Quoted: Quoted: You know I hear these arguments from time to time. All I can say is "What a load of Crap." If you bought a pre-ban gun and it comes to you with a folding stock on it, then do not give it any more thought. Only a duncer would actively try to seek out and document when a folding stock was put onto the gun. The burden of proof is on ATF to show that: 1) You have an illegal firearm. 2) You knew that you had an illegal firearm.
-SS
|
SS -
I suggest you read the law again,
carefully. Any person who has knowingly transfers, manufactures, or possesses of ANY weapon that fits the statutory definition of an "assault rifle" as per 18 USC 922(v)(1), is guilty of a felony. The following subsection, 18 USC 922(v)(2), provides a defense to the charge based upon the lawful possession of the statutorily defined SAW prior to the date of enactment, but the burden of proof is on the defendant. The gov't is not under a burden to disprove any and all possible defenses. See US v. Gonzales (5th Circuit)and US v. Just (8th Circuit).
Now, as to the required
mens rea the gov't merely has to show you knew the weapon you had possession of had certain features - bayo lug, flash supressor, telestock. They don't have to prove you knew the weapon was in an illegal configuration. Not too difficult when its apparent even from the most casual inspection. Knowledge of the law or that those features made the weapon into an illegally configered weapon is not necessary. See US v. Staples.
At this point, BATF isn't going to any great lengths to enforce the law as stringently as they obviously could, but don't expect that to continue forever.