Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:23:34 AM EDT
We all know per the letter of the 1994 "Assualt Weapons" bill, building a post-ban AR-15 into pre-ban configuration is illegal. However, has there ever been any convictions?? I have asked several friends of mine (sheriffs and cops), and most agree that 99% of LEO's don't even know the difference between a post or pre-ban gun. Matter of fact, the general consensus was as long as the serial number checks out (ie, not stolen), then they could care less. It seems to me the only way the legalities would become involved is if the "illegally configured" weapon was used in a crime. I guess it's the same way with LEO/Gov't only mags. What does everyone else think?
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:30:36 AM EDT
The only real way to tell would be to run the serial number by the manufacturer. And that doesn't always work either, as for example, Olympic Arms lost all their records in a fire. I'm sure most average LEOs could care less, but BATF crud does-- it's their bread and butter and how they get ahead in their profession. Just ask the folks at Waco.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:32:13 AM EDT
I can imagine the only time some one will persue a convition for AW ban violations is when the the prosecution has alreaddy got you on something else and they are just trying to stack up the convictions. Or if they can't get you for the crime they really want.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:34:51 AM EDT
its safe until the BATF comes knocking with handcuffs and a rectal plug(to prep you for bubba).
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:36:56 AM EDT
I think many here would just rather play it safe and NOT go to an expense paid trip to Club Fed. Av.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:38:14 AM EDT
Certainly, all sorts of bad things [b]could[/b] happen, but the question was whether or not there's been an instance in which they actually [b]have[/b] happened. Has anyone been convicted of "manufacturing" a prohibited SAW by adding pre-ban features to a post-ban rifle? Maybe there haven't been any convictions because no one's broken the law. [;)]
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:28:32 AM EDT
Jason280, just don't bring it to the BRC, because we are all law abiding citizens and will yell at you!
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:47:10 AM EDT
I know what you mean, Torf!! But, it cracks me up the way people freak out when you mention using a collapsable stock on a post-ban gun. Besides, I don't think the BATF has (yet) created a special task force to "irradicate the influx of 'illegally' converted guns".
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:47:51 AM EDT
I know what you mean, Torf!! But, it cracks me up the way people freak out when you mention using a collapsable stock on a post-ban gun. Besides, I don't think the BATF has (yet) created a special task force to "irradicate the influx of 'illegally' converted guns".
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:57:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jason280: But, it cracks me up the way people freak out when you mention using a collapsable stock on a post-ban gun.
View Quote
We "freak out" because we follow the laws. I'm sure there are a few people here who put pre-ban parts on a post-ban gun. However, I think the majority do not. As for a "conviction", write a letter to the ATF office asking the same question. They should be able to provide a report on the number of people who have been convicted due to violations of the AW ban. I would have no idea when that data was last complied. Av.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 7:21:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rn45: I'm thinking even a BATF agent would have to be really dedicated to charge someone with a felony for failing to have a butthole stock on an AK-47 for example. I'm sure there are those that would do it, but how bad would it look in court if your attorney addressed the jury with: "My client is here today, in jeopardy of losing his freedom, his right to bear arms, his right to vote and to join the military, simply because his rifle doesn't have a small piece of wood between the buttstock and grip." Or for that matter, a screwed on flash hider as opposed to a tack welded muzzle brake, both of which look remarkably alike. I'm sure there are those who would charge a a person for it, but I haven't heard of any cases myself.
View Quote
I believe Ruby Ridge was perpetrated because of a shot gun that was 3/8" too short. Barrel was legal, but stock was a tad too short. Man had his wife, son, and dog killed because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. I'd put nothing past the SOBs.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 7:31:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl:
Originally Posted By rn45: I'm thinking even a BATF agent would have to be really dedicated to charge someone with a felony for failing to have a butthole stock on an AK-47 for example. I'm sure there are those that would do it, but how bad would it look in court if your attorney addressed the jury with: "My client is here today, in jeopardy of losing his freedom, his right to bear arms, his right to vote and to join the military, simply because his rifle doesn't have a small piece of wood between the buttstock and grip." Or for that matter, a screwed on flash hider as opposed to a tack welded muzzle brake, both of which look remarkably alike. I'm sure there are those who would charge a a person for it, but I haven't heard of any cases myself.
View Quote
I believe Ruby Ridge was perpetrated because of a shot gun that was 3/8" too short. Barrel was legal, but stock was a tad too short. Man had his wife, son, and dog killed because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. I'd put nothing past the SOBs.
View Quote
That's a different law (NFA). Besides, the weapons violation wasn't, as I understand it, the source of the problem. The feds set up Weaver because they wanted him to act as an informant for them.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 7:35:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2002 7:57:14 AM EDT by Dukota]
Originally Posted By marvl:
Originally Posted By rn45: I'm thinking even a BATF agent would have to be really dedicated to charge someone with a felony for failing to have a butthole stock on an AK-47 for example. I'm sure there are those that would do it, but how bad would it look in court if your attorney addressed the jury with: "My client is here today, in jeopardy of losing his freedom, his right to bear arms, his right to vote and to join the military, simply because his rifle doesn't have a small piece of wood between the buttstock and grip." Or for that matter, a screwed on flash hider as opposed to a tack welded muzzle brake, both of which look remarkably alike. I'm sure there are those who would charge a a person for it, but I haven't heard of any cases myself.
View Quote
I believe Ruby Ridge was perpetrated because of a shot gun that was 3/8" too short. Barrel was legal, but stock was a tad too short. Man had his wife, son, and dog killed because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. I'd put nothing past the SOBs.
View Quote
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOOTINGS AT RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO DURING ARREST OF RANDY WEAVER In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to aBATF informant. When BATF agents later attempted to enlistWeaver as an informant in their investigation of the AryanNations, Weaver refused to cooperate. Seven months later, thegovernment indicted Weaver for the illegal weapons sales.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 7:50:12 AM EDT
[url]http://www.gunsandgear.com/America%20Outdoors/Archives/fined.htm[/url] Guns in question were 10-22's equipped with pistol grip sidefolding stocks...
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 7:51:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 7:56:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2002 8:10:32 AM EDT by Dukota]
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Dukota, you need to read the book. When you say, "In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to aBATF informant," you make it sound much more significant than it really was. He cut off a shotgun to minimum length, for a fee, and, depending upon how it was measured, came up on the "short end of the stick." There was no deliberate attempt to commit a crime, not that that matters in the eyes of the law. To say he "sold illegal weapons . . ." makes it sound as if he were an illegal gun runner. He wasn't.
View Quote
Beekeeper, which book is that? I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant. I should have listed the source of that information. Took that off of a Dept of Justice report.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:09:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Dukota, you need to read the book. When you say, "In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to aBATF informant," you make it sound much more significant than it really was. He cut off a shotgun to minimum length, for a fee, and, depending upon how it was measured, came up on the "short end of the stick." There was no deliberate attempt to commit a crime, not that that matters in the eyes of the law. To say he "sold illegal weapons . . ." makes it sound as if he were an illegal gun runner. He wasn't.
View Quote
Besides, all that was BEFORE the 1994 bill.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:15:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:21:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Dukota: Beekeeper, which book is that? I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant. I should have listed the source of that information. Took that off of a Dept of Justice report.
View Quote
Not flaming you, just a suggestion, as the books are very frightening/interesting. The one I read was called something like "Incident at Ruby Ridge." I don't think that is the correct title, but it's close. There is a subsequent one called "Every Knee Shall Bow" that I have not read. I think it is told directly by the family. It is not surprising the DOJ would make it sound like a much worse violation than it really was. 7, he violated the 1934 NFA--nothing to do with the '94 law.
View Quote
Thanks Beekeeper. I'm flying to Dallas this afternoon. I'll stop by Barnes and Noble and see what I can find on the way to the airport.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:26:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: 7, he violated the 1934 NFA--nothing to do with the '94 law.
View Quote
I was replying because the original question had to do with the 94 bill, not NFA.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:37:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Noname: [url]http://www.gunsandgear.com/America%20Outdoors/Archives/fined.htm[/url] Guns in question were 10-22's equipped with pistol grip sidefolding stocks...
View Quote
Another casualty of the unconstitutional victimless crime laws.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:12:27 AM EDT
I second what marvl and thebeekeeper said. My personal opinion is that it's most likely to be used as a tack-on offense, but what if it's noticed during some unrelated police activity? Like your home got burglarized and they notice the gun, or and ex-girlfriend/wife/co-worker gets mad at you and makes up a report that you've got something illegal. Or lets say it's a recovered theft they're going to give back to you ....only ooops! "Is this *your* illegal assault weapon? Come with us son." Or lets say you have a car accident on the way to the range and they remove it from your car to hold while you're in the ambulance/hospital (true story for me). My point is that there are so many unknown instances where the fact that it's in an illegal configuration (no matter how stupid that law is) that for me it's just not worth taking the risk. Believe me, after just *one* run-in with the law where it's discovered that you're carrying an illegal assault weapon, you'll *wish* you had paid the extra $500 just to be legal. You'll probably be happy to get off after paying 10x that amount. For me it's not worth it. ymmv. Have fun, Observer
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:42:46 AM EDT
I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant.
View Quote
Was Weaver actually convicted on the weapons charge?
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:51:59 AM EDT
The ATF monitors this site, so why don't you answer us???????
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:54:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant.
View Quote
Was Weaver actually convicted on the weapons charge?
View Quote
The jury found Randy not guilty. They further found that they (the feds) entrapped him. He did not "sell" illegal weapons. The informant brought him guns to be altered, after bugging him on numerous occaisions to "help" him. Randy finally consented because his family was desperate for $$. It is common practice for undercover types to encourage people to break the law. They "create criminals" to justify their own existence. Beware of those who do this......
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:59:29 AM EDT
I don't care which law you quote, what a man's politics are, or whether or not there was an actual violation. The facts are plain and simple. The government murdered an innocent man's wife, son, and dog. I'd say that's a very good reason to be paranoid.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 10:00:01 AM EDT
Didn't David Koresh receive a fine for this also?
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 10:46:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Noname: [url]http://www.gunsandgear.com/America%20Outdoors/Archives/fined.htm[/url] Guns in question were 10-22's equipped with pistol grip sidefolding stocks...
View Quote
That was in Kalie--the '94 ban has nothing to do with rimfire rifles, your .22 can have all the evil features you want on it. Hell, an AR 2 with a .22LR upper can as well.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 10:58:41 AM EDT
Top Top