Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 3/15/2013 7:49:23 AM EDT
Does anyone remember the details about AR lowers vs complete rifles when the 1st ban kicked in? Did the lower have to (technically) be built into a rifle prior to the ban or could you just get the lower and build it in preban configuration later on???
Link Posted: 3/15/2013 9:13:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2013 9:16:32 AM EDT by dragunov]
Link Posted: 3/15/2013 9:26:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2013 7:25:39 PM EDT by Trollslayer]
He's from Tennessee. He's most likely referring to the now-expired Federal ban.
Link Posted: 3/15/2013 5:13:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/15/2013 7:25:55 PM EDT
funny you ask. I was just thinking about how right before the ban the gun stores would say that you wouldn't be able to put a tele-stock on a rifle with fixed stock, the car 15 styled AR used to sell at a huge premium back in the early 90s.
Link Posted: 3/15/2013 7:33:49 PM EDT
Didn't the Fed ban start and CA rolled with it from there? Not the registration with the DOJ that started later. I was in CA when it all started... Thinking back it seems like there was a pass date and shortly after the start date.
Anyway, I'm not asking what they would or would not know. I'm asking specifically if it read that it had to be a complete weapon to be grandfathered???
Link Posted: 3/15/2013 8:10:05 PM EDT
IIRC you could register a lower. But the numbers of lowers, and uppers and kits and rolling your own was a pretty miniscule part of the hobby then. I seem to remember some stories about getting lowers registered and making them up later. There was a lot more fervor about registering or not registering. Although later on in the process, the features ban was somewhat driven by the growing number of guys rolling their own. And rolling your own was driven by the scarcity of guns not on the names lists.
Link Posted: 3/16/2013 4:17:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul:
How would the government ever prove that a lower sold prior to a ban was or was not assembled into a rifle?



testimony

circumstantial evidence

difficult, but not impossible.

Link Posted: 3/17/2013 10:10:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2013 10:12:24 AM EDT by thorn]
Originally Posted By PaDanby:
IIRC you could register a lower. But the numbers of lowers, and uppers and kits and rolling your own was a pretty miniscule part of the hobby then. I seem to remember some stories about getting lowers registered and making them up later. There was a lot more fervor about registering or not registering. Although later on in the process, the features ban was somewhat driven by the growing number of guys rolling their own. And rolling your own was driven by the scarcity of guns not on the names lists.



I'm just asking to try to piece together some things in my head... There was collaboration with the CA DOJ and ATF that shut down some gun show dealers for selling "parts" at the long gone LA County/Pamona gun show. They would make a purchase then confiscate everything they were selling. You'd walk by and see multiple tables tarp covered and surrounded by agents.

I think we live in a time where we are far better off telling people this is how it has and can happen. So do what you can before as opposed to trying to sneak around it after.
Link Posted: 3/19/2013 11:42:02 AM EDT
I had two Bushmaster rifles that I purchased used from the consignment rack at the famous B&B in North Hollywod. Out of curiosity, in the mid-90's I wrote a letter to Bushmaster and requested any information about the date of manufacture. Not only did they provide the date (Both were made in 1994, both before the Federal ban), but their records show one left the factory as a complete rifle ("V-Match 20" with bayonet lug and muzzle threads with flash hider) and the other left as just an assembled lower with fixed stock.

As long as the end user built it into a preban configuration before the ban took effect, you were (Federally) legal. Obviously, manufacturer's records that is was built as a complete weapon with the certain features would be more than enough proof. For the lower receiver sales, I can only guess how you would prove it (Dealer statements or receipts that indicate the configuration is was built and sold as; Witness statements, date-stamped photos... )

If you are a Team Member here, I remember there was lots of discussions on the subject if you want to try to search the archives.
Link Posted: 3/19/2013 1:12:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PaDanby:
IIRC you could register a lower. But the numbers of lowers, and uppers and kits and rolling your own was a pretty miniscule part of the hobby then. I seem to remember some stories about getting lowers registered and making them up later. There was a lot more fervor about registering or not registering. Although later on in the process, the features ban was somewhat driven by the growing number of guys rolling their own. And rolling your own was driven by the scarcity of guns not on the names lists.


This tactic was used to some degree in 98-99. I say that because the time frame of gov wilson leaving and davis ooming in is exactly when i bought in.

I was getting lowers in 98 with expectation that wilson would sign it. However he kicked it out and it gave me all of 99 to complete them. I knew several people in 99 who were doing similar as the y2k stuff made completed rofles insanely priced, especially pre94 fed aw guns.

The place where the receiver now and build it later mentality really came into play was with the 50 bmg ban.
Top Top