Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 9/28/2002 4:23:51 PM EST
I just bit the bullet and bought my first pre-ban lower - Sendra Lower with telescoping stock for $760. I thought I got a good buy and It's legal to build from so no worries there.

I want to get an M4 upper for the thing. Right now I can get a MilSpec complete upper from DPMS, but I may have to wait a month or so for their next Military barrel run. I'll be getting the 14.5" 1:7 twist bbl, chrome lining and a permanently attached flash suppressor.

The only problem I have is that I'm a bit anxious and wanna get my new rifle built! Any suggestions on where I might be able to find an upper with these specs that'll be a bit more available and won't cost me an arm and leg?
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 5:00:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2002 5:04:14 PM EST by 5isalive]
Where you planing on going right through DPMS for the upper? I know CMMG has sold them since I got one from them.


I guess you might want to e-mail them I can't find the uppers assembled on their site right now.

Link Posted: 9/28/2002 6:02:45 PM EST
I'm sure someone more knowledgeble will speak up, but I believe that your lower is now considered a post-ban lower. It has lost its pre-ban status, unless it was sold to you as a complete & documented pre-ban rifle. I was under the impression that just because the lower was made prior to the ban, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can make it into a pre-ban rifle. Hopefully, I'm wrong!
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 6:28:06 PM EST
As long as it was part of a complete rifle before the ban you are fine. Buying a lower seperated from the upper does not make the lower post ban. Who ever told you this is wrong. If you dont believe me I will gladly purchase the lower from you.
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 6:29:36 PM EST
Actually, as long as the rifle was built as a complete AW before the ban was put in place, which it was, then it's okay.

If the lower was built before the ban and then never assembled into a complete rifle until after the ban, then it looses it's grandfathering.
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 6:30:35 PM EST
IF the rifle was complete, and sold, before the ban, it is preban. I think from there, you can sell parts (replace upper, sell the lower, etc)...

If just the lower was sold, you should check up to make sure it was a complete rifle and is documented...

Lastly, does a documented preban rifle lose it's status if you sell *just* the lower at a later date? That would be the question.
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 6:51:47 PM EST
Nope, as long as it was originally assembled as an AW before the ban, then it'll always be considered a pre-ban rifle by the ATF since the classification follows the serialized lower receiver.

Since Sendra is out of business, it's really impossible for me or the ATF to actually follow up on this with the manufacturer, all one can do is go with what the guy you are buying it from tells you. Sendra sold parts kits and lowers to dealers and manufacturers such as Bushmaster...all it would take is for the dealer to buy the lower and build it into a complete rifle before the ban and it was good to go. There wasn't any actual registration that took place at all that I or the ATF gent I spoke to know about.
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 6:53:20 PM EST
Put any upper on it now before any of these guys attempts to report you. It has the collapsible stock on it and as soon as it has the upper on it of any kind it is a preban configuration rifle. A flash hider or bayonet stud isn't needed to maintain preban status because it has the collapsible stock. With any upper on it who's going to say it is a preban or postban as long as the serial number is preban?

I bought a preban configurated rifle and I took the upper off and put it in my safe, put a postban CAR upper on it and took it to the range and shot it. Original upper was crap. Now gun has a collapsible stock when I got it and I put the postban upper on it so it is still preban.

Now I have the original lightweight profile upper in my safe and I built a complete M4 style upper with an A1 upper receiver, just like we have at work and it has a A2 flash hider and bayonet stud. The only difference from the ones at work is it is not selective fire. Still preban right? Haven't changed much and how is anyone going to even know? Serial number is a 1968 Colt. Everything is a perfect match in color to my eye. Nothing changed, it was preban in all configurations because it retained the collapsible stock.
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 7:30:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2002 7:31:11 PM EST by ArmyInf]
Thanks for the input. I have a post ban RRA M4 Tactical upper I plan to use with it as soon as it gets here...just anxious to try and get everything Pre-ban with all the evil features I haven't been able to use since I was in the Army!
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:29:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2002 6:33:10 AM EST by neilfj]
It seems that ATF disagrees with a few of you. See the link and a few other discussion topics in the Legal Forum.


Your second question concerns a semiautomatic assault weapon that also meets the exemption in section 922(v)(2) {a preban rifle}. However, this firearm was disassembled and the receiver, without other components, was sold. Since the receiver is no longer possessed with all parts necessary to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon, it no longer meets the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2) and assembly of this firearm in the configuration of a semiautomatic assault weapon would be prohibited under section 922(v)(1).

Not that I think anyone is going to come after you, but it is good to know. ATF has some really strange/stupid rules and what makes sense to normal people doesn't apply to them.
There is also a section that if a pre-ban lower is assembled into an AW prior to the ban, and the lower is sold to another person, the person buying the lower must have ALL the parts necessary to return it to pre-ban status, prior to taking possession of the lower for it to retain its pre-ban status.

DISCLAIMER: This is just a ATF ruling and not a law. There have been no prosecutions of this that I am aware of. No one has challenged the ruling that I'm aware of. I'm not suggesting you follow the ruling or that you ignore it, just that it exists.

Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:56:47 AM EST
Well, that was an interesting read. Thanks for the info and taking the time to find it and link it here.

I agree, it is kind of strange. By ATF regulations, the serialized receiver is the weapon, however, if you remove certain aspects from that receiver and it changes the classification of the weapon? Contradiction, it seems, is always present when there's restrictions.

I guess I better go ahead and get a cheap pre-ban barrel or something from this guy as well and just have him ship it all together and then there would be no doubt and once again I, as a law abiding citizen, have to spend more money to stay within the law while gang bangers in larger cities get arrested and released the same day while having illegal firearms in their posession.

I may have to start another thread for this, but as I mentioned above, since the reciever itself is considered the actual firearm, isn't it in fact illegal or again their own regulations when they say that selling the receiver no longer makes it that type of weapon? With the Brady bill sunsetting, maybe we should start sending letters to our pro-gun congressmen/women and senators pointing this shit out so they can start building a case against renewing the ban.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:17:00 AM EST
Armyinf...You expect it to make sense? Like someone mentioned in another thread, ATF has ruled that "once a machinegun...always a machinegun", yet when the same situations are applied to AW's, the rule changes. I also agree that the serialized lower is the 'firearm', yet you can change its classification by adding or deleting 'accessories'..but only in the case of AW's. You can't change a handgun frame to a rifle by adding a 20' barrel to it.

No one seems to know how much legal weight ATF 'rules' carry, other than they influence judges/juries, whether they are legal or not.

What I might have done was to have the seller hold the receiver until you got your AW parts so that your dated receipts could be used as proof that you had the necessary parts before you took possession of the lower. When he shipped the lower, he would also include a letter stating that it was assembled as a AW prior to the ban. This would cover your butt against these arcane 'rules'. There are other solutions, but who am I to suggest you try to deceive the ATF... I too try to stay within the law, or at least give the impression.

I didn't mean to throw cold water on your purchase. Knowledge is a good thing and forearmed is forewarned. Who knows what rules or documentation may be required in the future!
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:18:29 AM EST
I just wanted to make sure I remembered right and didn't have to buy anything else along with this receiver in order to stay within the law. Under the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide I re-read 18 USC 921 (a)(30)(B)
"a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes consipicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher"

That was a relief, I didn't want to buy another upper since I plan to put an M4 style upper on this one as soon as I get it. Since I have two of these evil features on the receiver when it's being shipped, I'm good to go.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:25:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By neilfj:
I didn't mean to throw cold water on your purchase. Knowledge is a good thing and forearmed is forewarned. Who knows what rules or documentation may be required in the future!

No problem at all. The last thing I need trouble with is the ATF or even the local cops. Murphy's law is quite adamant in my life (a fact my wife never lets me forget) and if there could be a problem, there would be so I really appreciate the info.

Does anyone happen to know what the NRA's position is on the ban sunsetting? I've read stories about the Brady's lobbying and trying to manipulate a renewal of the ban, but I haven't heard anything about the NRA voicing any resistance.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 8:29:01 AM EST
Wow, so all of you gents who bought preban lowers from the EE are now criminals ;).

I'm glad I got my preban with a shot to shit barrel and just replaced the upper. I feel so much better knowing that I'm legal.

Now, I'm reporting all of you ;).
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 10:59:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By drfcolt:

Do you actually think the BATF is going to give a shit whether a pre-ban lower was shipped/sold in a pre-ban configuration.

Today, no. Tomorrow...who knows.

It would be impossible to even prove that it was shipped/purchased this way or not.

Difficult, perhaps. Impossible, no! And its not that they have to prove your guilt, its you who has to prove your innocence. All they have to say is it is an illegal AW, then you have to prove them wrong.

They have alot bigger fish to fry than whether a lower that has a verifiable pre-ban S/N ever existed as an AW or not.

True, in normal situations. But, in todays environment, if a situation occurs that causes you to use it, its possible that a over-zealous prosecutor or ATF office may call it into question. And lets not forget the civil attorneys if the family/victim decides to sue you. You don't think they look into this very closely?

People argue this shit all of the time and it's a mute point. In the mean time, someone is losing out on a pre-ban deal listing to this meaningless crap.

Sure they do, but it's not a moot point. If you want to trust in the ATF (or anyone for that matter) to not change the playing field, to make rulings on these issues and not use them at some time to their own benefit, then it is moot. Who's to say that in 10 years they don't pass a law requiring registration of all AW's, like machineguns are now, but to legally register you must document the history of the firearm. There may be some people who will want to follow the law.

Report this to your average BATF field agent, and they'll laugh in your face. They have better things to do. If they'ed persue a non-prosecutable case like this, the local Federal Prosecuter would have their ass for persuing such a thing and wasting there time and the tax-payer's dollar.

Probably correct, unfortunately, non-prosecutable cases are filed all the time, much to the financial ruin of many.

If it takes some BS letter to resolve the entire issue then it makes sense to get it and be done with it. If there are ways to meet the ATF 'rules', why not? I'm not suggesting that anyone turn down or refuse to buy a pre-ban lower, just the opposite. There are ways to do it, and meet the ATF requirements, whether its BS or not. But if you aren't aware of the stupidity of the rules/laws, then you don't have any chance of attempting to comply.

It's one thing to make these decisions for yourself. It is another thing to recommend that others ignore them and follow your example.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 11:26:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By neilfj:
It's one thing to make these decisions for yourself. It is another thing to recommend that others ignore them and follow your example.

Here, here, I agree wholeheartedly. All of you have to remember, the coffers and resources of the government easily triple that of the wealthiest among us. Before you rant about ATF officers laughing someone in the face, I can think of a few cases where the ATF acted on 'tips'. All it would take is ONE time that the ATF crack down on some poor guy that bought a pre-ban stripped lower and that would set the precedence and a chain reaction into place. In the fed's eyes, anyone who is questionable is guilty before proven innocent.

Although it would be hard for the ATF to prove that ANY pre-ban lower built by an out of business manufacturer was actually made into a AW before the ban, just think about how hard it would be for you to actually prove that it was as a defendant in the Federal Court of Law. Everything would suddenly become hearsay and undocumented.

To basically tell people to ignore Federal Law is irresponsible and I would expect better from an AR15.com team member.

Would it happen that the ATF would pursue, investigate and prosecute an otherwise law abiding, non-violent citizen? Probably not. COULD it happen, you bet your ass. If you think this would infringe upon your rights too much and that it would be non-prosecutable then how come there's a ban in the first place? It's an illegal law...but we all have to live by it, don't we?
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 12:55:52 PM EST
I apologize to everyone...I didn't mean for this to turn into an ATF Pre-ban/Post-ban debate.

Thanks,5isalive, I'll be checking into those uppers and I did plan to go directly with DPMS and I was contacted by a board member regarding an M4 upper he has for sale...I should have this all rounded out by next weekend I hope and post a picture of my new project gun as soon as I get it.

I still plan to get the ARMS SIR for it as well as different optice...god these guns are just too versitile for their own good! My wife is gonna kill me 'cause of the money I want to spend!
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 1:25:44 PM EST
Army Inf check your IM.
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 6:01:35 PM EST
The ATF quote was on "stripped" recievers. I called the ATF and asked them before I purchased my Bushmaster lower. It was a complete lower with telestock. In that form it had enough features to be an assault weapon already. They told me I was within the law and their regulations.
Link Posted: 10/3/2002 6:07:24 PM EST
Thanks for the confirmation, DevL. I just bought a preban Bushmaster M4A3 upper including the removable carry handle for $499...it sounded like a good deal to me so I jumped on it.

Thanks again to everyone for their advise!
Top Top