only law, regulation, and legislative rulings are to be considered, as only these are binding to the public.  So what does the law, regulation, and legislative ruling require in order to be exempt, and thus a "pre-ban"?  18 USC section 922(v) other wise known as the law states:

2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

That is number 4.  But wait Ekie, you said there were two, yes I did.  The implementing regulation as established by the ATF is 12 CFR 178.40.  It adds that the semiautomatic assault weapon also needed to have been in the US on the date of enactment.  That is number 10.  Last time I checked the Federal Register there were no legislative rulings dealing with 18 USC section 922(v).  Note none of the others are mentioned, and are there fore not relevant to the court, and are not binding to the public.  Clear as mud?

BTW, when the subject of exempted semiautomatic assault weapons or "pre-bans" comes up why is it that number 4 and 10 are rarely asked, but 1, 6, and 7 are?  I would bet that there may be no one here that has even heard of number 10, yet it is a requirement.

As stated by another person on here, we will never know who is right or wrong in this discussion until it comes up in the courts. All I can say is that I hope that you are correct in that a SAW doesn't need to be transferred as such, even though it does say it in the law.

One last point, I agree that some of those questions may never be asked, but if asked lets hope your answers meet up with what the people asking them want to hear.

Really, this has been a productive thread, and I have figured out the major malfunction here.



There is a common theme in these two post referencing the word [blue]transfer[/blue] and [red]semiautomatic assault weapon[/red] in the exemption.











This is where you two are getting the requirement that a exempted SAW must be transferred as a SAW to be remain exempt.  It is true that the sentence does contain both the word "transfer" and the word "semiautomatic assault weapon".  



Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or [blue]transfer[/blue] of any [red]semiautomatic assault weapon[/red] otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.


The first part of the sentence lists the exempted acts, [red]possession or transfer[/red] .  That is two of the prohibited activities listed in Paragraph (1).  The second part of the sentence details the requirements necessary in order for those two acts to be exempted.  Since paragraph (1) prohibits both transfer and possession you can be charged with possession and or transferring a semiautomatic assault weapon.  Paragraph (2) details a situation in which either [red]possession or transfer[/red]  would be exempt from violating Paragraph (1).  The descriptive word semiautomatic assault weapon is referring to the subject of both Paragraph (1) and (2).  Or in other words:



Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the [red]possession or transfer[/red] of any [blue]semiautomatic assault weapon[/blue] otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection


You see, both [red]transfer or possession[/red] of a [blue]semiautomatic assault weapon[/blue] are exempt from prohibition as long as the subject, the [blue]semiautomatic assault weapon[/blue] was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment.  So in the case of assembling a mere firearm that is not a SAW into a SAW you could still be exempt if this SAW met the requirements of the exemption, that being it was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment.



Putting it another way, if the word [blue]transfer[/blue] was a requirement for exemption rather then a exempted act as you two maintain, then law would read something like:


Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession of any semiautomatic assault weapon that was otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection, and/or are subsequently  transferred as semiautomatic assault weapons.


Problem with this is that now transfer is not longer exempt, being it is requirement for exemption rather then a exempted act.  This won’t work.  Now you can legally possess a exempted SAW, but are not exempt in transferring it, in that transfer is no longer a exempted act, only possession.  So either the word [blue]transfer[/blue] is a exempted act or a condition of exemption.  It can’t do both unless repeated twice in the sentence, as so:



Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon that was otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection, and if subsequently  transferred, it is done so in a semiautomatic assault weapon configuration.


Thing is [blue]transfer[/blue] is only mentioned once in Paragraph (2), that being it is an exempted act.  Another problem with your reading is that it is in direct conflict with Bartlett’s own synopsis of Paragraph (2)







He states that it only needs to be lawfully possessed on the date of enactment.  Or in other words Bartlett knows that [red]transfer or possession[/red] are exempted acts, not conditions of exemption.



Further more, just to stick another nail in your reading of [blue]transfer[/blue] being a required condition of exemption, and thus what Bartlett was thinking, how do you explain this paragraph:







The only way you can explain this paragraph is that Bartlett thinks assembly is prohibited in Paragraph (1), and not exempted in Paragraph (2).



So, there is your malfunction, which is different then Bartlett’s.  As stated before Bartlett’s misconception is that he thinks assembly is regulated in that he answered lots of 18 U.S.C. section 922(r) questions for the FAL and AK crowds.  In that statute the act of assembly is regulated.  He is in the assembly frame of mind and is not paying attention.  If it were prohibited to assemble a SAW then in order to lawfully possess a SAW you would either have to have possessed it on the date of enactment or purchased as a SAW.  If you purchased a lower then you would have to assemble it, thus putting yourself in violation of Paragraph (1) with no exemption in Paragraph (2) for the act of assembly.  If you read Bartlett’s letter thinking that assembly is regulated, and that reassembly is still OK it make perfect sense, check it out:

If Bartlett understood the word [blue]transfer[/blue] to be a condition of exemption in place of a exempted act then the letter would be written differently.  So lets say he considers the law to mean so in agreement with your misguided version:







He would answer the questions like so:

I guess it shouldn't amaze me that two people can see two different things in the law.

I agree that the word "transfer" is an exempted act under the law. I already stated this point, which you quoted in one of your posts. I guess I am just not capable of putting this into words that you are willing to understand or except.

You have already stated that you understand that normal people can [red]possess[/red] or [red]transfer[/red] any SAW that was legally [red]possessed[/red] on the date the law was enacted. You keep going back to this exemption in support of your argument.

Here is the problem: The main point being discussed is whether or not the receiver from a SAW (that was legally [red]possessed[/red] on the date of enactment}, still maintains the exemption laid out in the law, if it is transferred without meeting the legal definition of a SAW. It is IMO, and many others, as well as Bartlett, that once the receiver (without the features needed to meet the legal definition of a SAW) is "transferred" to a new owner, the new owner is not in possession of a SAW, but in possession of a receiver(which doesn't meet the legal definition of a SAW). Yes, the new owner could put the needed parts onto the receiver to make it meet the legal definition of a SAW. The problem is the new owner now [red]possesses[/red] a SAW that he [b]DID NOT[/b] [red]possess[/red] when the law was enacted. Added to that, the new owner can't prove that a [b]SAW[/b] was [red]transfered[/red] to him. Why? Because a SAW wasn't [red]transferred[/red] to the new owner, a firearm(as defined by law) was.

You didn't answer my question from before, and I think someone else asked it as well.

If you bought a stripped lower from a pre-ban rifle, assembled it into a SAW, and then were arrested for possessing a SAW.

Could you prove that [b]YOU[/b] [red]possessed[/red] the SAW on the date the law was enacted?

Given that you didn't [red]possess[/red] the SAW on the date of enactment. Could you then prove that you had a SAW(as defined by law) [red]transferred[/red] to you?

I am not asking if the SAW was legally possessed by the first owner on the date of enactment. I am asking if you can prove that you had a SAW(remember, as defined by law) [red]transfered[/red] to you.

I am willing to bet that you can't! Is this knit picking the issue? Absolutely! Is it likely that an investigator would dig deep enough to find out what configuration the rifle was transfered in? More than likely not. That still doesn't change the facts of what we are discussing.

Ah man, I did not get your angle correct?  Heck, I thought I figured it out.  



Hehehe, OK.



Of course not.



Of course not.



Of course not.

Whats your point?  Why would you think that in order to possess a SAW lawfully you must have purchased it as a SAW or have owned it on 09-13-94?  I have tried guessing at why you think that, but gosh darn it I can’t figure it out.  Tell me why, purdy, purdy please, ya killing me with the suspense, I can’t take it any more!

Because the people that wrote the law included two key words in the exemption. "
possession" and "transfer". Why did the lawmakers include "transfer" in the law. Why didn't they just say;

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

This wording would seem to fit your idea of what the law states. If the SAW was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment, then it will always be legal to possess by anyone allowed to possess a SAW. Right?

Wrong! The lawmakers put the word "transfer" in, so that people could sell the SAWs they had lawfully possessed on the date of enactment to others. This also allowed for other people to take posssession of the SAW that was lawfully possessed by someone else on the date of enactment.

A person can't lawfully possess something that wasn't transferred to them, can they?

Even though I disagree with you on what the law says, I do wish your view was the correct one. Too bad it isn't.[;)]

Sure, both possession and transfer are two prohibited acts in Paragraph (1), and they are exempted in the next Paragraph (2) under limited circumstances.  Like you said, other wise they would be stuck with the original owners.  I never left transfer out of the picture, just not the subject matter, we are not asking about the exemption for transfer, in that in this case a SAW was not transferred, just a lower, or a firearm.

You still have not explained why you can't possess a SAW that you did not own on 09-13-94, or did not receive in a transfer as a SAW.  Guess you are going to have to break out hand puppets, or visual aids or something?

Because once the receiver is stripped of its  parts and sold, it becomes a rifle. Once you put enough parts on your rifle to make it a SAW, you would be in possession of a SAW that wasn't lawfully owned on the date of enactment.

Unfortunately for all of us. this is ATF's opinion at the present time as well. Let's  not start up the whole opinion argument again, because if ATF has come up with this opinion, so could a federal prosecutor. Then he could charge you with illegal possession of a SAW.

It would then be up to the trier of the facts to decide if the prosecutor's opion was a "reasonable interpretation" of the law. Also as stated earler; if everyone else thinks this is a reasonable interpretation of the law, then the courts would probably think so too. Either way, you would still have to hope that the Court would rule that Ekie's and his lawyers interpetation of the law was correct, and that the governments interpretation was wrong. Then all I could say is GOOD LUCK!

Break it down a bit:



Hmm, yes that is the standard, no doubt, must have been lawfully possessed on the date of enactment.  I thought this newly assembled SAW was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment?  It was described as such, for example:



Bartlett says it was.  How could something both be lawfully possessed on a certain date, then later not be lawfully possessed on that date?  Is that not contrary?  Sounds very suspect to me.  I can think of only two ways to do that.  One would involve a time machine, you would go back and undue the past.  The other would involve destroying it.  Say you torch cut the lower receiver into three pieces, marked it destroyed in the books, then welded it back up, gave it a new serial number along with required manufacturer markings, and then made a SAW out of it.  This would leave you in possession of a of a different SAW and one that was not legally possessed on 09-13-94, and thus not exempt in Paragraph (2).

Well, how about some more visual aids?  Lets say you purchase this heap:

[IMG]http://img4.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/Kaboom.jpg[/IMG]

And, lets say it was a lawfully possessed SAW on the date of enactment.  Well, what you bought here ain’t no SAW, it is a firearm at best, a heap of junk at worst.  Can this former SAW be lawfully restored to an exempt SAW?  



Well, lets see what the BATFE has to say about that:

The rifle in the picture could be restored if the owner were to send it back to the manufacturer to be repaired or replaced. This would be quite legal under the law.

If someone else were to buy it in that condition they would be buying a firearm and not a SAW that was legally possessed under the law.



Let me finish my part in the discussion by saying that I wish your view was the correct one. I don't like the idea that BATF is technically reducing the number of exempted SAW's with it's opinion. Do I think it sucks? Yes, I do. Do I wish it wasn't the case? Yes, I do. Do I hope that the law isn't renewed, and all this discussion will be for not? Yes, I do.

But, I still believe that ATF's interpretation would be accepted by the courts long before yours would be. Even if ATF can't prosecute someone; I do beleive that a Federal Prosecutor could use ATF's opinion to prosecute someone, and win a conviction. Do you have to agree? Shit No! It is obvious that we can't convince one another to change our opinions, so we have definitely reached the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned. It definitely has been enteraining though.

I agree with VA-gunnut.  Even though a lower reciever was built befor the ban, it is not a SAW.  A firearm, yes, but not a SAW.

All SAW's are firearms, but not all firearms are SAW's.

So...If I purchase a new lower from the factory before a ban, it has to be legally transferred as a SAW before a ban to become exempt from a ban.  Furthermore, it has to be transferred as a SAW (or "COMPLETE" ASSAULT WEAPON) forever to maintain its exemptness.

Yes we are picking this apart.  Just like any asshole prosecuter that thinks he/she was sent by God to rid the world of evil.  When a prosecuter picks this kind of thing apart in court, the judge does not say, "Hey there.  I think you are getting a bit to critical.  Give the defendant a little slack."  Oh no!  The judge says, "WOW!  Way to crusify the defendant.  I never saw that coming.  It never occurred to me how you could legally fuck a guy like that."

Thank you all for the discussion.  Carl.

OK let me throw you a curve ball. Lets say that a guy purchased a complete Colt before the ban, the rifle had a A2 stock, 20 barrel with a A2 flashhider but no lug, Factory records will show that the rifle left the factory in that set up in 1990. Then after the ban he installs a telestock, removes the upper and sells just the lower.

Is the lower still a SAW/preban? it has 3 of the banned features.