Posted: 7/27/2008 11:47:53 AM EDT
|
This thread is not about whether or not an AWB will be passed. Let's assume a new Assault Weapon Ban becomes law, and it's written and/or interpreted/enforced so that stripped lower receivers are not grandfathered in... what minimum assembly would be required for it to be grandfathered in? I'm thinking the following parts put together would qualify: barrel, flash hider, upper receiver, lower receiver, pistol grip, and, if you want them, a retractable stock and a bayonet lug. This would make it have all of the features that would otherwise be banned (at least in combination). Sure, it wouldn't be functional, but who says a rifle has to be operational? Of course, you could just buy a few lowers and assemble them after the ban and probably get away with it. It's not like everytime you go shooting, an ATF agent is going to say "Show me a dated receipt from when you purchased that upper and parts!" But both HR 1022 and HR 6257 both have grandfather clauses, but they seem vague enough that the Attorney General and ATF could go after stripped receivers built after the ban. This idea of minimal assembly is for those of us who want to be prepared for the worst. |
|
This was a topic of continual conversation/debate during the '94-'04 ban. In that ban, just because a lower was made prior to the ban didn't make it automatically "pre-ban". It had to have been actually assembled into an "assault weapon" configuration before the ban took effect. That issue caused a lot of "what if" questions, because lots of people had rifles that were pre-ban, but there was no way to prove it. The big argument was about who had the burden of proof. The law says the burden of proof is on the accuser regardless of any BS spouted by some folks here back at that time (or now, for that matter). Those folks can talk all they want. It doesn't change that fact. Still, if you had several lowers and only one upper, it wouldn't be a bad idea to assemble each one, take a dated photo of it showing the serial number, then disassemble it and do the same with the next one, and the next one, and so on, then mail the info to yourself or use some other method to prove it was done on the dates you say it did. That would just be prudent, regardless of the fact that the law says the bad guys have to prove you did something wrong. Sometimes the bad guys twist the law any way they see fit simply because they have the badge. Just my .02. - Edited to add: I don't remember ever hearing of anyone asking someone at a range for proof. I'd imagine the only time that stuff would have been prosecuted was if someone was already in legal trouble for some other more substantial thing and that charge might have been added to the other stuff. |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.