Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Posted: 2/28/2001 4:33:46 AM EDT
What is the punishment for having a collaspable stock on a post ban weapon?
Link Posted: 2/28/2001 9:38:39 AM EDT
A good bitch slapping.

It's a felony, punishment to be determined by your local police, DA, Judge, Jury and several other variables. You could do jail time, loose all your firearms and your right to own any.
Link Posted: 2/28/2001 7:58:13 PM EDT
Dear sir,  the fact that you own a collapsible stock and own a post ban weapon (or have both in your posession) may be viewed by the state as intent to assemble an NFA weapon.  Often this is enough to convict for posession of an unregistered NFA weapon.  If you own a C.A.R. stock sell it and keep the reciept or purchase a pre-ban weapon to install it on.  DO NOT ASSEMBLE
Link Posted: 2/28/2001 8:20:13 PM EDT
Gothamer , I think you got mixed up somewhere.You can own colapsible stocks and post ban weapons , you just can't install it on a post ban weapon.The NFA has nothing to do with post or preban weapons , that governs machineguns and weapons of that ilk , as well as destructive devices. You merged the two.I wouldn't advise breaking the law , so don't install it , but in all likelyhood as long as you don't sell it in that condition (pre-ban configeration on a post ban gun) and keep your mouth shut you'll be fine.
Link Posted: 2/28/2001 9:16:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/1/2001 5:25:30 PM EDT
G3k, after re-reading what I wrote late at night I agree with you. Sorry for incorrect information. I was thinking that NFA limited overall length of a rifle manufactured after Sept. 1994. If that were the case most bullpups would be illegal also. I recently researched short barreled rifle restrictions in MO and I think that's where I went awry. Thanks for correcting me.  
Link Posted: 3/4/2001 11:11:03 PM EDT
Lads, it is entirely possible to install a collapsable or folding stock on a rifle and still maintain the minimum OAL as required by NFA.  The penalty for hte folding/collapsible stock falls under the revisions to 18USC44 brought about by Brady II (or was it a change to 27CFR? - I need to check my logs...)  The collapsible stock falls as a violation under the "Assault Weapons" bans.

 However, NFA and GCA are not factors in punishment for this section.  Still, it IS a felony, punishable under Federal Law (unless you live in the KSSR, then you get nailed under Federal AND State law!)

Link Posted: 3/5/2001 8:58:04 AM EDT
I have a pre-ban COLT and my buddy has a BUSHY
post-ban both with collapsible stocks we have taken them out to local shooting ranges. I explained to him the consequences but still didn't listen on several occasions people have come up to us to admire them with one of the times it was an LEO who was plinking with his son he picks up both and said nice pre-bans, do LEO
even know what serial #'s to look for? I guess its just the chance you want to take.
Link Posted: 3/5/2001 11:49:53 AM EDT
A223 - You bring up a good point.  I think the answer to your question is no, 99% of LEOs have no idea what serial number ranges for various lower manufacturers denote pre-bans/post-bans.  I seriously doubt most care anyway.  That's not to say your friend is necessarily doing a smart thing but the reality is it's unlikely he'll ever get in trouble for it.  If he commits a crime with his rifle, then maybe he'll get busted for having a "post-ban assault weapon" but barring that, I think it's likely that he'll be able to go on his merry way back and forth to the range till his heart's content with his post-ban AR with a collapsible stock.  

In any case, obviously he should put an A2 stock on his rifle, but as many of my LEO friends and family say, they have lot's better things to do than bust people for having a bayonet lug or flash hider on a "post-ban" lower that is identical to a "pre-ban" lower where those things are deemed "OK."  They don't think it makes sense either.

Link Posted: 3/5/2001 2:15:13 PM EDT

18 USC 921(a)(30) Defines Assault Weapons.

18 USC 922(v)(1) is the criminal statute prohibiting possession of all assault weapons.  Before you choke, 18 USC 922(v)(2) is the pre-ban grandfather clause.

Brady II, or "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994", never passed, though some elements of it, like the AW ban, were incorporated in the Crime Bill of 1994.
Link Posted: 3/6/2001 3:22:35 PM EDT
Someone help me out here, I thought I read an article that stated ser #'s are NOT the deciding factor as to what is or is not a "Pre-Ban" or "Post-Ban" weapon.  Rather, it is the "state" of the weapon at the time the bill took effect.  In other words, "Pre-Ban" type uppers that were not "assembled" as a functioning and complete weapon are considered "incomplete", therefore are only good for parts or for placement onto a "complete weapon" that was so prior to the ban (as in rebuilding and like those offered today from places like BM).  I also thought I read a caution in the same article that highly recommended that a person seek reasonable proof that a pre-ban upper was at one time part of a "complete weapon" before buying it or assembling it on a lower could violate the law.  Perhaps I misread the article, if anyone knows of this article please point me to it I need a refresher course and need to get my facts straight...Thanks  
Link Posted: 3/6/2001 8:37:52 PM EDT
545 hits on this topic! Must be a hot issue. So, In therory, A guy could get away witha Collapsable stock on a postban if he was a good boy? Has anyone ever been prosecuted on this AW ban? I want case numbers!!! Thanks

Link Posted: 3/6/2001 8:53:59 PM EDT
I would like case numbers also. I can't say I wouldn't do what your friend did A223. I just realize that not only do most not care but we are much more informed as a group to specific laws and serial #'s. Does anyone know or seen someone for a telescoping stock on a post ban???
Link Posted: 3/6/2001 10:47:34 PM EDT
Punishment? What punishment? IF anyone ever were to get prosecuted, they MAY get more than a slap on the wrist. This is one of the many laws that the CLITon administration [-!-] passed to make it look like they were fighting crime. I'm sure many lives have been saved though because the criminals doing the drive-bys decided not to put a collapsable stock on their post bans.
The fact is you have more of a chance of getting struck by lightning while getting pulled over for 1 mph over the speed limit on the way to the range. It is a B.S. law. If I had a post ban, I would not hesitate to put any of those "evil features" on it, but lucky for me all I have is pre bans.
As for what Bowhntr6pt said about the "state" of the weapon, he is right. A pre ban lower that had not been assembled prior to the cut off date is considered legally a post ban. But all I have to say about that is [-!-!-]

[i]"All immoral laws MUST be broken"[/i]
Link Posted: 3/7/2001 7:22:29 AM EDT
Here Here Doc!
  I am so sick of this AW ban, it makes me want to puke!  [puke] I wish I could find some info on someone proscecuted with this dumb ban, and what happened... Anyone?

Link Posted: 3/7/2001 9:58:26 AM EDT
gothamer you were wrong again the 1994 ban limits lengths of barrels to 16 inches no shorter and although the bulpup barel seems shorter its not the unique possitioning of the chamber mag well and all the firing mechanisms in the rear gives it a longer than 16 inch barrel
Link Posted: 3/7/2001 10:21:34 AM EDT
lammer, you are wrong.  The NFA limits barrel length to 16 inches for rifles.

The 94 ban limits threads, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, telestocks, etc and forbids new magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.

NFA limitations on barrel an overall length are:
16 inch barrel, 26 inches over all for rifles
18 inch barrel, (26 or 28 inches?) over all for shotguns.
Link Posted: 3/7/2001 10:47:45 AM EDT
Ok...I know you all wanted case #'s.  I don't have them.  My wife is the lawyer and she ain't here.  But anyway, within the last year or so, a man was prosecuted (I believe in GA) for having a modified thumbhole stock on his MAK-90 (modified to be a standard style pistol grip).  I do believe that he got busted for something else and this was thrown in on top of the other stuff.  Part of his defense was "How could he have known about this silly little law."  Judge said no, it was publicized enough.  He should have known.  I have no idea what the sentence was.  

All the LEO's that I have talked to said the same as BMANSAR15...they have better things to do and could care less.  I would think that your biggest worry would be ATF showing up at a shoot or your gunshop if it were there for some reason.  Very small chance of getting caught...but I don't want to lose all my guns so I can have a shorty stock on one.
Link Posted: 3/7/2001 4:55:16 PM EDT

Great info. but I still have one question. Where does the burden of proof lie? If questioned do I have to prove it's a pre-ban or do they have to prove it's not?
Link Posted: 3/7/2001 6:13:16 PM EDT
For AR-15 owners, it makes no sense to me to risk a felony by adding a collapsible stock and/or a bayonet lug. Neither make the rifle more accurate or more useful.
The Denver police actually re-install the A2 stocks back on their M-4's before they release them. [sniper]
Link Posted: 3/7/2001 6:21:55 PM EDT
as long as the post gun didnt have the other stuff on it that would make it pre you can!

becosue the law sasy 2 or more of the following
so if you lopped of the pistol grip you could put a shory stock on it makes no sense as to why you would but you could
Link Posted: 3/12/2001 8:00:24 PM EDT
gothamer you were wrong again the 1994 ban limits lengths of barrels to 16 inches no shorter and although the bulpup barel seems shorter its not the unique possitioning of the chamber mag well and all the firing mechanisms in the rear gives it a longer than 16 inch barrel
View Quote

But if the collapsible stock allows the overall length to be less than 26 inches it still qualifies as an SBR under 571.010. making it an NFA weapon, right??
Link Posted: 3/13/2001 12:14:32 AM EDT
With a 16" barrel and a telestock in its shortest position, an AR is still 32.5" long, so is not an SBR.

With something like a ZM Weapons upper (no buffer tube), with a folding stock, however, my measurements show it might be under 26" overall - it's about 24.5" from the muzzle to the back of the CAR stock nut.  If you somehow got a rifle under 26" overall, then it would need to be registered as an SBR, even if it had a 16" barrel.
Link Posted: 3/13/2001 8:58:24 PM EDT
Hi Casper,  Sell your "post" and buy a "pre". In the long run it may safe you money and grief...It is just not worth it if some LEO decides he likes or dislikes you. "Law is Law" whether we like it or not....Michael
Link Posted: 3/14/2001 6:32:38 AM EDT
...Still waiting for case numbers...
Link Posted: 3/14/2001 8:49:56 AM EDT
Wow, so many questions
I'm not an expert but I play one on the net.

If you put a pre-ban upper on a post-ban lower you have just made an illegal assault rifle, a Felony. Has anyone been prosecuted/convicted? I DON'T KNOW. Is it illegal? YES, VERY. Are the penalties stiff? YES.
Take your own chances. Just pray that you never have to shoot an intruder with the weapon assembled that way- do you think you'll have enough time to switch the rifle to a legal configuration before the cops show up? To do so is tampering with evidence, yet another Felony.

You can legally possess a pre ban item (4 pos stock, etc) AND possess a post-ban lower as long as they're not assembled together- this confusion may stem from the rules about a Drop In Auto Sear. You may NOT possess a DIAS (or ANY M16 parts) AND HAVE a AR-15 in the same house without the proper license/paperwork- this will be considered intent to manufacture. Has anyone been prosecuted/convicted of this crime? Well, David Koresh was thought to be (and was) guilty of this "crime" but as you know, he was never convicted. Take your own chances. Also, I would strongly advise that you do NOT have any "How to convert your AR-15 to Full-Auto" manuals in your house. They're not illegal to own but they sure look bad in court.

It's true- a pre-ban must have been a COMPLETE RIFLE BEFORE the 94 ban. If you bought a upper and lower, barrel and buttstock way back in the eighties, but didn't assemble it into a rifle till 1995 you have assembled an illegal assault rifle. Stupid, but true. How can they prove it wasn't a complete rifle? They don't have to- the burden of proof is on YOU (VERY UN-American). Has anyone been convicted/prosecuted? I don't know. Is it ILLEGAL? YES.
Try to get some written confirmation that your lower was part of a complete rifle before the '94 ban. This may be very difficult to get- most people DON'T have this confirmation (I don't) and most will NEVER need it. You should try calling the manufacturer to get it, anyway.

It's all very confusing...

Link Posted: 3/14/2001 9:32:32 AM EDT
If you put a post-ban upper on a pre-ban lower you have just made an illegal assuult rifle, a Felony.
View Quote

I think you meant pre ban upper on a post ban lower.

It's true- a pre-ban must have been a COMPLETE RIFLE BEFORE the 94 ban. If you bought a upper and lower, barrel and buttstock way back in the eighties, but didn't assemble it into a rifle till 1995 you have assembled an illegal assault rifle. Stupid, but true.
View Quote

AFAIK the rifle kit did not not have to be assembled prior to the '94 ban. It need only to have been a [b]complete kit[/b] prior to the ban. Once again AFAIK it could have been assembled after the ban and still be a legal SAW.
Link Posted: 3/14/2001 9:58:51 AM EDT
Thanks! You're right!
I edited my post to curtail confusion (there's enough already as it is)!
There's nothing wrong with putting a post-ban upper on a pre-ban lower but putting a pre-ban upper on a post-ban lower is a No-No.

Can't say for sure on your 2nd point- is JohnM in da house?
Link Posted: 3/14/2001 10:08:25 AM EDT
on your 2nd point: You're right again, provided you had ALL the pieces and parts before the ban.

I STRONGLY URGE EVERYONE to take a look at AR15.com's write up on the issue of What IS a Pre Ban:

Link Posted: 3/14/2001 12:53:21 PM EDT
How can they prove it wasn't a complete rifle? They don't have to- the burden of proof is on YOU (VERY UN-American).
View Quote

That's not entirely true.  The burden may shift to the defendant, but that's only if the government first makes out their prima facia case of illegal possession, ie- that is "wasn't a complete rifle" prior to 9-14-94.  However, it's their burden, not the defendant's, at least initially.

See my response to BESAFE's post on proof of pre-ban status- it's on the second page (posted 3-9-00).

Link Posted: 3/14/2001 8:13:45 PM EDT
  No one can come up with an example of someone being charged only with possesion of a Post ban Weapon in Pre-Ban Config? That would make sense though, Be good, and the LEO turns his head, doesn't go inspecting rifles, at the range. Is there somewhere online where you can look up court cases? Anything?

Link Posted: 3/14/2001 9:10:40 PM EDT
Private Joker, despite the tin-foil hat crowds' raging paranoia, the liklihood of the black helicopters circling your house and the JBT's kicking in your door to bust you for the collapseable stock they know you bought through tracing your net purchases or following you home from the gunshow are less than the odds of you hitting the lotto. Now if you do something to attract their attention, like rob a bank or two, and they find that collapseable stock on your post ban ar when they put the bracelets on, they'll be happy to throw that charge in too. What you're risking if you're not an otherwise felonious fellow is the off chance that the guy shooting next to you at the range is a new JBT just got indoctrinated, or worse, an old JBT whose wife gave him a raft of shit before he went to the range, and both of them are having a bad shooting day, will notice your forbidden stock, and having nothing better to do with the rest of their day, decide to process you and make some brownie points with the boss. Not recommending that you flout the law, but don't lose major sleep over it if you decide to "go for it". That's the problem with law abiding guys like us..we sweat the small stuff. A fellow that really "needs" a full auto, collapseable stock ar to ply his trade will get one, and won't really care what the penalty is for having it, since it is much less than what he plans to do with it, and besides, if he gets caught, they'll probably run the sentence concurrent anyway.
Link Posted: 3/14/2001 9:11:06 PM EDT
I'm sure it's no problem at all, we're all just paranoid. Why don't you just save yourself some money- take that Post-ban, put the 4-pos collapsible stock on that puppy and enjoy yourself? Do whatever ya want- it really doesn't matter anyway. If you do make an illegal AR, it kind of sucks that you won't be able to use it if you ever REALLY NEED it. Not without also getting popped, convicted of a Felony and being gently sodomized by Hoss, your new cellmate at Club Fed.
The question is not:

Again, do whatever you want, no sweat off our sacks...
Link Posted: 3/15/2001 3:51:46 AM EDT
IMHO, Gonzo and Oldschool are both right.

Private Joker, the federal reports give you cases that have been appealed and taken up on appeal by federal appellate courts or, if it goes, to the Supreme Court.  They are but a small, very small, percentage of cases that are litigated each year in federal court.

I was asked to research prosecutions for post/pre ban violations last year on the old site.  I talked with AUSAs and some local federal agents that I'm friends with and they do recall several such cases but ONLY AS AN ADD-ON TO A HUGE MULTI-COUNT INDICTMENT FOR SOME OTHER MAJOR LEAGUE FELONIES.  I've had a couple cases myself where they charged the defendant with "illegal possession by a convicted felon" and, the weapon was illegal, but the feds only pursued the "possession by a felon" charge since that's a whole lot easier than bringing in an expert about on weapons to prove it was illegal ("possession by a felon" simply requires a certified conviction order to prove felony status- burden then shifts to defendant that he meets one of the enumerated exceptions- almost never happens since career criminals don't usually petition for restoration of rights or pardons).

That, I believe, was Oldschool's point.  Gonzo, on the other hand, has an even better point:  BETER SAFE THAN SORRY, REGARDLESS OF THE ODDS.  You never know.
Link Posted: 3/15/2001 1:33:05 PM EDT
Hey guys,
  I think oldschool hit the nail on the head. Us law abiding people, sweat the small stuff. Thats so true, I can't believe it. I just think its silly, Like the rest of you, that it is a felony, to have a stock, that collapses 3 inches. It just doesn't make sense. The only reason I ask, is I want to build a post ban M4, Reality is, I don't *need* a collapsing stock, but it sure looks cool! I just can't see myself putting a collapsing stock on the gunm that doesn't collapse. Thats like putting headlights on your car that don't work... Just for the looks. I don't plan on breaking the law, but I just wish there was something we could do to get this changed. Theres got to be a few compotent Judges out there, Aint it? Oh well. Keep the points coming!

Link Posted: 3/15/2001 4:41:16 PM EDT
Gonzo, not disagreeing with you...no collapseable stocks on my ar's. They look cool, but the remote risk of getting busted, with as you say "the stakes" isn't worth it to me. The points I was trying to make, as Steve and PrivateJoker picked up, was (1) the law is preposterous and only law abiding guys would give a shit, go to ridiculous lengths like putting fugazi collapseable stocks on, and the crooks will get what they want anyway; (2)if you do put on the genuine article, chances of you ever getting popped for it are slim. Whether that chance is worth taking is up to the individual. A guy should always know what he's getting into and what the potential downside is. For example, I like to ride motorcycles in the densely populated Northeast. I'm aware that my chances of being killed or seriously injured on my bike are much greater than when I'm in my SUV. So despite the "stakes" I do it. Now, back on topic, if a guy wants an illegally configured ar, the odds of the downside happening are remote. He just has to decide whether he is willing to pay the piper if it comes down that way and act accordingly. Free will. It's a wonderful thing. Wonder how much longer it will be before we go the way of the rest of the socialist paradises like England, Australia, and Canada and all start bleeting "bah, bah, bah" in unison.
Link Posted: 3/15/2001 7:10:03 PM EDT

"no collapseable stocks on my ar's. They look cool, but the remote risk of getting busted, with as you say "the stakes" isn't worth it to me."

I do have a 4-pos stock, as you say it looks cool and it even makes me happy, I easily understand why you'd like one. A 16" AR just doesn't look right without one plus smaller folks (the ladies) really love it in position 1 or 2- the butt, I mean, er, the stock.

"The points I was trying to make, as Steve and PrivateJoker picked up, was (1) the law is preposterous..."

I am in 100% agreement with you, my friend.

"(2)if you do put on the genuine article, chances of you ever getting popped for it are slim..."

I agree completley, you're definitely more likely to get struck by lightening while carrying your AR than getting that dreaded introduction to "Hoss".

"I like to ride motorcycles..."

Me too, I love my bikes- we have much in common it seems. On the bike comparison, getting caught with an illegal AR is more like getting caught on a stolen bike than just getting a speeding ticket.

"Free will. It's a wonderful thing..."

Indeed it is. We are cursed to make our own mistakes...
Just don't get CAUGHT making them!
Link Posted: 3/15/2001 7:39:02 PM EDT
"Free will. It's a wonderful thing..."

Indeed it is. We are cursed to make our own mistakes...
Just don't get CAUGHT making them!
View Quote

Gonzo, you've hit the nail on the fucking head! You have summed it up perfectly! 'Nuf said 'bout that.

As far as the bikes, hope the cagers in TX aren't as crazy as they are up north. Ride safe and ride free, friend (woulda said 'bro, but the term's been degraded over the years by the likes of EZbiters, etc, that I figured you'd be offended)[:D]
Link Posted: 3/16/2001 2:40:05 AM EDT
[b]Topic - punishment for having a collaspable stock[/b]

If your using one of Tony's Tromix 50AE uppers, I'd say it will be severe.

[:D]  [:D]   [:D]  [:D]  [:D]   [:D]  [:D]  [:D]   [:D]  [:D]  [:D]   [:D]

Link Posted: 3/16/2001 10:10:07 PM EDT
Regarding the '94 Assault Weapons ban, a few new interpretations have been cooked up by the BATF that is making me very apprehensive about preban AR's. While most of us agree that a receiver is a preban receiver if and only if it was assembled into a complete "SAW" or put in complete kit form prior to Sept. 13th 1994, many ATF agents now disagree. They argue that only "grandfathered" weapons are allowed, but on top of that weapons can't be disassembled and broken back down and sold as prebans. Let me explain what this is really saying. What they're saying is that preban lower receivers can become postbans! If I have a preban AR15 and I separate the upper and lower. Then I sell the lower as a preban lower. The lower immediately becomes a POSTBAN!!!!!! So you would ask how this is possible. Simple, their interpretation is that since it was sold and transferred as a receiver, it's no longer a complete firearm. Thus, when you drop a preban upper and put that M4 telestock on it, you just created an "assault weapon" and it's obviously after '94. Therefore, you just broke the law. The history of the receiver has NOTHING to do with it. I know it sounds wacky how prebans can become postbans, but the ATF have their interpretations and I wouldn't dare question or challenge their authority. Because of this interpretation, I've only bought my preban guns as whole complete guns and never built up from preban receivers. Although these laws are obviously ridiculous and silly, the law's the law and we must all follow it or risk facing the bitter rath of the law.
Link Posted: 3/18/2001 12:51:46 AM EDT
Why are we all so paranoid about this? Is what should all do is put collapsable stocks on our AR's. When one person getts arrested for this all of us with these collapsable stocks can turn ourselves in. It would overwhelm the system when a couple of million people turn them selves in for such a stupid law.

What if congress passed an ignorant gun law and nobody followed it. Could it truly be enforced.

Link Posted: 3/18/2001 9:02:40 PM EDT
IIRC the 26" OAL is when the stock is extended...
This came up with discussions of M1A1 carbines and the AK47 underfolder...
So an OA93 Pre-Ban Carbine setup from Olympic and the ZM weapons Pre-Ban conversion would be ok when folded...
Link Posted: 3/19/2001 9:27:24 AM EDT
Interesting to note that some manufacturers have a mfg date for the reciever and a shipped out date for the entire firearm but no "assembly date".eg. Even before the fire at Oly arms they would only give these 2 dates..no assembly date.
Link Posted: 3/22/2001 4:50:48 AM EDT
What about this subsection of the '94 law?:
"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."
Once a grandfathered pre ban always a pre ban!!!!!! What don't you understand about:"shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed..." on or before Sep 13, 1994?? I might see your view with regard to an A2 stocked pre ban lower BUT what about the sale of a pre ban lower with a tele stock from a true grandfathered rifle...UNDER the law having detachable mag capability along with pistol grip and tele stock automatically make the lower a pre ban SAW!!! You logic does not wash when it comes to this set up!! Sorry...

SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS and LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES under Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(enacted September 13, 1994)
§ 921(a)(30) The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon' means:

(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -

(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC70);
(iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC DC-9, and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

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

(i) a folding or telescopic 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;

(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -

(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded ; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that 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 fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

§ 922(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.

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to -

(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on Oct
Link Posted: 3/22/2001 7:02:53 AM EDT
I am with sixgun! Could they really enforce the law, if we all did it? I mean come on, its not like we are comitting mass murder, or something. I am at a loss of words, Whoever said it earlier hit the nail on the head, Us law abiding citizens are the only ones that get screwed.

Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top