Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/3/2003 6:29:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/3/2003 6:31:46 PM EDT by TheRealSundance]
PREBAN AK RECEIVERS 4 SALE

What a bargain! Worth every penny!
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 6:44:26 PM EDT
Little pricey I'd think,????You can buy a whole gun for that if you look hard enough!
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 7:13:10 PM EDT
Careful on these:


Ripped from AK-47.net Info Library (which is actually cool, save for all the spelling and grammar mistakes):

I have a lot of experience with B-West receivers. First, are you sure that is the serial number and if so, where is it on the gun? All the receivers that were built into factory guns had the serial number on the trunnion and in the form of BWA####, BWB####, BWC#### or BWD####. The receivers that were sold as stripped receivers or unassembled rifle kits were serialized on the right hand side of the sheet metal receiver in a 999#### configuration or on the left hand rear of the sheet metal receiver in a 989### configuration. B-West produced between 86 to 89 when the BATF discovered B-West was not actually producing the receivers on sight, but that a sheet metal fabrication company right down the road was doing the actual receiver manufacturing - without a license. To make it all go away, B-West got out of the AK making biz. Their rifles were made completely from Chinese parts and U.S. made sheet metal receiver."

By: cactusbrew@aol.com



So, here's the deal - if these receivers have a BWA-BWD on the serial number, then they might be worth something closer to that figure - but a pre-ban full rifle ain't much more expensive...

If they have a 989 or 999, they're worth, oh, $75-$150 ??

I'll sell you a 999#### serialed receiver for $300! Half the cost of Florida Gun Works receivers!

If they weren't in assault weapon configuration before the ban, they ain't pre-ban receivers.

989#### and 999#### receivers weren't in assault weapon configuration before the ban.

Just a heads up for anyone actually serious about paying for those receivers. I emailed them about the serial numbers, we'll see what they have to say.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 7:49:20 PM EDT
Kythri, Keep us posted on your reply from FGW.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 9:20:53 PM EDT
I was just going to say that ie does look very similar to the one i picked up for $85 from
Denny at Knob Creek...

I didnt kow they were going for that much...
(Yea right...)

KyARGuy

Link Posted: 11/3/2003 9:40:20 PM EDT
Well, here's what I've got so far:

First, they're not BWA-BWD receivers, they're 989's.

Denny sold us 999's.

Another reply from FGW states:


B-West may not have assembled them as rifles, but they were assembled into rifles before the 1994 ban.

Whether they were sold as receivers originally does not matter as long as they were actual rifles before the ban which took effect, these were.

Also, only the receivers with 989 prefixes were pre-ban, that was the cut off. We confirmed all of this before I we purchased them.

Thanks



I've requested some more information, but I was under the assumption that ALL B-West receivers were built before the ban...

I think they were, so I'm curious what info FGW has. We'll see what they tell me, I suppose...
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 10:11:03 PM EDT
My pre-ban Chinese receiver came out to be around $525 after selling all the parts...for good deals no less to happy fellow AK'ers.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 10:43:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/3/2003 11:29:17 PM EDT by sfcret]

B-West may not have assembled them as rifles, but they were assembled into rifles before the 1994 ban.

Whether they were sold as receivers originally does not matter as long as they were actual rifles before the ban which took effect, these were.

Also, only the receivers with 989 prefixes were pre-ban, that was the cut off. We confirmed all of this before I we purchased them.

Thanks



gee thats nice.....but in order for them to be real pre-ban, they had to have been assembled before the 89 importation ban. and before any of you say, that only applies to imported rifles.....read this....

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2204 of the Crime Control Act of
1990, Public Law 101-647, approved November 29, 1990, amended the Gun
Control Act of 1968, as amended (18 U.S.C. chapter 44) (GCA) by adding
a new section 922(r) to 18 U.S.C. 922(r) makes it unlawful for any
person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any
shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from
importation under the GCA as not being particularly suitable for or
readily adaptable to sporting purposes.
Section 922(r) excepts from
the general prohibition the assembly of rifles or shotguns for
distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or to any
State and the assembly of such firearms for purposes of testing or
experimentation authorized by the Secretary.

This prohibition was intended to preclude the circumvention of the
importation restrictions on nonsporting rifles and shotguns by
importing parts for "nonsporting" firearms and assembling them in the
United States using domestically manufactured frames or receivers
capable of accepting the imported parts.




unless they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that these receivers where assembled before the 89 ban.....then these are no more pre-ban as OOW receivers or hesse ones.

seems to me that FGW is spinning this to no ends, trying hard to make these into pre-ban receivers, which they probably aren't



Link Posted: 11/3/2003 10:47:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/3/2003 10:48:16 PM EDT by sfcret]
.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 11:04:46 PM EDT

Florida Gunworks:
We have available B-West AK47S Pre-ban stamped receivers, marked "AK-47S", made in the 80's, these came off of pre- ban rifles. Original made in the USA by B-West. Very rare, great for building that pre-ban AK project. Gauranteed Pre-Ban RARE receiver. 7.62x39 cal. Don't miss this opportunity! Only 9 available! Receiver is stripped. FFL required. Excellent condition.



According to this they’re legit. I’d be curious how they document it.

Kythri?

-J


Link Posted: 11/4/2003 2:18:09 AM EDT
$659.95

For just a receiver ?!?!?!?!?

Pretty damn high. You can get a complete AR15.COM Special Edition AK Rifle for that amount.

No thanks.

KF
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 3:54:01 AM EDT
Totally agree with you, too much for a stamping.

Link Posted: 11/4/2003 4:07:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 4:32:25 AM EDT
Doesn't it say in Florida gunworks website " these came off pre-ban rifles" and "guaranteed preban receiver"? I agree that I would ask a lot of questions before I purchased one, but their add certainly doesn't leave a lot of room for misrepresentation of their ban status. Try to find a complete preban AK for cheaper. Cheapest I've ever noticed is $750. If someone really wants a folding stock or doesn't want to have to worry about the dreaded "parts count" a "donor receiver" preban is your only option.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:08:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 6:16:21 AM EDT by SSR-99]
What!!!!!

Wow, that is way too much!!!!

Ok, here is the deal with B-West manufactured AK receivers:

B-West had these receivers made for them off premises. They contracted another US company to manufacture them (under contract for them).

These US made receivers were not bad looking, but have the reputation for being the worst pre ban AK's one could buy.........Why?........because while B-West used all new Chinese components to assemble onto their new US made receivers, these US made receivers lacked heat treating (supposedly having none at all). B-West guns built using the US made receivers, were well known for having receiver stretching, cracking, and just being plain ole unsafe after as little as 1500-2000 rounds fired through them.

Now lets fast forward to the present time. Recently someone aquired some B-West receivers and that person questioned what he had purchased. Folks then told him what they were, and that heat treating them would be a good idea if he wanted them to be safe and worth anything. This person took the advice, and decided to heat treat them, and put them out for sale.

So what do we have here?......are these the ones that received the heat treating?.......if so, then even though they may be perfect for building a preban style weapon (if they were indeed disassembled from pre ban guns), they would still carry the B-West stigma. The receiver will still designate it as being a B-West American made receiver, which has about as much desirability as the plague.

So resale for a gun built on such a receiver is not going to be good, so the price tag they have on these is down right ridiculous. $150 would be pushing it, but would be somewhat acceptable (while still, and forever, carry the American B-West made receiver stigma).

Now, these may not even be the ones that were re heat treated, which would even make them much more undesirable.

Note: None of this B-West stuff applies to the complete Chinese guns that the B-West company imported before manufacturing their own American receiver models.

I'm sorry, anyone that pays even 1/5 the amount being asked here, is proof that a sucker is born every day. I have a bridge that I could sell to such people :)
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:19:39 AM EDT
Sheesh, SSR-99 has a Bulgarian Arsenal AK and he's giving it away for $700. A beauty no-doubt! You would have to be completely INSANE to buy that B-west receiver for that price. INSANE I tell'yah!
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:19:43 AM EDT
First, let me address sfcret's post here:


gee thats nice.....but in order for them to be real pre-ban, they had to have been assembled before the 89 importation ban. and before any of you say, that only applies to imported rifles.....read this....


What you just quoted was 922r, essentially. The applicable date on these receivers is not 1989, but 1994. They had to be in SAW configuration before September 13, 1994.

Assembly of the rifles in violation of 922r is a crime, yes - this is why we use no more than 10 foriegn parts. If you've got the US parts in them, then they aren't in violation.

The key words here are "assemble from foriegn parts" and "identical". If you meet your parts count you aren't assembling from foriegn parts. If you put US parts in it, it's not identical. End of story.

Anyhow, the newest response from FGW:


Brian,

On the 999 receivers, I was told by the company I purchased these from that most of the 999 receivers were not built into rifles due to their proximity to the Sept. 1994 ban and that they were not sold in kit forms.

Technically though, who can really say whether they were built into rifles or sold in kits at that time or not. BATF has the burden of proof, and there is no real way to prove they weren't. I happen to know that the receivers we have were rifles because we saw them as such before they were dismantled, most of the other parts were unserviceable so the receivers were salvaged and sold separately.

This is why we only had a small amount available. Remember that B-west went out of business before the 1994 ban, so technically all receivers or rifles they made were pre-ban.

However, the 989 prefixes are desirable because they were made at a earlier date, and most were sold in kit forms at that time, thus the chance that they sat around for several years and weren't assembled into a rifle is very slim. In any case, we appreciate your .02.



So. FGW says that they saw these receivers assembled as rifles before they were stripped.

They say the key words to add legitimacy to the "pre-ban" status of these rifles.

I'm hesitant because again, there's no real documentation.

Hell, if you read cactusbrew's info above again, he says:


receivers that were sold as stripped receivers or unassembled rifle kits were serialized on the right hand side of the sheet metal receiver in a 999#### configuration or on the left hand rear of the sheet metal receiver in a 989### configuration.


If I were the one defining some terms, "stripped receiver" would be one that was built as a rifle, and then stripped. If each of these receivers were assembled at any point before September 14, 1994 as an SAW, and then stripped to a bare receiver, then they're pre-ban. If any of these receivers was put into a bag with a complete parts kit (EVERYTHING, parts-wise, needed to assemble an SAW also in that bag), then they're pre-ban.

Good luck proving that, unless you have notarized photographical evidence.

Now, interesting nugget of info, here. Cactusbrew also says:


B-West produced between 86 to 89 when the BATF discovered B-West was not actually producing the receivers on sight, but that a sheet metal fabrication company right down the road was doing the actual receiver manufacturing - without a license. To make it all go away, B-West got out of the AK making biz. Their rifles were made completely from Chinese parts and U.S. made sheet metal receiver."


If these rifles ONLY had a US receiver, then they weren't 922r compliant. Cactusbrew also says these receivers were made between 86 and 89? If they were, wouldn't all officially be pre-ban?

Is Lathrop's Shooters Supply or the Jensen family (parent company/owners of B-West) still around? Perhaps they'd have documented paperwork?
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:27:14 AM EDT

On the 999 receivers, I was told by the company I purchased these from that most of the 999 receivers were not built into rifles due to their proximity to the Sept. 1994 ban and that they were not sold in kit forms.

Technically though, who can really say whether they were built into rifles or sold in kits at that time or not. BATF has the burden of proof, and there is no real way to prove they weren't. I happen to know that the receivers we have were rifles because we saw them as such before they were dismantled, most of the other parts were unserviceable so the receivers were salvaged and sold separately.



Uhhhhhh......no thanks. I already got mine this weekend.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 7:42:58 AM EDT

I think people are confused, so let me try and clear this up.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PRE-BAN AK RECIEVER!

These are recievers, not rifles. They could have been assembled into anything pre-89 or pre-94, it doesn't matter.

The only way to have a "pre ban" ak is for it to have been assembled in the banned configuration before the law, and TO NEVER HAVE BEEN DISSASSEMBLED!

Obviously these are stripped recievers. So, any reassembly into a rifle has to be done in a way that complies with all the Bans. EG: There's no special right conferred by the fact that these recievers were made before 1990. Certainly not under the AWB and not under the 89 ban either AFAIK.

In order to have a pre-ban AK, it has to have remained an assembled rifle, in the pre-ban configuration, from the time the law was passed until now. Obviously, these have been disassembled, so assembling a non-compliant rifle with them would be illegal.

And I wouldn't recommend doing business with any company that is trying to entice its customers to break the law, AND pay 5 times normal for an apparently low quality reciever.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 7:52:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 7:53:16 AM EDT by SSR-99]
Man oh man.......over $650 for a B-West receiver..........damn!!!!! LOL!!!

I did sell the SSR-99, and it is at the dealers ready for shipping as we speak.

I now have that bridge to sell, to go along with the B-West receivers that are being sold for OVER $650.....LOL! ;)
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 8:02:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 8:03:50 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]
DonGalt, what are you talking about? How does someone make a AKS-47/74? They buy a kit, preban rifle or donor receiver in this case, and send it all off to a gunsmith. Your gunsmith (InRange, Independencearms, Firingline, Investmentgradefirearms, Etc.) disassembles the preban rifle for the receiver and the kit rifle is built up using the preban receiver. Now you can have the folding stock and original fire control parts. This is done every day. Yes, it is more expensive than a postban. But its the only way to get a fully functional folding stock and not have to worry about parts count crap.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 8:02:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 8:15:11 AM EDT by sfcret]

Originally Posted By kythri:
First, let me address sfcret's post here:


What you just quoted was 922r, essentially. The applicable date on these receivers is not 1989, but 1994. They had to be in SAW configuration before September 13, 1994.....



that part of the reg was Public Law 101-647, approved November 29, 1990. to stop people or companies from circumventing the
importation restrictions on nonsporting rifles and assembling them in the
United States using domestically manufactured frames or receivers
capable of accepting the imported parts.

when the 94 law was passed they just incorporated that reg that has been on the books since 1989 (banning the importation of "non-sporting rifles") and 1990 (assembling "non-sporting rifles") into the GCA.

in other words.....B-west or some other company probably said, we can't import them with the bayo lug, flash hider etc... we'll just import the parts and assemble the thing on our receiver, then it won't be a imported rifle. more then likely I bet they did excatly that...so they they added that little paragraph to the original 89 import ban, in 1990 stating:

This prohibition was intended to preclude the circumvention of the
importation restrictions on nonsporting rifles and shotguns by
importing parts for "nonsporting" firearms and assembling them in the
United States using domestically manufactured frames or receivers
capable of accepting the imported parts.

those folks at FGW are going to rip off a lot of folks in a huge way, by selling them nothing more then a receiver that is about as legal to assemble into a assault weapon, then you can with a OOW or a hesse.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 9:28:12 AM EDT
Wow!!! At that price I'll take six of them please. Hell of a deal if you are *@#$ing dolt.

Link Posted: 11/4/2003 9:31:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
DonGalt, what are you talking about? How does someone make a AKS-47/74? They buy a kit, preban rifle or donor receiver in this case, and send it all off to a gunsmith. Your gunsmith (InRange, Independencearms, Firingline, Investmentgradefirearms, Etc.) disassembles the preban rifle for the receiver and the kit rifle is built up using the preban receiver. Now you can have the folding stock and original fire control parts. This is done every day. Yes, it is more expensive than a postban. But its the only way to get a fully functional folding stock and not have to worry about parts count crap.




No, doing so violates the 1994 prohibition against assembling an assault weapon. I don't know of any gun smith that will do this.

They may put on a folding stock that has been welded open, but they wont assemble a rifle that violates the 1994 AWB. IT doesn't matter when the reciever was made, the rifle is being assembled in 2003, and so it has to be in a post-ban configuration. It also has to have enough US parts to not count as an imported rifle under the 1989 and 1994 bans.

Now, since AR parts are US and the laws are different, maybe pre-ban AR recievers carry some special exemption. But for AKs, if the rifle is assembled post-1994, it cannot have a folding stock (and a pistol grip and high cap magazine). It can't have more than two of the forbidden items, with people almost always selecting a high cap magazine and pistol grip being the two allowed items.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 10:05:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sfcret:
that part of the reg was Public Law 101-647, approved November 29, 1990. to stop people or companies from circumventing the
importation restrictions on nonsporting rifles and assembling them in the
United States using domestically manufactured frames or receivers
capable of accepting the imported parts.

when the 94 law was passed they just incorporated that reg that has been on the books since 1989 (banning the importation of "non-sporting rifles") and 1990 (assembling "non-sporting rifles") into the GCA.



Did you even read what you yourself posted here?

Let me quote the applicable part:


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2204 of the Crime Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-647, approved November 29, 1990, amended the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (18 U.S.C. chapter 44) (GCA) by adding a new section 922(r) to 18 U.S.C. 922(r) makes it unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any
shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under the GCA as not being particularly suitable for or
readily adaptable to sporting purposes.



Again, what I said above still holds true here - assembly of a rifle with no more than 10 foriegn parts is NOT assembly of "any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under the GCA as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."

The fact of the matter remains, per the law, had these receivers either A> been assembled as a rifle in semi-automatic assault weapon configuration (while complying with 922r's parts count bit to keep it from being "identical) before September 13, 1994, or B> been in complete kit form (again, complying with 922r's parts count bit to keep it from being "identical") before September 13, 1994, hey, guess what? You've got a pre-ban receiver!

If I had owned my MAK-90 before September 13, 1994, and had put on US furniture (3-parts) and a US FCG (another 3 parts), I'd be in excess of the required parts (since the MAK-90 has no brake), and hence could have had the barrel threaded for a flash hider, and put on a folding stock, and had a bayo-lug front site base added to the rifle - I complied with the law at the time which allowed this - hence, pre-ban SAW.

Now, let's look at the reality of the thing - Good luck proving to anybody that you did all that stuff to your MAK-90 before September 13, 1994.

The only way I'd feel safe about treating these B-West receivers as anything BUT post-ban is if I had a letter from the manufacturer (B-West, but Lathrop's would count, as the parent company) saying that these receivers were, in fact, assembled as rifles before the ban, or were in complete (COMPLETE!) kit form before the ban.

Now then - we come back to my earlier question - if these receivers were, in fact, built before the 1989 ban (what we all, for the most part, play it safe and consider pre-ban to be), I don't think that the 1994 AWB applies to these, but I'm not a lawyer, and would want a bit more confirmation.

As it stands, I'm treating my B-West receivers as nothing more than a post-ban receiver - unless I get some documented information proving them to be pre-ban.


in other words.....B-west or some other company probably said, we can't import them with the bayo lug, flash hider etc... we'll just import the parts and assemble the thing on our receiver, then it won't be a imported rifle. more then likely I bet they did excatly that...so they they added that little paragraph to the original 89 import ban, in 1990


You're probably absolutely correct. Hence, like I said, this is where the parts count rule now applies - if you use the 5 or 6 US parts (the receiver being one of them), the law there no longer applies - it's not a rifle assembled in violation, because it's now a US made rifle, due to the number of foriegn parts in it.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 10:09:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 10:11:48 AM EDT by kythri]

Originally Posted By DonGalt:
No, doing so violates the 1994 prohibition against assembling an assault weapon. I don't know of any gun smith that will do this.

They may put on a folding stock that has been welded open, but they wont assemble a rifle that violates the 1994 AWB. IT doesn't matter when the reciever was made, the rifle is being assembled in 2003, and so it has to be in a post-ban configuration. It also has to have enough US parts to not count as an imported rifle under the 1989 and 1994 bans.

Now, since AR parts are US and the laws are different, maybe pre-ban AR recievers carry some special exemption. But for AKs, if the rifle is assembled post-1994, it cannot have a folding stock (and a pistol grip and high cap magazine). It can't have more than two of the forbidden items, with people almost always selecting a high cap magazine and pistol grip being the two allowed items.



DonGalt: You're wrong there. The ATF considers the receiver to be the weapon. As the pre-ban rifle is a SAW, the receiver is the rifle.

You're saying I can't go buy my pre-ban Norinco 84S, send it and a Krink kit to a builder, have them strip it, and assemble me a Krink with a folding stock, threaded barrel/flash hider, pistol grip and have a bayo mount on it?

A gunsmith may legally strip the receiver, and build it as whatever, with all evil features intact.

You say you don't know of any gunsmith that will do this?

Ohio Rapid Fire, InRange, Investment Grade Firearms, pretty much every gunsmith around?

You know of these people, right?

For what it's worth, AR receivers are treated just like every other firearm out there - if it was built before 1989, it's a pre-ban receiver.

If it was built between '89 and '94, it's post-ban, unless you can prove it was in SAW configuration, or complete kit configuration, before 09/13/94 - then it's pre-ban.

If it was built after 09/14/94, it's post-ban, period.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 10:14:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 10:19:56 AM EDT by kythri]
Here's a post from Corey Sattler (again, I'm stealing from AK-47.net, but since they don't own this, I figure I'm alright...).

It contradicts a couple of the things I said, but again, I'm not a lawyer - I just think I've interpreted the law correctly.

Anyhow, here you go:



Pre-ban or Post-Ban More Than Just a Date

By Corey Sattler (Webmanager@olyarms.com)

So you want to know if you have a pre-ban or a post-ban receiver. You are not alone! This is
one of the most often asked questions I receive each day. Even dealers don't know sometimes, and they sell firearms for a living! For that matter, I have talked to people who asked their local BATF agents what the determining factors are, and the agents were giving incorrect information! So what are the determining factors? Read on my friends...

A few years ago, our government passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, more commonly known as the 1994 Crime Bill. This law "restricts the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain 'Semiautomatic Assault Weapons'." (AN OXYMORON IN ITSELF, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT PREACHING TO THE CHOIR.) So what, you say, is a "Semiautomatic Assault Weapon"? The law (Section 921 (a) (30), Title 18 U.S.C.) defines it as so:

1.Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as;
Norinco, Mitchell, Poly Technologies, Avtomat Kalashinikovs.
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI, Galil.
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70).
Colt AR-15
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC.
SWD M-10, M-11, M-11-9, M-12.
Steyr AUG.
Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22.
Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street
Sweeper and Striker 12.

2.Any semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following features:
a folding or telescoping stock.
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
a bayonet mount.
a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.
a grenade launcher.

3.A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following features:
an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip.
a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer.
a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned.
a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded.
a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

4.A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of the following features:
a folding or telescoping stock.
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds.
an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Now we all know that some of the features are already regulated by previous laws (E.G. GRENADE LAUNCHERS - THESE WERE CLASSIFIED AS "DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES" ALREADY), and some of them make no real impact in the "war against crime", but there they are.

Now you know what a Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) is, but how do you determine what it is you have or what you can legally buy or make? What is "pre-ban?" What it all boils down to is when the GUN was built. Edward M. Owen, Jr., Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATF, has this to say:

"Semiautomatic pistols and rifles assembled after September 13, 1994, and possessing two or more of the features listed in [Section 921 (a) (30), Title 18 U.S.C.] are semiautomatic assault weapons as defined. The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon. Additionally, payment or non-payment of excise tax is also immaterial to classification of a firearm as semiautomatic assault weapon."

What he is stating is, as far as pre-ban and post-ban is concerned, the date of manufacture of the receiver has nothing to do with anything. If your SAW was built into a whole SAW, or in a complete kit form, before Sept. 13, 1994 (The Date), you are the lucky owner of a pre-ban receiver. If the gun was built after this date, or if the receiver was without all of the parts to make a SAW as of The Date, then it is post-ban. Let me give you a few examples...

John Q. Public bought himself an AR-15 receiver in 1988 and put it in his safe. In April 1997, he decided to build it into a rifle. Was it a gun before The Date? No... so he has to build it into a POST-ban firearm. Mary Mary Quite Contrary buys an AR-15 lower from her dealer who purchased it 7 years ago, built it into a SAW 2 weeks later, and in January '96 tore it apart to sell as components. Did she buy a pre-ban receiver? Yes... it was a SAW before The Date.

Big Bob Bopper finds a respectable dealer at a gun show who is selling "pre-ban AR pistol lowers." The dealer says he bought them before "the Ban" and registered them as pistol lowers, but never built them into anything. Are they pre-ban? No. Are they pistol lowers? Sure...just post-ban pistol lowers.As long as they don't have two or more "Deadly Features" when they are built, they are legal.

Fred Foosball buys a complete semiautomatic assault rifle kit in August 1994, but doesn't assemble it until September 14th, 1994. Is it a legal pre-ban rifle. Yes... it had all (and I mean ALL) of the pieces to make a complete SAW before the ban. BATF accepts this as a complete pre-ban rifle. Josh the Impaler purchases a Remington 1100 on July 4, 1994 in order to celebrate Independence Day. A year later, he decides that he would like a pistol grip and folding stock added to make it a better home defense gun. Is this legal? No. The shotgun was complete before The Date, but it was not a SAW before the date, and therefore cannot be modified to a SAW after The Date.

All of this makes for some VERY gray areas. But we all must stay within the law as best as we know how. The basic rule of thumb to use is, if you are planning to buy a pre-ban gun or receiver, make sure that the person selling it to you can prove that it was built as a SAW (or in a complete kit form) before The Date. If he or she can't do this, don't buy it!!!!

Many people also believe that a serial number can tell you whether or not a receiver is pre- or post-ban. This is not always the case. For example, if a manufacturer's books show a serial number as being manufactured on August 23, 1994, and also lists that serial number being shipped on September 3, 1994, is this a pre-ban receiver? Well, that information alone will not tell you. If the books only show when a serial number was made and left, we still don't know how it was shipped. Was it a rifle? or a receiver only? did the dealer who purchased it build it into a SAW before The Date? These are all questions that are unanswerable with the provided information, so don't go on these facts alone!




(Edited for readability and screen formatting - no content was changed)
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 10:15:11 AM EDT
kythri, didn't I just say this?
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 10:21:15 AM EDT
Va_Dinger:

Yes, you did - Guess I missed that.

I was replying to DonGalt where he claims not to know of any gunsmith that will break down a pre-ban rifle to build it up as something with "evil features".
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 10:46:21 AM EDT
kythri, you are correct. He needs to learn before he posts.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 11:12:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 11:15:15 AM EDT by sfcret]
Originally Posted By kythri:


If I had owned my MAK-90 before September 13, 1994, and had put on US furniture (3-parts) and a US FCG (another 3 parts), I'd be in excess of the required parts (since the MAK-90 has no brake), and hence could have had the barrel threaded for a flash hider, and put on a folding stock, and had a bayo-lug front site base added to the rifle - I complied with the law at the time which allowed this - hence, pre-ban SAW.



No it still wouldn't be a pre-ban, since the 94 ban limits you to only 2 evil features, with the required US parts.

however you slice it, unless this receiver was built as a complete AW before 89, it's a post ban...pure and simple
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 11:28:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 11:30:28 AM EDT by kythri]

Originally Posted By sfcret:
No it still wouldn't be a pre-ban, since the 94 ban limits you to only 2 evil features, with the required US parts.

however you slice it, unless this receiver was built as a complete AW before 89, it's a post ban...pure and simple



ARGH.

THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.

The '94 ban prevents any further manufacture of a rifle with a removable magazine and more than one evil feature. The '94 ban was passed on 09/13/03 or 09/14/03 - let's say the 13th, just to be safe, cool?

If my rifle was all dolled up the day before, the 12th, it just got grandfathered.

The '94 AWB doesn't limit you to two evil features - the removable magazine is NOT an evil feature - if you welded a drum or a magazine into your Romanian SAR, it ceases to have a removable magazine. As such, you could theoretically put all the nasty crap on your rifle, since it would not meet the definition of an SAW (it'd still suck, though).

It's the defining characteristic of the whole "semi-automatic assault weapon" nonsense.

THE RIFLE WAS ASSEMBLED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 13, 1994, OR IN COMPLETE KIT FORM BEFORE SEPTEMBER 13, 1994, IT IS A PRE-BAN WEAPON/RECEIVER.

Hence, had I taken my MAK-90, put a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayo-lug FSB and a threaded barrel+flash hider on it, on September 12, 1994, taken a picture of it in that configuration, and then had said picture and statement stating what you had done, and had both notarized as of September 12, 1994 - guess what? You've got a pre-ban! Whee!

Anything done before September 13, 1994 got grandfathered.

This is why people call MAK-90's (incorrectly) "pre-ban" - they believe that since they were imported before the '94 AWB, they're pre-ban.

We all take the term "pre-ban" to mean a rifle that is not subject to the '94 AWB, and is not subject to 922r - hence, one we can put the "evil features" on, in excess of one + removable magazine, and not have to worry about the parts count, instead of the neutered stuff we have to build today to be compliant with the '94 AWB and 922r.

You're getting your dates mixed up. It does not have to be built before 89. After 89 or 90, it needs to be 922r compliant, yes - but if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (the only way I personally would be comfortable owning a rifle like this) that it was assembled in SAW configuration (and 922r compliant) before 09/13/94, it's all good, baby.

I realize I keep repeating myself, but it's all there in black and white, man.

I think another reason we all take pre-ban to mean '89 and earlier is because there's a whole hell of a lot less work to do to prove it's pre-ban. Anything '89 and earlier is listed on an ATF import form (Form 6?) somewhere when someone got approval to import these rifles - as such, the ATF can't say that they're anything but a pre-ban rifle - it's in their own paperwork that it's a pre-ban.

That, and a lot of people have the documentation (and it's floating around on the net) to prove that certain series of certain model rifles are pre-ban.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 11:31:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 11:44:02 AM EDT
[Quote:from Floridagunworks]:"We have available B-West AK47S Pre-ban stamped receivers, marked "AK-47S", made in the 80's, these came off of pre- ban rifles. Original made in the USA by B-West. Very rare, great for building that pre-ban AK project. Guaranteed Pre-Ban RARE receiver. 7.62x39 cal. Don't miss this opportunity! Only 9 available! Receiver is stripped. FFL required. Excellent condition".

That's a hell of a statement if their not prebans! Hell it says "came off preban rifles" and "guaranteed preban receiver".
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 12:29:07 PM EDT

You guys are flat out wrong.

IF you have a pre-ban folding buttstock AK type, and you take the folding buttstock off of it and put a non-folding buttstock on it, you're ok.

But if you take that same rifle and put a folding buttstock back on it, you have just violated the 1994 ban.

This is what the ATF has said consistently in the letters on the subject.

For the purposes of requiring an FFL to do a transfer, the reciever is the weapon.

But for the 1994 ban, putting a banned feature on any rifle after 1994 is considered "Assembling an assault weapon".

Let me go dig up an ATF letter....
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 12:46:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 12:59:04 PM EDT by DonGalt]
According to this letter, you cannot assemble an AK type with imported parts:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter24.txt

Even if it complies with the AWB. Thus taking a pre-ban rifle, disassembling it and reassembling it with imported parts would violate the imported parts rule.

This letter shows that the reciever is not a rifle:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter49.txt



The frame or receiver from a semiautomatic assault rifle does not meet the definition of a rifle. Therefore, the frame or receiver from a semiautomatic assault rifle, in and of itself, is not a semiautomatic assault rifle.



This letter makes the case-- modifications are considered "assembly" and thus are banned after 1989 (using imported parts. To use US parts, you have to comply with the AWB because changing the status of the rifle from "imported" to "US made" requires actually making the rifle: eg: assembly, and thus the 1994 ban applies.)

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter68.txt



Additionally, the SAR-8 rifle as modified would meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon as that term is defined in section 921(a)(30) of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(v)(1) of Title 18 U.S.C. provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

However, a semiautomatic assault weapon, which was lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the subsection (September 13, 1994) is excluded from the prohibition in section 922(v)(1). Even if the semiautomatic assault weapon was lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994, it could still not be altered to PSG-1 configuration, since assembly of the PSG-1 style rifle from imported parts would be prohibited under section 178.39.



The above explicitly states that modifying a pre-ban rifle into a form banned by the AWB would be inviolation of the AWB.

So, to summarize:
1) The reciever is not the rifle.
2) Modifying a pre-ban rifle into another configuration that is banned by the AWB removes the protection provided by the grandfather clause of the AWB.

If someone has an AFT letter saying otherwise, I'd like to see it. Its possible I'm wrong, but please don't tell me I shouldn't post my opinion-- what I have talked about is the generally held view.

There MAY be an exception for ARs because in putting an AR together you aren' remanufacturing it to make it US parts complaint, but for AKs, modifications are verboten.

For instance, I remember seeing a letter (but can't find it right now) that changing a thumbhole buttstock to a pistol-grip type would be considered "assembling an assault weapon" and that in order to do so, you have to remanufacture the rifle using enough US parts to make it a US rifle (And comply with the AWB as well.)
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 12:50:14 PM EDT

"Semiautomatic pistols and rifles assembled after September 13, 1994, and possessing two or more of the features listed in [Section 921 (a) (30), Title 18 U.S.C.] are semiautomatic assault weapons as defined. The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon. Additionally, payment or non-payment of excise tax is also immaterial to classification of a firearm as semiautomatic assault weapon."



kyrathi quoted someone else saying what I'm saying.

IF you had all the parts together to make up a complete rifle, pre-1994 and you assembled the rifle from THOSE PARTS, then you squeak by.

But bying a reciever (sans the rest of the parts) and assembling it from some other set of parts (As you would be if you bougth these recievers) yould be in violation of the AWB.

Its not the reciever-- its an assembled rifle, or a reciever AND THE PARTS KIT, that are grandfathered. If you don't have proof that you posessed both before the ban, then you don't get the grandfathering.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 12:54:59 PM EDT

Or, put another way, the rifle that kyrathi describes building before the AWB takes effect is a pre-ban rifle.

But it is only grandfathered as long as it stays in its pre-ban state. IF you take it down to the reciever and build another rifle on it, using a different folding buttstock, a different flash hider, etc, you have manufactured a new assault weapon.

In theory, unless it's broken, just replacing the folding buttstock for one you like better, after 1994, would be manufacturing a new assault weapon.

I know its screwy, but that's the way the ATF has ruled.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 1:05:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 1:07:05 PM EDT by krinkfreak]
I just read all of your posts.......

My head hurts.....

I just got my second letter back from my congressman, supporting the AWB Sunset.

WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM THIS IS A BUNCH OF BOOOOLSHIT !!!!

KF
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 1:30:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonGalt:
If someone has an AFT letter saying otherwise, I'd like to see it. Its possible I'm wrong, but please don't tell me I shouldn't post my opinion-- what I have talked about is the generally held view.



Hey, I'm not saying don't post your opinion - by all means, please take part in this debate.

I happen to think that you're wrong in this case, and that a rebuild (say, a Norinco 84S into a "pre-ban" Krinkov) is not a manufacture. Many builders are currently doing this, and are under the assumption that they're not breaking any laws.

In my 84S example, the rifle was already manufactured, and allowed for import. 922r does not apply to this rifle, as it's pre-922r.

It's not an SAW, because it's pre-94. Alteration/modification isn't manufacture...

Even when these law-interpretation debates get heated, I still enjoy them, because I like getting gray-areas hashed out, and knowing where we stand and what we can do/have done.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 1:37:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 1:39:10 PM EDT by kythri]

Originally Posted By DonGalt:
www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter68.txt



Additionally, the SAR-8 rifle as modified would meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon as that term is defined in section 921(a)(30) of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(v)(1) of Title 18 U.S.C. provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

However, a semiautomatic assault weapon, which was lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the subsection (September 13, 1994) is excluded from the prohibition in section 922(v)(1). Even if the semiautomatic assault weapon was lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994, it could still not be altered to PSG-1 configuration, since assembly of the PSG-1 style rifle from imported parts would be prohibited under section 178.39.



The above explicitly states that modifying a pre-ban rifle into a form banned by the AWB would be inviolation of the AWB.



However, in reading that letter, here's the deal - the rifle in question is an SAR8 - these are a post-89 ban rifle.

Assembly of the rifle into a PSG-1 is illegal, because the PSG-1 is banned from import. Assembly is covered under 922r, I believe.

OK, fine - but, use of US parts, in compliance with 922r, is not assembly, because the resulting rifle (with it's no more than 10 foriegn parts) is not a rifle banned from import - it's not in violation of anything.

If you used all foriegn parts, it would be forbidden.

I don't see any letters on Bardwell's site that talk about a pre-89 ban rifle, and post-94 modifications to that rifle.

I still don't think turning a pre-89 ban rifle into a Krink with nasty bits is illegal.

(Edited to heat up link)
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 2:30:51 PM EDT
So, by DonGalt’s logic, if I had a 1979 Vintage M1A in pre-ban configuration and I remove the flash hider/bayonet lug (it’s all one piece) to clean the rifle today, I could not legally reinstall that flash hider/bayonet lug tomorrow as I’d be creating a post-ban semi-automatic assault weapon.


Link Posted: 11/4/2003 3:38:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 3:46:11 PM EDT by Va_Dinger]
DonGalt, you are 100% wrong. You must be new to assault rifles to be even arguing this fact. The reciever is the weapon. Go buy an AR receiver - guess what, it has to shipped to a FFL. Now go buy an upper - it can be shipped straight to your house. This is barre bone BASIC AK or AR knowledge. Don't believe me, ask any AK gunsmith. They do these conversions everyday. Its a pain in the ass, but the only legal way to get a make folding stock AKS-74 or AKSU-74.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 4:24:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kythri:

Is Lathrop's Shooters Supply or the Jensen family (parent company/owners of B-West) still around? Perhaps they'd have documented paperwork?




Jensens / Arizona Sportsman #4 Tucson AZ Butch/Manager 520-325-3346
Jensens / Arizona Sportsman #5 Tucson AZ Liz Matty 520-293-8516
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:48:28 PM EDT
Sweet, thanks Mak.

I'll try to get ahold of someone tomorrow to see if there's any documented status on any of these receivers (989's or 999's) in SAW config or complete kit form before the ban.

If the parent company of B-West is offering out documentation to show that the receivers we all bought from Denny were SAW's before the ban, we might have gotten a hell of a sweet deal...
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 3:19:02 AM EDT
Well DonGalt, every single gunsmith in this AK forum has commited a felony according to you. Hundreds of times no less.

This is incredible news to many people who are now in possession of an illegal assault weapon. And sent through the mail adds another felony to the list...across state lines adds another...on top of the hundreds of cases.

Think about it, don't you think they know what they are doing?
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 4:07:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 5:09:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
in order to be able to LEGALLY reconfigure an assault weapon, it MUST have been an ASSEMBLED assault weapon prior to the passage of the ban. if it was an assembled weapon of the so called assault weapon type, any smith can reqork it into any other legal configuration.



My question right now is, did it have to be an assault weapon AT THE TIME OF THE BAN or is it enough to have been an assault weapon [AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE BAN??

(Keep in mind that the whole "in complete kit form" counts as being an assault weapon, too)
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:48:27 PM EDT

I love all you guys telling me I'm wrong and talking about MY logic.

All I did was quote the ATF.

The ATF is clear on the issue. And the gun smiths I know of do not do the work you guys claim they do-- they build post ban guns, they don't build new pre-ban guns, cause they know there can't be a new pre-ban gun!

Look, I don't like this, I think its stupid, but read the freaking ATF letters and don't be telling me BS like "the reciever is the rifle" when I already quoted the ATF saying explicitly that it wasn't.

Stop attacking me because you don't like what the ATF said.

How about you find an ATF letter that says differently.

Link Posted: 11/5/2003 10:53:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonGalt:

And the gun smiths I know of do not do the work you guys claim they do-- they build post ban guns, they don't build new pre-ban guns, cause they know there can't be a new pre-ban gun!



I am sorry to have mocked you. Could you please tell me the smiths you know that would think it is illegal to build a side-folding AKS-74 from a Norinco 84s rifle.
Link Posted: 11/6/2003 3:16:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/6/2003 7:22:08 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]
I think this has gone far enough. I'm done having a debate with someone who knows absolutely nothing on the subject. I'm starting to get the feeling that "DonGalt" is either a and having some fun at our expense or "Learning disabled". Nobody could be this thick headed.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top