Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/24/2003 5:30:34 AM EDT
Hey folks, I'm looking at a preban bushmaster. Its in another state and I checked with BM. the lower was shipped as a lower in 93. This guy bought it assembled 12/93 but the dealer reciepts[two of them]lists parts but no barrel, not an assembled weapon.The seller says he will make a document that the rifle was assembled preban[FWIW I believe him]. I have researched on the web and read the "complete kit and prove it". This seems contrary to innocent til proven guilty.If I am understanding this right you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.Is this correct.Appreciate any help. Thanks,Bugler
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:36:27 AM EDT
If it's preban by the date of manufacture, and there is no documentation showing that it has been sold in a post-ban configuration, you're good to go. It's preban. Don't worry about it. I would absolutely not hesitate to use this rifle at a public range frequented even by very nosy cops. CJ
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:47:14 AM EDT
I agree with cmjohnson . If you know the reciever is preban its preban. The guy says he had a barrel on it, he had a barrel on it. Know how long to put a barreled reciever on and off? about 15 seconds . Go for it.If you do pass give us the where and how much.....WD
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:52:12 AM EDT
Thanks CJ, Any thoughts on the complete kit and prove it? Am I misunderstanding this? Bugler
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:59:01 AM EDT
Thanks Wardawg,It's $1265. shipped. If I pass I'll post it. From what I've seen here this is a good deal. he says just fired 1 mag through it.looks real clean in pics. Bugler
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 8:39:19 AM EDT
IMO, it is a waste of money to buy a pre-ban today unless you have a specific need. I could see spending the extra 40% if you have a surpressor or something like that. However, you could just wait another 10 months and then buy all you want. Even if the ban is re-instated, you can still buy a pre-ban then.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:05:53 AM EDT
But pre-ban prices are going down, and this rifle sounds like it may be worth it, based on what's been described. Granted, the price isn't as low as a new post-ban in a conventional configuration, but all things considered, it seems to be quite fair at this time. I truly believe the ban will be allowed to sunset and not replaced...but the price of pre-ban rifles will bounce back up if I'm wrong. It's a minor gamble one way or the other. Where in the fundamental legal values of our system does it say "guilty until proven innocent"? Nowhere. The reverse was, is, and hopefully always shall be true. You don't have to PROVE preban status. The prosecutor has to PROVE that it has lost that status. Any attempt on his part to say otherwise is in direct conflict with the fundamental premise of our judicial system, and will NOT fly in a good court. CJ
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:06:29 AM EDT
Not a waste if you live in a state like NY where the AW ban is a permanent state law or IL where it will most likely be the same (actually even worse, no SALES of prebans or hicap mags!)in about 30 days.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:32:37 AM EDT
CJ, On the 1st page of this site[info-AR primer]it says a preban lower is not neccisarily a preban unless it was a complete weapon before ban date and you can prove it, or something to that effect. To me this is having to prove innocense. Check it out. I'm new here so maybe I'm missing something. appreciate the input. Bugler
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:52:45 AM EDT
They have a 20 inch colt preban at a shop around my area for $1300 Should I throw this one on lawaway?
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:54:55 AM EDT
Q3131A, it has what seller describes as a muzzle break on a 14.5 barrel.As far as the sunset goes I'm a farmer and I have been sold out by the central government on free trade and cheap imports, backdoor deals more times than I can count. While I hope your are right I plan for the worst and hope for the best. Bugler
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:05:33 AM EDT
1. It's not a factory gun. No Warranty. No manufacturer support. 2. It does not have proven documentation that it was assembled into an assault weapon before 9/94. So, it could whined up in a semantic discussion with a Judge vs the ATF (probably not). 3. It is over $1,200 dollars. You can buy a new Bushmaster for less than $900. If you shop around, you can probably find a great deal on a used post ban. I bought a factory RRA 16" with a tack sling with less than 1000 rounds fired for under $600 after tax this weekend. 4. If you buy a post ban today and the ban is renewed/strengthened, your post ban becomes a preban. 5. I just don't see why someone would spend the extra money.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:24:35 AM EDT
Dawg, ya I moved to PA from NJ. Bugler
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:55:11 AM EDT
Q3131,yea I've thought these points through.I don't want to spend extra cash but I like the colapsing stock for toting around on 4 wheeler. I take it you dont agree with CJ and WD that this is a pre ban rifle.Also what do you mean if i buy a postban now it is pre ban if the AWB is renued. You think it will allow Preban features. Thanks Bugler
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 12:00:54 PM EDT
If the ban is strengthened and ARs are restricted further, your post ban will now be more valuable. That is what I meant. If the ban is renewed and not strengthened, then your post ban has not lost any value. If the ban is not renewed, your post ban is as valuable as a preban (since prebans will fall in price). You can now add the folding stock ($75) and have the barrel threaded ($50) and still have alot less in the gun than if you bought a pre-ban.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 12:03:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bugler: I take it you dont agree with CJ and WD that this is a pre ban rifle.
View Quote
I agree that it is probably a pre-ban rifle. But, the question is does the ATF agree.
Also what do you mean if i buy a postban now it is pre ban if the AWB is renued. You think it will allow Preban features.
View Quote
If the ban is renewed, you will not be allowed preban features. If the ban is not renewed, you will be allowed preban features.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 1:45:56 PM EDT
The ATF is not a law making agency. And, despite the claims of some people and even some agencies to the contrary, the fundamental legal principle that our justice system is built upon is "innocent until proven guilty". NO exceptions. I state categorically that I would absolutely NOT hesitate to be seen at a range with a rifle that I (A) know to be pre-ban by date of manufacture and (B) know to NOT have any records of its past history that would indicate that it has EVER been transferred while in a post-ban condition. You're obsessing over what is essentially a very tiny little rock, anyway. Save your worries for big rocks. When is the last time anyone checked any of your firearms to see if they're legally configured, anyway? DON'T SWEAT IT. REALLY. Your rifle is pre-ban by date of manufacture and nobody has any proof or even evidence that it has ever been sold when stripped of its pre-ban features, and that's that. You're good to go. The burden of proof of a crime always rests with the prosecutor. The burden of proof of innocence does NOT rest with the defense. You don't have to prove innocence, HE has to prove GUILT...and he can't do that. CJ
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 3:55:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Knife_Sniper: They have a 20 inch colt preban at a shop around my area for $1300 Should I throw this one on lawaway?
View Quote
depends on the exact model.., need more info !!
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 4:30:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: The ATF is not a law making agency. And, despite the claims of some people and even some agencies to the contrary, the fundamental legal principle that our justice system is built upon is "innocent until proven guilty". NO exceptions. I state categorically that I would absolutely NOT hesitate to be seen at a range with a rifle that I (A) know to be pre-ban by date of manufacture and (B) know to NOT have any records of its past history that would indicate that it has EVER been transferred while in a post-ban condition. You're obsessing over what is essentially a very tiny little rock, anyway. Save your worries for big rocks. When is the last time anyone checked any of your firearms to see if they're legally configured, anyway? DON'T SWEAT IT. REALLY. Your rifle is pre-ban by date of manufacture and nobody has any proof or even evidence that it has ever been sold when stripped of its pre-ban features, and that's that. You're good to go. The burden of proof of a crime always rests with the prosecutor. The burden of proof of innocence does NOT rest with the defense. You don't have to prove innocence, HE has to prove GUILT...and he can't do that. CJ
View Quote
CJ - I think you and I have debated this before, but that is NOT how the law works here. Whether a gun is a pre-ban or not is a defense, the burden of proof for which falls upon the defendant. A prima facia case is made if the prosecutor can prove one knowingly possessed a weapon meeting the statutory definition of an "assault weapon" (18 USC 921(a)(30)). Whether that particular gun is a preban or not is a defense to the charge. I'll agree with you that the chance of getting caught and prosecuted for it at this point in time is probably very slim to nil. For this code section, the burden of proof still falls upon the prosecution, but their burden is only to prove one possessed a rifle with a detachable mag and two or more preban features.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 4:40:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 5:04:08 AM EDT by inkaybee]
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: The ATF is not a law making agency. And, despite the claims of some people and even some agencies to the contrary, the fundamental legal principle that our justice system is built upon is "innocent until proven guilty". NO exceptions. I wish that were true, but infact, it is not always the case. The 94 ban bans ALL "assualt rifles" and then sets up as an exception, the AFFERMATIVE DEFENSE of the rifle being manufactured before sept 14th 1994. It is up to the accused to prove an affermative defense. However, the standard of proof is not as high as when the govt has to prove your guilt (beyond a resonable doubt). The standard you as a defndant have to meet is the "perponderence of the evidence" (which boiles down to more likely than not). So the court is going to want some eveidence form you. Also the ATF makes laws every day. When they interpret and impliment acts of congress they make law. The federal register is filled with millions of pages of executive law. Edit to add I don't know if this "compleate rifle" rule was acctually ever published or if it was just an advisory optinion from some geek at ATF. But if they wanted to, ATF could drag you into court for having a preban that left the factory as a lower only. Their "compete rifle" rule would be subject to judicial scruntiny to see if it falls within the intent ot purpose of the 94 ban. Since the purpose of the ban was to limmit the number of assualt rifles a judge might agree with this rule as it further limits the number of assualt rifles. If taht were to happen the burden would be on you to show evidence that it was assembled before sept 14 1994. Again, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but more likley than not. I am not an Attorny but that is my educated understanding of "the law" on this matter. Any lawyers please chime in. P.S. Sorry no time to spell check. I have to get to work.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 5:05:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 5:06:58 AM EDT by cmjohnson]
Originally Posted By inkaybee:
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: The ATF is not a law making agency. And, despite the claims of some people and even some agencies to the contrary, the fundamental legal principle that our justice system is built upon is "innocent until proven guilty". NO exceptions. I wish that were true, but in fact, it is not always the case. The 94 ban bans ALL "[blue]assault[/blue] rifles" and then sets up as an exception, the [blue]AFFIRMATIVE[/blue] DEFENSE of the rifle being manufactured before sept 14th 1994. It is up to the accused to prove an [blue]affirmative[/blue] defense. However, the standard of proof is not as high as when the govt has to prove your guilt (beyond a resonable doubt). The standard you as a [blue]defendant[/blue] have to meet is the "[blue]preponderance[/blue] of the evidence" (which [blue]boils[/blue] down to more likely than not). So the court is going to want some [blue]evidence from[/blue] you. Also the ATF makes laws every day. When they interpret and [blue]implement[/blue] acts of congress they make law. The federal register is filled with millions of pages of executive law.
View Quote
[blue]Words in blue have been edited to correct spelling for clarity's sake only. No "spelling nazi" tactics are intended. [/blue] I know what the ban says and its crap about the affirmative defense. However, this point by itself is eligible for legal challenge. There is no other aspect of the law that I can think of at this moment which places the burden of proof on the defense rather the prosecution. This says that you can be prosecuted for "knowingly possessing" a rifle which is (or presumably, was at some point) configured as an "assault rifle" (though the true definition of an assault rifle includes fully automatic operation...the ban uses a duplicate term with a different meaning) but in the specific instance we started out discussing here in this topic, the original poster has as much as said that to the best of his knowledge, this particular Bushy has NOT been an "assault rifle" by its configuration. If there are no records that prove it was ever configured as an assault weapon, and it has a pre-ban date of manufacture, and you are not aware of it ever having been so configured, then you have satisfied the letter of this erroneous interpretation of the law. At NO place in the written text of the law does it say that an assault rifle can lose its pre-ban status by having its distinguishing characteristics removed, nor does it say that a post-ban rifle which had a pre-ban upper attached to it and then removed and replaced with a legal (for this rifle) post-ban upper has become an assault rifle forever. You have to get this through your head: Only the written text of the law is of consequence in a court that properly respects the law. While the courts are likely to respect the interpretations of agencies like the BATF when it comes to a need for a practical interpretation, but there have been many instances where a smart judge has discounted the testimony and OPINION of such an agency when in fact it is not possible to follow that agency's OPINION on what the law says by evaluating the text of the law. An opinion that goes beyond the meaning of the text of the law is an invalid opinion that need only be challenged in a court of law which is presided over by an honest and smart judge. There is NOTHING in the law's text that says that a pre-ban rifle can lose its assault rifle status, for example. ATF says that, the law's text does NOT. This OPINION of the ATF needs only to be challenged in the right court to be rejected. CJ
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 5:20:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By inkaybee: ...I am not an Attorny but that is my educated understanding of "the law" on this matter. Any lawyers please chime in.
View Quote
Already done. And I agree with you completely. (thats shaggy, [i]Esq.[/i])
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 7:35:23 AM EDT
Inkaybee And Shaggy,Thanks for the input. CJ and WD commented that if the seller says it was a complete rifle 12/93 it was.Will this fly and if not will it get the buyer off the hook and put the seller on it? Seller is willing to provide a Doc. like this. This seems like a huge issue that needs to be clarified[I guess by a trial]. I'd bet there are truckloads of rifles like this. Thanks Bugler
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 7:38:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bugler: Inkaybee And Shaggy,Thanks for the input. CJ and WD commented that if the seller says it was a complete rifle 12/93 it was.Will this fly and if not will it get the buyer off the hook and put the seller on it? Seller is willing to provide a Doc. like this. This seems like a huge issue that needs to be clarified[I guess by a trial]. I'd bet there are truckloads of rifles like this. Thanks Bugler
View Quote
If we are lucky, they point will be moot in September of next year.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 8:55:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bugler: Inkaybee And Shaggy,Thanks for the input. CJ and WD commented that if the seller says it was a complete rifle 12/93 it was.Will this fly and if not will it get the buyer off the hook and put the seller on it? Seller is willing to provide a Doc. like this. This seems like a huge issue that needs to be clarified[I guess by a trial]. I'd bet there are truckloads of rifles like this. Thanks Bugler
View Quote
No, there IS no huge issue that needs to be clarified. If the seller is willing to provide documentation that it was built as an assault weapon before the date the ban went into effect, that's great, but do you actually, truly NEED it? No, you do not. If the seller is the original purchaser of the lower, then even in the most unlikely of circumstances, you have NOTHING to worry about as you can refer any (highly unlikely) legal inquiries about the rifle to HIM. Let me make this as simple as I possibly can, because I admit this is a bit frustrating to have to keep hammering the same nail. The lower was made before the ban. It's pre-ban. Nobody has any evidence that it has ever lost its pre-ban status. So it's still pre-ban, PERIOD. Buy it and be done with it...or don't. If you're THAT paranoid over the issue, maybe you should just wait until the ban sunsets, or buy only post-ban rifles so you don't have to worry over the EXTREMELY REMOTE possibility that someone might actually bother to check your rifle when you're at the range. Side question here: Can ONE of you here truthfully say that ANY law enforcement officer has EVER checked ANY of your weapons to make sure they're in compliance with the AW ban of 1994? Anyone? Bueller? Quit obsessing over this tiny little rock. The rifle's legal and that's that. Buy it or don't, but just stop worrying about it one way or the other. CJ
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 11:16:23 AM EDT
CJ, I'm not asking these questions to frustrate you. I'm trying to gather facts and opinions so I can make an informed decision. And I agree it will probably never be an issue but if you ever use it for self defense it will surely be. The primer on the homepage seems to agree with Shaggy and Inkaybee. Maybe your dissenting opinion shoud be on there to. It doesnt seem right for the feds to expect me to play by the rules but not tell what those rules are. Thanks for the posts Bugler
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 11:21:08 AM EDT
I hope your right. Bugler
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 11:26:40 AM EDT
Knife sniper, I wasn't sure if you meant for you or me. What part of TX? My brother lives in Port Aransis on the gulf. Bugler
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 11:39:46 AM EDT
How are you guys bringing parts of a previous post into your replies. I tried highliting before I click reply and it won't do it Thanks Bugler
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 12:41:39 PM EDT
Well I will admit, my interpretation is based on a bolder approach to the matter, based on the fact that American jurisprudence is founded on the simple concept of "innocent until proven guilty" at the deepest level, and the next level up states that the burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused. The often mentioned "affirmative defense" clause and related issues mentioned in the unConstitutional Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, directly conflict with these fundamental ideals of American jurisprudence, and if directly challenged in a just court, will be found invalid. I'm absolutely sure of it. You can't be arrested (legally, anyway) for drug possession if you don't possess any drugs. You can't be arrested for ANYTHING ELSE if there is no evidence supporting the idea that there has been a crime committed. Why would we allow THIS to be different? I, sir, DO NOT. Nor will any honest cop, prosecutor, or judge. But let's break it all the way down. You are considering buying a rifle built on a receiver that is unquestionably "pre-ban" by its date of manufacture. You are buying it from the ORIGINAL purchaser. You and/or the original purchaser can certify that the rifle has never been out of "assault rifle configuration" at any point since it was purchased. So what's the problem? You're all set even if you take the "timid as a frequently buggered rabbit" attitude. Get the owner to provide a note saying as much, that it was always configured legally as an AW since before the ban came into effect, file it away, and forget about it unless lighning strikes and you have to dig it out to provide proof even though the part of the law that requires this proof is itself an invalid component of an unconstitutional law. It's that simple. Get the note, save it, and buy the flipping rifle! Everybody's happy. CJ
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 2:15:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 4:20:35 PM EDT
cmjohnson Thank you for fixing my spelling. I was late for work because I was writing that post. Shaggy must have chimed in while I was typing. Let me say I think this rule is complete bull shit. I don't think it has ever been published. I think some ass at ATF made it up. And ,I doubt if they will ever prosecute based on this rule. However, affirmative defenses exist throughout american criminal jurisprudence. For example in most states if you shoot an armed assailant who is mugging you and raping your wife, you have commited murder. All the state has to prove is that you pulled the trigger and the bad guy is dead. Then the burden shifts to you to prove the affirmative defense of self defense. Again, not beyond a reasonable doubt, just the perponderance of the evidence. Like it or not sometimes in our wacky justice system the accused has to prove his own innocence. I think it sucks but that is the way it is. Kris
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 4:33:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: The often mentioned "affirmative defense" clause and related issues mentioned in the unConstitutional Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, directly conflict with these fundamental ideals of American jurisprudence, and if directly challenged in a just court, will be found invalid. I'm absolutely sure of it. You can't be arrested (legally, anyway) for drug possession if you don't possess any drugs. You can't be arrested for ANYTHING ELSE if there is no evidence supporting the idea that there has been a crime committed.
View Quote
Not to beat a dead horse but.... Let's say you are stopped and found to be in possession of a bottle of perscription pain killers. The state could charge you with possesion of a controlled substance. The burden would be on you to show you had an Rx. If you could not, the state would not be obligated to prove that you did not have an Rx and you would be going to jail.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 4:53:14 PM EDT
But the difference there is that the prescription drugs are in and of themselves controlled items requiring authorization to own. Not the case with AW's...not in most states. Anyway, the law's the law...but that doesn't mean that it's always right or even in compliance with the higher principles known as our Constitution. CJ
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 5:39:10 AM EDT
CJ - I think I understand your problem with what might seem like a reversal of the presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty' as applied to the 94AWB. The problem, however, is in how the law defines the 'crime'. The crime, is manufacture, transfer, or possession of ANY weapon meeting the statutory definition of a "semiautomatic assault weapon". Thats it. The crime, as legislated by Congress, is NOT the manufacture, transfer, or possession a semiautomatic assault weapon [i]made or assembled after 9-13-94[/i]. The presumption is still 'innocent until proven guilty', but the apparent misunderstanding is over the question of exactly what Congress criminalized with 922(v), ie. 'what constitutes the actual crime'? Its only up to the prosecutor to prove the essential elements of the crime, not to disprove every possible defense. Unfortunately, here the essential elements of the crime are few and have been drawn so broadly as to make it a very easy win for a prosecutor if you don't have some sort of proof to show the weapon qualifies for statutory defense. I know that sucks, but look at who wrote this piece of sh$t. Wasn't Diane Fine-stain the author of the bill? Would you expect less from that...umm...er....woman? Fortunately, this law has never really been enforced on a widespread basis. If it gets renewed or made permanent that may change though. However, I don't disagree with you that right now its a "tiny rock". Its still a rock though, and I don't know anyone who likes getting hit with rocks.
Top Top