AR Sponsor
Posted: 9/11/2002 10:47:57 AM EDT
| How much is a complete Colt 9mm kit (minus lower and magwell-block) worth? |
|
Someone's talking about breaking the law here. I think this post has gone far enough and should be locked, as non illegal discussion on this site is not allowed. From the ATF FAQ page. Thus, a dealer who acquires such weapons for the purpose of stripping them of their assault weapon features and selling the modified weapons to the public violates the law. This is true even if the dealer strips the assault weapon features from the weapons so that they no longer meet the definition of semiautomatic assault weapon. The dealer may also have violated the law by making false statements to a supplier that the weapons were being acquired under an exception to the prohibition, e. g., for sales to law enforcement agencies or law enforcement officers. [18 U. S. C. 922( v), 27 CFR 178.40( c)] |
|
TommyBrown, From what you posted, it would only be illegal to sell the receiver (i.e., the "weapon", as mentioned) or a complete firearm. Selling the non-regulated parts, i.e., a 9mm upper kit, doesn't seem like it would be a problem, provided that the actual firearm (the receiver), was kept or sold back to LE. Rocko |
|
A buddy of mine who is an FFL/SOT (that's Class III dealer for you Marines) bought up a department's 6450s for a pretty good price. He's looking to make some money on them. One very legal way to do that is to strip the lower and sell the parts to someone like me who has an M16. How in the blue hell did you get the idea that anyone was selling LEO lowers "stripped of their assault weapon features"? My first post on this topic was that they were going to be parted out and the parts sold, not the LEO lowers. A LEO lower is basically worthless once it's stripped and it's a pretty straightforward paper shuffle to destroy them and get them off the books. |
|
He said $650 for everything. That's everything except a lower receiver. Just so there's no cornfusion, that means a collapseable stock, recoil spring, 9mm buffer, internals to the lower ( I think ) and the complete upper. They're the normal Colt A1-ish 9mm upper, not a flat top A3A4Aholewhatever upper. They're 16", 9mm and semi-auto. I haven't seen them yet. I'll probably get to put an eyeball on two of them on Sunday. They're supposed to be in less than perfect but not nasty condition. They were duty rifles and were carried a lot but not fired much. Like you can wear out a chrome lined 9mm barrel anyway..... I'm not sure who can do a clean cheap quick job of correctly hacking a 16" to 10.5" but once I get MY kit, that will be the next question of the day. I'll post more on Sunday evening once I've seen things first hand. Edited to add: They're the goofy large hammer and trigger pins. |
|
I'd be very interested to pick up JUST the essentials for a 9mm conversion. Meaning JUST the barrel and JUST the bolt and carrier, and just a mag block and just some mags...well, one mag to start with. I've got enough spare parts lying around to fill in the blanks myself. How little do you think I can get just these parts for? As for the 'stripping LEO weapon' legal issue, it applies to stripping the AW features off an LEO weapon and selling it to a civilian. The issue is the LEO marking on the lower receiver. An LEO marked lower isn't kosher for a civilian to own no matter what. Upon considerable research, it turns out that my above statement was wrong. The LEO marking by itself is merely a marking and does not preclude a civilian from owning an LEO/government marked lower receiver by itself, or as the basis for a legal post-ban configured rifle. Refer to my more lengthy posting further down the thread. Rejoice, brothers, for as of midnight tonight, there will be LESS than two years left on the AW ban and all this legal hoop jumping will then be an unpleasant memory. CJ |
|
Yes. Unless a new law is passed that changes this, you will be able to buy, sell, and own any magazine or rifle with the dreaded govt/LEO only markings after the AW ban sunsets on September 13, 2004. The law completely expires at that point and none of it shall apply beyond that date, pure and simple. CJ |
|
Well, I'm not sure that there's much reason to get excited about these. Mechanically, they're perfect. Externally they look like an Army basic training rifle. Whatever PD SWAT team that had these things beat the hell out of them. They were treated about a nicely as a shovel. Two are very nice and two are very rough. I've recommended to the gentleman that has these that he not part them out and instead sell them to another PD. I did get to compare the way it shot to a pre-ban Oly 9mm carbine that another club member had out there. The Colt seemed to have more gentle recoil. The buffer was much heavier and the hammer spring was much stiffer. Both had A1 uppers and telestocks. The differences were all things that have been discussed to death on these forums already like mags, ejectors, the unusable forward assist on the Oly and the nice Colt ejection port cover and of course chrome lining in the Colt bore. |
And btw, for the other dude, an ATF website FAQ does not a Federal law make. But it does pay to be careful, sometimes. |
That statement was a challenge to me to prove or disprove. It took quite a bit of rummaging around in the U.S.C. and C.F.R., but I found it. First, the law that requires the LEO markings to be placed on the receiver of a post-ban assault rifle: TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS CHAPTER I--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY PART 178--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents Subpart F--Conduct of Business Sec. 178.92 Identification of firearms, armor piercing ammunition, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. (2) Special markings for semiautomatic assault weapons, effective July 5, 1995. In the case of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after September 13, 1994, the frame or receiver shall be marked ``RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/GOVERNMENT USE ONLY'' or, in the case of weapons manufactured for export, ``FOR EXPORT ONLY,'' in the manner prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Next, after considerable searching, I was in fact able to find NO specific prohibition against civilian ownership of an LEO marked lower receiver or even against an LEO marked rifle, specifically. (But the AW ban by features applies.) Then, I found this commentary from the BATF: www.atf.treas.gov/regulations/tdatf396.htm One commenter states that the current regulations requiring that assault weapons be marked ``RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/GOVERNMENT USE ONLY'' raises concerns in the case of weapons that are reconfigured so that they no longer meet the definition of ``semiautomatic assault weapon.'' The commenter raised the case of an assault weapon transferred to a law enforcement officer upon retirement, which is permissible under the law. If the retiree subsequently decides to remove features from the weapon so that it is no longer subject to the restrictions of the law, he may have difficulty selling it, due to the restrictive marking. To address this potential problem, the commenter recommends that ATF amend the regulations to require only that the date of manufacture be marked on the weapon. ATF maintains that the restrictive language required in the current regulations clearly provides notice to law enforcement officers and the general public that semiautomatic assault weapons may be lawfully possessed only by Government agencies and law enforcement personnel. ATF does not believe that placing the date of manufacture on the weapons provides this information. Accordingly, ATF is not adopting this comment. To address the commenter's concern about reconfiguration of an assault weapon, if the weapon has been modified so it no longer meets the definition of ``semiautomatic assault weapon,'' it is not subject to the restrictions of the law. However, ATF would caution that a dealer obtaining assault weapons by falsely representing that the weapons are for resale to law enforcement, but who actually intends to reconfigure the weapons so they no longer meet the definition of assault weapon, would possess the weapons in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(v). The Federal firearms licenses of such dealers would also be subject to revocation. The same commenter concerned about reconfiguration also had recommendations concerning the documentation required for law enforcement officers to acquire assault weapons for official use. The regulations at 27 CFR 178.132 require licensees to obtain written statements, under penalty of perjury, from the purchasing officer and a supervisory officer, stating that the weapon is for use in performing official duties and is not being acquired for personal use or for purposes of transfer or resale. The commenter requests that ATF amend the regulations to permit officers to obtain semiautomatic assault weapons for purposes of familiarization, marksmanship, and training. The commenter also contends that the regulation appears to prevent the officer from reselling the weapon, even if reconfigured so that it no longer meets the definition of ``semiautomatic assault weapon.'' It is unnecessary to amend section 178.132 to include familiarization, marksmanship, and training as valid purposes for law enforcement officers obtaining semiautomatic assault weapons. If these activities are part of a law enforcement officer's official duties and a supervisor is willing to submit a statement certifying to such duties, the weapon may be lawfully acquired for such purposes. ATF does not believe it is necessary to spell out every possible official use in the regulation. As for the comment concerning resale, neither the law nor the regulation prevents future resale of the weapon by the purchasing officer. The regulation merely requires the officer to state, under penalty of perjury, that the weapon is not being acquired for purposes of transfer or resale. The regulation merely requires that the officer acquire the weapon for official use and not for purposes of transfer or resale. The issue concerning reconfiguration is discussed above. And that, my friends, is that. A mystery solved. CJ |
|
I recently picked up a preban 9mm colt. I just wanted the lower reciever to use. WHen I retire I plan on putting the upper from my leo gun and all the goodies on it onto my 9mm lower. How much is my colt 9mm upper worth. ALso how hard is it to remove the pinned in mag block. Can it be done easily or is it best to have a gun smith do it. Also I have 3 32 round colt mags. I paid 1800 for the gun was it worth it. Is there a market for 9mm uppers. I would like to use the money to buy a suppressor for my 223 or maybe another upper in 223. Thanks for any help. PAT |
AR Sponsor