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
Posted: 5/2/2003 10:28:11 PM EDT
I posted this in another room but did'nt get an answer.
If a complete lower was sold from the factory before the 94 ban would it be a preban lower now? Would it have had to come from the factory as a complete rifle before the 94 ban to make the lower a preban lower today?

What if The owner of a gunstore had bought the complete lower from the factory before 1994,built it into a complete rifle and sold it before the ban. Today its just the Complete lower sitting there with a letter from the gunstore owner saying he sold it as a complete rifle before the ban.Does his letter make the lower a preban lower?

Thanks,
Silas
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 11:39:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 11:56:02 AM EDT
Thanks for the answer, I'm just wondering if the letter from the gunstore owner would realy be credible proof.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:56:43 AM EDT
I seem to recall reading a post somewhere here that due to the fire destroying all of Oly's records, their preban serial numbered lowers have been grandfathered in by BATF? Anyone know if this is true or not?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 12:35:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:48:26 PM EDT
Legal questions should be referred to your attorney. There is no [i]chain of custody[/i] or [i]chain of what parts is on the rifle[/i] requirement in the federal law. When an AR15 is transferred thru a FFL, be it just the bare receiver or a complete rifle the bound book entry is "rifle" and the serial number. No listing of parts is required or desireable. Burden of proof for an illegal act or item remains solely with the government. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:01:15 PM EDT
"Innocent until proven guilty." It's still the guiding principle in all legal matters. NO, you do NOT have to PROVE the gun was in a legal configuration at the time the ban was enacted. The PROSECUTION must prove that it WASN'T. That's final. I've never directly argued with staff before, but the law's the law and I'm right on this. CJ
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:45:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: "Innocent until proven guilty." It's still the guiding principle in all legal matters. NO, you do NOT have to PROVE the gun was in a legal configuration at the time the ban was enacted. The PROSECUTION must prove that it WASN'T. That's final. I've never directly argued with staff before, but the law's the law and I'm right on this. CJ
View Quote
I used to think that way, but here's how it was explained to me: This type of gun has been banned. It is illegal to own one. They can prove that you own one. You can be convicted of that. However, it is a [i]defence to prosecution[/i] if [b]you[/b] can [b]prove[/b] that you had it before the ban/it was built before the ban, etc.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:33:10 PM EDT
The latest scam from the BATF is to declare a rifle 'post-ban' if it was transferred in a non AW configuration after 9/94. That means a rifle that was sold in AW config prior to 9/94 (pre-ban) then sold again in non-AW config after 9/94 (like if you mounted a competition upper) it loses the magic pixie dust and is no longer 'pre-ban'. So, to answer your question, the letter from the dealer is only good if he is the only owner. If he sold it and then bought it back you could have a problem. If the rifle was sold to or through a dealer while in non-AW configuration and the dealer indicates this on the transfer papers this gives the BATF reason to declare the rifle 'post-ban'. This is not likely since dealers seldom include such detailed information on transfer forms.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 8:20:26 PM EDT
That "latest scam" you mentioned has no basis in the letter of the law. The BATF's proper role is to provide a functional and useful interpretation of the law. Clarification, essentially. They should not be and are not allowed to be making new law by modifying their interpretation of the written letter of the law. The OPINION of the BATF has been rejected before in courts of law. The court system will properly refer to the letter of the law itself and not the opinion of an agency that didn't make the law, unless the court in question is staffed by people who don't fully understand how the system is intended to work. BATF's opinion that a lower loses its pre-ban status if it is transferred without meeting pre-ban feature requirements is a bogus opinion that holds no weight with the letter of the law, and therefore should be easily defeated in an honest court. CJ
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 4:47:52 AM EDT
Unfortunately, the letter of the law is exactly where they have based their latest RKBA infringement. The AW ban defines a rifle's status based on its configuration at the moment the ban took effect. ATF uses a tortured interpretation of the text of the AW ban to support their assertion that a rifle's status is re-defined every time it changes owners. The logic is so twisted it hurts my head to even think about it. As to their proper role, I don't think they have one. They work for the treasury which was never intended to function as a law enforcing body. You're right about their opinions not standing up to scrutiny. They have been laughed out of court a few times. Unfortunately, courts accept the ATF as an expert in the field of firearm technology and juries tend to take 'expert' opinions at face value. It is up to your attorney to find the flaws in ATF's assertions.
Top Top