Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/2/2003 9:59:04 PM EDT
Hi,
I'm looking to build an M4 in the near future, I'm looking for all Pre-Banned components. I looked on Bushmaster's website for some pre-banned recievers but they really don't say on their site? Could you guy point me in the correct direction....! :) WHAT COMPANY..???
Thanks for your time,
BearMan
Link Posted: 8/2/2003 10:14:20 PM EDT
BM, There are none from companies, you will have to buy used. Look around, there are good deals out there, but it takes some looking to find them.
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 3:11:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2003 3:28:13 AM EDT by Gecko]
You're probably going to find more here than anywhere else. Go to the Equipment Exchange on the Main Page and look under AR 15 Complete Firearms & Lower Receivers. If you're just beginning to look be prepared for "Sticker Shock." Also, if you find one you want be very, very careful to insure that it is truly a pre-ban. Simply being manufactured prior to Sept 94 does not necessarily qualify a lower as a legal pre-ban. The AWB law and ATF rulings are very complex in this area, eg buying just a lower.
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 3:22:46 AM EDT
A pre-ban reciever that wasnt assembled into a pre-ban rifle before the ban can not be assembled into a pre-ban configuration according to the current translation of the law by ATF. Find a pre-ban rifle.
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 3:35:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2003 3:49:34 AM EDT by Gecko]
And, to add-on to what Lumpy said according to the ATF the lower must have maintained its pre-ban configuation through out its life. So, if you found a stripped lower, built as a complete pre-ban rifle prior to Sept 94, would it still be a pre-ban? According to the ATF, no, but there are some exceptions, which are those named or listed in the law itself. Another example, say you found a complet lower without a collasible stock on it that you can verify, by its serial number, that it left the factory as a complete pre-ban rifle, would it be a legal pre-ban? Again, no because it has no pre-ban component on it, that is in this case the collasible stock. As you can see it gets pretty complex. The Legal Forum, again on the Main page, normally has a ongoing thread concerning pre-bans. If not try to do a search or post a question there.
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 8:14:58 PM EDT
Thanks for all the Info. Guys! I will look for a pre-banned rifle complete! Thanks again for all the help, BearMan
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 2:33:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2003 2:35:17 AM EDT by Gecko]
Bearman: Don't let us turn you off from just getting a pre-ban lower if that's what you want. Just check it out thoroughly before you purchase. I have bought several and did the following before purchase: Got the serial number and checked with the manufacture, in my case it was DPMS and Bushmaster. Made sure the lower was complete with a collasible stock (unless it was a "named" lower)
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 4:30:46 AM EDT
Keep in mind that if the "assault weapon" ban sunsets next year you will be able to get all of the "evil" features off the shelf i.e. a whole lot cheaper.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 6:06:07 AM EDT
Do you guys really think Mr. Bush is going to allow this to happen or not sign a bill during Election year? Mr. Clinton putting a 10 year ban to fall on an election year was not an accident!!! Thanks for the help, BearMan
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 1:41:43 AM EDT
IMHO I don't think it will sunset, but I'm probably in the minority. My fear is that it will be replaced by something worse.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 9:54:06 AM EDT
Gecko, I hate say it but I think you are correct about the Left adding more to the current ban. We need to call or write our Senators and Congressmen A.S.A.P. !!!! Thanks, BearMan We the people.......
Link Posted: 8/9/2003 12:01:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gecko: IMHO I don't think it will sunset, but I'm probably in the minority. My fear is that it will be replaced by something worse.
View Quote
Been predicting this for over a year now. There are going to be a lot of guys crying in their beer, after finding out that Bush is not particularly a friend of our sport. He's not the enemy Clinton was; just another politician who'll do what it takes to get votes, and he figures he's got ours anyway----so he'll go for the soccer moms[;D]
Link Posted: 8/9/2003 8:45:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2003 10:31:46 PM EDT by BearMan]
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that Clinton( what a joke !) was better about this issue than Mr. Bush. But I really don't care, because I saw the writing on the wall during the election, that they were one of the same in there politics. I didn't vote for a Dem. or Rep. Both are Evil in my mind. We need to wake up america - to get a third party in gov. But good point about being the same, I just think clinton was more power hungry, just look at his bi#$# oops wife now trying to gain power, she will run in 2004, Now that is a problem with power gentlemen! Thanks for your time, BearMan
Link Posted: 8/9/2003 9:17:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2003 9:33:11 PM EDT by threefiftynone]
Originally Posted By Gecko: Bearman: Don't let us turn you off from just getting a pre-ban lower if that's what you want. Just check it out thoroughly before you purchase. I have bought several and did the following before purchase: Got the serial number and checked with the manufacture, in my case it was DPMS and Bushmaster.[red]Good advice[/red] Made sure the lower was complete with a collasible stock (unless it was a "named" lower) [red] Total Bullshit[/red]
View Quote
Does it matter if the pre ban rifle (lower) was built with a collapsible stock? No. As long as the rifle was built into a complete rifle before the ban, and kept that way(or at least kept with all the parts needed to return it to preban status), it is good to go. If you buy a rifle built before September 1994 that had an A2 stock on it when it was built, doesn't mean you can't install a collapsible stock on it today, and be totally legal. If you want a collapsible stock, pay up, or join your local law enforcement agency. LEO are allowed to have the "evil Features"..... unless you want to wait till September 2004..
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 9:42:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2003 9:46:41 AM EDT by Booth]
Not to get too off-topic since this was originally about buying a pre-ban lower, but... You guys need to remember that CONGRESS, not the president, passes laws. Pres. Bush, though a dissapointment to pro-gun forces, is irrelevant to our situation inasmuch as he can't create or pass legislation, only influence it beforehand (which he's staying out of, it seems) or veto it after it passes - which doesn't apply in this case since we're talking about legislation expiring, not being created. I personally think that Bush is playing both sides of the fence here. He's said he'll sign a new ban if it hits his desk, but an observer will note the complete lack of advocacy on his part regarding such new legislation. OTOH, his AG (Ashcroft) wrote a letter stating the government's reversion to its historic position that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. So, given that Bush is not getting involved with this, our goal is to deter congress from passing new legislation. I think it's worth noting that only a year before sunset, there is an amazing lack of activity on this in Washington. The only legislation on the horizon is the one by McCarthy/Lautenberg which goes so much further than the AWB that most anti-gun legislators won't have the stones to get behind it. So, I think I have good reason to expect the AWB will go away, if for no other reason than politicians covering their asses with the so-called "Angry White Male" voter. But even if you think I'm being overly optimistic, we really do have a good chance to influence the outcome. Quit bitching about "the inevitable" because in politics, nothing is. Join the NRA or some other pro-gun group and contribute extra bucks so they can lobby congress. Call your own senators and representatives and make yourself heard. Send e-mails, and also write letters - there's a saying that one letter written reflects a thousand people who didn't write. Politicians are whores by nature and will do what they think is in their own best interest, all other things being equal. If they think that gun control will hurt them at the polls, they'll leave it alone. WORK THE SYSTEM, GUYS, IT'S OUR ONLY CHANCE!
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 7:42:04 PM EDT
[url]http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/lawmaking/[/url] look towards the bottem #9.... the prsident can make or break a bill becomeing a law...it kinda sucks but hey it's right here
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 8:32:07 PM EDT
Good ole checks and balances, Veto power has its priveledges. The worst part is we have to deal with this crap for superficial reasons. Can a crime be any worse if you already have an illegal weapon and you for some reason put a bayonet on it?? I tell ya that flash suppressor really suppresses things too doesn't it? That collapsable stock really makes the rifle much more deadly and evil too!! Sorry stupid laws annoy me! My rant is over, to all a good night.
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 8:47:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By threefiftynone: As long as the rifle was built into a complete rifle before the ban, and kept that way(or at least kept with all the parts needed to return it to preban status), it is good to go.
View Quote
This is going out on a limb, and muddies the waters, but I have read that if you possesed the rifle/lower with all the parts necessary for and intended to make the rifle into an assault rifle a the time of the ban, it is accepted to be a preban assault rifle. However, proving that you had all the parts and intended to put it together into an assault rifle configuration would be difficult, of course proving you didn't would also be problematic. In any case, I wouldn't want to be the one dragged through court, costing untold monies to prove I was correct and that the ATF was wrong. Sorry I can't quote or show the article/post, which may be even be on ARF in a thread so take with a grain of salt.
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 9:53:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2003 10:16:30 PM EDT by Booth]
The nit-picking about these things never ceases to amaze me. So many seemingly independent gun guys carry on like a bunch of old ladies over every little detail of gun laws, to the point of worrying about things that aren't even in the legislation! And if the facts aren't scary enough, or they just don't know the facts, they make 'em up! OK, here's a free lesson in our legal system: Laws define what is against the law, not what is or might be legal in this or that situation. The ATF can issue all the opinions they want - and that's all their pronouncements are, opinion, what their position would be in this or that scenario - but only Congress, not the ATF, passes laws, and only the courts, along with a jury of your peers, not the ATF, can send you to jail. If it isn't prohibited in the legislation, it ain't illegal, I don't care what the guys at the gun shop or your buddy at the range says. Learn the facts, and live by them, because only facts are real. Speaking of facts, the damned AWB law says only that a gun is "grandfathered" if it was an assault weapon as defined at the time of the ban. If it was, it still is. Somebody said if it's been disassembled it's no longer pre-ban. Does that mean if you take it apart to clean it, it's no longer a pre-ban? Think, people. If it had an A2 stock can you swap for a CAR stock? An assault weapon is one that possesses two or more of the evil features. If it was already an assault weapon, adding a CAR stock doesn't make it more of one. It's as if some people take a perverse pleasure in being a member of a persecuted group, get some kind of vicarious thrill by doing something "dangerous" like owning an almost-banned gun, and love their misery so much they won't even fight that which oppresses them. And then if some newbie comes along with a legitimate question, these same people just can't wait to start telling them how much the fine or jail time is for this or that, and take perverse glee in doing so. For a bunch of people who think of themselves as wolves, I sure do hear a lot of "Baaa" type noise around here. Let's say you acquire a pre-ban lower, and build it up into a pre-ban configuration. Let's say the ATF breaks down your door in the middle of the night, just for the fun of checking the serial number on your gun. You don't have a notarized letter from God proving that the gun was assembled as a complete assault weapon before the magic date. Guess what? Burden of proof isn't on you, it's on them. This isn't France, the government would have to prove that your reciever was a virgin for 9-plus years, and then get a jury to go along with them. Sorry, but that just isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." And before some smart-ass starts in about how the evil ATF will bankrupt you in court, remember that their time is worth too much to squander it on bullshit like that. They have a real job to do, and waste their time on trivia, much less prosecute without a case. If they can't prove it, no case - no case, waste of time. Now, if you robbed a bank with said gun and the only way they could send you to jail was by using the AWB, they might go for it. But somebody please tell me how many people have been arrested for the sole crime of building a post-ban receiver into a pre-ban configuration. If that number is greater than zero, I'll be mightily surprised. Sorry to rant, but I get so frustrated at this attitude on the part of people who should know better. Read the constitution, maybe study up on a little civics, maybe even (gasp!) read the actual assault ban legislation itself, and learn how things work! And grow a set, while you're at it. Sheep never achieved a damn thing except becoming an entree for the predators. Don't be such a bunch of sheeple. OK, now let's hear it. ATF's gonna getcha...
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 10:20:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Booth: The nit-picking about these things never ceases to amaze me. So many seemingly independent gun guys carry on like a bunch of old ladies over every little detail of gun laws, to the point of worrying about things that aren't even in the legislation! And if that isn't enough, or they don't know the facts, they just make 'em up!
View Quote
Dig through this [url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/[/url]
OK, here's a free lesson in our legal system: Laws define what is against the law. Period. Laws are not intended to list all the stuff that may be legal. The ATF If it isn't in the legislation, it ain't illegal, I don't care what the guys at the gun shop or your buddy at the range says. All the damned AWB law says is that a gun is "grandfathered" if it was an assault weapon as defined at the time of the ban. If it was, it still is. Somebody said if it's been disassembled it's no longer pre-ban. Does that mean if you take it apart to clean it, it's no longer a pre-ban? Think, people. If it had an A2 stock can you swap for a CAR stock? An assault weapon is one that possesses two or more of the evil features. If it was already an assault weapon, adding a CAR stock doesn't make it more of one. It's as if some people take a perverse pleasure in being a member of a persecuted group, get some kind of vicarious thrill by doing something "dangerous" like owning an almost-banned gun, and love their misery so much they won't even fight that which oppresses them. For a bunch of people who talk like wolves, I sure do hear a lot of "Baaa" type noise.
Let's say you acquire a pre-ban lower, and build it up into a pre-ban configuration rifle. Let's say the ATF breaks down your door in the middle of the night, just for the fun of checking the serial number on your gun.
View Quote
Let's say that I don't want that to happen, for any reason...
Link Posted: 8/17/2003 3:32:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2003 3:41:15 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
Boothe, I had a big long counter rant but lost it cause it was too long. No flame but: There is nothing wrong with being a sheep and following the law, no matter how stupid they are - doesn't mean you have to like it or than you can't use your vote to help change it. It is not perverse to be law-abiding, but it is perverse to ignore the law and violate it just because you think it is wrong or stupid. Your 'grown set' will not help you in court, they will just get you in trouble. As a dealer, I had to be sure I was in total compliance - I did not want to be put out of business, lose all my time and money in court, loosing my inventory and my own $100,000 in guns and my right to own them. The ATF would make the time to screw with me if they wanted. Most people thing that blind anonymity will protect them, as they are such small frye that they will never be hit by ATF. This is true to some extent, but I know a surprisingly many people who thought this until they had to go to court. Granted, those that I speak of would not have caught ATF's eyes normally, but they were busted by police for various unrelated charges and in the process, their guns were scrutinized and reported. Some of those that had 'grown a set' and ignored the stupid laws lost guns and money in court. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves how much personal risk they are willing to take, and if they want to follow the law. Yes, you should go by facts. You theory about diassembling guns proving what you heard was wrong, was not written fact, but your own logical theory I surmise. However I have seen the ATF letter stating that OPINION, and that is a fact. Yes, if you went to court, you would probably win or the case would be dismissed, but do you want to lose the time and money defending yourself? Of course if you have 'grown a set' and did what you wanted with your AW configurations and got caught for whatever reason, ATF would see any of your violations and you may go to jail and lose your guns, even if you won the court case against the ATF for the disassembly opinion, which is not law. Yes, some posters are just relaying stuff they heard as law, or have made it up. Everyone needs to research the law for themselves. I know of a well known manufacturer that states in their catalog that any M16 part in an AR-15 is illegal. I used to believe this common myth myself, until I was forced to look it up in the federal regulations (made available to every dealer/manufacturer and accessable to citizens though public means). That manufacturer was contacted, brought to task, and IIRC they admitted it was incorrect, but haven't changed it to my knowledge. People actually quote them as if they were part of the judicial branch and what they stated was law. What they print will not defend you in a court of law. While I don't like people telling me what to do, I don't have a problem with getting or giving educated/researched advice because you can take it or leave it, just don't force it down my throat. Those that frustrate you in quoting the law to others for their benefit are just trying to keep the community safe, and he ATF at bay, so cut them some slack. For example, your theory/advice to ignore the 'disassembly' ATF opinion - what you said, can you prove it? Was that law you were quoting, or just your own personal opinion? I have seen the actual ATF letter, and it is just an opinion of one high positioned ATF agent, and am I sure you could defeat it in court, but do you want to risk loosing the time and money to do it or are you telling others to? Just something to think about. I do however agree that you should grow a set, and use your right to vote whenever possible to help change these laws and policies of government departments. [soapbox] [/end counter rant] Edited to say: Holy Hot Air, Batman! That was still really long! and also sorry about hijacking the thread.
Link Posted: 8/17/2003 10:27:30 PM EDT
AK_Mike, I don't think we really disagree, I think perhaps you missed my point (or I didn't express it properly). 1. There's a big difference between a sheep and a wolf in a cage. A sheep goes along because it's afraid not stray too hard from the herd, a wolf does it against his will because he doesn't have a choice. I for one fall into the latter category. I'm not afraid, but I'm not stupid, either. 2. I'm not advocating anyone violate the law - I don't either, no point in tempting fate - but I think this hysteria over every little thing is just plain riduculous. The law says what it says, no matter what the opinion of the ATF is. Just like local cops or even the FBI do things that don't hold up in court, so does the ATF, IRS, FBI and so on. I think it's important for people to be aware that the ATF doesn't make law, they're just specialized cops. They enforce the law the way they see it, and I'm not blaming them for that - it's their job. We shouldn't blame the ATF, we should blame our lawmakers. And when you write the ATF for a ruling on something, of course they're going to give you the most conservative, restrictive, legal CYA response - they'd be stupid to do otherwise! But just because somebody at ATF writes a letter doesn't make it the law, though it may serve as a get out of jail free card for the recipient. What you say about harrassment is or can be true, and I myself mentioned that they'll certainly use an AWB violation if you're under suspicion, arrest or whatever for other reasons. But the point is that the ATF isn't out trolling for poor slobs with the wrong upper on their poodle-shooter. 3. I still think that way too many folks 'round here take perverse pleasure, or get some kind of thrill, from this whole situation. It's really strange and I can't quite put my finger on why this is, but surely you've noticed how so many guys just get all worked up about the tiniest detail of this or that rule, opinion or letter of the ATF - and it's usually something they've "read somewhere," were told by Bubba at the gun show last week or maybe they sorta think they remember such-and-such. 4. WRT the status of an assault rifle being legal if the configuration is changed or whatever, here's what is published in the FAQ from the ATF's own website: (05) What exceptions from the prohibitions on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices are provided in the law? Exceptions are provided for semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices - (1) lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment; (2) manufactured for, transferred to, or possessed by governmental entities or law enforcement officers employed by governmental entities for official use; (3) transferred to licensees maintaining on-site security at a nuclear power plant required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials; (4) transferred to law enforcement officers by the officer's agency upon the officer's retirement; and (5) manufactured, transferred, or possessed by licensed manufacturers or licensed importers for the purposes of testing or experimentation as authorized by ATF. Now, what that says, very simply, is that if an assault weapon was possessed prior to the date - an assault weapon being defined as having the 2 or more evil features, etc. - then it's grandfathered. That's all the law says. Doesn't say "unless you take it apart" or anything else. A bunch of parts isn't an assault weapon, only one that's assembled counts. Once it's grandfathered, that's it. You can change the parts around all you want, because it was already an assault weapon. If you know of legislation that says otherwise, please quote the U.S. Code for me and I'll look it up and apologize if I'm wrong. Now, if you sell it to somebody else in post-ban configuration and they change it back to a pre-ban, things can get confusing, unless they have an SP-1 or some other gun that can be objectively verified as being built up as an assault weapon prior to the ban. But again, if there are uncertainties, burden of proof is on the government, and unless they have some reason to pursue it, it's pretty much a waste of their time. Again, sorry to rant on but it's a very interesting and somewhat important topic - but perhaps we should move this bit over to the legal section?
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 12:00:38 AM EDT
Booth, I agree. I think my whole point was, even tiny details are enough for ATF to ruin your day, and there is nothing wrong with following the law, even if the law is silly or nitpicking. I sound like a legal/AW law nazi, which I don't really approve of, but there is valid base. A gentle reminder is all that is needed and remain courteous. As stated, I don't mind people quoting law if it is a factual statement, or they have at least researched the subject so they know what they are talking about instead of just passing on things the think is the law, or they made up, or what bubba down the street told them - something we agree is annoying. One thing we definitely agree on is that these laws are stupid, silly, and illogical - the non-exclusive domain of the ATF. Also, we should not cower down and take it all, we need to grow a set, stand up and do something about it. If the AW ban is not renewed, and new legislation is not passed, I will first cry because I spent thousands to remain legal, and then I will cry in happiness that all that silly nonsense is gone. Once that stuff is gone, it will eliminate much of the legal nazi's. [bounce]
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 7:12:45 PM EDT
AK_Mike, I believe we've gotten down to the main point. You said, "I don't mind people quoting law if it is a factual statement, or they have at least researched the subject so they know what they are talking about instead of just passing on things the think is the law, or they made up, or what bubba down the street told them..." Exactly! Now, if this stuff is so important, and as you say the tiniest detail can screw you if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, why don't people take the trouble to learn what is law and what is merely gossip? And they not only believe such BS from Bubba, but pass this hearsay on as gospel. Like I said before, a certain type of person seems to thrive on the confusion and hysteria, but also derive pleasure from using it to scare the crap out of newbies like the one who started this thread with a perfectly honest and legitimate question. No wonder it's so hard to grow the shooting sports with so many people doing their best to scare others away. Anyhow, I guess we can leave this and move on - but I reserve the right to scold those who go off half-cocked...
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 8:05:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2003 8:20:52 PM EDT by Booth]
Yes, that's right, but it's out of order. Consider: First, the fact is that the present AWB will sunset next year. That happens automatically and cannot be changed. Any new ban has to be exactly that, new legislation which will have to be proposed, sponsored, run through committee, passed (both houses), versions reconciled, then if all that happens, finally sent to the president for his signature. So, yes, the President can sign, veto or allow a bill to pass into law without signing it. But the salient point is that he can only do any of that after it is passed by both houses of Congress. I'm convinced that Mr. Bush, having said he'd sign it "if it reached his desk" is working behind the scenes to make sure it never does. I think he chose that particular wording for a reason. I also think he's playing a dangerous game, but if it works out I guess I'll have to forgive him that.
Link Posted: 8/19/2003 8:43:26 AM EDT
A civil arguement, backed up by actual Code (facts), on the net? Nowhere but ARFCOM.. Booth, I admire your knowledge of the law. You are correct in relaying that Congress has to pass a law, in order for my local court to charge me with a crime. But, as far as the BATFE goes, opinions are just that. "Opinions". I can't afford to fight the FEDGOV, nor do I feel the need to, therefore, I comply with the "written opinions" of Senior ATF Officials. If that makes me a sheep in your book, so be it. If the BATFE wants to rake me over the coals with their "opinion", they could drain my personal asset list down to nothing, though I have not committed a crime, just have went against their "opinion". Squeeze blood from a stone..... Seize my house, vehicles, posessions and send me to sleep in the ditch across the street from the house, at best. I'm not willing to go there, so I live by the opinion of Big Brother. YMMV, but you have my respect. I will live, build, and shoot according to their "opinions". AK_Mike, I think I need to say nothing except "rock on!". Keep it legal, and fight the good fight. Thank You for keeping this thread going in my absence. If you guys have a problem with my commentary, please air it out here. Or... My IM box is far from full...... If anyone has a problem with the "facts" that I have aired here, or notice a legal flaw in them, speak up.
Top Top