Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/13/2005 6:35:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 6:39:48 PM EDT by cowboyrick]
Hey guy's, new here to arf.com. Just purchased a preban SGW Olympic arms lower. Serial # checks out it was manufactured before 94. Just want to check with some lacal NYers that i am totaly ok to configure the rifle how I want as long as the barrel is over 16 inches.

Thanks Guys
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:54:23 AM EDT
Hey Cowboy - yes, as long as the lower was part of a complete rifle prior to '94 your good to go.

Have fun and welcome to the board!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:52:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 3:55:59 PM EDT by ThePrisoner72]
Olympic Arms lost all records due to a fire in 2000. They can not give you any information on wether or not your SGW lower left the factory as a complete rifle prior to 9/13/94, they can only give you a date that your lower was manufactured. Can the previous owner give you proof it was assembled into a complete rifle prior to the date above? Without proof, and if you add a collapsible stock, flash hider and bayonet lug it becomes an illegal assault weapon under NYS Law.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 6:08:08 AM EDT
Not to open up this can of worms again, but does NYS law require you to prove that your AW was
fully assembled prior to the date given, and how?
L.jr.

I still have dreams about a big white bubble gum balloon coming to swallow me up!
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 6:41:50 AM EDT
I believe this came up in another thread, and someone told me that this requirement that the rifle was assembled as an AW prior to 1994 was actually a BATF interpretation of the Federal Law and that there is no such requirement in the NYS law.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 8:28:07 AM EDT
Welcome and enjoy building your rifle
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 10:00:04 AM EDT
Could be, possibly, who knows, yes, no and possibly maybe has become my stock answer concerning prebans in NYS.

The legislative intent of the NYS AWB was to mirror the expired Federal AWB as to what defined a legal or illegal SAW or LCAFD in NY. You can pretty much guarantee that at trial both the prosecution and the defense will introduce ATF regulations and opinions to support their respective positions as to what defined a SAW or LCAFD under the Federal ban.

Personally I would not have a preban configured SAW in my possession that could not be verified in writing with the manufacturer. AFAIK both Colt and Bushmaster have manufacturing records for every rifle/configuration they have ever shipped. As always YMMV.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 3:06:41 PM EDT
OK Thanks for the replies. Due to the mixed responses I went and researched the law myself. No were in the article does it say anything about the firearm having to be completely assembled. If it were true about being completely assembled, then why when NICS checks are ran on a stripped lower reciever the reciever itself is referred to as a long gun and not just a reciever?
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 3:19:54 PM EDT
Ok . I will play Devils Advocate , and ask the $64,000 Question.

Since NO MFG. records Exist , HOW could ANYONE ever prove it did NOT leave the factory
as a complete rifle ?
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 6:27:00 PM EDT
This has confused me also.


I've extracted the applicable sections of the law below:

d) any of the weapons, or functioning frames of receivers of such weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known as:....

(iv) Colt AR-15;

e) provided, however, that such term does not include: ...

(v) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic
pistol or any of the weapons defined in paragraph (d) of this
subdivision lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen
hundred ninety-four.

The way I see it...(d) defines an aw as including functioning frames of receivers.
(e) v...exempts weapons defined in (d) if they were possessed pre 9/14/94. Therefore, functioning frames and receivers are exempted if possessed prior to 9/14/94.

Seems clear as mud to me!

Whisky19
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 6:29:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:44:35 PM EDT
I don't think RKBAR is trying to say that Cowboy can't build it up to the configuration of his choice, but that paying a few more dollars now could possibly save a lot more being spent down the road on legal fees, etc...even if you are ultimately vindicated.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 10:12:14 PM EDT
My sense is that the problem you will face is that YOU will probably have the burden of proving that the lower receiver came from a complete AW rifle in existence prior to the 1994 ban. The State does not have to prove anything other than that you possess what is presently a pre-ban configured AW. The reason the burden is on you is because you will have to raise a defense to the claim that the "new" AW is legal. You'd be wise to check the published NYS caselaw on this, as I am quite certain this has come up before.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 1:17:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nfalawyer:
My sense is that the problem you will face is that YOU will probably have the burden of proving that the lower receiver came from a complete AW rifle in existence prior to the 1994 ban. The State does not have to prove anything other than that you possess what is presently a pre-ban configured AW. The reason the burden is on you is because you will have to raise a defense to the claim that the "new" AW is legal. You'd be wise to check the published NYS caselaw on this, as I am quite certain this has come up before.



If I remember correctly, this issue has been kicked around before and the general consensus was that there has NEVER been a case in NY where someone was just brought up on charges of having an illegal "AW", however if arrested for other things or investigated for other things and the gun was there it was checked. I'm pretty sure this has happened once and the charge of owning an illegal weapon WAS added to his case.
Top Top