Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/16/2002 5:14:44 PM EDT
I'm seeing ads for pre-ban lowers on the EE.
The sellers are asking pre-ban prices for them.

Recent ATF policy says selling a 'pre-ban' lower by itself changes it's status to 'post-ban'.

The lowers are being sold at pre-ban rates but lose their pre-ban status when sold.

Right?
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 5:30:39 PM EDT
Technically, if it's a stripped lower, yes, that's right. But if it has a stock on it, (a folding or collapsible one, preferably) then it retains its preban status.

The big issue is, how's anyone going to know what's clipped to the lower (as in, uppers) if you don't tell anybody?

Let the three little monkeys be your guide.



If my lower shows up in the manufacturer's records as pre-ban, and it's configured into a pre-ban rifle, and there's no evidence that it was sold in stripped condition at any time since that ruling, then I wouldn't worry about it. Not at all. Do you think a jury would even THINK of convicting you when the evidence is a pre-ban serial number on an assembled rifle in a pre-ban configuration?

Proof. It's all about proof. If they can't prove it, they can't convict you on it.

Here's what I'd do as a safety precaution, though: Require the seller to make sure that there is a collapsible stock attached to the pre-ban receiver so that it's definitely in pre-ban configuration during shipping. If you don't have a collapsible stock, buy one from him. If he doesn't have one, get one and send it to him and have him screw it on. It doesn't even have to be tight. That satisfies the letter of the BATF ruling, and that's all that matters.

The 11th Commandment: Don't Get Caught!

CJ
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 5:36:01 PM EDT
That's what I wanted to hear. I've been letting some decent deals go by because I thought they were a little grey.

Thanx
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 5:36:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:


Let the three little monkeys be your guide.


Proof. It's all about proof. If they can't prove it, they can't convict you on it.

The 11th Commandment: Don't Get Caught!

CJ



Ditto, except the part about the collapsable stock, that wouldn't make one bit of difference, especially if you are getting it from an FFL you know. He can easily write "preban" on it. Putting a car stock just wouldn't do anything. If you are getting busted for a pre/post dilemna, you are in a bigger kettle of shit and have done something much worse than what we're talking about here.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 5:51:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Minman72:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:


Let the three little monkeys be your guide.


Proof. It's all about proof. If they can't prove it, they can't convict you on it.

The 11th Commandment: Don't Get Caught!

CJ



Ditto, except the part about the collapsable stock, that wouldn't make one bit of difference, especially if you are getting it from an FFL you know. He can easily write "preban" on it. Putting a car stock just wouldn't do anything. If you are getting busted for a pre/post dilemna, you are in a bigger kettle of shit and have done something much worse than what we're talking about here.



The little yellow and white forms and the log book don't have a pre-ban post-ban space on them. I find it highly unlikely that any FFL is going to add information not otherwise required by the form. In fact, the BATF would have no way of ever knowing that you got only the lower receiver, because the receiver IS the firearm as defined on the forms. The serial number and the manufacturer's data is on it and it's a gun, period.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 6:09:26 PM EDT
The idea of having the seller make sure that a collapsible stock is actually attached to the pre-ban lower when it's shipped is to satisfy the letter of the BATF ruling, IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT THE PACKAGE IS OPENED AND INSPECTED.

Yes, it's unlikely. Very much so. But, for a little extra money (to ship a telestock to the guy who's selling you the lower), it's worth it to totally cover your ass because as we all know, shit happens.

This isn't about playing the odds, it's about being totally in the clear courtesy of just a LITTLE extra effort and inconvenience.

Balance the minor hassle of sending out a telestock to the seller of the lower with the much more severe potential hassle of being brought up on a violation of a BATF regulation, which means a violation of the AW ban in this case, which is a FELONY.

It's a no-brainer to me. I'll provide the telestock to the shipper and not worry about it. Once the receiver is in my possession, I can remove that telestock and put on an A2 stock like I prefer, and still have a legal pre-ban lower. I could use that same telestock for the same stunt a limitless number of times, and it'd be legal every time unless the rules change again.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 6:47:10 PM EDT
A telestock and pistol grip, you mean.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 7:02:24 PM EDT
Yeah, you're right. Those two items take it into assault weapon territory. If the pistol grip weren't on it, you'd have one item only, and it'd be a post-ban configuration.

Now if I could only FIND a pre-ban lower by Colt or Bushmaster at a price that I think is reasonable....!

CJ
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 7:19:11 PM EDT
CJ,


what do YOU consider reasonable ?
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 10:01:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
The little yellow and white forms and the log book don't have a pre-ban post-ban space on them. I find it highly unlikely that any FFL is going to add information not otherwise required by the form.



Working at a gun store for 3 years, we would take interstate shipments. These shipments would have two forms, the yellow form (4473) and the sales receipt, whether it was for sale or transfer it didn't matter. That white receipt left room for a lot of info and we did that every time. That's where I'm coming from.

As far as the package being opened...if being shipped through the proper channels, the chances are one in a million, I'd give one in a trillion chances that somehow it would be logged in as a post ban or whatnot thereby giving our man a problem. IF opened, he'd still have zero problems, unless an auto sear was present!

As long as the receiver was assembled before the 94 ban went into effect, he's perfectly fine, EVEN IF THE RECEIVER IS NOW FULLY DISSASSEMBLED. Its one of those grey areas where they've only caught people violating the 94 ban when they've been VERY bad on something else.

Bottom line is that the ATF doesn't run chicken shit schemes to get a preban out of circulation. If he choses to jump through "safe" hoops then that's his tin foil choice, but he'd run into MORE problems shipping a lower in preban configuration (car stock) with no upper, that's where it would appear to be "incomplete."

Link Posted: 3/17/2002 4:29:34 AM EDT
Not more than 200 bucks more than the cost of a post-ban receiver is what I'd call a reasonable price for a pre-ban one.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 5:02:15 AM EDT
I'm just curious if anyone knows of someone who was caught in violation of the ban. Either a pre-ban configuration on a post-ban reciever, or one of these grey areas with a pre-ban reciever.

When I look at the penalties for the infraction they seem so damn harsh. I mean if your a stand up member of our community who has never been in any trouble before will they still nail you to the wall for something like this?

I could understand the penalty in light of someone trafficing in illegally configured weapons, but not for an average gun owner who really thought he was in compliance.

I have read opinions here that have said the assault weapon ban laws would most likely be tacked on to other charges if someone did something stupid with their rifle.

Anyone know of someone busted?
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 5:40:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Not more than 200 bucks more than the cost of a post-ban receiver is what I'd call a reasonable price for a pre-ban one.

CJ



Yeah, I'd say that would be reasonable too. Good luck finding one that cheap though...
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 6:19:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CounterStrike:
I'm just curious if anyone knows of someone who was caught in violation of the ban. Either a pre-ban configuration on a post-ban reciever, or one of these grey areas with a pre-ban reciever.

When I look at the penalties for the infraction they seem so damn harsh. I mean if your a stand up member of our community who has never been in any trouble before will they still nail you to the wall for something like this?

I could understand the penalty in light of someone trafficing in illegally configured weapons, but not for an average gun owner who really thought he was in compliance.

I have read opinions here that have said the assault weapon ban laws would most likely be tacked on to other charges if someone did something stupid with their rifle.

Anyone know of someone busted?



I would say that knowledge of the AW Ban is lacking even in law enforcement. I'll cite two examples. A while back I was in a gun shop owned by an LEO. He had a post-ban Bushmaster lower with a pre-ban upper. I provided him with the serial number list from Bushmaster and told him it was in an illegal configuration. He wouldn't listen to me and the last time I was in there, it was still for sale on the rack as a pre-ban AR-15. The second instance happened yesterday. I was in a different gun shop and peered into a glass case at AR-15 mags. The owner got out some NIW 30-rounders to show me. They were Center Industries with a date of January 2000 on the wrap. He was trying to sell me restricted mags, as they were not pre-94's. He acted like I didn't know what I was talking about when I told him that I was not allowed by law to purchase them. So you see, most FFLs and LEOs probably do not know the laws concerning AWs.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 8:21:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Minman72:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:


Let the three little monkeys be your guide.


Proof. It's all about proof. If they can't prove it, they can't convict you on it.

The 11th Commandment: Don't Get Caught!

CJ



Ditto, except the part about the collapsable stock, that wouldn't make one bit of difference, especially if you are getting it from an FFL you know. He can easily write "preban" on it. Putting a car stock just wouldn't do anything. If you are getting busted for a pre/post dilemna, you are in a bigger kettle of shit and have done something much worse than what we're talking about here.



If you buy an AR from a FFL and they tell you it is a preban and it is not, IF it ever becomes a problem the blame will do back to the FFL. There was a similar case where I live where a certain FFL holder was reconfiguring SKS's to full preban config. The people with the SKS's had to only remove the preban items and he is someone’s girl friend in prison right now. The purchasers were never held accountable for it.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 8:40:50 AM EDT
Regarding post-ban magazines: This has been gone over before, in detail, and by the letter of the law, a magazine that's not legal to have (for a civilian) is one that is marked "FOR GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY."

If the mag doesn't have THAT stamping, you can NOT be prosecuted for having it. Period. The date code is NOT admissible as evidence in the absence of that LEO/government stamping.

Concerning police knowledge of pre/post ban, most have only a vague idea, but some of them are as sharp on the law as any ATF agent. A few of them will haunt ranges and will act friendly and ask to see any rifle in a pre-ban configuration, refer to the serial number and maker info on a cheat sheet, and try to nail you on a violation if they can. There are some real dirtbags out there, in other words. Some of them carry badges.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 8:46:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4Madness:
So you see, most FFLs and LEOs probably do not know the laws concerning AWs.



That's for damn sure. You can bet an agent of the ATF will know, however.

If anyone did get busted for a minor infraction a good attorney would cop a plea to a misdemeanor-hence, you'd get to keep your 2nd amendment rights.
If you ever get in any shit, say NOTHING, even if it means spending a night in jail. Call an attorney, not a public defender.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 8:52:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Regarding post-ban magazines: This has been gone over before, in detail, and by the letter of the law, a magazine that's not legal to have (for a civilian) is one that is marked "FOR GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY."

If the mag doesn't have THAT stamping, you can NOT be prosecuted for having it. Period. The date code is NOT admissible as evidence in the absence of that LEO/government stamping.

Concerning police knowledge of pre/post ban, most have only a vague idea, but some of them are as sharp on the law as any ATF agent. A few of them will haunt ranges and will act friendly and ask to see any rifle in a pre-ban configuration, refer to the serial number and maker info on a cheat sheet, and try to nail you on a violation if they can. There are some real dirtbags out there, in other words. Some of them carry badges.

CJ



CJ,

What state do you live in? I have gone to the range and shot right next to Cops. They have even offered to let me shoot their weapon. I have never been hassled by the law here in Wisconsin. Well once a local stopped to see what was going on when I had an activator on my AR but when I showed him what it was all he wanted to know was if he could shoot it.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 9:00:24 AM EDT
I'm in Florida.

I've never had any problems with nosy LEO's looking for a bust on AW ban violations, but I have heard of it happening.

In my case, I could configure one of my AR's in pre-ban configuration and it wouldn't be possible to PROVE that it wasn't pre-ban, since it's a homebuilt (lower made from a forging on a mill in the garage) and I have had access to milling machinery and all other required tools since 1987.

But I won't do it. Not that big a deal to me. The rifle's about accuracy, not being a close quarters night combat weapon. Besides, I've blabbed about when I made it enough that I couldn't cover that track if I tried.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 9:21:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2002 9:43:34 AM EDT by FishKepr]
DrJarhead,

That's what I thought about ATF agents too, until I had a phone conversation with the local office. The first two agents I talked too were obviously not well educated in the pre/post debate. They actually referred me to the head office (Technical Branch) in DC for a straight answer.

I should mention something else: One of agents told me that for casual checks, they just look at the serial number. This makes sense to me. Can you imagine what a PITA it would be to trace every lower they came across?
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 10:15:55 AM EDT
I had a neat thing happen last weekend at the range. I am a volunteer Range Officer and there was a group of guys all in their late twenties with AR15's, Rem PSS's, and some other really nice stuff having a good time. After a few hours of shooting and talking with them I was looking over one of their AR's and noticed it was a post Bushy lower with a full pre ban upper. I have a general idea of the numbers range. I say in a really nice tone "Hey, noticed the post lower and pre upper" with a big smile just busting his chops. The guy's face just drops like he's in big trouble and going to be arrested or something! I'm just a range officer not the FBI you know. I actually congradulated him on his civil disobedience and told him if everybody did that we wouldn't have this problem. It was funny, you just had to be there I guess.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 2:10:58 PM EDT
According to www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm 8 people were convicted in the years 1997 and 1998 for violations of the assault weapons ban.

Top Top