Yeah i think the 94' ban is just a law to scare people not to build a AW.  I don't think ATF really cares if a Joe Blow just happened to put pre-ban parts together to make a pre-ban weapon.
I think ATF would rather go after illegal Arms Dealer than many of us who're law abiding citizens.

That is my point exactly.

The ATF and even you don't know if the lower was ever assembled into a complete gun.

I don't care what it says over at old.ar15.com if it was made before 9/94 it IS preban and it WAS a gun at atleast one point or another.

I just think it is ridiculous for the people with a "receipt" to try to scare the guy with a preban lower.  They are NO safer.  If the BATF took the steps to go after either guy they are both in the same boat.  Unless it left the factory as complete rifle they are the SAME.

I still stand by my comments about post bans being the safest.  If you don't think the BATF could make you jump through a ton of hoops and spend thousands defending yourself you are mistaken, the law is vague for a reason.  I don't THINK thay will, but they COULD.

And no I don't own a preban, yet.

Righteous Kill,

Wow, you may not believe this, but I can finally agree with your posts, thanks to this thread!

One of us is getting soft, I think.......

Cheers  [beer]

miamiAR

I suspect we’re both getting soft.

[beer]

Just found out that the 10/22 that I bought from a buddy is Pre-Ban!  Woohoo!  Ruger is mailing me a certified statement that the gun is pre-ban.  Time to get a can from gemtech!  I just wish my AR was preban too . :(

Yeah, yeah, it was already an assault weapon, that's why I called to ask!

WOW...

I am SO DAMN GLAD I just happened to read this. I was about to buy a "preban lower" and make it into a complete weapon thinking it was legal. I cannot thank you enough Dfender.

Well, looks like I'm hunting again!
WTB: Pre-Ban AR-15 Lwr Rcvr

way to go, M4

This is sort of a recylceld post of mine but is still as relevant here.

I do love to debate these fine points but we need to keep this in perspective. All cases so far have been mere tack ons with other charges as already pointed out. In addition the level of study that posters here have exhibited go way beyond what a judge or jury would ever attempt. In fact a typical juriest may not have the mental capacity required to grasp the subject.

As a case in point the following I got off James Bardwell's site (he has given me permission in the past to copy this stuff to the boards).

U.S. v. Indelicato, 964 F.Supp. 555 (D.Mass 1997)
In this case, the court construes the "grandfather" clause of the assault weapon ban, 18 USC 922(v). The court believes that the weapons are only grandfathered to the owner as of the date of enactment of the ban, 9/13/94, and that no other person may lawfully possess them, ever. No weapon grandfathered as of that date may be transferred and possessed as other weapons may be. Therefore the judge decides that the brother of the defendant, whose guns were not subject to seizure, may not get a semi-auto Uzi model A back from the government, as the brother may not legally possess it, as he did not have it on the grandfather date, the defendant did.

So how bout that?  Think some piece of paper saying it was a pre-ban would have done any good?  No cause that was not important.  What was important in this case is that Judge could not read?  So what if your judge is too damn lazy to read one freaking paragraph?  Heck remember the guy that was busted for having both a short pistol barrel and a rifle barrel for his Contender?

I just wonder if you follow the law and are the only one in the court that has read it who cares?  Sort of like if a tree falls and no one hears it.

If you follow this to its logical conclusion you should not own an assault rifle.  It is clearly illegal under 18 USC section 922(v).  Or say a rifle and a hack saw.  Yeah that was sarcastic.

My point is that you can carry this so far and it get a little weird.  BTW all of my pre-bans are verifiable with documentation, and I very much like it that way.

That is a weird one, and there as been various speculation on what exactly the
judge was thinking, and what precedent it sets.


1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a
semiautomatic assault weapon.
      (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.


Note, “shall not apply to the possession or [b]transfer[/b] of any semiautomatic
assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law. . . . . “


I also think you’re right, some people blow this whole preban/postban thing way
out of proportion and a little piece of paper doesn’t guarantee anything.

I will go $450.00 for the lower.  Let me know.