Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
4/22/2019 5:32:20 PM
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:57:00 PM EDT
Stopped at a large G-store near home today for ammo. Walked over to long guns to see what they had in stock. Lots of Bushies and Armalites. I was looking to add another 6920 that I picked up a week ago from another dealer. I asked the guy about putting a deposit on a Colt. He handed me a photocopy to them from Colt (he had a couple of hundred for customers). The email basically informed dealers that Colt was determined to supply its LE models to LEOs and government only (due to outstanding contracts). The email said if dealers sold LEs to civilians without letterhead with the buyer's LE employer that Colt would revoke authorization for the dealer to sell their products.

The guy said, "No dice" on any Colt orders. I said I had bought one from another shop a week ago and he said the shop was running the risk of losing its license to sell Colt.

WTF? It seems with Colt's financial problems that they would open the vault to eager civilians. Does this sound legit?
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:12:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 4:12:53 PM EDT by SWO_daddy]
Why do people insist in supporting such a piece of shit company?

Rock Rivers may not be exactly to mil spec, but so fucking what? 99% of the time, their quality EXCEEDS Military Specifications.

Fuck Colt.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:14:39 PM EDT
I've heard some say that Colt cannot afford a law suit like Bushmaster had against them because of the DC sniper shooting. But this still does not make sense to me. Bushmaster's insurance company, not Bushmaster itself paid for the lawsuit. Secondly, it wouldn't take someone getting shot with a LE model rifle for a law suit to be brought against Colt. The rifle the DC sniper had was not an LE model. I guess they figure it might open them up to even bigger liability should someone get shot by a civilian with an LE model. Whatever..... FUCK Colt. May they burn in hell slowly and go out of business never to be seen again. I hope they lose their govt contracts to a competitor and come begging the civilian market to buy their shit.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:20:34 PM EDT
Does Colt require the dealer to send the L.E. letter to the company for proof of the sale of a L.E. firearm?

I would think, Colt wouldn't have the room to store all the L.E. letters.



Colt_SBR
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:24:55 PM EDT
Fuck Colt
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:32:01 PM EDT
Letters are no longer required to buy/sell so-called semi-automatic assault weapons. Are they saying if an LEO comes in to buy one, they cannot sell it to the LEO unless he has a permisssion slip from his chief? And what if his chief's answer is I am not signing letters anymore because they are no longer required? I guess Colt will figure out the problem when the file for bankruptcy.

The lawsuit angle is BS, as Colt continues to sell other AR-15 type guns to anybody, the only differeny is the model name and LEO engraving.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:59:01 PM EDT
Colt is a high profile company that has been bought into and bailed out by "Big Brother " many times also you will see things get better after the election unless God forbid the Dems get's it . Lots of factors at play here.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:01:29 PM EDT
Ive never owned a Colt rilfe or handgun. and because of BS like this I never will. They dont deserve my money. Hope they rott in hell................
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:44:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By viper5194:
Ive never owned a Colt rilfe or handgun. and because of BS like this I never will. They dont deserve my money. Hope they rott in hell................



+1

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:59:19 PM EDT
If I had to guess there may be special pricing for LE guns. And such Colt wants the letter to prove they're LE and to get the special marked guns. If no letter or chief refused to sign an officer would have to pay regular price and no special marked gun. Afaik none of the manufacturers are selling new LE marked guns to civies.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:07:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By triburst1:
Fuck Colt

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:15:14 PM EDT
Remember this the next time COLT gets into $ trouble.

They'll just run to the Feds and cry.......!
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:16:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aslan:

WTF? It seems with Colt's financial problems that they would open the vault to eager civilians. Does this sound legit?



What makes you think Colt is still having financial problems?
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:20:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:32:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 6:36:01 PM EDT by CJan_NH]
Colt is covering their ass publically but 6920s are still flying off the shelves. A few months prior to the sunset Colt increased production of the LE6920. Do you think they did this because of an anticipated increase in LEO demand?

If you want to hate Colt that's certainly your right-we all of our pet hates. Hell, personally I'm disgusted with Bushmaster for bending over and settling out of court with the families of the DC sniper victims. Many people hate Colt because of their so-called politics. To that I have to commend Bushy for handing the antis a back door victory. I guess the bottom line of any company is more important than the RKBA or general principle.

Hell, didn't Bushy settle out of court with Colt too? According to Bushmaster's legion of fans Colt was completely in the wrong. If Bushy was innocent then why not prove it in court?

Because principle always takes a backseat to financial insolvency, that's why. Those of you who hate Colt should take a long, hard look at some of your own 'pet' favorites and at least be consistent with your griping...

<flamesuit on>
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:39:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 6:40:07 PM EDT by viper5194]
CJan... i dont own a Bushy either. My rifles are parts builds that I did myself. MY hard work went into them and ill probably never buy a factory black rifle again. Its too damn easy andtoo cheap to build a better quality rifle on your own. I can QC my own guns before i deam them ready for use. Instead of having to ship mis manufactured firearms back to the manufacture for repair.

+1 for Mega Lowers
Wilson Barrels
and RRA.......................

JMO.............
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:43:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By viper5194:
CJan... i dont own a Bushy either. My rifles are parts builds that I did myself. MY hard work went into them and ill probably never buy a factory black rifle again. Its too damn easy andtoo cheap to build a better quality rifle on your own. I can QC my own guns before i deam them ready for use. Instead of having to ship mis manufactured firearms back to the manufacture for repair.

+1 for Mega Lowers
Wilson Barrels
and RRA.......................

JMO.............


Then I salute you for being consistent-many people aren't.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:52:19 PM EDT
CJan,

Say what you want about Bushmaster, the day after the AWB ended they were offering ARs complete with bayo lugs, flash suppresors, and collapseable stocks.

Colt still has not offered their full testicled rifles to us second class citizens.

I like many others believe that Colt hopes to limit their liabilities this way.

Like many others have said, FUCK COLT!
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:54:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoCon007:
CJan,

Say what you want about Bushmaster, the day after the AWB ended they were offering ARs complete with bayo lugs, flash suppresors, and collapseable stocks.

Colt still has not offered their full testicled rifles to us second class citizens.

I like many others believe that Colt hopes to limit their liabilities this way.

Like many others have said, FUCK COLT!




Don't forget sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:00:32 PM EDT
For ARs, I am sticking to RRA and Bushy.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:02:48 PM EDT

Colt still has not offered their full testicled rifles to us second class citizens.

Really? If you do a quick search you'll find about 900 threads from proud new LE6920 owners.

The last time I looked at my 6920 build it was a "full testicled" rifle. Did I somehow obtain it illegally?

I'll say it once more in case it was missed above: A few months prior to the sunset Colt quietly ramped up production of the LE6920. Was this due to anticipated LEO demand?

Doesn't anyone here understand how politics and corporate CYA works? People bitched about George Bush publically supporting the AWB sunset while Karl Rove worked in the background making sure it never got to the President's desk. The bottom line is that we got what we wanted.

Colt is no different. They cover their ass publically while building more of their full featured products available to distributors.

If you don't like it that's your right-but you can't deny reality.

Oh yeah-fuck Bushmaster for selling us out to save a buck...
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:14:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:17:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
[Don't forget sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts



Is this really a problem? I have a Colt Sporter Lightweight which has seen 10 years of use and it has th e sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts, functions just fine.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:21:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
[Don't forget sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts



Is this really a problem? I have a Colt Sporter Lightweight which has seen 10 years of use and it has th e sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts, functions just fine.



The only problem I see is for someone was planning on doing some illegal.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:23:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Don't forget sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts



Let me ask this to all of you law abiding citzens.. If you are not intending to do anything illegal?? Then what the fuck does this matter to you???

If you have a RDIAS, and want to use a Colt, it is no problem that a milling machine can't handle.. Hell most all new production ARs from any company would need work for a RDIAS..
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:23:36 PM EDT

So if Colt just sent out the letter to protect themselves from expensive lawsuits, I have no problem with them. They live in a state full of liberals and are trying hard to move operations out of state.

The problem is with the dealers not willing to sell you a NEW complete Colt rifle. There is no law against it, just a letter Colt is using to protect themselves from wacky lawsuits. There is even a dealer on this board selling Colts. It is a matter of choice and the dealers not selling to you are screwing you worse than Colt.

I probably won't be buying another Colt because you have to dump the lower receiver and the bolt carrier to get it up to spec. I can just buy Colt parts and build the rifle I want with no waiting anyway. There is no piece of paper scaring the part dealers off.

In fact, I just ordered a Colt built complete upper a few days ago, as well as a Colt barrel for a home build.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:29:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 7:31:08 PM EDT by HKocher]

Originally Posted By coltshorty14:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Don't forget sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts



Let me ask this to all of you law abiding citzens.. If you are not intending to do anything illegal?? Then what the fuck does this matter to you???

If you have a RDIAS, and want to use a Colt, it is no problem that a milling machine can't handle.. Hell most all new production ARs from any company would need work for a RDIAS..



What a retarded statement.

How about if I want to use an M16 bolt in my AR (which is perfectly legal to do)? How about if I don't want to screw around to find special fire control parts?

Or more importantly, what if I don't want someone else to ASSUME I'm a criminal?

How would you feel if you got pulled over every day, just so the cop could make sure you didn't steal the car you're driving? What if someone wanted to put a camera in your house to make sure you weren't conspiring against the .gov? How a 70MPH governor on your car, to make sure you don't go over the speed limit? If you're a 'law abiding citizen', these things shouldn't bother you, right?

I'm not a criminal so I don't want to be treated like one.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:33:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 7:34:05 PM EDT by CJan_NH]

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
[Don't forget sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts



Is this really a problem? I have a Colt Sporter Lightweight which has seen 10 years of use and it has th e sear blocks and large diameter fire control parts, functions just fine.


This is an area where other manufacturers conveniently get a pass, but not Colt.

The Colt DIAS block is a thing of the past. It came about when Colt was under different management. Current Colt Match Target and LEO lowers have an unmilled portion that Colt haters still say is a sear block, when it isn't. From a machining standpoint this unmilled portion can be removed with a single pass of an endmill by any decent machine shop for about $25.00. Contrast this with an RRA (or any CMT) lower that has a high shelf. It takes several passes to remove the shelf, but somehow this is okay and Colt is evil.

As far as large diameter pin sizes go, spare Colt FCG parts can be purchased anywhere-even Bushmaster sells them. In the AR-15 world there is a whole cottage industry that sells parts to "solve" problems that don't really exist (the accuwedge and D-Fender extractor insert come to mind). If we are so worried about non-existent problems with our precious ARs then why wouldn't want out H/T pins to be as large as possible? A large pin means a larger bearing surface. A larger bearing surface means less wear and tear on the lower, right? Hell, I say make em even bigger.

I own Colt, Rock River, and Bushmaster ARs. I'm not exactly wealthy, but even I can afford to keep parts for all of them in stock. It's a non-issue for anyone who doesn't feel compelled to make hay against Colt.

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:41:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
[
This is an area where other manufacturers conveniently get a pass, but not Colt.

The Colt DIAS block is a thing of the past. It came about when Colt was under different management. Current Colt Match Target and LEO lowers have an unmilled portion that Colt haters still say is a sear block, when it isn't. From a machining standpoint this unmilled portion can be removed with a single pass of an endmill by any decent machine shop for about $25.00. Contrast this with an RRA (or any CMT) lower that has a high shelf. It takes several passes to remove the shelf, but somehow this is okay and Colt is evil.

As far as large diameter pin sizes go, spare Colt FCG parts can be purchased anywhere-even Bushmaster sells them. In the AR-15 world there is a whole cottage industry that sells parts to "solve" problems that don't really exist (the accuwedge and D-Fender extractor insert come to mind). If we are so worried about non-existent problems with our precious ARs then why wouldn't want out H/T pins to be as large as possible? A large pin means a larger bearing surface. A larger bearing surface means less wear and tear on the lower, right? Hell, I say make em even bigger.

I own Colt, Rock River, and Bushmaster ARs. I'm not exactly wealthy, but even I can afford to keep parts for all of them in stock. It's a non-issue for anyone who doesn't feel compelled to make hay against Colt.




right after the AWB in 94 I bought spare FC parts for the Colt Sporter Lightweight, back then, who knows what was going to be available down the road. Semi auto FC parts aren't the same as full auto FC parts anyhow. There's a certain satisfaction I guess if you wanted to convert to full auto illegally after the SHTF or whatever .

As for the larger pins and bearing surfaces, the pins shouldn't be rotating at all, the hammer and the trigger should pivot on the pins, the pins shouldn't be pivoting in the receiver and therefore no wear and tear.

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:43:16 PM EDT

The problem is with the dealers not willing to sell you a NEW complete Colt rifle. There is no law against it, just a letter Colt is using to protect themselves from wacky lawsuits. There is even a dealer on this board selling Colts. It is a matter of choice and the dealers not selling to you are screwing you worse than Colt.

There are plenty of dealers who are more than happy to sell you a Colt. If yours doesn't then fuck him-simply find another one.

My 'former' local FFL used to tell me all kinds of incredible stories, like how Clinton ordered all surplus ammo cans crushed so we civvies couldn't stockpile ammo. He also told me that my ARMS #2 had just become illegal, because it converted my 6601 HBAR into an illegal countersniper weapon. This same guy told me that RRA made ARs out of parts that were rejected by Bushmaster and Colt. The last straw was when he told me that SigArms was going out of business, so I needed to buy a Sig NOW (I work for Sig so I knew he was completely full of it)

Obviously this guy is a complete fucking quack-but for years I didn't know any better and believed what he said (sad, huh?).

Sadly, there is no shortage of dipshits in the world. It sounds like your dealer may be one of them.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:45:11 PM EDT
I had a preban Colt.

When the ban sunsetted, I sold my preban and ordered a 6920.

I bought an RRA M4gery in the meantime.

After a while, I got tired of waiting. The reason I was waiting is because Colt is playing political games.

After shooting the RRA, and comparing the quality, it occured to me that I should just keep the RRA M4gery.

Took the money that was put aside for the 6920 and bought a Five Seven and a Bushy Bullpup.

So yeah, I understand that Colt is trying to be politically correct while still turning a blind eye to the backdoor civilian purchases that are contrary to their stated policy.

I say screw Colt - they just aren't any better than RRA, they cost more, and getting one is too much hassel.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:47:42 PM EDT

As for the larger pins and bearing surfaces, the pins shouldn't be rotating at all, the hammer and the trigger should pivot on the pins, the pins shouldn't be pivoting in the receiver and therefore no wear and tear.

Ahhh, but the pins do rotate. For the heck of it grab one of your Colts, crack it open, and manually cycle the hammer. I'll bet you a box of my daughter's crayons () that your pins are rotating in the lower. All of mine do, except for my ARs with RRA two-stage triggers. I'm not sure if the pins rotate in my KAC equipped RRA though.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:52:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:56:44 PM EDT

After a while, I got tired of waiting. The reason I was waiting is because Colt is playing political games.

I would wager that the reason you were waiting is because your dealer didn't have any in stock to sell you. Not because Colt wasn't releasing them, but because the demand has far exceeded the supply.

For better or worse, right now the Colt LE6920 is one of the hottest selling ARs on the market. There are dealers like SAW who are selling them as fast as they can get them.

Despite what some people think Colt isn't completely stupid. They know damned well where all of these carbines are going. My only gripe is that I wish there were more of them, so prices might get a little more realistic for the people who want them.

Prior to the sunset I saw the writing on the wall and ordered the Colt barrels and uppers to build my own 6920s. Mine don't have the LEO only wording on them, but in my opinion mine are "prettier" because they say "M4"
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:58:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 8:19:47 PM EDT by CJan_NH]

Originally Posted By Boom:

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
Colt is covering their ass publically but 6920s are still flying off the shelves. A few months prior to the sunset Colt increased production of the LE6920. Do you think they did this because of an anticipated increase in LEO demand?

If you want to hate Colt that's certainly your right-we all of our pet hates. Hell, personally I'm disgusted with Bushmaster for bending over and settling out of court with the families of the DC sniper victims. Many people hate Colt because of their so-called politics. To that I have to commend Bushy for handing the antis a back door victory. I guess the bottom line of any company is more important than the RKBA or general principle.

Hell, didn't Bushy settle out of court with Colt too? According to Bushmaster's legion of fans Colt was completely in the wrong. If Bushy was innocent then why not prove it in court?

Because principle always takes a backseat to financial insolvency, that's why. Those of you who hate Colt should take a long, hard look at some of your own 'pet' favorites and at least be consistent with your griping...

<flamesuit on>



Bushmaster never settled, their insurance company did! BM has no control over what the insurance company does with its money. Most insurance companies settle as its much cheaper then continuing the court battle.

But, it still sucks that they bent over.


Okay, then I retract part of my previous bitch. It still sucks that they put $$$ before the RKBA, but that's another thread...
No, I take that back. They could have continued on their own dime and told the insurance company to go to hell. By settling they didn't have to spend a dime of their own fucking money, aside from their insurance premium. Fuck them-they would rather throw principle out the window to save a buck.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:58:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom:

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
Colt is covering their ass publically but 6920s are still flying off the shelves. A few months prior to the sunset Colt increased production of the LE6920. Do you think they did this because of an anticipated increase in LEO demand?

If you want to hate Colt that's certainly your right-we all of our pet hates. Hell, personally I'm disgusted with Bushmaster for bending over and settling out of court with the families of the DC sniper victims. Many people hate Colt because of their so-called politics. To that I have to commend Bushy for handing the antis a back door victory. I guess the bottom line of any company is more important than the RKBA or general principle.

Hell, didn't Bushy settle out of court with Colt too? According to Bushmaster's legion of fans Colt was completely in the wrong. If Bushy was innocent then why not prove it in court?

Because principle always takes a backseat to financial insolvency, that's why. Those of you who hate Colt should take a long, hard look at some of your own 'pet' favorites and at least be consistent with your griping...

<flamesuit on>



Bushmaster never settled, their insurance company did! BM has no control over what the insurance company does with its money. Most insurance companies settle as its much cheaper then continuing the court battle.

But, it still sucks that they bent over.




THANK YOU!

BM had no control over whether to settle or not.

Their webstie made it PERFECTLY clear where they stood on the sunset of the AWB and they have responded superbly, as any company in the business of selling firearms should have.


Yet, Colt has not. They don't give a shit about the 2nd Amendment or civilian ownership.

If they ever lose the M4 contract, they will be making anodized aluminum bottle openers.

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:09:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:

As for the larger pins and bearing surfaces, the pins shouldn't be rotating at all, the hammer and the trigger should pivot on the pins, the pins shouldn't be pivoting in the receiver and therefore no wear and tear.

Ahhh, but the pins do rotate. For the heck of it grab one of your Colts, crack it open, and manually cycle the hammer. I'll bet you a box of my daughter's crayons () that your pins are rotating in the lower. All of mine do, except for my ARs with RRA two-stage triggers. I'm not sure if the pins rotate in my KAC equipped RRA though.



my trigger pin doesnt rotate, the hammer pin rotates about 1/3 as much as the hammer itself., you made me look
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:11:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

Originally Posted By Boom:

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
Colt is covering their ass publically but 6920s are still flying off the shelves. A few months prior to the sunset Colt increased production of the LE6920. Do you think they did this because of an anticipated increase in LEO demand?

If you want to hate Colt that's certainly your right-we all of our pet hates. Hell, personally I'm disgusted with Bushmaster for bending over and settling out of court with the families of the DC sniper victims. Many people hate Colt because of their so-called politics. To that I have to commend Bushy for handing the antis a back door victory. I guess the bottom line of any company is more important than the RKBA or general principle.

Hell, didn't Bushy settle out of court with Colt too? According to Bushmaster's legion of fans Colt was completely in the wrong. If Bushy was innocent then why not prove it in court?

Because principle always takes a backseat to financial insolvency, that's why. Those of you who hate Colt should take a long, hard look at some of your own 'pet' favorites and at least be consistent with your griping...

<flamesuit on>



Bushmaster never settled, their insurance company did! BM has no control over what the insurance company does with its money. Most insurance companies settle as its much cheaper then continuing the court battle.

But, it still sucks that they bent over.




THANK YOU!

BM had no control over whether to settle or not.

Their webstie made it PERFECTLY clear where they stood on the sunset of the AWB and they have responded superbly, as any company in the business of selling firearms should have.


Yet, Colt has not. They don't give a shit about the 2nd Amendment or civilian ownership.

If they ever lose the M4 contract, they will be making anodized aluminum bottle openers.






OH bullshit !!!!

How do you figure this?

because Colt puts their Govt Contracts before the consumer?

Well Their Govt Contracts are their bread and butter.

If they loose that, then they have to answer to the shareholders, have you ever worked for a major corporation and seen what happens when you piss off the shareholders?

Colt still builds guns for Citizen consumers.
Just because Colt hasn't bowed to your needs, big fuckin deal

Look around there are LE6920's for sale, I picked one up this week
Eat your heart out and I didn't get gouged on it either




Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:37:32 PM EDT
If Colt doesn't want me to have any of their products, I am helping them make sure I don't and won't have any.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:45:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 8:48:32 PM EDT by BravoCompanyUSA]
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:51:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aslan:
Stopped at a large G-store near home today for ammo. Walked over to long guns to see what they had in stock. Lots of Bushies and Armalites. I was looking to add another 6920 that I picked up a week ago from another dealer. I asked the guy about putting a deposit on a Colt. He handed me a photocopy to them from Colt (he had a couple of hundred for customers). The email basically informed dealers that Colt was determined to supply its LE models to LEOs and government only (due to outstanding contracts). The email said if dealers sold LEs to civilians without letterhead with the buyer's LE employer that Colt would revoke authorization for the dealer to sell their products.

The guy said, "No dice" on any Colt orders. I said I had bought one from another shop a week ago and he said the shop was running the risk of losing its license to sell Colt.

WTF? It seems with Colt's financial problems that they would open the vault to eager civilians. Does this sound legit?




Where is a copy of this letter, if he showed it to you he certianly would have given you a copy to post on "the internet"
I'm sorry, I'll buy Colt all day long, I've bought seven (7) since the sunset and have yet to run into a problem with anyone telling me I cant buy a Colt LEO marked gun, if there is a problem, just show him a copy of the letter from the BATF.
see below



U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, DC 20226



CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAW AS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
RELATING TO
SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS (SAWs)

AND

LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES (LCAFDs)


GENERAL

As of September 13, 2004, the provisions of Public Law 103-322, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, covering semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices are no longer in effect. The regulations implementing these provisions also are no longer in effect.

Specifically, there is no longer a Federal prohibition on the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

There are no longer any marking requirements for semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Existing markings on firearms and magazines relating to law enforcement or government use may be disregarded.

There is no longer any Federal requirement for Federal firearms licensees to obtain certain documentation before transferring semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices to government agencies or law enforcement officers. However, any records obtained prior to September 13, 1994, pertaining to the sale or transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons must still be retained for a period of 5 years. See 27 CFR § 478.129(f). Moreover, records of importation and manufacture must be maintained permanently and licensees must maintain all other acquisition and disposition records for 20 years.

Licensees who provided letters of future intent to sell semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices to law enforcement agencies and other qualified customers are no longer obligated to comply with such letters.

Anyone who illegally possessed, manufactured, or transferred semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices before the bans sunset still have violated the law since their possession, manufacture, or transfer was illegal at the time.


IMPORTATION

The prohibition on the importation of non-sporting firearms under 18 U.S.C. section 922(l) and 925(d)(3) still applies.

Importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices still is covered under the Arms Export Control Act. Therefore an approved permit still is required to import large capacity magazines.

Temporary importation of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines is now lawful under the provisions of 27 CFR § 478.115(d) because temporary importations are not subject to the sporting purpose test.

ASSEMBLY OF NON-SPORTING SHOTGUNS AND SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES FROM IMPORTED PARTS

The prohibition on assembly of non-sporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts as provided under 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) and 27 CFR § 478.39 still applies.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS

Law enforcement officers and police departments who obtained semiautomatic assault weapons are no longer required to use such firearms only for official use.

Law enforcement officers and police departments may now sell or transfer semiautomatic assault weapons to persons who are not prohibited from receiving firearms.

Law enforcement officers and police departments may now sell or transfer large capacity ammunition feeding devices to anybody.

Signed statements that semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices will be used for official use are no longer required to be provided to Federal firearms licensees.

RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Federal law does not prohibit retiring law enforcement officers from keeping semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Former law enforcement officers who received semiautomatic assault weapons on retirement may now transfer those firearms to persons who are not prohibited from receiving firearms. Transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices is no longer restricted.

NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT

All provisions of the National Firearms Act relating to registration and transfer of machineguns, short barreled rifles, weapons made from rifles, short barreled shotguns, weapons made from shotguns, any other weapons as defined in Title 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e), silencers, and destructive devices still apply.

Registered silencers can now be attached to semiautomatic rifles and pistols without creating a prohibited semiautomatic assault weapon.

USAS-12 and Striker12/Streetsweeper shotguns are still classified as destructive devices under ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2 and must be possessed and transferred in accordance with the NFA.

EFFECT ON STATE LAW

Expiration of the Federal law will not change any provisions of State law or local ordinances. Questions concerning State assault weapons restrictions should be referred to State and local authorities.


Download the PDF Version

AND, More importantly this


U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, DC 20226



Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) Ban

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

September 13, 2004


Q: What was the semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) ban?

A: The SAW ban was enacted on September 13, 1994, by PL 103-322, Title IX, Subtitle A, section 110105. The ban made it unlawful to manufacture, transfer, or possess SAWs. The law defines SAWs as 19 named firearms, as well as semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that have certain named features. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(v). SAWs lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 were not covered by the ban. There also were certain exceptions, such as possession by law enforcement.

Q: Was the SAW ban permanent?

A: No. The law enacting the ban provided that it would expire 10 years from the date of enactment, which was September 13, 1994. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law will cease to apply.

Q. What was the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device (LCAFD) ban?

A: The LCAFD ban was enacted along with the SAW ban on September 13, 1994. The ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess LCAFDs. The law generally defined a LCAFD as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994 that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(w). As with SAWs, there are certain exceptions to the ban, such as possession by law enforcement.

Q: Was the LCAFD ban permanent?

A: No. The LCAFD ban was enacted by the same law as the SAW ban. Therefore, like the SAW ban, it expires 10 years from the date of enactment. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law will cease to apply.

Q: Does expiration of the ban affect records maintained by licensed manufacturers, importers and dealers?

A. Yes. Federal firearms licensees are no longer required to collect special records regarding the sale or transfer of SAWs and LCAFDs for law enforcement or government sales. However, existing records on SAWs and LCAFDs must still be maintained for a period of 5 years. Moreover, records of importation and manufacture must be maintained permanently and licensees must maintain all other acquisition and disposition records for 20 years.

Q: Are SAWs and LCAFDs marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or “For export only” legal to sell to civilians in the United States?

A: Yes. SAWs and LCAFDs are no longer prohibited. Therefore firearms with the restrictive markings are legal to transfer to civilians in the United States and it will be legal for non-prohibited civilians to possess them. All civilians may possess LCAFDs.


Q: Does the expiration of the SAW ban and the LCAFD ban affect importation?

A: LCAFDs are no longer prohibited from importation but they are still subject to the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act. An approved Form 6 import permit is still required. Non-sporting firearms are still prohibited from importation under sections 922(l) and 925(d)(3) of the GCA. Because the vast majority of SAWs are nonsporting, they generally cannot be imported.

If an importer has an approved Form 6 import permit for LCAFDs with a restriction stamp on it related to the ban, the importer may import LCAFDs using the permit and disregard the restriction stamp. Importers may apply for a new permit if they prefer.

Temporary importation of SAWs and LCAFDs is now lawful under the provisions of Title 27, CFR, section 478.115(d) because firearms that are temporarily imported are not required to meet sporting purpose requirements.

Q: Does the expiration of the SAW ban change laws regarding assembly of nonsporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts?

A: No. The provisions of section 922(r) of the GCA and the regulations in 27 CFR 478.39 regarding assembly of non-sporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts still apply.

Q. Does the expiration of the SAW ban affect firearms under the National Firearms Act?

A: All provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) relating to registration and transfer of machineguns, short barreled rifles, weapons made from rifles, short barreled shotguns, weapons made from shotguns, any other weapons as defined in 26 USC section 5845(e), silencers, and destructive devices still apply. However, it is now lawful to possess NFA firearms that are also semiautomatic assault weapons, as long as all provisions of the NFA are satisfied.

USAS-12 and Striker12/Streetsweeper shotguns are still classified as destructive devices under ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2 and must be possessed and transferred in accordance with the NFA.

Q: Can tribal law enforcement entities now possess SAWs and LCAFDs?

A: Yes.

Q: Does the expiration of the ban affect State law?

A: Expiration of the federal law will not change any provisions of State law or local ordinances. Questions concerning State assault weapons restrictions should be referred to State and local authorities.

Q: Whom should I call if I have a question?

A: Your local ATF office.


Download the PDF Version


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I dunno, let them shit on you if you want, if you really want one they're out there, look elsewhere.
If you dont want one, shut the fuck up, what does it matter,
Dont blame Colt for trying to cover their ass,
If it were'nt for Colt's funding of early AR15 technology, you'd be collecting M14's.











Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:52:17 PM EDT
How does this affect COLT LEO Stripped Lowers?
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:52:20 PM EDT
CJan_NH

I think you are right about the dealer. One store delivers a 6290 within one week of my deposit and one 10 miles down the road says it can't be done. Another dealer a couple of suburbs away gladly puts me on their list (a short one too). Maybe the one I went too today was just spooked by the CYA letter from Colt. No rocks.

Anyway...gotta move faster on some in-stock bushies. Illinois has put AWB renewal on the slate for November's short session. I think the Chicago bunch has got enough to push it through.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:55:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BravoCompanyUSA:
Let me first say, I love the quality of Colt and Bushmaster. (others too)
If I could only own one rifle, I would not be disapointed if it was either one of them.

I understand the decisions they made based on the bottom line, profit and loss, and shareholders/owners.
That is how all well run businesses make decisions.

BUT - based on that criteria, I think it was the wrong business decision - on both accounts.
I feel that both looked at the short side of profit and not the long run.
Meaning they choose the cheapest solution/action for today and screw tomorrow.

I feel for long term financial security both companies need to fight the good fight at the level of us lowly civilians/voters.
The Bushmaster settlement on the DC sniper case may be the first sign of a crack in the protection that manufacturers deserve against frivilious law suits. If the next company gives in a bit more, and the next . . . Well, it will be very soon that law suits will bankrupt the ENTIRE industry, or just as bad - the industry keeps running with ridiculious insurance rates to pay for, and your AR15 at the gunstore costs over $7,000 to cover the insurance and law suit liability.

As for Colt, what if the HK XM8 is the next big thing ? The M16/M4 will not last forever! What if FN get the next M4 contract ? What if over the next 15 years the US Military starts bringing in a new rifle/any new rifle ? What will Colt do ? . . .

I don't think for a minute that Colt would have to close up their doors if that happened (lots of misc support units and LE units will probably still field variations of the M16 and need parts etc), but the point is that the writting will be on the wall. As an investor or stock holder is this the type of company you want to put your retirment funds in. I feel Colt would do itself well if it invested in the civilian market as well as they invest themselves in the military one.

Can you imagine if the LE6920 was set up to be marketed and sold to civilians, as hard as they work on LE/Military. If Colt built a network of customer service orientated dealers, and priced it within $50 of a Bushmaster. With the name like Colt, the pony, the name AR15, M16, M4, and millions of images on CNN every day . . . They would dominate the market....dominate, dominate, dominate, dominate !!!
Now that the volume and profits are through the roof, that money is allocated to fight the good fight, preserve the 2nd amendment, pass laws to protect manufacturers, fund lobbyist to stop BS gun control and anti-AW laws, and work with the rest of the industry to educate all the citizens (sheeple). This to preserve their market for the long haul.

That long term thinking should be much more profitable.

just my $.02


Amen.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 9:46:47 PM EDT
Hear, Hear, BravoCompanyUSA!
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:22:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By El_Roto:
Hear, Hear, BravoCompanyUSA!



+1
Top Top