Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/11/2001 7:20:50 AM EDT
If someone has a letter from the orginal owner that the preban lower was a fully completed rifle prior to the ban is that worth a damn in court? [beer]
Link Posted: 8/11/2001 8:08:12 AM EDT
The gov't would bear the burden of proof that the rifle is not preban. If the serial number is pre Sept 13, 1994 I don't see how they could prove the gun was not built up prior to the ban. I don't think a chance would be taken on losing a case like that on such loose legal ground. FWIW.
Link Posted: 8/11/2001 11:02:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2001 4:13:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2001 4:09:37 PM EDT by Righteous_Kill]
Originally Posted By Troy: No, the prosecution bears the burden of proof that you were found in possession of a semi-auto rifle configured as an "Assault Weapon." It is then YOUR burden to prove that your rifle qualified to be legally grandfathered under the law.
View Quote
That is still speculation, since it hasn’t actually happened yet.
Originally Posted By Troy: Mac, As long as BATF can't *prove* that the gun belonged to someone else on 9/13/94, then this letter should be good enough. -Troy
View Quote
That doesn’t make any sense, several people could have owned the weapon before the ban took affect. The person who signed the letter could have knowledge of the rifles configuration while not actually owning it on Sept 13, 94. How would you, or the court, know the letter is legitimate? The person could have lied or otherwise falsified the letter. It’s still one persons word against the other. RK
Link Posted: 8/11/2001 9:19:17 PM EDT
Top Top