Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/17/2001 3:47:11 AM EDT
Is it legal to put a folding stock on a pre-ban mini-14 ranch rifle? It does not have the bayonet lug or flash suppressor. I don't think it is illegal but would be interested if someone could give me the area of the law that addresses this issue. Also, does the folding stock count as two items since it would then have a "pistol grip" and a folding stock? Or is the folding stock with pistol grip considered one item?
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 1:57:03 PM EDT
Ordinarily, Yes it would be legal to put a folding stock on a pre ban rifle. However, just because a rifle was built before the ban doesn't make it a preban assault rifle. To be a legally grandfathered assault weapon it had to be in assault weapon configuration before the ban. A Mini-14 without 2 of the following (flash suppressor, bayonet lug, folding stock or pistol grip) wouldn't qualify as an assault weapon. Some others might argue that if you could prove the rifle was purchased before the ban then it would be hard for anyone else to prove it wasn't assembled as an assault weapon prior to the ban. Yes the folding stock would count as two items.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 12:04:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 11:46:43 PM EDT
I've had my mini-14 stainless ranch rifle since 7/90 (bought new) and within 3 years I had installed both the Butler Creek folding stock (bought at gunshow in Austin, TX) and a stainless flash suppressor on the gun. I have the reciept for the gun (of course the SN would show when the gun was purchased) but I have no reciepts or other means to prove that the gun was in AW config before 9/14/94. Not about to change it back, either.
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 1:20:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 9:24:28 PM EDT
Since your gun did not leave the factory configured as an assault weapon, you would have to have some proof that you had assembled it as such before 9/14/94. Otherwise, the gun is NOT a grandfathered assault weapon, and is "post-ban" regardless of when it was made.
View Quote
It's great that the BATF respect that "innocent until proven guilty" bit in the constitution, isn't it? Has this one ever gone to court? Despite what the ATF says in their letters and FAQs I can't imagine a court (even an anti-gun court) putting the burden of proof in a criminal case on the defendant. Although I do agree, it's better to be safe than sorry.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 3:24:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 3:37:10 PM EDT
Troy's right about the burden of proof on a 922(v)(1) charge. Unless the BATF or the AUSA want you badly, it's unlikely that you would be charged unless they could show that the weapon wasn't a 921(a)(30) assault weapon prior to 9/13/94. Then again, if you were a really bad boy with multiple charges, they might add it just to give themselves another bargaining chip.
Top Top