AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/28/2002 1:17:21 PM EDT
|
Anyone know the serial number cutoff of the PWA lowers made prior to 9/14/94? Is 42,XXX pre-94? Were there some PWA lowers that were made and sold more recently and are those in the six-digit range? I know all the opinion about it having to be assembled into a 100% complete rifle and all that so I don't need to hear that for the zillionith time. |
|
Well that is one opinion and everyone is entitled to one but I don't share it. If you refer to my post the purpose of this enquiry is to know if anyone knows the sn cutoff at 9/14/94 and not to argue the issue of whether or not something had to be assembled or just manufactured. By federal statute the firearm = the receiver. Anyone know the PWA sn cutoff and what is their source of info? |
|
Well you could produce any kind of documentation you want, on PWA lowers, because there are no real records because they went out of buisness. and they were only sold as lowers, what you need is a serial# that is below the preban cutoff, and a recipt of the rifle being sold before the ban, and make sure it has something on the recipt about it having a colapsable stock etc. and of course it would be nice to have a way to verify it, but lets be realistic, RRA bought out PWA back in the day and the only records they have are on receivers,serial # 44000 and above which is way past the preban cutoff of 35222 so if your lucky you have a recipt of your rifle being bought before the ban saying something like this:( 16" PWA AR15 commando with retractable stock date 1 July 93)( not telling anyone to make a fake recipt this would be wrong) if not the only deffense you have is the serial number which may not be enough. I think it is but thats my opinion, otherwise buy a pre ban colt,or bushmaster with paperwork and when they question its status, pull out your paperwork and tell them to go F**K themselves. Edited because I kant writ |
|
Huge difference in a "firearm" and an "assault weapon"??? Not sure what the logical point of that comment is. Most people, and federal prosecutors who generally are well educated in the English language and meaning of words, consider an "assault weapon" to be a particular type of "firearm", i.e., a sub-category of a general classification of "weapons" or objects exhibiting certain characteristics. There is a legal definition of "firearm" in the U.S. Code. It has always been upheld by the courts to be the receiver. Agreed that we have the Diane Feinstein defination in the infamous 94 Crime Bill but that just defines a specific type of firearm. One that has evil features = an assault weapon type of firearm. |
| Dean, this has been hashed out for many, many years here, mostly on the legal forum with the participation of many lawyers. We bring no satisfaction in telling you you're wrong about the way it would be interpreted in a court of law. We'd like to tell you you're correct. But the law, as it is written, confirms what Troy and Chuck have said. |
|
What is the substance of your learned legal authority that makes your presumptive position so correct? I think there are just a bunch of lay opinions here, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't rely on any of them. I have no interest in debating the issue and did not solicit opinions as to what others thought was preban/postban. In fact I asked for people to refrain from such if you read my origonal post. I just asked if anyone knows the serial number cutoff of PWA's manufactured before 9/14/94 and what is the range or peculiar identification of those sold much later (~'99 or so) by RRA. |
AR Sponsor