Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:57:56 PM EDT
it is a R6551 Blue label pre-ban.......

i was told that this model can NOT be reconfigured wyth collapsible stock & bayo lugged upper, as this model never had a bayo lug, so therefore the lower can NOT be made into an M-4gery..., or any other configuration..., also, here is what the 11th edition of the Firearms, the Collectors Price & Reference Guide says:
"Colt Sporters (post-1989-pre-September,1994):this transition model has no bayonet lug, but it does have a flash hider. There is no AR-15 designation stamped on the lower receiver. Rifles that are NIB have a Blue label. it is legalto modify this rifle with upper receivers made after 1989, i.e. no bayo lug. these rifles are less desireable than pre-banAR-15s"

my interpretation on this is that i can NOT install an upper with a bayo lug on this rifle..., is this correct ??? OR can i modify this receiver in any legal way i wish,i.e. M4gery.......??

the owner says it is no different than any other pre-ban......

another scource says the rifle can NOT be modified.......

who is right ?? whats the deal ?? also what is considered a fair & reasonable price ??
Link Posted: 5/6/2002 2:06:17 PM EDT
it has a flash hider and a pistol grip and was made pre september 1994 it is therefore preban and can have whatever parts on it u want. that book is beyond wrong on there info.

u can make it into a m4rgy if u want you an add a bayonet lug if u want. it is no diffrent then any other preban!
Link Posted: 5/6/2002 2:07:58 PM EDT
Preban is Preban, Post is Post...dates do not matter.
Link Posted: 5/6/2002 2:13:17 PM EDT
It is a pre-ban and you can put any legal pre-ban upper you like on it. You can also put a telestock on it. It was an assembled rifle before 9/94, so anything goes.
Link Posted: 5/6/2002 4:26:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2002 4:28:01 PM EDT by slt223]
IIRC, a pre ban cannot have evil features that we're not on it b4 the ban. However, likelyness of you getting nabbed for having a bayolug on a 6551 are probably non existent. I would put whatever I want on it, but you aren't me, and I'm not going to tell you to brake the law.

I know you were looking for in state private transfer, but you might want to give these folks a look if you a NIB AW with all the goodies.

www.vectorarms.com
Link Posted: 5/6/2002 5:30:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By slt223:
IIRC, a pre ban cannot have evil features that we're not on it b4 the ban. However, likelyness of you getting nabbed for having a bayolug on a 6551 are probably non existent. I would put whatever I want on it, but you aren't me, and I'm not going to tell you to brake the law.



Not quite 100% as I understand it. It is the ATF's interpretation of the law that in order for a rifle to be grandfathered, it must have been in a configuration that made it a "semi-automatic assault rifle" prior to 9/13/94, which is defined as a semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

- a folding or telescoping stock
- a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
- a bayonet mount
- a flash suppressor or threaded barrel
- a grenade launcher

Since the rifle in question presumably had two of those features before 9/13/94, it is grandfathered, no ifs ands or buts. It is either grandfathered or it isn't - it is not the case where you can't add any more "evil" features than it had prior to 9/13/94, but if it had enough features to be considered a "semi-automatic assault weapon", you can legally add anything you want.

Note that the whole idea that it must be in a "evil" configuration prior to 9/13/94 in order to be grandfathered (and not just manufactured prior to that date) is only the ATF's interpretation of the law. I don't believe this has ever been tested in court. While I'm not a lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised if this interpretation would defeated in a neutral or better (read: not anti-gun) court, especially as time passes. Fast forward 10 years (assuming the ban gets renewed in 2004) - that is 18 years after its initial passage. Guns often change hands many times in the course of 18 years, and it is unreasonable to force someone to prove the configuration his rifle was in on a date 18 years earlier, 5 owners ago, just because it left the factory as a stripped receiver in August of 1994.

This interpretation of the ATF's also seems to go counter to the ATF's interpretation on other matters, i.e., the "once a <blank>, always a <blank> ruling". Their argument with regards to their interpretation, is that while a receiver is considered a generic "firearm", it is not known what category of firearm it will become until it is assembled. However, at the same time, they require pistol receivers to be specially designated at the factory. Presuming I could get the weight on an AR-15 pistol under 50oz, I couldn't just buy a normal stripped receiver from the factory - it would need to be specifically designated as a pistol receiver, either through special markings or by using a designated range of serial numbers. Prior to 86, you could stamp a serial number on a piece of metal pipe, pay your $200, and you had a Sten machine gun, as far as the ATF was concerned. It doesn't matter either of these cases when the weapon was actually assembled, but when the receiver was built, yet they declare the opposite is true in light of the 94.

Oh god, I can't believe the stupidity of us even having to argue over such silly things...

Rocko
Link Posted: 5/6/2002 5:53:26 PM EDT
What Rocko said, including the silliness of interpretation. I'm glad for ya. Go shoot it.

-hanko
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:18:42 AM EDT
thank you all for your replies......

Rocko,
thank you for your informative note, as you know the rifle only lacks the bayo lug.....

i am sorry folks if i am coming into this rather late in lyfe, i was once a dealer & manufacturer, but the ATF, made my lyfe hell for a whyle, so i just plain QUIT !! the constant hassle was not worth it......, sooooooo, after 20 years of almost no gun activity, i want back in & i am trying to catch up, so if you see a question from me that appears stupid or dumb, please..., just bear wyth me & help an ol codger get up to speed....., OK ??????
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 7:24:33 AM EDT
Those Colt preban rifles that don't have the bayonet lug do actually fool some people. I was able to buy 2 Colt model 6530 Sporter Lightweights from 2 different dealers in the last year and a half because the dealers didn't think they were considered preban since they didn't have the bayo lugs. They both came from Colt with the flash hiders though and a call to Colt confirmed thier status.
I paid $750 for one and $799 for the second.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 8:20:35 AM EDT
Simply said, any preban that had features that would identify it as an "Assault Weapon", according to the language of the 94 law, can have any features added.

All Colts had a pistol grip and detachable mag, AND a threaded muzzle/FH.
They were AWs, they ARE AWs.
They can have whatever AW feature you desire.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 8:08:52 PM EDT
Princeton,

that is one heck of a deal !!! WoW !!

from watching the forums, prices seem to be a bit steeper here in the "Wild Wild West", i guess some folks seem to thynk our back yards are Gold fields !!! copper is all we have in Arizona......

now..., the big question wud you sell them at......, say a SMALL profit....?


Link Posted: 5/8/2002 7:29:36 AM EDT

now..., the big question wud you sell them at......, say a SMALL profit....?



I already sold one of them (for a small profit-$400) just before x-mas last year and have regretted it everyday since.

The one I kept was in absolutely new condition, if it was ever fired by the previous owner you couldn't tell.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:57:50 AM EDT


This interpretation of the ATF's also seems to go counter to the ATF's interpretation on other matters, i.e., the "once a <blank>, always a <blank> ruling". Their argument with regards to their interpretation, is that while a receiver is considered a generic "firearm", it is not known what category of firearm it will become until it is assembled. However, at the same time, they require pistol receivers to be specially designated at the factory. Presuming I could get the weight on an AR-15 pistol under 50oz, I couldn't just buy a normal stripped receiver from the factory - it would need to be specifically designated as a pistol receiver, either through special markings or by using a designated range of serial numbers. Prior to 86, you could stamp a serial number on a piece of metal pipe, pay your $200, and you had a Sten machine gun, as far as the ATF was concerned. It doesn't matter either of these cases when the weapon was actually assembled, but when the receiver was built, yet they declare the opposite is true in light of the 94.



Funny thing: Has anyone noticed the Executive/Legislative/Judicial branches are overstepping their bounds? Judges interpret laws, not make them (ie: case law should be ILLEGAL but there is not Judicial Accountabiulity Act). Executive branch enforces the law, not interprets or makes law. What next? Is Congress going to start enforcing and interpreting laws too?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 3:15:39 PM EDT

congress enforcing and interpreting laws, aren't hey just about there already ?
but OTH, i just read where the gvmnt. "FEELS" we the people have the individual right to own firearms.., WoW, how unique !!!
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 9:17:33 PM EDT
Rocko,

I agree with some of what you said but not all. My question is: some assault weapons are defined by name, not by evil features. An example: All "AR-15" rifles are assault weapons but are grandfathered as preban.

Isn't the completion of the gun from the receiver irrelevant at that point? IOW, if you stamp AR-15 on the receiver, it is an assault weapon period, whether or not the bayo flash grenade fold stock were added later.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 12:13:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CactusJack:
who is right ??



No flame intended, but if it's that much of a concern to you, why don't you pose this question to the people who wrote the law and not some 18 year old with an "opinion."

You'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that "gun monkey" from ar15.com said it was ok to do it...
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 4:03:14 AM EDT
CactusJack,

Buy the gun and enjoy it. The R6551 is the best handling 20" rifle out there. The government profile barrel makes it handle really nice.

They meet the '94 Assault Weapon definitions and the ATF's interpretations also. They are preban all the way and you can do what you want to them.

I have two of them. One is staying in its original configuration and the other has a preban M4 upper and telestock on it.

I bought one for $900 and the other for $1,200.

Moe
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 4:16:15 AM EDT
FNC80,

who is 18 ??

mjmensale,

i agree 100%, that is why i am going to buy it, in fact i have a line on 3 more pre-bans that are NIB that i plan on buying.......

i've seen quite a few good used pre-bans & i just might go back & buy them too.., after i have bought all the NIB pre-bans i can get my hands on.......

i have caught the AR-15 bug & i am hopelessly addicted...., fortunately for me, my wife supports my addiction........


Top Top