Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 5/17/2005 6:14:55 PM EDT
Hello I'm pretty new to the AR15 forum. I own a preban Colt Delta Hbar for the past 15 years thats never been fired and that has been sitting in my safe for that long. After discovering this site over 1 1/2 months ago it has really sparked my interest back in the black rifle again. I'm now so excited that I wanted to try to build my own, in fact so much so, that I think I over did it when I bought a bunch of lower receivers.

I was just thinking about this in the event, God forbid, another silly ban. I hope it's not as stupid of a question as it sounds but I really would like to know. When is a stripped lower receiver officially recognized by the ATF as officially completed(rifle or pistol). Is it when you install the LPK, LPK with stock, or completely assembled with an upper receiver?

I recently purchased several LPK and was planning to assemble 2 maybe 3 into complete rifles for now and the other 3 maybe just do the LPKs and store it in my gun safe. If another ban occurred with the same conditions as the last one, would Lower recievers with LPK's be preban or would they be considered postban since they do not yet have Uppers? Thanks for any light that you guys can shed.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:24:47 PM EDT
Good question. I'd like to know the answer as well. My guess would be LPK + stock.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:26:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 6:27:26 PM EDT by cadmonkey]
Well I'm going on the opinion that until it is capable of firing a round, it is not a completed weapon. Maybe overkill, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Although if they pass another ban I will be sorry.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:50:44 PM EDT
If there are provisions for pre-ban/post-ban categories and if the law is written the same as the '94 ban, and if the ATF interprets the law the same, then technically the ATF considers it a pre-ban if it has been assembled into a complete, operable firearm. This includes the upper, the LPK, barrel, etc.

Technically, if they want to press the issue, they could require some documentation that the lower was assembled into a complete, operational firearm prior to the ban date. This could include receipts for the upper, LPK, lower, etc; or some other verifiable method to prove that the firearm was complete and assembled prior to the ban date.

Based on ATF interpretation, and using your scenario, the lowers w/LPKs would be considered post-ban since they had not been assembled into complete firearms. In reality, during the old ban, the assembly requirement was pretty much ignored by everyone. If the SN of the lower proved it was manufactured prior to the ban date, it was considered preban. Can't say that this would be overlooked if a new ban was implemented.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 2:11:05 PM EDT
neilfj is correct.

A lower receiver IS a firearm, but isn't considered an "assault weapon" until it has an upper receiver and is complete.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 5:36:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By neilfj:
In reality, during the old ban, the assembly requirement was pretty much ignored by everyone. If the SN of the lower proved it was manufactured prior to the ban date, it was considered preban. Can't say that this would be overlooked if a new ban was implemented.



A new ban would have to be handled pretty much the same way because (like last time), it would be near impossible to prove a stripped lower was or wasn't assembled into a complete firearm before some specific date.

The only way they could do that realistically would be for them to make you take it to you local LEO and have it checked out and registered. That's not completely out of the question but I would bet the LEO community would balk at that loud enough to have that provision removed from any new bill.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 5:47:57 PM EDT
How about just throwing your complete upper on all the lowers and snap a pic. Get the pics attatched to an affidavitd that the rifles were fully assebmled on x day x month 2005. Then you are covered. Nothing says you can't dissasemble it once it has been assembled and you're not lying, it was fully assembled that day. One parts kit and you can assemble a rifle on one reciever, take a pic, take it apart and repeat.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:45:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EXCATM76:
How about just throwing your complete upper on all the lowers and snap a pic. Get the pics attatched to an affidavitd that the rifles were fully assebmled on x day x month 2005. Then you are covered. Nothing says you can't dissasemble it once it has been assembled and you're not lying, it was fully assembled that day. One parts kit and you can assemble a rifle on one reciever, take a pic, take it apart and repeat.



Good idea
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 2:20:54 AM EDT
i think that it proven complete until bg brother proves its not
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 4:46:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i think that it proven complete until bg brother proves its not



Not if a new ban is written similar to the '94 ban. The '94 ban made all AW illegal, unless they met certain criteria/exceptions. You had to prove that the AW fell under one of the exceptions.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:16:40 AM EDT
A "new ban" could very well "close loopholes" that allowed continued ownership of "grandfathered" AW's and simply ban them all. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."

It will be very difficult now for a new Federal ban, after the failure of the now expired '94 AWB. They can't point to decreases in crime after passage, widespread use of "assault weapons" in crimes (though such crimes are given top billing in the news). Nor can they point to "blood in the streets" after expiration. I can see it slipped through with a Democratic president, Democratically controlled House and Senate, nefariously attached to other "must pass" legislation with a last minute amendment. That was the trick used for the "machine gun ban" in '86.

The gun grab laws are going state by state, and ATF is not in that dog fight. It is between gun owners and their state governments now.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:03:02 AM EDT
If memory serves me correctly, as long as you have all the parts to assemble into a AW you should be good to go when the nxt ban rolls around.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:16:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 14FEVR:
If memory serves me correctly, as long as you have all the parts to assemble into a AW you should be good to go when the nxt ban rolls around.
hug.gif



This is correct I think. During the ban, there were lots of questions regarding how to tell. One letter I saw from the BATF stated that as long as all the parts were there (i.e. intent) then it would be considered a preban. So, if you just had the receiver prior to a ban and a ban went into effect, no good. However, if you had the 'preban' receiver and all the parts (not assembled) then it would be considered a preban.

This is of course assuming that they were following the same guidelines that were in effect during the last ban.

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 6:16:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By neilfj:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i think that it proven complete until bg brother proves its not



Not if a new ban is written similar to the '94 ban. The '94 ban made all AW illegal, unless they met certain criteria/exceptions. You had to prove that the AW fell under one of the exceptions.





BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 7:24:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:

BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.



You should really take a look around you and see how things really work. Since when does the government have to prove anything for a jury to go along with it. But, we aren't talking about what a jury would find, so your response is irrelevant.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 7:38:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 7:47:54 AM EDT by repub18]

Originally Posted By neilfj:

Originally Posted By repub18:

BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.



You should really take a look around you and see how things really work. Since when does the government have to prove anything for a jury to go along with it. But, we aren't talking about what a jury would find, so your response is irrelevant.





Let's see, you go to court and they say "Mr neilfj did this, we dont have any proof he did it but we believe it to be true". Like that will go very far.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 8:12:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By neilfj:

Originally Posted By repub18:

BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.



You should really take a look around you and see how things really work. Since when does the government have to prove anything for a jury to go along with it. But, we aren't talking about what a jury would find, so your response is irrelevant.



True. The old ban required you to prove when the weapon was assembled. But really, would a jury convict? Who knows. You have to remember that the jury is made up of: #1 People not smart enough to get out of jury duty. #2 Could be people that dont like the way you look. #3 They could hate you from the get go because of your race, black, white yellow, blue or whatever. #4 Could be that they are jealous of you because they think you make to much money.#5 They could be whiney assed liberal pinko booger eatin commies that think you shouldnt have a weapon to begin with, let alone a super deadly, evil, pre-ban black (BLACK I say!) assault rifle. I would deffinatley try to stay away from jurys.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 8:14:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swordslinger:

Originally Posted By neilfj:

Originally Posted By repub18:

BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.



You should really take a look around you and see how things really work. Since when does the government have to prove anything for a jury to go along with it. But, we aren't talking about what a jury would find, so your response is irrelevant.



True. The old ban required you to prove when the weapon was assembled. But really, would a jury convict? Who knows. You have to remember that the jury is made up of: #1 People not smart enough to get out of jury duty. #2 Could be people that dont like the way you look. #3 They could hate you from the get go because of your race, black, white yellow, blue or whatever. #4 Could be that they are jealous of you because they think you make to much money.#5 They could be whiney assed liberal pinko booger eatin commies that think you shouldnt have a weapon to begin with, let alone a super deadly, evil, pre-ban black (BLACK I say!) assault rifle. I would deffinatley try to stay away from jurys.




That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 8:18:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Swordslinger:

Originally Posted By neilfj:

Originally Posted By repub18:

BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.



You should really take a look around you and see how things really work. Since when does the government have to prove anything for a jury to go along with it. But, we aren't talking about what a jury would find, so your response is irrelevant.



True. The old ban required you to prove when the weapon was assembled. But really, would a jury convict? Who knows. You have to remember that the jury is made up of: #1 People not smart enough to get out of jury duty. #2 Could be people that dont like the way you look. #3 They could hate you from the get go because of your race, black, white yellow, blue or whatever. #4 Could be that they are jealous of you because they think you make to much money.#5 They could be whiney assed liberal pinko booger eatin commies that think you shouldnt have a weapon to begin with, let alone a super deadly, evil, pre-ban black (BLACK I say!) assault rifle. I would deffinatley try to stay away from jurys.




That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.



Thats probably coming from someone that spent alot of time on the bench? Thats not my fault.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 10:33:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swordslinger:

Originally Posted By neilfj:

Originally Posted By repub18:

BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.



You should really take a look around you and see how things really work. Since when does the government have to prove anything for a jury to go along with it. But, we aren't talking about what a jury would find, so your response is irrelevant.



True. The old ban required you to prove when the weapon was assembled. But really, would a jury convict? Who knows. You have to remember that the jury is made up of: #1 People not smart enough to get out of jury duty. #2 Could be people that dont like the way you look. #3 They could hate you from the get go because of your race, black, white yellow, blue or whatever. #4 Could be that they are jealous of you because they think you make to much money.#5 They could be whiney assed liberal pinko booger eatin commies that think you shouldnt have a weapon to begin with, let alone a super deadly, evil, pre-ban black (BLACK I say!) assault rifle. I would deffinatley try to stay away from jurys.



I served on a jury twice. TO make sure my fellow citizens on trial rights were represented. THE JURY IS THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT. Read up on jury nullification.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 1:47:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By etch11:

Originally Posted By Swordslinger:

Originally Posted By neilfj:

Originally Posted By repub18:

BS, the government has to prove your wrong doing not the other way around. I dont care what the law says, tell that to a jury.



You should really take a look around you and see how things really work. Since when does the government have to prove anything for a jury to go along with it. But, we aren't talking about what a jury would find, so your response is irrelevant.



True. The old ban required you to prove when the weapon was assembled. But really, would a jury convict? Who knows. You have to remember that the jury is made up of: #1 People not smart enough to get out of jury duty. #2 Could be people that dont like the way you look. #3 They could hate you from the get go because of your race, black, white yellow, blue or whatever. #4 Could be that they are jealous of you because they think you make to much money.#5 They could be whiney assed liberal pinko booger eatin commies that think you shouldnt have a weapon to begin with, let alone a super deadly, evil, pre-ban black (BLACK I say!) assault rifle. I would deffinatley try to stay away from jurys.



I served on a jury twice. TO make sure my fellow citizens on trial rights were represented. THE JURY IS THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT. Read up on jury nullification.



You are correct to a point. My appologies are directed to all those offended. I just do not have much faith in modern court politics anymore, or the "system" in general for that matter. I too have served on a jury, ONCE. If I were to be judged, I would rather it be by the facts, rather than 12 people I dont know. But you have to admit that the whole line of being judged, "by a jury of your peers" is a crock. Were you the "peer" of the guy on the stand? I certainly was not "equal" or "match" to the defendant.


"The noun "peer" has 2 senses in WordNet.
1. peer, equal, match, compeer -- (a person who is of equal standing with another in a group)"

Link Posted: 5/19/2005 3:17:53 PM EDT
You guys make the mistake of thinking a new ban will be like the previous ban. It may not be. It may not have a "grandfather clause". You cannot conjecture on what a future unwritten ban may have. There are numerous state bans introduced... the Dems lost out nationally, so they are trying it state by state. Some of these state AWB's have no provision for keeping previously owned "assault weapons."

You cannot prepare against as yet unwritten laws, EXCEPT by completing the rifle for which you have parts now, and stocking up on mags and ammo, because you may have to use them to keep this a free nation. There may be a time when a govt gone mad need to be resisted. That is what you must prepare for. You must be prepared to "just say no". If not, you may as well turn in your guns now.

To prevent war, prepare for war.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 3:38:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 3:39:49 PM EDT by M4Madness]

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
To prevent war, prepare for war.



"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum."

If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 5:07:41 PM EDT
I've always wanted to be on a federal gun trial jury so I could hold out and insist on nullification of whatever gun law the defendant is being tried under.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 5:54:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 5:59:33 AM EDT by Swordslinger]

Originally Posted By alaman:
I've always wanted to be on a federal gun trial jury so I could hold out and insist on nullification of whatever gun law the defendant is being tried under.



That would be nice, but the "theys" would probably run a check on you to see if your were a gun owner and dismiss you up front. I'm pretty sure that an ARFcomer or member of the NRA,GOA, or other RKBA group would be imediatley dismissed from that type of trial for that very reason. Like I said, it is not a jury of your "peers". The slithering attorneys see to that before the jury is picked. Its a crooked, damnable system that is corupt to the very core.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:06:55 PM EDT
I was on jury for a trial that involved guns. The prosecutor tried like hell to get people to bite by asking what groups perspective jurors were members of. I looked at the judge and ask if this was about religion I new were the prosecutor was headed. He called the attorney and prosecutor over for a little pow wow and that was that.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:18:21 PM EDT
Let me ask this

If you had the upper receivers, the lower receivers, LPK's, the pistol grips, collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, flash suppressors stored up..The ban was the same think you could get the parts to build a couple of AR without getting hassled.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 3:11:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4Madness:
neilfj is correct.

A lower receiver IS a firearm, but isn't considered an "assault weapon" until it has an upper receiver and is complete.



A lower may transfer like a firearm but FET isn't paid until the rifle is complete.

Top Top