Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/26/2004 5:51:50 AM EST
Any news on how the ATF will interpret/rule on using "post-ban" receivers with "pre-ban" configured uppers to create "new weapons" after the AWB sunsets? Obviously, buying both an upper and lower that were produced after September 13 would work, but how about using a stripped lower that was produced during the AWB to build a new weapon after September 13 that was "preban" in configuration?

I have written a letter to the ATF on this matter but I am sure my letter will return well after September 13. So, has anyone heard from the ATF itself?

I have my own opinions, but like yours, they don't count. So, I am looking for actual ATF info and not personal conjectures. Besides, we are all basically going to be of the same opinion as to how things "should" be interpreted by the ATF.

Also, does anyone know when Congress retires for the next session? I am asking if they could turn around in November, assuming Kerry The Coward were actually elected, and begin voting on a new ban?

Thanks for the responses.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:08:18 AM EST
after the sunset, their is NO "post-ban" or "pre-ban," just new and used. so you can build whatever you would like as long as you don't live in one of the restrictive states.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:12:10 AM EST
It will be back. I guarantee it.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:15:35 AM EST
Once the AWB expires, it ceases to have any legal standing..... there can be no interpretation from the ATF on a law that does not exist.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:15:50 AM EST
I personally don't give a rat's third point of contact. If all ATF agents have to do is harass otherwise law abiding, private citizen's on whether or not their firearms comply with the AWB after the law has obviously sunset then we have a much bigger problem. I will give the average ATF agent the benefit of the doubt that his brain is made of more than human feces.

Give me a break folks! How many of you have actually been harassed by the ATF on whether or not your rifle is AWB compliant over the last ten years?! Let's get real here!!

Sheeeshh ...
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:29:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By KClapp:
How many of you have actually been harassed by the ATF on whether or not your rifle is AWB compliant over the last ten years?!



Exactly ZERO

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:30:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By KClapp:
I personally don't give a rat's third point of contact. If all ATF agents have to do is harass otherwise law abiding, private citizen's on whether or not their firearms comply with the AWB after the law has obviously sunset then we have a much bigger problem. I will give the average ATF agent the benefit of the doubt that his brain is made of more than human feces.

Give me a break folks! How many of you have actually been harassed by the ATF on whether or not your rifle is AWB compliant over the last ten years?! Let's get real here!!

Sheeeshh ...





HOOYAH!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:36:18 AM EST
KClapp,

I agree that the odds of the ATF randomly searching your collection for compliance is pretty small. If for some reason, however, the ATF did come across your weapon and it was not compliant, we are talking federal prison time. Talk about a rat's third point of contact!@!

You never know what the next anti-gun reg will be. Who ever thought it would have gotten this bad?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:38:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By KClapp:
Give me a break folks! How many of you have actually been harassed by the ATF on whether or not your rifle is AWB compliant over the last ten years?! Let's get real here!!



Why not ask LarryG36 - Wait is he out on bail yet?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:45:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By WarriorWannabe:
KClapp,

I agree that the odds of the ATF randomly searching your collection for compliance is pretty small. If for some reason, however, the ATF did come across your weapon and it was not compliant, we are talking federal prison time. Talk about a rat's third point of contact!@!

You never know what the next anti-gun reg will be. Who ever thought it would have gotten this bad?



If the ATF makes the rules and not congress, then we have a very serious problem in this nation. Things have already gone too far in that case.

I would like to hear LarryG36's story also.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:45:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By KClapp:
Give me a break folks! How many of you have actually been harassed by the ATF on whether or not your rifle is AWB compliant over the last ten years?! Let's get real here!!



Why not ask LarryG36 - Wait is he out on bail yet?



Why does everyone bring up LarryG36 as an example when this is mentioned. His problems HAVE NOTHING to do with "non-compliant assault weapons".
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:46:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 6:54:43 AM EST by ANGST]
This is what, like thread 23892395872345082375098624309526340 on this subject ?

Once the law is gone , its gone, there is no pre-ban / post-ban, there is no law for the ATF to "rule" on.

Damn do you write letters to the ATF before you buy ANY gun ? Where is the ATF ruling that says revolvers are legal ? Why aren't you scared the ATF will "rule" that any of your guns might be illegal wether its a lever action rifle, or a revolver. Get a grip people.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:48:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By KClapp:
Give me a break folks! How many of you have actually been harassed by the ATF on whether or not your rifle is AWB compliant over the last ten years?! Let's get real here!!



Why not ask LarryG36 - Wait is he out on bail yet?



,but one would tend to believe that there is a difference between HAVING one and SELLING them.

I forgot where I read it, but there was an article at the gun shop stating that only 8 people had ever been charged with violation of the ban, and all of those we additional charges on top of a bigger weapons violation charge.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:51:25 AM EST
Thread on the LarryG36 saga:
Arrested for selling 'violating the AWB'

It looks like a poor case - but it's going to cost him big time lawyer fees to get out of it.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:11:06 AM EST
The ATF will not be able to enforce laws that do not exist.

So if/when the AWB sunsets, the pre/post ban concept will also sunset. It will be as if the ban never existed, so any builds that were governed by the AWB will not be any longer.

Pending new legislation, there will be no such thing as post ban and pre ban after the sunset.

So as long as your build doesn't violate the NFA or import stuff of 86 you are good to go.

Also, I've talked with a few ATF folk, oddly enough, most don't know all the details. Mostly I've talking with one of my lawyer friends that is another firearm afficionado.

The only pending issue that some people have is the LEO GOV'T only markings. These were put on as a date of manufacture stamp. Some folks are under the concept that since these markings are there they cannot be sold to civilians. With police selling they duty weapons and equipment and the federal gov't doing the same, I do not see how this could considered restricted after the ban as again, no laws will be in place to govern these items.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:13:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:
Thread on the LarryG36 saga:
Arrested for selling 'violating the AWB'

It looks like a poor case - but it's going to cost him big time lawyer fees to get out of it.



The AW mentioned in the indictment was 100% compliant. He was not charged with selling an illegal assault weapon.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:28:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 4:54:53 PM EST by RAMBOSKY]
Does the ATF have a rulling if I can take my AR into the bathroom when I take a shit? I know of no law passed by Congress but the ATF may have their own opinions on this. To play it safe I'll write them a letter.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:44:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By RAMBOSKY:
Does the ATF have a rulling if I can take my AR into the bathroom when I take a shit? I know of no law passed by Congress but the ATF my have their own opinions on this. To play it safe I'll write them a letter.



Yup, exactly

Though the Destructive Device definition does include "poison gas" The ATF may rule you can never take a shit agin.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:56:52 AM EST
There was a thread a while back where a guy talked to some BATF agents and the agents said you can not turn postban rifles in to prebans after the ban sunsets.

I have not found that LEOs in general have much knowledge of the law.

I can't see how they can prosecute you without a statute as long as you prebanned your postban after the ban has been repealed.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:50:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By imposter:
I can't see how they can prosecute you without a statute as long as you prebanned your postban after the ban has been repealed.



Which would bring us to ask who has the burden of proof as to when such conversion took place? I was always under the impression that the burden of proof was on the prosecution.

Unless you're in the business of selling or manufacturing firearms, I sincerely doubt the ATF or any other law enforcement agency has any interest in you or your rifle. Well, unless you're involved in some other illegal venture, in which case your illegal AW will just be tacked on so they can plea bargain it away.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:06:25 AM EST
Yawn...
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:09:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By reloader15:


The only pending issue that some people have is the LEO GOV'T only markings. These were put on as a date of manufacture stamp. Some folks are under the concept that since these markings are there they cannot be sold to civilians. With police selling they duty weapons and equipment and the federal gov't doing the same, I do not see how this could considered restricted after the ban as again, no laws will be in place to govern these items.



This is what I got back from the ATF on the LEO Marking Subject


Thank you for contacting our Website. If the provisions of Public Law 103-322, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, relating to semiautomatic assault weapons, sunset on September 13, 2004, the prohibition on possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon will no longer apply regardless of any markings that appear on a firearm.

If you have any further questions, I suggest you contact either our Firearms Technology Branch on 304-260-1700 or your local ATF office for assistance. You can find information on which of our Field Offices is the closest to you, their phone number, mailing and e-mail addresses, on our site at: http://www.atf.gov/field/index.htm. Regards,
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:16:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By KClapp:

If the ATF makes the rules and not congress, then we have a very serious problem in this nation. Things have already gone too far in that case.




Yep, been that way for a long, long time. As long as Congress keeps giving ATF power to decide what is what (for example - whether or not a gun is sporting or not), then they will making a lot of rules, and effectively, laws.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:21:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 10:23:01 AM EST by RenegadeX]

Originally Posted By HELLBRINGER:


The AW mentioned in the indictment was 100% compliant. He was not charged with selling an illegal assault weapon.



- Larry B. Reimer, 41, of Pahrump, Nev., one count illegal transfer of semiautomatic assault weapon, one count illegal sale of a firearm.

They seem to think it was NOT compliant. You are correct it was not a "sale", but a "transfer".
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:42:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By KClapp:

Originally Posted By imposter:
I can't see how they can prosecute you without a statute as long as you prebanned your postban after the ban has been repealed.



Which would bring us to ask who has the burden of proof as to when such conversion took place? I was always under the impression that the burden of proof was on the prosecution.

Unless you're in the business of selling or manufacturing firearms, I sincerely doubt the ATF or any other law enforcement agency has any interest in you or your rifle. Well, unless you're involved in some other illegal venture, in which case your illegal AW will just be tacked on so they can plea bargain it away.




Oh here's a new myth that will be started........ If you have a '94-04 gun the ATF will try and charge you with an ABW violation saying that you built the gun during the ban. This is why you want to buy a pre-ban or one of my marked up post 04 guns
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:45:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By HELLBRINGER:


The AW mentioned in the indictment was 100% compliant. He was not charged with selling an illegal assault weapon.



- Larry B. Reimer, 41, of Pahrump, Nev., one count illegal transfer of semiautomatic assault weapon, one count illegal sale of a firearm.

They seem to think it was NOT compliant. You are correct it was not a "sale", but a "transfer".



Jeez, read your own post...........ILLEGAL TRANSFER and ILLEGAL SALE. One of the guns was a freaking revolver and the other was a factory built LE gun. It wasn't what he sold but WHO HE ALLEGEDLY SOLD THEM TO!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 11:15:22 AM EST
Sunset means it will no longer be in effect, but alleged violations which occurred while it was in effect can/could still be prosecuted. My .02.
Top Top