Okay, since there is SO much confusion on pre-ban status, how would one go about tracking the configuration history of a weapon? Especially if one of the previous owners is dead?
And I don't want to hear about "if it left the factory blah...", because it seems to me that the definition of "assault weapon" changes eery time a thread is opened.
According to Dave and Troy, if the lower is ever seperated from a "pre-ban" upper then it loses it's preban status.
What it ACTUALLY sounds like to me is a fishing expedition by the ATF.

If all you want to know is the original production date and status as assembled or not,
most manufacturers will give you that info.

Several web sites also post serial number cutoffs for pre/post production guns.

If it left as an unassembled lower, you need documentation that it was assembled prior to the '94 AWB.  Since you are aware of the issue, I would not attempt to beat that horse any further.

Unfortunately for us all, the government view of this is appears to be that unless it left assembled, it is YOUR responsibility to prove that is was assembled pre-ban.  This means that in practice, they can confiscate your property and you will have to hire competent legal representation at your own expense to get it back.

Hydguy,

It's not Troy's or my opinion.  It's the stated position of the BATF from their letter of Nov 16, 2001.

Dave:

I wish I knew someone with the time and resources to take that issue up for a competent court ruling.

I had this converstaion with an agent form a certain Treasury Dept., who I asked if any other branches of government required lawful owners of a product to retroactively modify them and comply with internal policies which frequently conflicted with both law and precedent.  

I believe that the policy we are discussing constitutes presumptive guilt by an agency of thr Federal government and forces a consumer to attempt to prove something which is frequently not demonstrable.  How many people know the pedigree of their firearms and the history of it under the previous owners?

Wish I had the time and resources to work on this one.

Dave, I understand wher eyou and Troy are coming from, and understand that you don't thik it's right. I'm not trying to slam either one of you.
It just annoying that the BATF can make up the rules on the fly.
By their opinion statements, they try to make criminals of alot of gun owners, and like SF states, they will be allowe to run rampent until either someone fights it in court and wins, or the ban sunsets.

[smoke]
 

BATF didn't make the letter ruling on the fly.  They made it in response to my question and they took eight months to do it.  Whether they were backed up with work or they took their time to make their response consistant with others they have made is not important.  That it was totally consistant with all of the other 921 and 922 opinions they have rendered is.  legislative intent apparently was not considered at all.

SF,

The only thing they must prove in a prosecution of a violation of 922(v)(1) is that the weapon you  possessed or transferred was a 921(a)(30) assault weapon.  They will probably offer proof that it was manufactured post 9/13/1994 or didn't qualify for the 922(v)(2) exemption for another reason, but they don't have to.  Proving the 922(v)(2) exemption is an affirmative defense the defendant must offer.

Fighting this one in court would require being charged with the crime.  That's not something I'm willing to do.

No wonder this country is going to shit.If the Law Enforcement community spent half as much time enforcing the laws that are already inacted then trying to define them and strip us of more rights maybe the US would have a chance.

Dave:

I am sure that you realize my point, but just to clarify for others, I know that you do not make BATF policy. I am not arguing with the ability of the BATF to charge an individuual with a violation of 922(v)(2). I am merely maintaining the wrongness of this bureaucratic policy decision in a free nation where law is made by legislators and evaluated by the judiciary.

I am troubled by BATF writing opinions that make a currently law abiding gun owner into a criminal with an internal decision. This is done without any notification or grandfathering.

Twenty years ago, it was completely legal to have an AR-15 with all M-16 parts, less the autosear. The parts were cheap and plentiful.  The ATF decided it was illegal, and now, voila, Grandpa's rifle is now in violation of the ATF policy and carries a felony charge.  Was he notified?  Was an attempt made to let him know or to recall it for modification by the manufacturer?  

No.  He was just bureaucratically made a felon via a policy decision by the ATF Technical Branch.  Not by legislation, or judicial decision.  By the action of a bureaucrat.

In early 1993, Grandpa's son ordered two AR15 receivers with sequential serial numbers.  One, he assembled immediately, the other, he put away for a rainy day.  All completly legal.  Unfortunately, Pa is killed in a horrible accident and Ma gives the gun and the spare receiver to to Son, who assembles the spare receiver as an identical preban in Dec 1994.  Completely legal, at that time.  Sonny sells them to a stranger, Mr. Jones (who verifies the preban status by serial number with the manufacturer) at a local gunshow in 1995.  Again, perfectly legal.

As of the issuance of the latest 922 policy decision by the Technical Branch, he is in violation of Federal Firearms law, and has no way to establish the paternity of either rifle.  Both left the factory as preban firearms, since the ATF considers the receiver to ba a firearm.  Unfortunately for him, he has been made a criminal by a bureaucratic decision.  An otherwise law abiding citizen, he has been made a criminal by an internal decision by BATF.  No new law was passed, no court decision interpreted the law.  A bureaucratic official made him a criminal with the stroke of a pen, without being elected.  Furthermore, he is guilty unless he can prove the history of the firearms, and he cannot.

As I understand it from an agent with the Bureau, no warrant has been issued and no one has been charged under this interpretation of the law.  Yet.

I understand your point.  I would not assemble a post ban lower with preban components.  I would not buy a preban receiver or a complete rifle not shipped as such.  But many people were made criminals at this last decision, and these people are without recourse to prove their innocence.

I am not willing to test this, and I suspect that the BATF is not absolutely certain of the legality of their policy in court either.  

I am certain that they could confiscate every firearm owned by an individual thus charged with a 922(v)(2) violation, and possibly his home, incarcerate him, at least temporarily, and force him to spend thousands of dollars recovering his property and freedom.

When this happens, we must all unite to support the individual and provide him with the appropriate legal representation to ensure his success.  As the Founding Fathers said, "We must all hang together, or we shall most certainly hang seperately."

Troy:

As you can see, my membership in the man of few words department was not approved.

After I bump the character limit a few times, I have to take out all of my weasel words, like "as I understand it."

My understanding was that in Dec 1994 the assembly of a legally owned preban receiver into an assault weapon was legal and all of the 922(v)(2) decisions were made subsequently.

Clearly, there are no exemptions under the current rulings or grandfathering of weapons which are now considered illegally assembled.

My point was that you can be completely legal one day, and without any additional legislation being passed or court decision being made, someone in an office can issue a letter with a policy decision which makes you a felon.  Furthermore, you may be required to present evidence that you may or may not possess in an affirmative defense.

Is this ethically and morally (much less legally) proper in our society?

I suspect that we will find out in court one day before very long.

SF,

In your example, the first receiver was assembled into a 921(a)(30) semiautomatic assault weapon prior to 9/13/94.  The second remained as a lower only until 12/94, when it, too, was assembled into a 921(a)(30) assault weapon.  The first was a lawfully possessed assault weapon before 9/13/1994.  The second was not.  Therefore, the first receiver was 922(v)(2) exempt and the second one was not.  Assembling that second receiver into a 921(a)(30) assault weapon in December 1994 would be an unlawful act unless the receiver was marked "Colt AR-15."

The 922(v)(2) exemption, commonly called "preban status," is contingent on the weapon being a named assault weapon or being in 921(a)(30) configuration, and lawfully possessed, prior to 9/13/94.

The BATF letter only clarified the status of actual, not-named 922(v)(2) exempt receivers where the  configuration is changed and the owner no longer possesses all of the parts necessary to reassemble it as a 921(a)(30) assault weapon, or sells it as a stripped receiver.  A not-named receiver that was not built into a 921(a)(30) assault weapon until after 9/13/94 has always been an illegal post-ban assault weapon since the enactment of the law.

Dave G/Troy:

I appreciate your time and effort trying to explain this to someone as obtuse as I seem to be.  Clearly, I have drifted from Hydguy's original post.

I my present job, I am frequently involved in the adjudication of regulatory issues.

I like to think that I am a reasonably intelligent individual, with a graduate degree, and I certainly had trouble trying to understand the last explanation.

Fortunately, I am not a gunsmith, or a person in a position to try to interpret this statute.  I guess my real concern is with the complexity of the regulatory guidance issue, the requirement for a current owner to prove something (which may not even be possible) that he may be unaware is even a requirement, and the attitude among the authors of this regulation that citizens could understand it and comply, even if they wished.

What would constitute acceptable evidence of pre 9/13/94 assembly into a preban firearm?

What if you were a third of fourth hand owner without complete knowledge of a wepaon's history?

I wonder if/when this issue makes it into court, if the case will be so heavily slanted against the gun owner that he will even have a fair chance?

Hydguy,
There is no way for anyone to track one single weapon as long as the system stays the way it is. And Good Lord help us all to make sure it does not change.

IF your weapon had always been sold through a FFL holder and IF each registered FFL holder had gone out of business and IF each of the former FFL holder had submitted to the ATF their complete 4473 listing and IF it had been entered into the ATF's defacto gun registration system then MAYBE the ATF MIGHT be able to find the history of that firearm.

HOWEVER, had the firearm ever been sold outside of the FFL system and no paperwork had ever been done on the firearm then there is no way to track the history of that firearm.

I would imagine that you could "buy" a "complete" preban AR15 in good "faith"

(as long as you have verified that the serial number is in fact a pre ban serial number)

and not have any troubles at all

(after you called / written the factory who made the AR15 and find out in what configuration it left the factory)

with your "new" pre ban AR15

(as long as is was verified to be manufactured, oh, say 4 years before the ban took effect and that it had shipped from the factory as a complete firearm in completed form as an (defined) "assault weapon").

I would be very wary about buying anything that was made about a year before the ban took effect unless I had a dated reciept with a bill of sale that stated very clearly the firearm was in a (defined) assault weapon configuration.

Of course your milage may vary......
No reading between the lines allowed.

Don’t feel bad SF, it’s not your intelligence that’s the problem.



There is no such requirement for the current owner.

Although Dave and Troy would like you to believe that, but it’s not
true.

If I’m wrong, show me in the law, or some sort of history that suggests
someone who possess a preban semi-aw must also possess proof of it’s
legal status.



Since the doom and gloom that Dave and Troy predict has never
happened, hard to say.

However, Dave, Troy, and others like to comfort themselves by making
up what they believe to be accepted evidence.


R/K

RK,

We have presented you with the law again and again.  The problem is that you lack a professional understanding of the law and how to interpret what it means.  

SF,

Let's see if I can explain it.

921(a)(30) defines what a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) is.  Basically any of the named weapons, like the "Colt AR-15," is a SAW regardless of configuration.  Others are SAW's by configuration:  Semiauto, detachable mag and two evil features.  

922(v)(1) makes [b]ALL[/b] SAW's illegal.

922(v)(2) allows that 922(v)(1) does not apply to any SAW that was either a named SAW or a SAW by configuration prior to 9/13/1994 and lawfully possessed.  The SAW's by configuration, by BATF decree, could either be assembled or in a kit with all parts required to assemble a complete SAW.

Here's the rub.  The 922(v)(2) exemption, according to just about every lawyer who has read the law is not an automatic exemption.  It simply provides you with an affirmative defense, which you must prove, if you are charged under 922(v)(1).  You must prove that your weapon is 922(v)(2) exempt.  The prosecution only has to prove that you possess a 921(A)(30) SAW in violation of section 922(v)(1).  RK refuses to accept this because he either doesn't understand the finer points of law, or refuses to acknowledge it.

A stripped receiver that is not a named SAW, that was manufactured prior to 9/13/1994, but not assembled into a 921(A)(30) configured SAW and lawfully possessed prior to 9/13/1994 is not, and can never be a "preban" weapon because 922(v)(2) can only apply to a weapon defined as a SAW that was so configured or named and lawfully possessed prior to 9/13/1994.

Rub II.  If the configuration of a 922(v)(2) exempt SAW that isn't a named SAW is changed to what is commonly known as a "postban," and the owner no longer possesses all the parts required to reassemble it into a SAW again, It is no longer considered a 921(a)(30) SAW and the 922(v)(2) exemption is permanently lost.  At least that's what BATF has decided.  Their position is logical, though it appears to conflict with legislative intent.

If you can't prove the 921(a)(30) SAW pedigree at least back to prior to 9/13/1994, you may have a a problem if you are ever charged with violating 922(v)(1).  The sure way to avoid the problem is to configure the weapon as a "postban."  The decision is yours.

As for the issue of being completely legal one day and illegal the next because someone wrote a letter, it's not quite true.  You mistakenly understood it to be legal because you were told it was by people who didn't really know the the law either.  If the exemption had been written into 922(v)(1) instead of being in a separate paragraph, 922(V)(2), then it would have been an element of the offense that had to be proven by the prosecution.  Independent, as it is, it becomes an affirmative defense that must be offered, and reasonably proven, by the defendant.

I invite any experienced criminal attorney to point out any flaws in this post.  I would gladly revise my opinion if you can show where I am wrong.  I am no fan of this law, nor of the BATF opinion on the status of pre and postban SAW's.  But as the saying goes, "You don't have to like the law, but you do have to obey it or suffer the consequences of your disobedience."

I acknowledged my acceptance of that fact, where have you been?
Please get your facts straight before you accuse me of something.
I know enough not to use “affirmative defense” in the improper
context.




So what are you saying there Dave?
Is and undocumented preban legal or not?


R/K

It's a problem.  If it is totally undocumented, as in not even a preban serial number list, it's not a problem.  It's a postban.

I happen to have documentation on all my "prebans."  I have no problems in that regard.

The quoted points were directed to SF.

That first paragraph English or gibberish?

Inherently preban would suggest a firearm manufactured before
the September 1994 ban.  Maybe this will help you, pre- as in
before, and -ban, as in forbidden, Thus preban is anything thing
that existed before the ban.

So when the word “preban” is used, it’s in reference to anything
that existed before the ban.  Only a dumbass would say there is no
such thing as a preban lower receiver.  As any lower manufactured
before the ban is preban.

Obviously any firearm that was really a preban would be
documental as manufactured before the ban.  Documentation
pertaining to it’s semi-auto AW configuration is the topic at hand.


So let me rephrase the question for you.

So what are you saying there Dave?

Is an undocumented preban, (being manufactured before the ban
and configured with AW features before the ban, yet lacking any
documenting lending to it’s configuration) legal or not?

Dave, your reading and comprehension seems to be a [b]problem[/b].

So Dave, if a weapon is a named weapon (ie. Colt AR-15, Oly CAR-15) it is exempt, even if you cannot "prove" a config before ownership?
If that is the case, is the partial list on [url]www.gunnery.net/banned-guns.html[/url]
a good site to place your faith in?
I hope so, because I own an Oly CAR-15.

[smoke]

The only list that matters is the one that is part of 18 USC 921(a)(30).  The Oly CAR-15 is not on that list and is not a listed 921(a)(30) assault weapon.  Only the "Colt AR-15" is on the 921(a)(30) AW list.

Road Kill,

OK.  You want to play stupid pet tricks with the meaning of preban and postban?  Try this.

If it doesn't say "Colt AR-15" on it, an AR15-type lower receiver that was not assembled into a complete 921(a)(30) configuration rifle, or that wasn't part of a kit consisting of all the parts necessary to assemble a complete 921(a)(30) configuration AW prior to 9/13/1994 is not 922(v)(2) exempt.  

You could have all the documentation in the world indicating that the receiver was manufactured prior to 9/13/1994, but if you lack proof that it was part of a complete 921(a)(30) configured AW kit, or was not assembled as a 921(a)(30) configured AW prior to 9/13/1994, then that lower receiver is not 922(v)(2) exempt.

Yes, that is correct.






That statement is false.  922(v)(2) doesn't say anything about
required proof of status to qualify for the exemption.

922(v)(2) states all semi-auto AWs  legally possessed on the date of
enactment are exempt.


R/K

You shouldn’t make legal references then claim the
reference says something which it does not.  That shows
either a lack of understanding and intelligence or a blatant
attempt to mislead people through dishonesty.

So which is it, just ignorant, or a liar?  

R/K  

Since Dave_G seems to be completely on top of this one, I'll have to bring up a few things and see what the answer is:

1) How does ANY AR evade the "or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber" language of 18 USC 921(A)?  By definition, ANY AR-15 type rifle, in any caliber, regardless of "evil" features, should be considered an illegal semi-automatic assault weapon.

2) Double standards are never a good thing--how can the BATF justify their claim that any pre-ban receiver which was not a complete rifle on the date of the ban is contraban, while making exactly opposite claims in regards to firearms that might violate the NFA? (i.e. if you take a rifle, remove the stock, put a pistol grip on it, and saw the barrel off to pistol length, it's still a "rifle" under the law and is an illegal SBR.  Similar issues with shotguns, SBS's, and AOWs come to mind.)

Hey Road Kill,

If the firearm, whether it is a receiver only, or a complete weapon, did not meet the definition of a 921(A)(30) configuration semiautomatic assault weapon prior to 9/13/1994, it can never be 922(v)(2) exempt.  Ever.  Period.  The burden of proof as to the 922(v)(1) violation is on the AUSA.  The burden of proof as to 922(v)(2) status is on the defense.

Now be a good flat squirrel and go play in the street.

SF,  can you give me the web site with that info on it, because I bought a lower receiver from a guy that had it built into a pre-ban rifle(Feb of 94),in which I have a statement from him and  a statement from the factory to when it was made(Jan 0f 94) and how it left the factory, which it was a lower reciever.  I just wanted the lower because I have the rest of the parts.

Thanks
BTN

Yeah, I know all that Dave, we’ve been over it several times.

Actually, it is not prior to 9/13/94 but on 9/13/94.

922(v)(2) - [i]Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or
transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully
possessed under Federal law [b]on the date of the enactment of this
subsection.[/b][/i]

Funny how people think factory assembled versions are so hot.
When the truth of the matter is they’re no better than stripped
receivers that were sold at the same time.  Just because they left
the factory assembled, lends no credibility to their configuration on
the date of the enactment.


Now you’ve avoided my question several times.

If the receiver (or firearm) was configured as a semi-auto AW on
the date of enactment you would agree it’s a legal grandfathered
semi-auto AW, correct?  Not a hard question Dave, yes or no?


R/K

So Dave this quote from the gunnery site mens the same as your letter (if we take written opinions as law):

And this list is the one that contains the Oly CAR-15.
[smoke]

Hydguy,

The only valid list of named semiautomatic assault weapons is the one found within 18 USC 921(a)(30).  The list you cite was taken from two letters written to members of the House and Senate prior to June '94.  The BATF was asked to list weapons that would fall under the 921(a)(30) configuration criteria as they existed in Dec. 1993 and May 1994.  It does not constitute a list of weapons banned under 921(a)(30).

Road Kill,

As you choose to play a game of semantics, it is not possible to give an entirely accurate answer to your question as stated because you failed to indicate whether or not it was a named 921(a)(30) semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or a weapon configured as a 921(a)(30) SAW.  Further, you failed to indicate whether or not documentation exists confirming the weapon's status on the date of enactment, and whether or not the weapon, if not a named 921(a)(30) SAW, remained in 921(a)(30) SAW configuration or the owner retained possession of the receiver and sufficient parts to reassemble the weapon into the configuration of a 921(a)(30) SAW.  Finally, you did not indicate whether or not the weapon was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment.

Try again.

So Dave, the letter is an opinion?
Or is it a list of weapons that meet the definition of an assault weapon, and therefore are grandfathered under the preban status?
What we have here is letters from the BATF DIRECTOR to members of Congress that state that the weapons listed are assualt weapons, and would therefore be banned under the proposed legislation.
So it would be a logical conclusion that the weapons listed would be grandfathered under 921(a)(30), since they contained the features that were to be outlawed.

And this is why I feel the the opinion letter that you recieved amounts to a fishing expedition (as does ANY attempt by the BATF to say that a weapon manufactured prior to the bac can lose it's status).

[smoke]

No semantics involved, though I suppose to a simpleton everything
could appear semantic.

I don’t know how to make it any simpler.




Does not matter if it’s “named” or not.
Let's say it was a Palmetto lower.



I said it was configured as a semi-auto assault weapon, so anyone
with a third grade education could conclude it must be a semi-auto
assault weapon.




Beside the point, as I explained the weapon was configured on date of the enactment.  



Really irrelevant, but let's say it's retained the same configuration.




What did you not understand in the sentence, “. . . configured as a semi-auto AW
on the date of enactment . . . “



I swear, talking to you is lowering my IQ.

R/K

Hydguy,

One last time.  The letters were written to politicians trying to prevent passage of the ban so they could say that the proposed lay wouldn't ban only 19 weapons, but 190+ if the law as proposed were law on the day the letters were written.  They law didn't exist at the time the letters were written.  The BATF was only identifying weapons that, on the date the letter was written met the configuration test in the version of the proposed bill then working its way through Congress.  Those letters had absolutely no legal standing then or now.  Call them "Info Only."

The list is a load of meaningless crap.  If it was written prior to 9/13/1994, it was made obsolete by the passage of the final bill.  If it was prepared after the bill was enacted, the author either did so out of ignorance or is deliberately trying to mislead his readers.

The only thing that is important is what the configuration of your rifle was from 9/13/1994 until now, and what proof of that configuration history you have now.

The letter ruling I received is the BATF's interpretation of current law.  It has yet to be tested in court.  Do and believe what you want.  Just be prepared to suffer the consequences if you are wrong.

Road Kill,

You need to make your question more complex, not simpler.

It matters if the weapon is a named 921(a)(30) SAW or one by configuration only.  A named 921(a)(30) SAW retains its status regardless of configuration changes.  A by-configuration-only SAW can lose it's 922(v)(2) exemption if it ceases to be a 921(a)(30) SAW as a result of a configuration change simply because since it is no longer a 921(a)(30) SAW, 922(v)(2) [b]can't[/b] apply to a weapon that is not a SAW.  If you want a legitimate Yes or No answer, this information is required.

Documentation covering the time from 9/13/1994 to today is important for a by-configuration-only 921(a)(30) SAW.  What if the BATF is aware, through documentation they possess, that at some point between 9/13/1994 and today, the receiver in question was sold as a stripped lower?  If you want a legitimate Yes or No answer, once again, this information is required.

A moron has already lost an appeal of a conviction for violation of 18 USC 922(v)(1) because, as a convicted felon, he did not lawfully possess the 921(a)(30) SAW on 9/13/1994.  He apparently had the weapon in his possession, in 921(a)(30) SAW configuration, from some time before 9/13/1994, until his arrest some time after 9/13/1994.  He didn't "lawfully" possess the weapon because ex-felons cannot lawfully possess [b]any[/b] firearms.  So you see, "lawful possession" is an important aspect of the question.  If you want a legitimate Yes or No answer, this information is required, too.

You are trying to make an overly simple question apply to a very complex issue, and you are demanding an unequivocal Yes or No answer.  If you want an unequivocal Yes or No answer, you must ask your question with a complete set of facts.  Otherwise, you answer can only be "Maybe, Yes; or Maybe, No."

Your IQ is not being lowered.  You are just becoming aware of what it has been all along.

Anyone who has been following this saga over the past couple of months knows that I have had my fair share to say on this subject, but at this point, I am sick of rehashing this nonsense!!!

We really need to stop all the infighting, and [b]do something productive, like challenge this damn letter ruling in court![/b]

So once again, I offer up the first $100 donation to the [b]"AR15.com Legal Defense Fund"[/b].  

I don't know how to go about organizing this effort, but I do know that someone out there does.
Maybe Steve-in-VA, or Shaggy can point us in the right direction?  Maybe someone can contact one of the pro-2nd. Amendment groups out there and ask for advice, guidance, or a legal referral?

Let's take a cue from the "1934 Group", and band together, pool our resources, and stand this bureaucratic opinion on its ear!

No it does not, as either can be a legal semi-auto assault weapons.



I said the configuration hadn't changed, what didn't you understand about that?



I said it was a semi-auto assault weapon, what didn't you understand about that?




Once again, I stated the configuration hadn't changed.  What didn't you understand?



Yes, I've read the case.  So what?
Again, I stated is was legally possossed on the date of enactment.  What did you not understand?




No, you're making a simple issue into something complex.

The only requirement for a semi-auto assault weapon to be legal is this, possessed on the date of the enactment. Nothing more, nothing less, that simple.  Why can't you understand that?

[b]R[/b]ighteous [b]K[/b]ill

Dave, SAW is a Squad Automatic Weapon.
Stop showing your lack of small arms knowledge by incorrectly using the term SAW

We are talking about semi-auto assault weapons, not SAWs, get your shit together.


R/K

Golly Gee, Road Kill,

You're gettin' way too worked up over this.

You're having a problem because you don't understand that the Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) issue is a very complex one.  By the way, an acronym, "SAW" in this case, takes on the meaning assigned it.  If you look closely, I typed "...Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW)..." in the first sentence of this paragraph.  The acronym shown within the parentheses, "SAW," is intended to represent "Semiautomatic Assault Weapon."  That's the proper way to designate the meaning of the acronym in a technical discussion.  Look in the posts above.  I established the meaning of "SAW" as I was using it within the scope of this discussion in a prior post.  If you don't like it...Too bad.

It's evident that you really don't understand just how complex the issue is.  To give you a legitimate answer, i need the background info I requested.  If you decline to provide it my answer is: "Maybe, Yes; Maybe, No"

If you want something more specific, provide the background, otherwise, quit whining.  You're acting like Libertyof76...Hmmm...[b]Exactly[/b] like Libertyof76.


[In my best HAL voice:]

No Dave, I’m not worked up Dave, bored perhaps.

No Dave, I’m not Lib_76.

Dave,  Use the term SAW incorrectly, I don’t care Dave.

Dave, You have a mustache, don’t you Dave.
A big furry mustache.


R/K

Hey dave, I haven't given you any attitude, but your last reply seemes a little condensending. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just trying to find out anything I can to help me in case I ever have a problem.
Your posts do tend to stir up arguements, but that's not suprising, seeing as how alot of the info is not what we want to hear (as applied to preban status).
I don't know all the sections of the '94 Crime Bill, but I have checked out the BATF website. And you are correct in that the Colt AR-15 is the only NAMED AR on the list.
But like I said, it seems that the BATF keeps changing the rules, and a lot of  people could be inadvertently breaking the law.
Of course, I'm trying to keep out of the BATF's way anyway, so I shouldn't have any problems.

[smoke]

Hydguy,

Sorry if I seemed a bit "short."  No offense intended.

Actually BATF isn't changing the rules.  A lot of people are making assumptions based on mis-information and are getting a rude shock when someone actually asks the BATF what their position is.  The 11/16/2001 letter ruling is consistant with everything else they have published on the subject of 921(a)(30), 922(v)(1) and 922(v)(2).

Dave:

After the spirited conversation, some of this seems to be sinking in.

Not flaming, or doubting your opinion, but I'm still confused.  My original question hypothesized that the Grandpa built one receiver up prior to the ban, and kept one stripped.  

The opinions seemed to be that the first was a legal preban, but the second was not.

Grandpa is long since in the ground, along with Pa.  How can anyone prove that the preban assembled rile was legally built before the construction.  Prior to the ban, who kept parts kit receipts beyond the warranty date?  No reason to, really.  The weapon was legal without any requirement for documentation.  With the original builder and the initial inheritor gone, how could the third owner substantiate the status if required to?

Help me see the light here.

A Notorized, sworn statement that you saw the rifle in preban configuration on 9/14/1994 and that it was lawfully possessed on that date by your grandfather, with similar statements from any others with first-hand knowledge of the same would go a long way.  I would ask BATF what they consider sufficient documentation to be sure, but I don't see them disputing several statements.

NYPatriot, put me down for $100.  This is clearly something that needs to be addressed.

This law does seem to have some grey areas as to how it is interpreted.  It seems that Dave_G and Troy have the correct (legal) interpretation.  We should be working together to change the ruling so that the only thing that matters in determining the preban status is the manufacture date of the lower receiver.  This would both simplify the law and keep all the unsuspecting AR15 owners from becoming felons just by ownership or possession.

I'm with NYPatriot on this one, but we do need someone who knows how to get this started.

Also, BTT, how can you track the history of a lower receiver?  Otherwise without this information, unless you are or know the owner of the "preban" weapon as of 9/13/94, it becomes illegal under 922(v)(1) with no evidence or documentation of 922(v)(2) exemption.

So Righteous Kill points out that 18 USC section 922(v) does not require a SAW to have certain documentation in order to be grandfathered.  Dave G points out that the grandfather clause is a defence against a prosecution of a 18 USC section 922(v) case.  So Righteous Kill's question is wether or not Dave G thinks a undocumented pre-ban SAW is legal or not.  At the same time me be thinking some of you here guys be way over the edge with this.  Reality is that we have, hmmm, lets say two cases prosecuted.  So far the score is USA one, and the people one.  So why the big debate, the Government does not take it this serious, so why should we?  On top of that it is the court that decides this in the end, what is the odds the court will interpret the law as finely as you?  For example how about this fine example of what happens with law in court, and gee it happens to be on the same subject, 18 USC section 922(V).

Got this off of James Bardwell's site

United States of America v. Michael Indelicato.

    Defendant requests that this court return the UZI and
ammunition to his delegate, Anthony Indelicato. Section 924(d)(1)
allows the return of the UZI and ammunition unless the return would
place Anthony Indelicato "in violation of law."  18 U.S.C. section
924(d)(1).  As the government points out, 18 U.S.C. section
922(v)(1) prescribes the possession of semiautomatic assault
weapons which, under the statutory definition of such weapons,
includes the seized UZI.  The relevant subsection states, in no
uncertain terms, that, "It shall be unlawful for a person to
manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon."
18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(1). Semiautomatic assault weapons include
firearms known as "Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil." 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)(A)(ii). Finally, although 18
U.S.C. section 922(v)(2) contains a grandfather clause allowing the
continued possession of an UZI "otherwise lawfully possessed under
Federal law on the date of enactment of this subsection [September
13, 1994]," Anthony Indelicato does not fall within the clause
because he did not possess the UZI on September 13, 1994.  Contrary
to defendant's position, therefore, 18 U.S.C. section 922(v) makes
it unlawful for Anthony Indelicato to possess the UZI.  Stated
otherwise, his possession of the UZI would place him "in violation
of the law" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 924(d)(1).  On
the other hand, 18 U.S.C. section 922(v) does not place Anthony
Indelicato in violation of the law for possessing ammunition. This
court need go no further.

In other words, you guys have your debate, but what counts is how the enforcing agency deals with it, and how it actually works in court.

Thank you. Thats what I tried to get across to Troy and Dave. THE COURTS have to decide! The BATF doesn't get to have the final say.

Hey Ekie, what’s shaken?

Don’t see ya much since I bailed the ak.net board.

Your FAL was looking good, can’t believe you're selling, guess it’s
time to move onto the next project, eh?

Yeah, you’re seeing it right.  Dave and Troy think the status
automatically defaults to illegal if no proof exists.  Basically I
maintain that it would remain legal until a court/judge makes a
determination otherwise.  Until then, a lawfully possessed firearm is
just that, legal.  The point I was driving at with Dave_G, the court
makes the determination.  Only he’s to thick headed to believe
anything exists outside his reality.

I mostly do this mostly for amusement.

R/K

Did anyone else notice that the court opinion posted above went one giant step further than the BATF letter?

Yes Dave, I saw that too. From that court decision, looks like there are ALOT more unsuspecting felons than with the current BATF policy.
According to that court decision, unless YOU owned the weapon prior to the ban, then it is an illegal SAW, no matter the date of manufacture.
[smoke]

The problem (and I think too few here have picked up on this) is that although the gov't doesn't take it too seriously today, no one knows what will happen in the future.  Certainly, its a low priority crime right now, and even if discovered, the gov't probably wouldn't go too far with prosecuting it.  That doesn't mean, however, that it will always be a low priority item.  While Bush is in office I think we're pretty safe, but when the next democrat or anti-gunner becomes president, it only takes a phone call to the Attorney General and the Sec. of the Treasury to make it a high priority crime and step up enforcement of 922(v) in an effort to get as many "assault weapons" off the streets as possible.  And if you don't have documentation to verify a cartain gun is a genuine pre-ban now, chances are in a few years when Bush leaves office you won't have it then.  The point is, if you don't have documentation, do what you can to get it now - while you still can. You may not need it now, but it may become increasingly important in the future and its not going to get any easier to get that documentation in a few more years.

Righteous Kill

Yeah, have not seen you over there lately, I don't hang here to much, the board is just soooo slow.  Then there is the post size limitation that drives me nuts.  As you know I tend to get real long winded, was surprised that last post fit.  

Am with you on the documentation, the law does not require it, but I would want one if I had to go to court.  My personal pre-bans are squared away, and like the others recorecommendt everyone else do the same.

The FAL was way over budget, sold it so I can build a cheaper one (IMBEL) and start a M14 project.  She sure was purdy though.


Troy

You make a point about "courts rarely rule against the government "experts.""  In one of the two 18 USC section 922(v) cases we know of the courts did just that and reversed a conviction.  Again I got this off of James Bardwell's site and is from United States of America, Appellee v. Richard Paul Spinner, III, Appellant:
"Given the complete lack of evidence in the record that the AR-15 possessed "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)(B)(ii), as well as the paucity of evidence that Spinner knew that the weapon possessed the features that brought it within the scope of the statute, we conclude that Spinner's conviction on this charge was a manifest miscarriage of justice, and we reverse it."

At the trial agent Richard A. Turner of the ATF testified that the AR-15 in question was indeed a semiautomatic assault rifle in that it had both a pistol grip and a collapsible stock while accepting a detachable magazine.

My main point with this is that the best we can do is follow the letter of the law, and pay attention to the court cases as they come up.  Going in farther as one would in guessing what a court is LIKELY to do is pure fantasy at this point, considering there is little case law specific to the statute in question.  Who would have guessed that a prosecutor would argue that a semiautomatic assault rifle is grandfathered only to the individual that possessed it on 09-14-94?

Dave G

Yes, I noticed that the court went farther then the ATF letter in question, more importantly it went beyond the scope of the law.

Shaggy

Yes it is quite clear to anyone that attends guns shows that the Government does not take 18 USC section 922(v) violations seriously.  You make a good point that this could change, but I will point out that we know of only two cases prosecuted during the seven years the law was on the books while Clinton was in office.  In regards to your concern about the next Dem Prez, bare in mind that 18 USC section 922(v) is slated to expire before Prez Bush leaves office.