Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 6/5/2003 6:01:51 PM EDT
If a Pre Ban Lower left the Factory as just a Lower you can not use it as a Pre Ban Rifle?

What's the Difference?

It left the Factory as a Lower but was made into a Rifle before the ban than it's OK?

I don't get it ??

Thanks..

Link Posted: 6/5/2003 6:20:42 PM EDT
By law the firearm had to be made into a complete rifle before the ban took place. Now sounds good in theory but there really is no way to tell. If it was laying around in a safe and then after the ban it was made into a rifle then it is not a pre-ban. If it was made into a rifle before the ban then yes it is a legal pre-ban firearm. You can look things up under the AR15.com legal section for better help.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 6:25:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 6:27:15 PM EDT by Troy]
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 6:29:31 PM EDT
But how would anyone know positively if it were complete before or after? And how would anyone know if it were ever transferred separately in the interim?
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 6:52:15 PM EDT
I've heard that you're are responsible for the origins of your preban. So if a BATF agent comes up to you and questions your rifle it's your responsibility to present written proof that it was assembled into a complete rifle before 1994... such BS if you ask me.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 10:31:45 PM EDT
if they ask about my lower i'm going to ask them how they knew their wife was a virgin when they married her.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 10:50:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 10:55:14 PM EDT by NAM]
Originally Posted By Troy: Also, per BATF, if the gun was a SAW, but was ever transferred while not in SAW configuration (such as a lower-only), it can no longer legally be put back in SAW configuration. -Troy
View Quote
I know there was a big debate about this a whiel back. Did the BATF finally say this? IS there a letter or something to reference this? I have always been in agreement, but got flamed because of it. I would love to stick proof in the flamer's faces. Also, if i may add... A stripped Colt AR-15 lower receiver..manufactured before the ban...IS preban. Colt AR15 was specifically banned by name. Am i wrong?
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 4:38:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NAM:
Originally Posted By Troy: Also, per BATF, if the gun was a SAW, but was ever transferred while not in SAW configuration (such as a lower-only), it can no longer legally be put back in SAW configuration. -Troy
View Quote
I know there was a big debate about this a whiel back. Did the BATF finally say this? IS there a letter or something to reference this? I have always been in agreement, but got flamed because of it. I would love to stick proof in the flamer's faces. Also, if i may add... A stripped Colt AR-15 lower receiver..manufactured before the ban...IS preban. Colt AR15 was specifically banned by name. Am i wrong?
View Quote
You're right. Since Colt did not sell recievers only until after the ban went into effect, a preban numbered Colt AR15 is by definition a preban weapon. Yes, the whole deal is insane. So what else is new with federal laws and BATF regulations? What's worse? The insanity of the regs in Colt's home state of Connecticut. They built the damn things not 15 minutes away from the state capital building, and the idiots in that building passed a law the citizens of the state can't own one (if I correctly understand what I've seen posted on this site). Lord, am I glad I got the hell out of Southern New England (Mass.) 40 years ago. Those people are bonkers.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 4:43:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: That's because there aren't any "pre-ban lowers", only "grandfathered semi-automatic assault weapons." By (legal) definition, a "semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW)" must be a COMPLETE rifle, capable of semi-automatic fire, and feeding from a detachable mag. Note that the definition of SAW is *not* the same as the definition of "firearm." A stripped AR lower is legally a firearm, but NOT legally a SAW. If it was, then all civilian AR production would have ended on 9/13/94. So, a lower, without a complete upper and enough "banned" features, could not have been a SAW. And if it wasn't a SAW on 9/13/94, it wasn't legally grandfathered. Also, per BATF, if the gun was a SAW, but was ever transferred while not in SAW configuration (such as a lower-only), it can no longer legally be put back in SAW configuration. -Troy
View Quote
I'm still learning the terminology...I thought a SAW is a "Squad Automatic Weapon"? I know...off topic...
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 11:42:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 4:13:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/7/2003 4:16:13 PM EDT by neilfj]
Nam...here's the letter (or the text of it). As correctly stated by Troy, there are no such thing as a pre-ban lower, only a pre-ban weapon. So, all the people selling stripped, pre-ban lowers are in fact selling very expensive lowers that according to the ATF ruling, can not be legally made into a pre-ban weapon. The only way to do it is to sell the lower, complete with the collapsable stock and grip, so that it retains its preban status. the use of the term pre-ban as it relates to a lower is that it was manufactured before the ban, not that it can be made into a pre-ban assault weapon. The specific section you requested is the italicized paragraph. What is more interesting is the italic + underlined section. What it means, since it is incumbent upon you to prove the status of your SAW if you are ever charged with a violation of the ban, you not only have to prove it was manufactured and assembled as a SAW prior to the ban date, but you also must prove that all dealers/owners prior to you, also maintained and transferred it in pre-ban status. Now, if only I could find a copy of the actual letter!!!
**************************************­****** DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 NOV 16 2001 Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX: 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 assault 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. [i]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).[/i] [i][u]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.[/i][/u] We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Curtis H.A. Bartlett Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 4:40:39 PM EDT
i just sold a preban lower. no upper on it but lower half was complete with stock. after the sale the buyer gave me the stock back as a 'gift'. so i guess i did sell it in preban config.
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 9:41:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 4:02:13 AM EDT
Funny how every letter from the ATF concerning law says "we have determined". Why do letters from a law enforcement agency read like court rulings...
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 5:01:03 AM EDT
I have doubted the enforceability of this letter from day 1 for several reasons. This letter is also so ludicrous and full of holes that I have doubted its validity as well - I certainly hope nobody at the ATF was stupid enough to write such a letter. The assault weapons ban does _not_ have any provision for the loss of pre-ban status but it's _only_ requirement for grandfathered status is that it was a SAW before the ban. The rest is merely speculation on the ATF's part. The ATF has piled interpretation over interpretation in an attempt to make a new law. This doesn't fly. The AWB only requires: "(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subsection. The definition in the AWB of a SAW does _not_ say it has to be capable of semi-automatic fire. It says: "(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- First lets dispell the word "rifle". By definition: RIFLE - A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. 18 USC A lower receiver that is designed for these purposes is considered a rifle. And as we know, the lower half is considered a firearm by the ATF just as an M16 lower is considered a machine gun and will get you 10 years at club fed. Just as a lower with full-auto parts makes it a full auto firearm, a lower with semi-auto parts makes it a semi-automatic firearm. If you had a post-ban lower with a collapsible stock on it, the ATF would most certainly bust you. Make no mistake about it. The upper is irrelevent if it has 2+ assault features on the lower because no matter what upper you choose (pre or post ban) it is still an assault weapon. Regardless of this, though, one who is paranoid has several different loopholes to consider. Also consider that the letter said it would lack the necessary _components_ ... they didn't say "was not fully assembled into a firearm capable of firing rounds". I suspect that this letter was in response to stripped lowers, as the wording of the letter suggests that a lower with a collapsible buttstock and pistol grip could have the necessary "components" to make a SAW...but that's irrelevent as is this whole letter. First of all, even though [Joe Bob's Rifle] was not named by manufacturer, the following terminology is used in section 1 of the AWB to name all AR-15 clones: (A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as-- "(iv) Colt AR-15; Since Colt is the patent holder for the AR-15, any other AR-15 clone is considered a 'copy or duplicate' of it thus is technically covered under section 1, and would have the same "pre-ban" protection that a true Colt AR-15 would have. So it is fair to say that the first section names all AR-15 clones, and that the sections thereafter are designed to catch any designs (and not manufacturers) not listed. Next, the ATF has alredy ruled that if an individual had all the parts in their posession to build a SAW before the ban, they can legally assemble the pre-ban. So if you already own a complete pre-ban and are replacing components (even a lower), the ATF would have to contradict themselves to say it is illegal. Finally, since breaking down your AR-15 for cleaning doesn't cause it to lose its pre-ban status, the lower you're thinking about buying is still a SAW if the dealer still posesses all the parts to make it a complete SAW (who doesn't) - it doesn't go into someone else's POSESSION until it is transferred to them. So if you want to buy it, and it does have grandfathered status, either send your upper half to the dealer, or bring it with you when you transfer it. Posession is OWNERSHIP and not LOCATION. Being in a UPS box is no different than being in my own personal storage, or in my safe. Otherwise it'd lose it's preban status if I mailed the lower in to get refinishes. Being _shipped_ as just a lower does not make it lose its pre-ban status, so if you're this paranoid just make sure of two things: 1. the dealer still has all the parts to assemble it in pre-ban configuration, and 2. you put your parts on it before you transfer it (technically you're selling your parts to the dealer, and then those parts are acting as replacement parts, then he's selling you the whole rifle). As I said before, however, this letter is complete BS and unenforcable at that. Despite what the ATF might _think_ they are _not_ the legislative branch. Nevertheless, I sure wouldn't want to be the one to test this in our biased legal system.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 5:08:18 AM EDT
If you think about the worst case scenario even more, I could run over my upper with the truck and have to buy a new upper. Discarding my old upper in anticipation of a new one doesn't cause the firearm to lose its pre-ban status...so I believe even in the worst possible case of this letter being enforcable, one could buy a pre-ban lower that they know was previously assembled onto a rifle before the AWB, and make sure it's assembled prior to the transfer. If you were to base whether it was an SAW on whether it's capable of firing semi-automatic, that means a completed rifle with a broken firing pin would lose its pre-ban status.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 8:00:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: Was the lower, by itself, capable of semi-automatic fire? No? Then it wasn't a SAW. -Troy
View Quote
I agree.... a lower in itself cannot be a SAW. HOWEVER.... you guys keep forgetting the part where weapons were banned by name. Colt AR15 was specifically banned by name. If you have a lower that says COLT AR15, it IS pre ban, even if it is a stripped lower. (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON.--Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: "(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means-- " [b](A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as -- "(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); "(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; "(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); "(iv) Colt AR-15; "(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; "(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; "(vii) Steyr AUG; "(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; [/b] and "(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; "(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- "(i) a folding or telescoping stock; "(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; "(iii) a bayonet mount; "(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and "(v) a grenade launcher; "(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- "(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; "(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; "(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; "(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and "(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and "(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- "(i) a folding or telescoping stock; "(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; "(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and "(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.". IF you have a lower that is marked COLT AR15, how can you assemble that into anything other than a BAnned COLT AR15?
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 8:05:59 AM EDT
The same argument applies for any AR-15 clone. The bill named not only the Colt AR-15, but all "copies or duplicates" of the Colt AR-15.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 11:38:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 1:22:57 PM EDT
Do you have any information on this alleged court ruling?
Top Top