First off, I apologize if this is a duplicate topic but I looked and didn`t see this discussed anywhere.
I currently own 2 postban Bushmasters that I bought about a year ago. Like everyone else with postbans, I plan on installing FH's and a collapsable stock on my 16". I was just kinda curious would will happen if another ban is enforced sometime in the future. Will my rifles then be considered "pre bans" or will I have to revert them back to their original postban configuration because they were purchased as postbans? How would the grandfathering work if this were to happen? I know that no one would really know for certain but does anyone knowledgable in the ban laws have a conjecture to give?
Absolutely anything is possible with legislators.....
there is no way to anticipate what new plan congress will come up in regards to stripping us of our natural rights.....
example, California- what was legal became a felony with a stroke of the pen......
suggestion: dont worry about what the law may or may not do.......
My idea is to draft a letter cofirming that you installed it on the Date of Sept 13
ASAP and have a space where an attorney and a witness can sign verifying that you did
as such. Better yet, install your collapasible stock in their precense!
Once the law is dead, it is completely legal to convert and if there is a future ban,
Since you converted within the legal window, they should be grandfathered.
That's simply wishful thinking.
There's no legal requirement that currently legal rifles be "grandfathered," and the gun-banners, from their talking head Feinstein on down, have explicitly stated that their goal is "turn 'em all in."
Stop worrying about playing games with newspapers and polaroids, with receipts and registered letters, and start putting your energy into getting Bush re-elected and getting Republicans elected and re-elected in Congress. They may not all be our friends, but few of them are our sworn enemies the way the majority of the Democratic Party has become, and a Republican majority isn't going to pass gun bans the way Democratic majorities have done in 1990 and 1994.
It would be better to expend energy on both fronts. Document your weapons history and keep the right people in the White House and Capitol. Remember, it was Bush, Sr. that signed the '89 ban so don't put all your faith in the Republicans.
The next ban would, more than likely going by the example of most existing bans, grandfather exisitng wepaons, if we are lucky. The worst scenario would be complete and total confiscation. A more likely scenario would be registration of existing weapons and banning new ones from civilian hands, just like they did with MGs. At the very least, a new ban would have to have a provision mandating the marking of new receivers and weapons as being postban, maybe having the word "ban" in the serial number. To do anything less than any of the possibiliites I listed, the law would be just as unenforceable as the current AWB. which the antis understand. The antis aren't stupid and they learn from each venture. They will only make the law tougher and as encompassing as possible while making sure not to take too much at one time. That way, they slowly encroach upon our rights and no one is the wiser. Compromise, to them, is a nother word for patience. Eventually their compromises will lead to their victroy. After all, when we don't compromise, we look like the gun crazy bad guys. Either way, they win.
Bush, Sr gave us the toothless '89 executive order import ban. What did it actually ban? I've been told the Steyr AUG, and perhaps that's true; but it was a trivial matter to create "rule-beater" versions of everything else at minimal expense to the end purchaser, and restoring "bad" features was simple, cheap and legal. It took the wind out of Feinstein's sails for 4 years...
It was the Democrat-controlled Congress that passed (House and Senate) the Sec922(r) rules, introduced by Democrat Jolene Unseold..
Just as it was the Democrat-controlled Congress that passed the '94 AWB.
A Democrat President who issued the executive orders banning first Norinco imports, then "rule-beater" rifles.
The Republicans don't care about the Second Amendment.
But the Democrats _hate_ it.
The defeatists amoung us? Why do they even bother? They're so convinced that the "next ban" is a sure thing that all they're concerned about is covering thier sorry asses. They might as well vote for Rosie O'Donnell now, and spare themselves the anxiety.
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: What provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) besides the bans contained in sections 922(v) and (w) are no longer effective?
The definition provision for “semiautomatic assault weapon”, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30).
The penalty provision for violating 922(v), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(B).
The penalty provision for violating 922(v) during the commission of a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B);
The requirement that SAWs and LCAFDs manufactured after September 13, 1994, be marked with a date of manufacture next to the serial number, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 923(i). (ATF regulations (27 C.F.R. § 478.92(a)(2)) implement section 923(i) and require, effective July 5, 1995, SAWs and LCAFDs manufactured after September 13, 1994 to be marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or, for weapons manufactured for export, “For export only”. These requirements also are no longer in effect.)
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. If an importer has an approved Form 6 import permit for SAWs with a restriction stamp on it related to the ban, the importer should comply with the restriction because the firearms most likely are nonsporting.
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?
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.