Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/18/2002 8:19:54 PM EDT
OK, I just read that if you take a preban lower, separated from the full preban rifle, then remove the pistol grip & collapsible buttstock, then sell it to someone else, it loses its preban status. WTF? Is this true? Wouldn't the fact that it was once part of a complete rifle make it preban forever. Someone plz tell me that the person who posted this info is wrong...
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 8:29:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2002 8:30:33 PM EDT by OSI]
Bad news for you, there is some sort of ATF word to this effect. If you want the preban to stay a preban, it has to retain sufficient number of evil features upon transfer. Good news is that your chances of getting caught are very slim. When I was selling some spare prebans, I would install a tele-stock and sell the complete lower half in order for it to qualify. No use playing cheap for the extra $100 in parts, never buy or sell a stripped preban lower. It must have the pistol grip and telestock installed when it changes ownership through an FFL.
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 8:30:21 PM EDT
don't worry who ever told you that is wrong. As long as it was assembeled into an AW as of the date of the ban then the reciever is preban and as far as the GOvt is concerned the receiver is the rifle.
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 8:32:50 PM EDT
See, this is the problem - 2 conflicting answers. Anyone else have a response? Maybe one of you ATF boys who trolls this board...
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 8:43:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jobux: See, this is the problem - 2 conflicting answers. Anyone else have a response? Maybe one of you ATF boys who trolls this board...
View Quote
You won't get an authoritive answer on this board. Dave_G (when he sees this thread) will quote you his BATF letter stating that if a pre-ban ever transfers without its features, it's no longer a semi-auto assault weapon. This is indeed the BATF position on it, and since they get to interpret the law, make regulations pursuant to the law, and enforce the law and their regulations, the deck is pretty much stacked against you. On the other hand, the LAW only says that it had to be an assembled rifle (with 2 or more evil features) on the date the law was enacted (9/13/94, IIRC.) In short, very, very few of us believe the BATF is correct on this--but none of us wants to be the test case. Wanna volunteer? :)
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 9:15:51 PM EDT
Here's how I understand it... (OR: Let me take my two cents off of the pile!) In order for a receiver to be considered a "preban," it MUST have been assembled into a preban configuration BEFORE the 13SEP1994 ban date. Therefore, a reciver that was simply manufactured, cast, forged, machined, or finished PRIOR to the ban date is not intrinsically a preban. If a preban receiver was assembled AFTER 13SEP1994, it is considered a POSTBAN, manufacturing records notwithstanding. In order to remain a postban in light of changes in the rifle's configuration, it must be a DOCUMENTED preban - one must be able to produce documentation that the ORIGINAL assembly of the rifle took place prior to 13SEP1994. The burden of proof remains upon the owner of the rifle. Therefore, one cannot now purchase a "stripped preban lower" UNLESS is comes with supporting documentation - by serial # at the least - asserting that the rifle had at one time been assembled into a complete rifle prior to the 13SEP1994 ban date - regardless of configuration. It is the actual assembly date that renders a receiver preban or postban. Clear? Therefore, a stripped lower provided with supporting documentation asserting that it was originally manufactured into a rifle sometime before 13SEP1994 can still be a preban - but DO NOT lose the paperwork! A receiver finished anytime prior to 13SEP1994, but assembled anytime on or after 14SEP1994 is a postban, period. Serial number does not matter, nor would the fact that the receiver had been sitting in a warehouse for the last ten years matter - it's still a postban - the rifle was assembled AFTER the ban date! I'm sure this is clear as mud, but it will begin to make sense after you let it roam around in your head for a bit. If this seems confusing, I have a story about a fella that was trying to mae a paintball marker suppressor out of Schedule 40 PVC and toilet paper to tell you... FFZ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 8:23:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 8:26:53 AM EDT by trickshot]
You're likely to get two conflicting answers from the evil ATF as well. Catch-22. I have to have two background checks to buy a handgun in NC--one by the sheriff and then a NICS at the time of purchase. Figure that one out. I guess they're worried that I will commit a crime between the time the permit is issued and when the gun is bought. Duh! I'm buying the gun to commit a crime, why would I do the crime before I had the gun? :-) Oh, and since when in this country does the burden of proof rest on the defendant in a case? Innocent until proven guilty means I don't have to have documentation, it means that the evil government thugs must prove they're right, not vice versa. Anything less means that we are living in very, very dangerous times for gun owners. Oh wait, we are! If the ATF wants your ass, they'll get your ass. They will plant any evidence necessary. If you live through the assault, you'll likely have had your home burned to the ground and members of your immediate family killed. This is today's America, folks. This is "your" government. If you think they care what evil features are on your rifle, you're missing the point entirely.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 8:40:17 AM EDT
Ok, Here is the question. How would the ATF know what condition the rifle was in when it was transfered? Most States make you list whether it is a pistol or long gun, but it doesn't get into the features on the gun at the time of transfer. Also what if you had the gun transfered to you and had the upper mailed to your house since it didn't need to go through the FFL to save on the FFL fee? You bought the whole preban rifle but only the lower passed through the FFL? I guess what I'm saying is how would the ATF have any idea what was on the gun when it was transfered?
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 9:05:53 AM EDT
The safest solution is to assume the worst and plan for it. In this case, there is an existing ATF letter that states that if an existing pre-ban "assault rifle" is disassembled and sold without its qualifying "assault rifle features" then it loses its pre-ban status and its exemption from the assault weapons ban. The lower reciever of a pre-ban rifle is by itself an assault rifle if it has more than one "evil feature", and if you have a pistol grip on it, that's one, and a collapsible stock makes two, and that qualifies the lower assembly as an assault rifle. If it is sold to a new owner without two "evil features" then it has lost its status as a pre-ban grandfathered assault rifle and reassembly of it into a pre-ban configuration is therefore a violation of BATF regulations which means you can be charged with a felony. In the case of a pre-ban weapon that meets the definition of an assault rifle but was equipped with a fixed stock, you have to assume that the BATF would say that a complete lower in that configuration does not meet the definition of an assault rifle, so it couldn't be legally reassembled into one if it shipped in that configuration unless it was attached to an upper receiver that had another "evil feature" on it. The simple and sure-fire solution is to ship a lower receiver with the pistol grip and a collapsible stock attached to it. Then it will retain its pre-ban status and AW ban exemption, beyond any possible doubt. CJ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 9:12:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 9:14:15 AM EDT by MarineGrunt]
I'm no expert, but..
Originally Posted By GSTN: Ok, Here is the question. How would the ATF know what condition the rifle was in when it was transfered?
View Quote
They don't. Thats the beauty of them having the burden of proving it. Unless theyre really out to get your ass, they won't even bother, cuz it would be damn hard to do.
Most States make you list whether it is a pistol or long gun, but it doesn't get into the features on the gun at the time of transfer.
View Quote
Whenever I have bought a reciever, it has aways been considered a long gun. There would be no difference on the paperwork if the rifle was fully assembled, so they would have no way of knowing through NICS.
I guess what I'm saying is how would the ATF have any idea what was on the gun when it was transfered?
View Quote
They don't and it would be near impossible for them to find out! [:)] Disclaimer: It is very possible I have no idea WTF I'm talking about.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 9:13:22 AM EDT
I think that makes sense but it still doesn't solve the problem. Since it is not recorded as to how many evil features the AW has when tranfered there is no "proof" one way or another. In theory there is no "proof" that any AW EVER transfered retained all it's evil features, and there is no proof they didn't. I think the key is to never admit that the rifle was ever transfered without the evil features since that would be the only evidence the ATF would have. Now it would be a different story if evil feature were recorded and photos were taken at every transfer, but they are not.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 9:38:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 11:11:50 AM EDT by Zak]
Originally Posted By GSTN: In theory there is no "proof" that any AW EVER transfered retained all it's evil features, and there is no proof they didn't. I think the key is to never admit that the rifle was ever transfered without the evil features since that would be the only evidence the ATF would have.
View Quote
The problem here is that the BATF is of the opinion that ALL semi-automatic assault weapons are not legal, and the fact that the weapon is a pre-ban is an "affirmative defense" and you must conclusively PROVE the weapon was in such a configuration on the date of enactment. In short, they consider you guilty until proven innocent. Most folks who promote this definition of the assault weapons ban (promote might be the wrong word here--I'm sure they don't like it, they're just trying to steer people away from getting into trouble) don't seem to be too bothered by this concept. Personally, I think it's a fucking outrage. It's worth noting there is NO case law on this subject, so it's possible a court would side with you, and not the BATF. As I said earlier, if you'd like to be the test case, go for it. I'm sure we'd all lend you moral support. (edited to change "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent." Sometimes you just say the wrong thing while typing fast.)
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:02:10 AM EDT
In a court of law, the basic premise of "innocent until proven guilty" still rules. Fortunately. In addition, the practice has always been that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. You do NOT have to PROVE that the rifle was once configured as an assault weapon. THEY have to prove that it was NEVER PREVIOUSLY configured as an assault weapon until AFTER it became illegal to configure it in such a manner. By the law. In my last post, I told you how to totally avoid any problems with this issue. I'm still right. CJ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:34:16 AM EDT
Were collapsable stocks still being made after '94? If so, you better hope they don't prove that your stock was made in '95!!!! Whoops!
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 11:11:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 11:11:59 AM EDT
So basically, everyone who has ever bought a stripped or just separated lower w/out a pre-94 collapsible buttstock is a potential felon? Nice. Well, at least I know what to look for to cover my own ass now. Someone better go tell the boys in Equipment Exchange...
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 11:19:56 AM EDT
BATF sucks!!!!![:D]
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 11:21:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DarkHelmet: That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. Once pre-ban ALWAYS pre-ban.
View Quote
I wish that were true, but according to a recent ATF ruling on the subject, it's not. If a pre-ban assault rifle is disassembled and sold, and the lower receiver is sold without two 'evil features' still attached, (pistol grip and collapsible stock), then it has lost its pre-ban status and can't be legally reassembled in a pre-ban configuration. By the ATF letter. Is it bullshit? You bet. Is it enforceable? Only with great difficulty. An ATF agent would practically have to witness the entire transaction and verify for himself that the pre-ban receiver was delivered to the new owner with less than two "evil features" attached to it. But that letter is real and disobeying it can lead to undesirable consequences. CJ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:46:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 3:51:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By odobo:
Originally Posted By MarineGrunt: I'm no expert, but..
Originally Posted By GSTN: Ok, Here is the question. How would the ATF know what condition the rifle was in when it was transfered?
View Quote
They don't. Thats the beauty of them having the burden of proving it. Unless theyre really out to get your ass, they won't even bother, cuz it would be damn hard to do.
View Quote
Not really, all the government has to prove is that you currently are in possession with an assault weapon. They dont care what configuration your weapon was in in 1994.
View Quote
???? So it's illegal for me to have my Colt SP1 because it was a fully assembled assault rifle in 1994? You have me confused.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 4:28:43 PM EDT
What you need to add here, odobo, is that once they show you have an assault weapon (as defined above) in your possession, you have to prove it is exempt from the prohibition against owning it by proving it is a "pre-ban". That grandfathers it, and makes it legal for you to possess.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 4:43:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By odobo: All i'm saying is that once the government shows that your weapon has a bayo-lug, FS/threaded barrel, pistol grip, folding stock, etc., or is specifically listed as an assault weapon, they have accomplished their mission.
View Quote
Yeah, it's called a pre-ban. What makes that illegal???
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 4:44:02 PM EDT
Well as long as the peanut gallery is in full swing, I thought I'd weigh in here as well. I've never dealt with the ATF, but I deal with the FDA somewhat often and since they're both unweildy bureaucracies I'm sure there are a lot of similarities. The 'ATF letter' is just some agency (or more likely, agent) position statement, it's not law and it may even contradict law. Some pencil jockey just decided to put it down in print for God knows what reason. So the ATF issued this 'guidance' on transfers, it represents the *opinion* of one or more agents. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure they may *try* to enforce it at some point, but for now it's serving its purpose in fomenting fear, uncertainty and doubt. (That's often good enough) There is just no way that you could be convicted of breaking some ATF position document. Especially if you have objective evidence like Colt's manufacturing record that says "yep, Observer's rifle was made June 12, 1991". The thing is when they even tried to prosecute you and failed, you'd hear all kinds of back-pedaling like "well, that was just one agents interpretation of the law..yadda..yadda..yadda It doesn't represent our official position...blah...blah..blah.". Standard denial tactics with overly large governmental organizations. If you have documentation (I'm sure official mfg docs work best here) that your rifle was preban, it's preban. Show me *in the law* where it says that a rifle loses these features at any point during its life if transfered in a certain manner, or without certain features.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 4:49:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: What you need to add here, odobo, is that once they show you have an assault weapon (as defined above) in your possession, you have to prove it is exempt from the prohibition against owning it by proving it is a "pre-ban". That grandfathers it, and makes it legal for you to possess.
View Quote
if this is true then it is unconstitutional. It is upon the gov't to prove your guilt, not upon you to prove your innocense.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:10:17 PM EDT
The 'ATF letter' is just some agency (or more likely, agent) position statement, it's not law and it may even contradict law. Some pencil jockey just decided to put it down in print for God knows what reason.
View Quote
You go right on believing that. The problem is that the ATF is not your father's government agency. They are the only agency that has both the power to make rules and the power to enforce them as law. Admittedly, the Constitutional basis for this is shaky at best, but if they say 'he goes to jail' and he goes to jail, then there's little more to be said about it except for 'Gee, I guess they DO have that power, after all!' Their word has been taken and upheld before various courts, up to and including the United States Supreme Court, many times.
So the ATF issued this 'guidance' on transfers, it represents the *opinion* of one or more agents. Nothing more, nothing less.
View Quote
No. MUCH more. Their word does in fact carry the weight of law. If they say you're in violation, you've got a court date and hopefully a sharp lawyer. Their word is law. Literally. As I just said, though, the Constitutionl basis for their legal authority is questionable at best.
There is just no way that you could be convicted of breaking some ATF position document.
View Quote
I'm quite sure that there are quite a few inmates who would disagree with you on that. CJ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:24:34 PM EDT
cmjohnson, You are just as right as you are wrong. *If* the BATF is willing to go *that* far, NOBODY is safe. Gun Buyer A has a preban SP1 transfered to him though AAA Guns. Gun is complete when transfered with all "evil" features. Gun buyer B has a preban lower transfered to him through AAA Guns. Gun does not have 2 evil features. What you don't seem to understand is Gun buyer A has 0, zilch, nada, no, proof of any sort that is transfer was ANY different. BATF says both guns were transfered without features. Both say that there gun had the features at time of transfer. Please explain the difference between the two in the BATFs eyes? BATF says please show me the document showing the features were present. Nobody can produce any proof or document because there isn't any. Bottom line is regardless of what anyone wants to think, it is the same boat.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:31:39 PM EDT
Trickshot, What part of North Carolina are you in, because I think someone is jerking your chain. I have bought at least 8 handguns in the last 3 years, and I have never had a NICS check at the time of purchase. The permit is all that you need. Hell, you can even use the permit to purchase long guns as well. All without the NICS check. All I do is fill out the 4473, hand over the permit, pay the man and walk out the door. If you get your NC concealed handgun permit, you also get a permanent Brady on all rifles and shotguns as well. No more worrying about being delayed! [:D] Vulcan94
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:58:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MarineGrunt:
Originally Posted By DScott: What you need to add here, odobo, is that once they show you have an assault weapon (as defined above) in your possession, you have to prove it is exempt from the prohibition against owning it by proving it is a "pre-ban". That grandfathers it, and makes it legal for you to possess.
View Quote
if this is true then it is unconstitutional. It is upon the gov't to prove your guilt, not upon you to prove your innocense.
View Quote
That may be, but the way I understand it is this: the law says it is illegal to possess an assault weapon (defined above). The "pre-ban" AR as we know it is an exception to that rule. If you have one, it is up to you to prove it is to provide a defense against the charge that you illegally possessed an illegal assault weapon. You are, of course, considered innocent of the charge until they prove you're guilty. But it seems that all they have to do to prove you're guilty is to show you "knowingly possessed" such a weapon. Now you're guilty, unless you can show the pre-ban status. Does that explanation make sense?
Top Top