Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/6/2002 2:51:05 PM EDT
Just trying to figure out if a Preban Ruger 10/22 is worth more than a regular 10/22?

I don't have it front of me but as I remember ...according to the serial number it was made in the 80's. It currenly has the MG42 kit w/ bipod on it. The rec is silver in color.

Trying to determine if it is worth selling or holding on to.

Thanks.


Link Posted: 8/6/2002 2:55:29 PM EDT
I doubt a 'preban' 10/22 is really worth any more than a 'postban'.
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 2:58:09 PM EDT
Well, look at it like this.
10/22's have been around forever. There are substantially more pre-ban's than there are post-bans.
Thing with that gun is most people buy them to built up target guns, or just as plinkers... So, it's pre-ban status isn't nearly as valuable as it is on an AR, where the pre-ban status allows the gun to be in "original" condition.
A lot of people advertise "pre-ban 10/22's" for sale, and do indeed get a premium... But I have found that a few e-mails to sellers of used 10/22's on Gunsamerica will yeild one without a premium.
I HAD to have a 10/22 folder about a year ago, and did it this way. Didn't pay a dime extra because the gun was "pre-ban".
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 3:02:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2002 3:03:56 PM EDT by Troy]
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 4:54:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:

Anyway, without some kind of proof, the gun is just a used 10/22, no different than a new one except for wear.

-Troy


Troy, I am sorry man.
But you are indeed wrong.

In the American legal system, at no time does a defendant ever have to prove his INNOCENCE.

It's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt.
o, they have to provide evidence that it was assembled after 1994. You don't have to provede anything.


That's a basic tennant of the legal system that applies to robberys, murders, the Crime Bill, rape, theft, or any other possible violation of the law.
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 5:08:01 PM EDT
Sweet, I think I still have the receipt of the pistol grip 10/22 I purchased new in 1993.
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 5:43:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 2:34:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2002 2:40:48 PM EDT by McUZI]
Nope.
Sorry.
Like it or not, a defendant is never obligated to provide evidence of his innocence when charged with a violation of the law.

They have to prove the gun is an unlawful (i.e- Post assembled as a Pre)assault weapon in order to charge one with anything.. You don't have to provide otherwise. That's a basic underpinning of the legal system.

For example, all homocides (assault weapons in general) are deemed illegal.
But there is an exception, that being a justifiable homocide (Pre-Ban AW)

So, say for example, someone breaks in your house and you shoot and kill them.
They can't just charge you with murder, and say "you have to prove it was justifiable".
It's up to the state, under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, to prove guilt.

Just like it's up to the state to prove your gun was assembled after the ban.
I will repeat.
THE BURDON OF PROOF IS NEVER NEVER NEVER ON THE DEFENDANT.

This burdon would be easy for them to prove if the serial number revealed that the gun was manufactured after the ban.
But if it was made before the ban, there is no way they can prove it wasn't, and since a basic underpinning of the legal system is that the burdon of proof rests on the prosecution, it can't be enforced.

Period.
Whatever 1/2 dozen lawyers who argued otherwise need to go back to their first week of law school.
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 2:48:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2002 2:51:36 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]

Originally Posted By McUZI:
Nope.
Sorry.
Like it or not, a defendant is never obligated to provide evidence of his innocence when charged with a violation of the law.

They have to prove the gun is an unlawful (i.e- Post assembled as a Pre)assault weapon in order to charge one with anything.. You don't have to provide otherwise. That's a basic underpinning of the legal system.

For example, all homocides (assault weapons in general) are deemed illegal.
But there is an exception, that being a justifiable homocide (Pre-Ban AW)

So, say for example, someone breaks in your house and you shoot and kill them.
They can't just charge you with murder, and say "you have to prove it was justifiable".
It's up to the state, under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, to prove guilt.

Just like it's up to the state to prove your gun was assembled after the ban.
I will repeat.
THE BURDON OF PROOF IS NEVER NEVER NEVER ON THE DEFENDANT.

This burdon would be easy for them to prove if the serial number revealed that the gun was manufactured after the ban.
But if it was made before the ban, there is no way they can prove it wasn't, and since a basic underpinning of the legal system is that the burdon of proof rests on the prosecution, it can't be enforced.

Period.
Whatever 1/2 dozen lawyers who argued otherwise need to go back to their first week of law school.



Wrong. I think the founding fathers would agree with you, but you are still wrong on this particular law.

ALL "ASSAULT WEAPONS" as defined by the law are ILLEGAL. Posession of them is a crime. Full stop.

That is sufficient to proceed with a prosecution. Full stop.

An AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, meaning the burden HAS SHIFTED TO THE DEFENDANT, is available. If the defendant can prove, yes, I said if a DEFENDANT can prove, that an exception applies, there is no violation.

That is the way the law is written and will be applied, IMHO.

Is it constitutional? I don't think so, but I'm not gonna find out.

THe way it is, in this case, is not the way it should be, but it's STILL the way it is.

Edit to add: I remembered something from my first week in law school that is informative. There are other instances in criminal law where the defendant has a burden, imperfect self defense, for example. This is where one claims to act in the MISTAKEN BUT GOOD FAITH belief that the situation would call for deadly force to protect one's self.
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 2:54:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 2:59:06 PM EDT
Pre-ban 10/22’s do have a premium price over Post-ban 10/22’s because you can add Pre-ban features to them like a folding stock that some people find desirable. The amount of premium is determined between the buyer and the seller. I personally purchased a Pre-ban with folding stock for $ 275.00 and called Ruger first to see if it was a true Pre-ban

I remember a couple of gun shops in California getting in big trouble for selling Post-ban 10/22s with folding stocks.

THISISME
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 3:11:10 PM EDT
Well, some collectors place a premium on Rugers that were made "pre-warning".

Does your barrel have the warning rollmarked on it? If so, it might be worth a hair more than a newer one.

But it won't mean much if the gun in question isn't in mint condition.
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 5:15:36 PM EDT
About a year and a half ago I bought a 1986 vintage (according to the ser # chart at the Ruger site) 10/22, for $100.00. The rifle was in excellent (barely used) condition. It is a blued model in a walnut stock.

OSA
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 5:40:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2002 9:59:55 PM EDT
This whole argument boils down to your own personal sensitivity to the AWB.

Some people don't care, and make post-ban assault rifle AR's. Hell alot of people I talk to do not even know what pre-ban is. They just stuck this new neato looking upper on the gun and don't see any problems with that and go about their merry way without incident.

However back to the topic at hand there is such a thing as a Factory Preban 10/22.

However it is not made by Sturm-Ruger.

AMT made what was called the AMT Lightning 10/22.
It came from the factory in stainless steel, with a folding stock and pistol grip almost identical to a Butler Creek Stock, except that the barrel slot on the stock is cut larger to accomidate the larger diameter bull-barrel that AMT Lightnings came with.

These were only made for acouple year (I beleive 90-93)before Ruger got after AMT and they eventually went out of business.

For me personally, I would not really pay a dime more for a Ruger 10/22 that was "preban" since there is no way to really prove that it was in Pre-ban configuration, unless you are the original owner.

I personally am very AWB sensitive, so I purchased a AMT lightning acouple years back for 350 bucks.
Right now, it might not be a big deal to have an illegal preban configured 10/22, but for an extra 250 bucks it is worth the insurance to me that I don't get into trouble 10 or 20 years down the line if this law is really enforced.

Granted it is crazy law but 250 bucks is not worth the risk of losing my gun rights, or battling the ATF in court to keep them

Just my 2 cents

pic of factory AMT Lightning below

http://www.survival.com.mx/gunrack/amt/

JBNTEX
Austin Texas
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 10:13:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2002 10:15:22 AM EDT by McUZI]

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
An AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, meaning the burden HAS SHIFTED TO THE DEFENDANT, is available. If the defendant can prove, yes, I said if a DEFENDANT can prove, that an exception applies, there is no violation.

That is the way the law is written and will be applied, IMHO.

Is it constitutional? I don't think so, but I'm not gonna find out.

THe way it is, in this case, is not the way it should be, but it's STILL the way it is.




No.

The burdon NEVER shifts to a defendant to provide a defense for himself.

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER.

You guys watch too much Matlock.
See, a defendant never has to even testify if he doesn't want to.
This is why the BURDON is always on the prosecution.
So, they can charge you with a violation, saying the gun was assembled post-94, and all you have to do is say "Prove It".
See, that's how it works folks.
People aren't charged with crimes, and then told they have to provide evidence of their innocence.
If that were the case, the police could arrest you, charge you with murder, and when you say "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!", they could simply say "Prove your innocence..."
This stuff is VERY VERY clearly prohibited in the legal system (Because it's what the English used to do to our founders)

You people think you can be forced to provide evidence of your innocence?
Nope.
Wrong wrong wrong.
This whole debate ends at the very beginning.
A defendant never has to say a damn word to anyone. You never have to "prove" anything as a defendant in a court of law.
They have to prove the gun was a post.
It's really a simple matter.

I understand very clearly what you fellas are saying.
That AW's are illegal, and that Pre-Ban status is a lawful exemption.
But it is up to the PROSECUTION to prove ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW; and since a lawful exemption exists, they would have to prove that the gun they are claiming is illegal doesn't fall under those auspicies (Being an exempt pre-ban).

Since asembling the gun post-94 is the legal violation which we are hypothetically discussing, it is up to them to prove it.

I just don't know how many times I can convey this to you guys. It's day-1 lawschool crap.
And this has been the most repetitive post I have ever made.
I said the same thing 20 times in this one post.

THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON THE PROSECUTION


I remembered something from my first week in law school that is informative. There are other instances in criminal law where the defendant has a burden, imperfect self defense, for example. This is where one claims to act in the MISTAKEN BUT GOOD FAITH belief that the situation would call for deadly force to protect one's self.


This makes me laugh.
It's hard to put your finger on, and describe it with words, but you know it when you see it.
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 10:21:26 AM EDT
CALIFORNIA
Sacramento Gun Dealer Fined, License Terminated
A Sacramento gun dealer has been ordered to pay $500,000 after pleading guilty to one count of marketing illegal semiautomatic assault weapons, federal prosecutors say.

Great Guns Inc., which now calls itself Guns and Gear (no affiliation with this publication), will lose its federal gun-selling license, Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said in a statement.

The store, in March 1999, displayed two Ruger semiautomatic assault rifles that had been modified into illegal assault weapons, Wagner said.

Under the 1994 federal assault weapon ban, several types of semiautomatic rifles are illegal, including those that have detachable magazines, pistol grips and folding stocks.

The company’s owner, Sterling Fligge, was not held personally liable for the fine, and charges naming him were dismissed earlier.

www.gunsandgear.com/America%20Outdoors/Archives/fined.htm
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 11:36:29 AM EDT
The level of naivete in this thread is outstanding.

The arguments over presumptions and burdens is all an interesting debate. But have you considered that no matter who has the burden of proving what, if charges are filed against you there will be a six figure legal bill for you to pay.

Who wins in that case, even if you are acquitted.


I wouldn't touch any "preban AW" unless it's history is verifiable.
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 11:54:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 1:49:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By McUZI:

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
An AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, meaning the burden HAS SHIFTED TO THE DEFENDANT, is available. If the defendant can prove, yes, I said if a DEFENDANT can prove, that an exception applies, there is no violation.

That is the way the law is written and will be applied, IMHO.

Is it constitutional? I don't think so, but I'm not gonna find out.

THe way it is, in this case, is not the way it should be, but it's STILL the way it is.




No.

The burdon NEVER shifts to a defendant to provide a defense for himself.

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER.

You guys watch too much Matlock.
See, a defendant never has to even testify if he doesn't want to.
This is why the BURDON is always on the prosecution.
So, they can charge you with a violation, saying the gun was assembled post-94, and all you have to do is say "Prove It".
See, that's how it works folks.
People aren't charged with crimes, and then told they have to provide evidence of their innocence.
If that were the case, the police could arrest you, charge you with murder, and when you say "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!", they could simply say "Prove your innocence..."
This stuff is VERY VERY clearly prohibited in the legal system (Because it's what the English used to do to our founders)

You people think you can be forced to provide evidence of your innocence?
Nope.
Wrong wrong wrong.
This whole debate ends at the very beginning.
A defendant never has to say a damn word to anyone. You never have to "prove" anything as a defendant in a court of law.
They have to prove the gun was a post.
It's really a simple matter.

I understand very clearly what you fellas are saying.
That AW's are illegal, and that Pre-Ban status is a lawful exemption.
But it is up to the PROSECUTION to prove ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW; and since a lawful exemption exists, they would have to prove that the gun they are claiming is illegal doesn't fall under those auspicies (Being an exempt pre-ban).

Since asembling the gun post-94 is the legal violation which we are hypothetically discussing, it is up to them to prove it.

I just don't know how many times I can convey this to you guys. It's day-1 lawschool crap.
And this has been the most repetitive post I have ever made.
I said the same thing 20 times in this one post.

THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON THE PROSECUTION


I remembered something from my first week in law school that is informative. There are other instances in criminal law where the defendant has a burden, imperfect self defense, for example. This is where one claims to act in the MISTAKEN BUT GOOD FAITH belief that the situation would call for deadly force to protect one's self.


This makes me laugh.
It's hard to put your finger on, and describe it with words, but you know it when you see it.



Day one law school was 15 years ago for me.

You are INCORRECT in your statement of "how it is."

Self defense, never mind imperfect self defense, is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning it is up to the DEFENDANT to prove it.

Here's how it would go in a murder trial.

Prosecution proves defendant INTENTIONALLY pulled the trigger on a firearm, intending to kill the victim. Then they rest.

The defendant (any nobody else) can put on evidence that he acted in self defense, ie his state of mind, the circumstances, warnings given, etc. You are correct that he doesn't have to take the stand at all, but if he wants a self defense jury instruction, he must put on evidence of self defense. It doesn't have to be the defendant testifying, it could be a witness, but the DEFENDANT needs to put on evidence to get the instruction. The state still has to prove all the elements of murder, but the defendant DOES carry a burden. Now, in reality, the gov't knows your thoery will be self defense and will address the issue to try to disprove it, but it is the defendant's burden.

Rather than criticize my TV viewing habits, try reading your state's criminal jury instructions.

Same with a claim of diminished capacity or insanity. Who do you think proves the defendant is INSANE? The prosecutor? Nope. Shrinks paid for by defendant testify that he is crazy.

In the AW scenario, the prosecution would merely have to prove that you had possession of an AW after the ban. Now, in reality, they aren't going to go after anyone with polaroids of them holding up dated newspapers holding the weapon proving it's configuration pre ban, that's stupid and a waste of time.

But if you merely SAY it was in that config preban, they might proceed, and would certainly address your claim in their case in chief, but it's up to you to prove it is legal.

Link Posted: 8/8/2002 2:08:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:... Now, in reality, they aren't going to go after anyone with polaroids of them holding up dated newspapers holding the weapon proving it's configuration pre ban, that's stupid and a waste of time....


A polaroid of you holding a weapon next to a dated news paper wouldn't prove it was configured that way before the ban.

Link Posted: 8/8/2002 2:14:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2002 3:54:09 PM EDT by McUZI]
A lot of what we are arguing here is the same, so i'm going to trim a lot, and just get at the core issues.


Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

Prosecution proves defendant INTENTIONALLY pulled the trigger on a firearm, intending to kill the victim. Then they rest.



But in order to bring the case in the first place, they have to have proven that a "CRIME" was committed- And that's my point.
In order for them to bring a case against you in the first place, they have to prove that the rifle they are claiming is unlawful isn't exempt under 922r.
For example, say you are out driving, and you crash into another car.
They can't haul you into court, charging you with drunk driving, and then say "well, you crashed- so prove you weren't drunk"...
I think another good metaphor would be the vehicle window tint laws in Florida.
The law says that vehicles with windows tinted to a certain darkness are illegal, excepting for vehicles that had such tints done before the enactment of the law.
Of course, anyone can buy a 1986 Buick, and have the windows tinted, claiming it was done "back then"... But unless the prosecutor can prove that the windows were tinted after the law, you can't be cited if your vehicle is over (X) years old, since they can't prove when the tint was done.

And that's why I say this argument ends at the beginning.
Unless they can prove your gun isn't a lawfully exempt weapon from the outset, than there is no case.


Now, in reality, they aren't going to go after anyone with polaroids of them holding up dated newspapers holding the weapon proving it's configuration pre ban, that's stupid and a waste of time.


Why would have someone held up dated newspapers before the ban to exonerate themselves from a law that hadn't been passed yet?
(Besides. I have a dated newspaper from September 11th. If I hold it up and take my picture with it, does that mean today is September 11th?...)


Link Posted: 8/8/2002 2:29:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By McUZI:

Why would have someone held up dated newspapers before the ban to exonerate themselves from a law that hadn't been passed yet?
(Besides. I have a dated newspaper from September 11th. If I hold it up and take my picture with it, does that mean today is September 11th?...)





It was the only thing I could think of. I wanted an obvious but example but not a dated reciept.

We do agree that if you have decent proof it's exempt, you should be OK, but YOU are the source of that proof.

I'm dressed like Matlock right now, BTW.
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 2:49:12 PM EDT
You need to have maintained an auditable trail of evidence that the rifle purchased anytime before the ban was never not an assault rifle to prove your innocence.

Not only would you need a certified picture of the rifle assembled as an assault rifle prior to Sept 1994 but also, you’d need an audited trail of pictures second-by-second from the moment the rifle was assembled until the moment you were arrested and the police took the rifle. Otherwise who could prove that the rifle didn’t have its assault weapon features removed some dark night and then re-assembled. We had that discussion earlier – that once returned to a non-assault rifle status you would be in fact manufacturing the assault rifle when you returned the evil features back onto the rifle.

Following the logic counselor, then you’d need to prove that the rifle had in fact maintained its assault weapon status continuously since the ban when into effect.

The rules of evidence require an auditable trail of proof – I have a sworn off duty police officer on duty 7/25/265 recording on high speed video tape with embedded time code. Each tape is signed and sealed and then is stored in a guarded warehouse that is patrolled … where would this silliness ever end?

If what you claim is true we are all screwed as no one can prove that their rifle was always an assault weapon. I can prove that – strike that – their records go burned in a recent fire – that the gun left the manufacture on a date prior to the ban and that they indicate that it had evil features – whether those evil features fell off on the way to the store is not provable and therefore I’m screwed – along with every other pre-ban rifle owner in this former Republic of United States.


Link Posted: 8/8/2002 2:58:21 PM EDT
Like Macallan is always saying:

"your guns are already banned"
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 3:11:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
You need to have maintained an auditable trail of evidence that the rifle purchased anytime before the ban was never not an assault rifle to prove your innocence.

Not only would you need a certified picture of the rifle assembled as an assault rifle prior to Sept 1994 but also, you’d need an audited trail of pictures second-by-second from the moment the rifle was assembled until the moment you were arrested and the police took the rifle. Otherwise who could prove that the rifle didn’t have its assault weapon features removed some dark night and then re-assembled. We had that discussion earlier – that once returned to a non-assault rifle status you would be in fact manufacturing the assault rifle when you returned the evil features back onto the rifle.

Following the logic counselor, then you’d need to prove that the rifle had in fact maintained its assault weapon status continuously since the ban when into effect.

The rules of evidence require an auditable trail of proof – I have a sworn off duty police officer on duty 7/25/265 recording on high speed video tape with embedded time code. Each tape is signed and sealed and then is stored in a guarded warehouse that is patrolled … where would this silliness ever end?

If what you claim is true we are all screwed as no one can prove that their rifle was always an assault weapon. I can prove that – strike that – their records go burned in a recent fire – that the gun left the manufacture on a date prior to the ban and that they indicate that it had evil features – whether those evil features fell off on the way to the store is not provable and therefore I’m screwed – along with every other pre-ban rifle owner in this former Republic of United States.





I'm NOT saying the law doesn't blow, it does.

I don't know if anyone will ever be prosecuted under this law, and I'm pretty confident that if they are, it's the least of their worries.

I'm just telling you I interpret laws for a living, and that's what I think this law says.

Re your perpetual continuous status argument, I disagree. I think if you are the origional owner of a factory assembled preban, they aren't going to even try.

I'm talking about guys who advertise on the internet "I want a stripped preban."

This itself would be a problem for anyone charged. You put something like that out there, it can come back to bite you.

My read is that if they can prove you bought a stripped preban, and they caught you with a preban configured rifle, you are screwed.

If you buy a whatever in a private sale or otherwise so that the configuration is unknown and can't be checked, I think they'd be unlikely to go after you.

Of course, there are lots of cases in between, and that's why there are new law reporters coming out every month.

I think it's important that SOMEBODY say this stuff for those who may be wondering how this scheme might work.

To anyone who says "screw that, I'm doing what I want," more power to you, I'm not interested in turning anyone in, but I'd hate to have somebody up shit's creek without knowing both sides of this issue.
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 4:44:24 PM EDT
OK so I am the original owner of a ruger 10/22 purchased in 1985 and in 1986 I installed a Choate folding stock with pistol grip. I receipts for both items. If I understand anything out of this thread then this rifle is indeed a legal "pre ban AWB", yes??
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 5:09:38 PM EDT
Yes. It's legal even if you don't have the receipts, because thankfully, the American legal system requires proof of wrongdoing to prosecute, rather than just charging you with doing so, and telling you to prove otherwise.

So, if the gun is verfiably manufactured before 1994, than you are fine.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 2:42:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 9:22:45 AM EDT

Gentlemen,

I understand the affirmative defense and the AW Law. BUT...

My question for the lawyers (Steve, Phil others) and informed pseudo-lawyers: After the prosecution rests its case, would a preban manufacture date, alone, provide enough "reasonable doubt" as to the preban status of an assault weapon?

I know that there are no actual court cases on this matter. I just want you to give me your best guess as to what would happen.

By the way, under the strictest interpretation of the AW law that I have read, the exemption would apply only if YOU personally owned the AW on or before Sept 13 1994 (and you have since retained ownership). Under this interpretation ALL AW's transferred after Sept 13 1994 are postban.

Do we need an actual court decision to clarify the matter? At this rate we will never get a decision since this law is silly and only seems to be charged when someone commits a more serious crime and the AW law is added as an afterthought, or to pad the charges.

Thanks in advance for your OPINIONS on this matter (since we don't actually have a relevant court decision on my question).
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 9:30:05 AM EDT
YAHOO!!!.....aside from all the legal ramblings......looks like ALL my 10-22`s are PRE-BAN..........all bought before 1990......YAHOO.........
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 10:36:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ThunderStick:

Gentlemen,

I understand the affirmative defense and the AW Law. BUT...

My question for the lawyers (Steve, Phil others) and informed pseudo-lawyers: After the prosecution rests its case, would a preban manufacture date, alone, provide enough "reasonable doubt" as to the preban status of an assault weapon?

I know that there are no actual court cases on this matter. I just want you to give me your best guess as to what would happen.

By the way, under the strictest interpretation of the AW law that I have read, the exemption would apply only if YOU personally owned the AW on or before Sept 13 1994 (and you have since retained ownership). Under this interpretation ALL AW's transferred after Sept 13 1994 are postban.

Do we need an actual court decision to clarify the matter? At this rate we will never get a decision since this law is silly and only seems to be charged when someone commits a more serious crime and the AW law is added as an afterthought, or to pad the charges.

Thanks in advance for your OPINIONS on this matter (since we don't actually have a relevant court decision on my question).



Assuming that this is solely a prosecution on a single offense (which I don't think will ever happen, ie I think this offense is an add on to somebody popped for drugs, etc), I don't think you'd be charged based only on an assumption, IE that they merely THINK you bought it stripped and assembled it after.

I think they'd want a reciept for a "stripped" preban to build their case on. Or a buddy popped for something lesser who agrees to testify against you.

IF, and this is a BIG IF, you were charged with posession of an illegally assembled preban and there was no evidence avaiable for the gubmint to prove it was illegally assembled, I think the judge would hold that the gubmint hadn't proved the elements of the offense.

If the judge refused to so rule, your testimony that it was complete when you got it and you never unconfigured it, that SHOULD be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, but the jury is a wierd and often unpredictable animal.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 11:23:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 11:32:00 AM EDT
I am printing this thread out for assorted reasons.

But it has been a good discussion, for sure.
I am now going to have to go and buy a pre-ban 10/22, assemble it with a folder, and hope I get arrested with it, just so I can prove I am right.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 8:59:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2002 10:29:50 AM EDT
Can someone post the relitive portions of the law? I think it would make it much clearer WHY you have to provide a defense. It is my understanding that the govt has to prove it's an AW and thus illegal. You have to prove it's exempt by statue.
Top Top