Posted: 2/11/2002 2:46:49 PM EDT
|
This letter from the ATF was posted in another forum on this site: "This refers to your letter of March 19, 2001, in which you ask about the status of certain semiautomatic assault weapons which have been altered to another configuration. As defined in section 921(a)(30), of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C:), the term "semiautomatic assaultic weapon" includes certain named weapons and certain semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that have a combination of enumerated features. Title 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(1) prohibits manufacture, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons; however, section 922(v)(2) provides that any semiautomatic assault weapon that was lawfully possessed under Federal law on September 13, 1994, is excluded from the prohibition. A frame or receiver of a semiautomatic assault weapon, meets the definition of a "firearm" in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3); however, a firearm frame or receiver alone, without the additional qualifying features, does not meet the definition of a "semiautomatic assault weapon" in section 921(a)(30). Therefore, a firearm frame or receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2). We have also determined that a semiautomatic assault weapon in knockdown (unassembled) condition consisting of a receiver and all parts needed to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon are subject to regulation if the parts are segregated or packaged together and held by a person as the parts for the assembly of a particular firearm. You describe an AR15 type rifle that met the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon and was lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. At some subsequent time the rifle was temporarily reassembled in a configuration such that it no longer had the qualifying features of a semiautomatic assault weapon. You asked if the original components could then be lawfully reinstalled on the rifle. Provided that the original components were held by the owner and reinstalled on the rifle, it is our opinion that the rifle would still qualify as an exempted semiautomatic assault weapon even though it had been temporarily assembled in a different configuration. We note, that mere disassembly of a semiautomatic weapon by an owner would not remove the firearm from the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon nor would the reassembly constitute manufacture of a prohibited semiautomatic assault weapon. [b]Your second question concerns a semiautomatic assault weapon that also meets the exemption in section 922(v)(2). However, this firearm was disassembled and the receiver, without other components, was sold. Since the receiver is no longer possessed with all parts necessary to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon, it no longer meets the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2) and assembly of this firearm in the configuration of a semiautomatic assault weapon would be prohibited under section 922(v)(1).[/b] [red]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.[/red] CONTINUED... |
|
If you are interested in determining the status of a particular receiver or semiautomatic assault weapon, you should contact the manufacturer or importer and ask about the date that it was manufactured and the configuration at the time of sale. It may also be necessary to contact subsequent dealers and owners who possessed the firearm. Sincerely yours, Curtis H.A. Bartlett" |
|
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." Prescient, wasn't she? Or just remarkably logical. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. 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. |
|
Quoted: 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 Points taken. Still a bunch of bullshit if you ask me and hopefully the whole discussion will be moot come Sept 14, 2004. |
|
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. |
|
No, there are BATF rulings in force that specifically allow the *original manufacturer* to "repair" a rifle, up to and including replacing the receiver (and destroying the original). This does require a variance from BATF, but BATF has given plenty of them out, and doesn't appear to be abandoning that. -Troy |
