Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/11/2002 2:46:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:47:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:01:22 PM EDT
Regardless of the claimed reason behind the "assault weapon ban", the [i]use[/i] to which it will be put will be to make ordinary otherwise law-abiding citizens guilty of a crime. Ayn Rand's [i][u]Atlas Shrugged:[/i][/u]
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. ...when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt."
View Quote
Prescient, wasn't she? Or just remarkably logical.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:01:46 PM EDT
The BATF would never be able to get this to stand up in court. Either a lower is a rifle or it isn't. Once a rifle is grandfathered, it becomes a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon. Now, they are saying that there is a way that a rifle become ungrandfathered after it has already been recognized as a semiautomatic assault weapon? I can see where it might fly if the lower itself weren't considered a rifle, but since it is the serial numbered part and it is the only controlable item under federal law then taking parts off of it should not change the status of what it is. Where in any law does it say anything about ungrandfathering? If this is the case then they are basically throwing away the once a rifle always a rifle or once a machinegun always a machinegun bullshit since basically, judging by their rules on assault weapons, taking something apart and selling just the receiver is enough to change it's status. Besides, all of those opinion letters are just that, opinions. They don't carry the weight of law and on the other hand won't protect you from prosecution either should a situation go that way.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:41:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:41:52 PM EDT
Basically this is saying that if you take a pre-ban AR-15 and split the upper and lower receivers and sell the lower receiver alone, it is considered a POST-BAN lower from that moment on.
View Quote
The BATF might not be able to get this to stand in court, but you would be arguing your case from a jail cell. Oh, and good luck getting your rifle back if you win.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:44:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: Actually, it's VERY likely that it would hold up in court. It is consistant with ATF's previous (restrictive) rulings. The part you are missing, Ponyboy, is that the law has defined the definitions of "rifle" and of "assault weapon", and those definitions are VERY different. Thus, restrictions on each will vary, and that's perfectly okay under the law. Under the definition of "assault weapon", it must be a complete gun capable of firing... Note the difference between the definition of a rifle, which by law can be just a receiver. -Troy
View Quote
Points taken. Still a bunch of bullshit if you ask me and hopefully the whole discussion will be moot come Sept 14, 2004.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:56:26 PM EDT
I have been told by ArmaLite (in e-mail that I still have on file) that a new "pre-ban" lower could be manufactured in order to replace a pre-ban that was no longer serviceable. I believe this to be widely held as acceptable. Is this now out the window? The "new pre-ban" has obviously never been assembled as a complete rifle with the evil features. Just what is their hang up with a bayonet lug. Oh! I get it. Liquor store bayonetings dropped to zero after the ban.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:31:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2002 1:37:42 PM EDT
Top Top