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
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/18/2003 2:10:18 PM EDT
What are the legalities of adding a folding stock to a verified preban mini-14? Same as for AR? I see the prices of preban mini-14's with folding stocks vary greatly. Any insight on why this is?
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:21:22 PM EDT
If the rifle was not in an “assault weapon” configuration at the time the 94 ban went in to effect it is a “post ban” rifle no matter the manufacture date. The date of manufacture or serial number does not “verify” anything.

In other words you cannot add a folding stock at this point it must have had the stock on it before the ban. At least until and if the ban expires next year.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:35:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
If the rifle was not in an “assault weapon” configuration at the time the 94 ban went in to effect it is a “post ban” rifle no matter the manufacture date. The date of manufacture or serial number does not “verify” anything.

In other words you cannot add a folding stock at this point it must have had the stock on it before the ban. At least until and if the ban expires next year.


that's not true at all....why do you think people buy/sell pre-ban receivers, etc....
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:54:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 3:56:05 PM EDT by Cato556]

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
If the rifle was not in an “assault weapon” configuration at the time the 94 ban went in to effect it is a “post ban” rifle no matter the manufacture date. The date of manufacture or serial number does not “verify” anything.

In other words you cannot add a folding stock at this point it must have had the stock on it before the ban. At least until and if the ban expires next year.


that's not true at all....why do you think people buy/sell pre-ban receivers, etc....



Pre-ban receivers have to be from guns that were in AW configuration prior to 94’.

However, I’m not sure how to verify this if only the receiver is present. On the other hand, the BATFE has to have PROOF that the receiver was NOT in AW configuration before 94’ in order to get you on an AWB violation.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:55:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 3:58:00 PM EDT by Noname]

Originally Posted By SperlingPE:
What are the legalities of adding a folding stock to a verified preban mini-14? Same as for AR? I see the prices of preban mini-14's with folding stocks vary greatly. Any insight on why this is?




There are PreBan Mini's and there are "PreBan" Mini's.

Factory PreBans were...
GB with wood stock
GB with Factory sidefolder
Mini with Factory sidefolder

Blued or SS

Ruger Mfg sidefolders (just the stock) sell for up to $500. The GB's are bona fide PreBan's.
Hence the high prices.

A run of the mill Mini tarted up with a Choate folder and a slip on flash hider are worth no more than a standard Mini and you might find yourself in possession of a felony.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 6:10:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 6:59:34 PM EDT

that's not true at all....why do you think people buy/sell pre-ban receivers, etc....


Sorry but you do not know what you are talking about.

Per the ATF if a rifle was not in a pre-ban configuration or you did not have all the parts to configure it as a pre ban rifle when the ban went in to law that receiver/rifle is forever post-ban.

Secondly there is no such thing as a stripped pre-ban receiver if you take a pre-ban rifle and strip the receiver and then sell it separate of ALL the parts needed to configure it as pre-ban the receiver loses its pre-ban status forever.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 7:46:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
If the rifle was not in an “assault weapon” configuration at the time the 94 ban went in to effect it is a “post ban” rifle no matter the manufacture date. The date of manufacture or serial number does not “verify” anything.

In other words you cannot add a folding stock at this point it must have had the stock on it before the ban. At least until and if the ban expires next year.


that's not true at all....why do you think people buy/sell pre-ban receivers, etc....



The problem with the mini is is was NEVER a banned weapon. The assault weapons ban had no effect on it. So a "preban" mini is worthless. If you have a GB model you can do what you want with it and its a different story. If you add banned items to a mini you are creating a NEW assault weapon. In order for your mini to be able to have banned items you MUST have had it in that configuration PRIOR to the ban and have verifiable proof. No ifs ands or buts.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 7:51:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
[Secondly there is no such thing as a stripped pre-ban receiver if you take a pre-ban rifle and strip the receiver and then sell it separate of ALL the parts needed to configure it as pre-ban the receiver loses its pre-ban status forever.



That is not the way I understand it. The only requirement is it must have been in a assault weapon configuration PRIOR to the ban.

So if you bought a COMPLETELY assembled colt from the factory in 93 disassembled it yesterday and sell it you think it magically lost its preban status? What will the records show when its checked?...........It was a complete assault weapon!
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 7:53:41 PM EDT
well, color me completely wrong
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 9:27:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 9:28:29 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

That is not the way I understand it. The only requirement is it must have been in a assault weapon configuration PRIOR to the ban.

So if you bought a COMPLETELY assembled colt from the factory in 93 disassembled it yesterday and sell it you think it magically lost its preban status? What will the records show when its checked?...........It was a complete assault weapon!



Well then you understand wrong.

Nothing magical about it but an ATF ruling.

If you disassemble a pre-ban rifle and sell the stripped receiver the receiver loses its pre-ban status. If you disassemble a pre-ban rifle and sell off the parts that make the rifle pre-ban (without having replacements on hand) the receiver loses it pre-ban status.

I have seen this in writing from the ATF and called them to confirm. I will try to dig up the letter I had a copy.

I have no idea how they would enforce this but that is there interpretation and therefore the law.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 9:31:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RipMeyer:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
[Secondly there is no such thing as a stripped pre-ban receiver if you take a pre-ban rifle and strip the receiver and then sell it separate of ALL the parts needed to configure it as pre-ban the receiver loses its pre-ban status forever.



That is not the way I understand it. The only requirement is it must have been in a assault weapon configuration PRIOR to the ban.

So if you bought a COMPLETELY assembled colt from the factory in 93 disassembled it yesterday and sell it you think it magically lost its preban status? What will the records show when its checked?...........It was a complete assault weapon!



Well the ATF has said that if a receiver is Xferred in a 'non-assault weapon' condition it loses its grandfatheredness.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 11:39:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 11:56:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By Cato556:
On the other hand, the BATFE has to have PROOF that the receiver was NOT in AW configuration before 94’ in order to get you on an AWB violation.



Not true. It will be up to the owner (i.e., the defense) to prove the gun meets the provisions to have been grandfathered.

The way the law is written, the default status of ALL guns configured as assault weapons is "banned and illegal to possess." Certainly, there is an exception for grandfathered rifles, but you have to have proof of the gun's status.

If the police or ATF suspect that your rifle isn't a true pre-ban, they'll simply confiscate it until you can prove it's legal. Their burden of proof under the law is only to prove that the gun was in AW configuration and that you knowingly possessed it. The defense is then given an oppertunity to rebutt, including providing evidence that shows the gun to have been a grandfathered AW.

Also, with regards to "preban receivers": ATF has written an opinion letter that states that only complete AWs are grandfathered. Complete meaning that the gun is capable of semi-automatic fire, capable of accepting a detachable mag, and is in AW configuration. Note that a lower alone, regardless of features, is NOT capable of semi-automatic fire, and therefore is not a complete AW (despite legally being a firearm; note that "firearm" and "semiautomatic assault weapon" have very different definitions and aren't interchangable).

This means that if ATF is able to show that your gun was ever transferred or possessed by someone in incomplete form, then it lost it's pre-ban status at that time, and is therefore not legal to build into an AW.

Fortunately, all of this crap will be gone in less than 10 months...

-Troy



Thus we are now guilty until proven innocent. And we all stand around and accept this shit.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 12:04:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 12:13:33 AM EDT
Fucked up isn't it?

The downward spiral has long since begun. Disarmament is only one facet. Look around, militarization of the civilain police, expansion of survailence legalities, no knock raids, traffic cameras, face recognition technology in public areas, the progression towards a completely digitized human database. The real question is when did it all actually start? Like all great empires of the past we too will collapse or be overthrown. What we enjoy as the USA will eventually fall. What happens after is up to folks like us.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 3:34:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By RipMeyer:
So if you bought a COMPLETELY assembled colt from the factory in 93 disassembled it yesterday and sell it you think it magically lost its preban status? What will the records show when its checked?...........It was a complete assault weapon!



If ATF can prove that the gun was transferred without all the parts necessary for it to be an AW, then, yes, it loses its pre-ban status. A scanned version of the ATF letter has been available in the Legal section for over a year, though at the moment the Photo Server is down and it isn't visible.

-Troy



Well just for the moment lets say that you and your local ATF INTERPRETATION are correct. It would be damm near impossible to prove. I just cant imagine how they would do it.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 4:15:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 4:19:32 AM EDT by injun-ear]

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By Cato556:
On the other hand, the BATFE has to have PROOF that the receiver was NOT in AW configuration before 94’ in order to get you on an AWB violation.



Not true. It will be up to the owner (i.e., the defense) to prove the gun meets the provisions to have been grandfathered.

The way the law is written, the default status of ALL guns configured as assault weapons is "banned and illegal to possess." Certainly, there is an exception for grandfathered rifles, but you have to have proof of the gun's status.

If the police or ATF suspect that your rifle isn't a true pre-ban, they'll simply confiscate it until you can prove it's legal. Their burden of proof under the law is only to prove that the gun was in AW configuration and that you knowingly possessed it. The defense is then given an oppertunity to rebutt, including providing evidence that shows the gun to have been a grandfathered AW.

Also, with regards to "preban receivers": ATF has written an opinion letter that states that only complete AWs are grandfathered. Complete meaning that the gun is capable of semi-automatic fire, capable of accepting a detachable mag, and is in AW configuration. Note that a lower alone, regardless of features, is NOT capable of semi-automatic fire, and therefore is not a complete AW (despite legally being a firearm; note that "firearm" and "semiautomatic assault weapon" have very different definitions and aren't interchangable).

This means that if ATF is able to show that your gun was ever transferred or possessed by someone in incomplete form, then it lost it's pre-ban status at that time, and is therefore not legal to build into an AW.

Fortunately, all of this crap will be gone in less than 10 months...

-Troy



Troy,

For a rifle to be a grandfathered pre-ban today, the rifle must heve been in continuous existence--as a completed weapon--since just before Sept. '94, with three or more of the evil features. Right?

If a rifle existed in May of '94 with pistol-grip, the ability to receive a large cap mag, and a flash hider, and has remained thet way throughtout, then this rifle is a pre-ban today. Right?

Here's the $64 question that I'm sure has already been asked: Can this AW from May '94 be re-configured with other AW features after Sept. '94, but all the while being continuously in AW configuration, and still be a legitimately grandfathered pre-ban AW?

Link Posted: 11/19/2003 4:33:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Troy,

For a rifle to be a grandfathered pre-ban today, the rifle must heve been in continuous existence--as a completed weapon--since just before Sept. '94, with three or more of the evil features. Right?



You're allowed one evil feature. Hence, AR-15's with no bayo lug, flash suppressor, but pistol grip is fine. Or, M1A with flash suppressor but no bayo lug.

State and local laws may be more strict (CALIFORNIA).

Mike

Link Posted: 11/19/2003 4:40:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 4:41:05 AM EDT by injun-ear]

Originally Posted By prebans:

You're allowed one evil feature. Hence, AR-15's with no bayo lug, flash suppressor, but pistol grip is fine. Or, M1A with flash suppressor but no bayo lug.

State and local laws may be more strict (CALIFORNIA).

Mike




I thought that the "ability to receive a high capacity ammo feeding device," or something worded like that, was one of the AW features. Either the feature limit is two, or hi cap mag capability isn't a feature. Hummm.

P.S.
I'm sure my questions and comments on this subject are comedic to the die-hards. :)
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 4:45:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By injun-ear:

Originally Posted By prebans:

You're allowed one evil feature. Hence, AR-15's with no bayo lug, flash suppressor, but pistol grip is fine. Or, M1A with flash suppressor but no bayo lug.

State and local laws may be more strict (CALIFORNIA).

Mike




I thought that the "ability to receive a high capacity ammo feeding device," or something worded like that, was one of the AW features. Either the feature limit is two, or hi cap mag capability isn't a feature. Hummm.

P.S.
I'm sure my questions and comments on this subject are comedic to the die-hards. :)





You are allowed 2 "evil" features.

Note all post ban ar's have a pistol grip and detachable magazines.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 5:02:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
If the rifle was not in an “assault weapon” configuration at the time the 94 ban went in to effect it is a “post ban” rifle no matter the manufacture date. The date of manufacture or serial number does not “verify” anything.

In other words you cannot add a folding stock at this point it must have had the stock on it before the ban. At least until and if the ban expires next year.



You are wrong.
This logic holds true for a stripped receivers only. If a firearm was assembled prior to '94 then it is pre-ban and you can add all the evil accessories you want including a folding stock.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 5:53:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By injun-ear:

I thought that the "ability to receive a high capacity ammo feeding device," or something worded like that, was one of the AW features. Either the feature limit is two, or hi cap mag capability isn't a feature. Hummm.

P.S.
I'm sure my questions and comments on this subject are comedic to the die-hards. :)



It's not so much of a feature as it is of a "qualifier."

If it's a semiauto but doesn't have a detachable magazine, the ban doesn't apply. Thus, an AR with a welded in place magazine can have all the evil features it wants.

The ban refers to semiautomatic and the ability to accept a detachable magazine. I guess you could call it an evil feature, but in reality it's just used as 50% of the criteria (the other 50% is it being a semiauto) to determine if the ban could even possibly apply.

Thus, it's semiauto and ability to accept a detachable mag. If you've got both and the item isn't a grandfathered preban, you are limited to one evil feature.

Examples:

Pump-action AR-15: Not semiauto- so not covered by the ban. You can do anything you want with it.

AR-15: Semiauto AND has a detachable mag. You're allowed one evil feature.

AR-15 with a mag welded in place: No detachable mag; the ban doesn't apply.

AR-15 pistol with mag welded in place (ie OA-96): No detachable mag; not covered by the ban

AR-15 pistol that's pump action: Not a semiauto; not covered by the ban.

AR-15 pistol: Semiauto and detachable mag; you're allowed one evil feature. (In the case of a pistol, your feature is taken by the mag not being in the grip.)

That's the scoop!

Mike
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 6:03:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lvgunner777:

You are allowed 2 "evil" features.

Note all post ban ar's have a pistol grip and detachable magazines.



Yup, but the detachable mag is a qualifier and not a feature. Remove the detachable mag ability and the ban isn't even an issue any more. If you wanted to do so, you could weld a mag into the receiver and legally add in a collapsable stock, flash suppressor, bayo lug, and grenade launcher.

If you've got both qualifiers - the gun being semiauto AND can accept a detachable magazine - THEN the ban applies and you've got your choice of one evil feature.

Mike
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 6:31:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By prebans:

It's not so much of a feature as it is of a "qualifier."

If it's a semiauto but doesn't have a detachable magazine, the ban doesn't apply. Thus, an AR with a welded in place magazine can have all the evil features it wants.

The ban refers to semiautomatic and the ability to accept a detachable magazine. I guess you could call it an evil feature, but in reality it's just used as 50% of the criteria (the other 50% is it being a semiauto) to determine if the ban could even possibly apply.

Thus, it's semiauto and ability to accept a detachable mag. If you've got both and the item isn't a grandfathered preban, you are limited to one evil feature.

Examples:

Pump-action AR-15: Not semiauto- so not covered by the ban. You can do anything you want with it.

AR-15: Semiauto AND has a detachable mag. You're allowed one evil feature.

AR-15 with a mag welded in place: No detachable mag; the ban doesn't apply.

AR-15 pistol with mag welded in place (ie OA-96): No detachable mag; not covered by the ban

AR-15 pistol that's pump action: Not a semiauto; not covered by the ban.

AR-15 pistol: Semiauto and detachable mag; you're allowed one evil feature. (In the case of a pistol, your feature is taken by the mag not being in the grip.)

That's the scoop!

Mike



OK, I understand your position. I didn't know an AW had to be a semi-auto and have a detachable HCAFD.

Now, my question still remains:

"Here's the $64 question that I'm sure has already been asked: Can this AW from May '94 be re-configured with other AW features after Sept. '94, but all the while being continuously in AW configuration, and still be a legitimately grandfathered pre-ban AW?"

In other words, can a made-in-May-of-94 AW, a weapon that has maintained AW status throughout it's life, legally have a collapsable stock put on it when the AW did not have a collapsible stock on it in Sept. '94?
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 7:03:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By injun-ear:
OK, I understand your position. I didn't know an AW had to be a semi-auto and have a detachable HCAFD.

Now, my question still remains:

"Here's the $64 question that I'm sure has already been asked: Can this AW from May '94 be re-configured with other AW features after Sept. '94, but all the while being continuously in AW configuration, and still be a legitimately grandfathered pre-ban AW?"

In other words, can a made-in-May-of-94 AW, a weapon that has maintained AW status throughout it's life, legally have a collapsable stock put on it when the AW did not have a collapsible stock on it in Sept. '94?



There's nothing about "high capacity ammunition feeding devices." It's all about having the capability to take a detachable mag. It doesn't matter if the mag only holds one or 100 rounds- if the GUN can take a detachable mag AND it is a semiauto, the ban is something that must be considered.

As to your question, if it's a legit preban you can add on a folding or collapsable stock.

Mike
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 8:08:53 AM EDT
To hell with the ATF. And there is no need complicating the matter by asking a bunch of know-it-alls who really don't know at all. Just buy your folding stock and have fun.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 8:17:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By handcranked:
To hell with the ATF. And there is no need complicating the matter by asking a bunch of know-it-alls who really don't know at all. Just buy your folding stock and have fun.





You sound like the one who doesn't know what the hell you are talking about.

Advice like what you gave can get someone in big trouble.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 8:40:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By prebans:

There's nothing about "high capacity ammunition feeding devices." It's all about having the capability to take a detachable mag. It doesn't matter if the mag only holds one or 100 rounds- if the GUN can take a detachable mag AND it is a semiauto, the ban is something that must be considered.



OK.


Originally Posted By prebans:

As to your question, if it's a legit preban you can add on a folding or collapsable stock.

Mike



OK. I bought the rifle in '99. I asked for, and received from Colt, a letter that I (perhaps wishfully) interpret--as modified by today's lessons--to be a declaration from Colt that the rifle existed in AW configuration in May of '94. I don't remember exactly what it says, but I'll sure read it again tonight! :)

Does anyone dispute Mike's position?
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 9:22:13 AM EDT
I put a folding Choate stock on my Universal M1
carbine in 1992 but did not document anything but I know it was put on before the ban. The burden of proof is on the BATF!!!
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:00:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:18:29 AM EDT
So, has anyone been convicted solely for possession of a postban weapon in preban configuration? Or has it only been used as a tack on charge for the last 9 years?
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:23:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tripwire:
So, has anyone been convicted solely for possession of a postban weapon in preban configuration? Or has it only been used as a tack on charge for the last 9 years?



I can't answer that with any certainty.

I've only heard - be advised it was a gun show rumor - that there was only one guy who was ever busted under the AW ban. He was adding folding stocks to SKS's and then selling them at gun shows.

Definitely possibly true (the addition of stocks AND the arrest), but I can't vouch for its validity.

Either way, you really don't hear of violators being arrested anywhere. Seems as if the law is never really paid attention to by the BATFE and only minded by most shooters.

Mike

Mike
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:28:06 AM EDT
[quote} Seems as if the law is never really paid attention to by the BATFE and only minded by most shooters.

You forgot the add that only the law abiding shooters are abiding by this ridiculous laws.

We are the very same people that the government wants soccer moms to think that if by some stretch I could get someone to put a threaded flash hider on one of my ar-15's I would instantly turn into a killing machine.

Fortunately, I am only allowed to have an ar-15 with 2 "evil" features, therefore my killing needs and tendencies are held at bay.

Isn't this the point? The only people that will follow these dumb fuck laws are the very people that wouldn't hurt anyone or break the law anyway.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 2:29:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 2:32:40 PM EDT by RipMeyer]

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By RipMeyer:
Well just for the moment lets say that you and your local ATF INTERPRETATION are correct. It would be damm near impossible to prove. I just cant imagine how they would do it.



This opinion letter came from the Chief of the Technology Branch at ATF, not from some podunk local office.

And I'd wager that in MOST (not all, certainly, but most) cases, it would be very easy for them to prove to a jury that the gun was transferred as a lower only. Many dealers will have records for the transfer that will day "pre-ban lower receiver" as the gun's description. Or ATF can contact the previous owner (for any gun transferred on a 4473) and ask about the configuration the gun was sold in.

Don't let the fact that you don't LIKE these facts cloud your judgement; the facts are clear, and this issue has been discussed at length, with the participation of several lawyers, in the Legal section.

-Troy




Its still only a vague interpretation by an agent of the ATF. I would like to see the relevant part of the ban that states it as such. To the best of my knowledge on the ban, its not there.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 2:55:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 4:35:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 921.

Sec. 921. - Definitions

(a)

As used in this chapter -

<snip>

(30)

The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means -
(B)

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -

(i)

a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii)

a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii)

a bayonet mount;

(iv)

a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v)

a grenade launcher;



Notice that the legal definition does NOT exempt "pre-bans"; they're still AWs, and therefore banned by default.

Also note that to be a (rifle-based)AW, the gun must be semi-automatic rifle. A lower by itself is NOT a semi-automatic rifle.


(28)

The term "semiautomatic rifle" means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.



Now, let's look at what is prohibited:


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 922.

Sec. 922. - Unlawful acts

(v)

(1)

It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2)

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.



Note that paragraph (A) sets the default state of those actions as being illegal. This determines what the burden of proof is for the prosecution.

Paragraph (B) provides an exception for semiautomatic assault weapons (which, as we know from the definitions above, requires a gun to be a complete, semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines and has at least two banned features). It does NOT give exceptions for "frames or receivers that were a part of grandfathered SAWs".

So, unless your gun was a grandfathered SAW (i.e., complete) when it was transferred, it doesn't qualify for the exemption in Paragraph (B).

Note also that it will be up to the defense to prove that the gun in question qualifies for the exemption listed in Paragraph (B).

The ATF interpretation has a solid foundation in the text of the law.

-Troy



You are missing my point. In my cited example it is VERY CLEAR that the weapon in question was a COMPLETE assault weapon before the ban and sold from the FACTORY as such. It does not not nor will it at any time lose its preban status simply by removing the upper receiver and selling it.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 5:49:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 6:28:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 6:30:23 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

If you owned a verified factory pre-ban Bushmaster made into M4 configuration and bought by you in 1992 with a receipt showing it's configuration and date, that's a grandfathered SAW. If you took the upper off and sold me the lower, you would only be selling me a lower, NOT a "grandfathered SAW". Since I wasn't transferred a SAW, I cannot create a SAW from that lower.


Not quite… Now this is were it gets real confusing.

A M4 carbine lower has:

1. A detectable magazine.
2. A pistol grip.
3. A collapsible stock.

The M4 lower would still have the detectable magazine plus 2 of the features that make up an “assault weapon” and is therefore an “assault weapon” by definition without the upper. I called and asked the ATF this specific question and was told because the lower is not stripped and retains enough features to make it an “assault weapon” it retains its grandfathered status.

On the other hand if the rifle had a fixed butt stock you would be correct it would lose its grandfathered status.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 6:38:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
You DO understand that ATF's mission is to apply written law to real-world situations, right.
-Troy



I was born .....but not yesterday!

Link Posted: 11/19/2003 9:01:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 3:43:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
The M4 lower would still have the detectable magazine plus 2 of the features that make up an “assault weapon” and is therefore an “assault weapon” by definition without the upper.



Explain to me how a lower with no upper is capable of semi-automatic fire. Oops, it isn't, is it? A lower by itself is legally a firearm, but not legally a semi-automatic rifle. Those terms are explicitly defined and are not interchangable.


I called and asked the ATF this specific question and was told because the lower is not stripped and retains enough features to make it an “assault weapon” it retains its grandfathered status.


And I could CALL, talk to Joe Schmoe, and be told that AWs, even pre-bans, are totally banned, or that they are totally legal for anyone to make. Unfortunately, what they tell you over the phone means nothing, at at least a third of the time, is blatently false. Which is why anyone with a lawyer will ALWAYS recommend you get their opinion IN WRITING, which we did. Only the Chief of the Technology Branch issuses WRITTEN opinions, which are vetted through their legal department for validity.

I've submitted a number of pieces of evidence that you or anyone else can validate. I've told you that a number of lawyers have verified what I'm stating (and you can read THAT in the Legal section as well).

Instead of just *disagreeing* with me, why not produce some actual evidence that can be independantly verified to support your position? I have. If I'm wrong, *surely* someone can find evidence of that. Right?

-Troy



OK I will take a stab.

Explain to me how just having a M16 "PART" is having a Fully Automatic Weapon capable of fully automatic fire just because I own a AR15? (IE. possession of a machinegun)


The "FACT" that you can call an official government agency (ATF) and have them tell you such and such weapon is "COMPLETELY" banned is proof enough that the ATF has no clue about what they are doing (mind you its their job to).

WE have all submitted good and valid points and come to a conclusion different from yours.
Its seems you got an answer that you want so badly to blindly to follow. We are no different. Lawyers can be made to say anything.


Bottom line? Its still nothing but a vague interpretation/guess as to what the law actually means. The law is not very clear although you seem to think it is for whatever reason.

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:50:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SperlingPE:
Enough with the explanations.
It is plain to me that same confusion and strong opinions exist concerning preban mini-14's as does with AR's. Someone answer my second question. Why the wide disparity in prices for preban mini-14's?



1. If it's an original GB modem with factory flash suppressor and bayo lug and/or factory folding stock, you're assured that it is a preban.

2. If it's a mini-14 withj aftermarket flash suppressor, bayo lug, and/or folding stock, you're hoping it's a preban.

If it's #1, it commands a higher price. This is ESPECIALLY true if it has the factory folder; these stocks are worth a few hundred by themselves.

.....

With all of that said, regional differences exist. A #1 type in Wisconsin was a thousand dollar gun. Here in Arizona you're looking at $700-$800 from what I've seen.

Mike
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 6:32:39 AM EDT
There's a Mini 14 factory folding stock (stainless) in the EE right now for $300....
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 6:59:22 AM EDT

A lower by itself is legally a firearm, but not legally a semi-automatic rifle. Those terms are explicitly defined and are not interchangable.


NO … a lower with detectable magazine plus 2 of the features that make up an “assault weapon” is an “assault weapon” by definition without the upper.


Instead of just *disagreeing* with me, why not produce some actual evidence that can be independantly verified to support your position? I have. If I'm wrong, *surely* someone can find evidence of that. Right?


I don’t recall you producing a shred of evidence that refutes anything I posted just hyperbole and ranting, you have produced nothing that address directly what I posted. I have dealt with the ATF enough to know whom to talk and I really don’t care what you believe one way or another. Instead of rant produce evidence that directly refutes what I posted.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 11:23:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 2:42:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: Or ATF can contact the previous owner (for any gun transferred on a 4473) and ask about the configuration the gun was sold in. Don't let the fact that you don't LIKE these facts cloud your judgement; the facts are clear, and this issue has been discussed at length, with the participation of several lawyers, in the Legal section. -Troy
View Quote
I belive that the 4473 sole purpose is for backround check and must never be use for tracking purposes. What about the 90 day rule on the 4473?
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 9:07:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SperlingPE: Enough with the explanations. It is plain to me that same confusion and strong opinions exist concerning preban mini-14's as does with AR's. Someone answer my second question. Why the wide disparity in prices for preban mini-14's?
View Quote
Your question was answered on the first page.
Originally Posted By SperlingPE: What are the legalities of adding a folding stock to a verified preban mini-14? Same as for AR? I see the prices of preban mini-14's with folding stocks vary greatly. Any insight on why this is?
View Quote
By this dipshit...
There are PreBan Mini's and there are "PreBan" Mini's. Factory PreBans were... GB with wood stock GB with Factory sidefolder Mini with Factory sidefolder Blued or SS Ruger Mfg sidefolders (just the stock) sell for up to $500. The GB's are bona fide PreBan's. Hence the high prices. A run of the mill Mini tarted up with a Choate folder and a slip on flash hider are worth no more than a standard Mini and you might find yourself in possession of a felony.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 11:13:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 5:35:38 PM EDT
Ok, now I'm confused, how is an SKS an assault weapon since it's mag is not detachable as designed?
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 6:18:03 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top