Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/7/2002 3:19:40 AM EDT
On bighammer it says"

"BD000134 and Below (AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine - very rare model"

This is indicated in the area identifying all of the preban models made buy colt. My question is, what happened after that?? I know of one for sale in the BD0008XX area but it has nothing indicating it is a Police model or that it is a post ban rifle with the preban features... It has the collapsible stock, birdcage flash, etc.. There is no doubt this was made in the preban design but I need to know if it is legal to buy... Anyone out there know any better details on this matter?
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 3:55:03 AM EDT
As far as I know, this rifle was introduced and sold after the '94 cutoff, making the complete rifle available to LE/MIL only. I managed to find the DC6721 upper at KY Imports back in 1998. Everytime somebody sees it, they ask me how I go an LE rifle, and I have to explain that I put it on a pre-ban Bushmaster lower.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:17:58 AM EDT
I guess I should have added this all before but the real problem with my understanding this is that I am a Police Officer and while I am well aware of the fact that there is a manner by which to buy these guns through the department letterhead for departmental use, there is no manner by which to do this for personal use... The 2 possible ways are by the department for the department and the other is by the officer, for departmental only applications... There are none that provide for by the officer for his own use and endorsed by the department... Frankly, when off duty, we are subject to the same laws as everyone else...

That said, the 2 possibilities are that this gun is post ban and got through as a preban... At that point, I would not want it in my house because of the trouble it could bring and I doubt any dealer would ever transfer it anyway... The other is that a department or officer buy it for departmental use only... The problem with that however is that for the department only use, there are dozens of dealers selling brand new Colt AR15s for $750.00... Heck, M16s in 3 round are no more than $1200.00...

So there you have it... A used AR-15 A3 in preban setup with the usual $2000.00 or so price tag that can be sold to a department only yet they can get 2 new ones all day long for less money... I get the feeling the seller got it by accident and that it slipped through at the end of the prebans... The problem is that if someone buys it, they will more than likely end up surrendering it to the ATF or someone and some poor dealer might get screwed in the process if he does not catch it...

So what are your thoughts?? A seller that wants to get out while he still can or still a possibility that it is legit??

Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:48:46 AM EDT
... Oh man, this reminds me of an episode several years ago when I was a little more naive about pre/post matters. At a local two-day fun show this father and son outfit from the next state to the east was selling various Steyrs, Galils, Valmets, AR15’s and such.
I’m drooling over these carefully when the son pulls from underneath the table a brand new boxed Colt AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine S/N BD000134 (above S/N by a few hundred)
I fell in love and bought it for $1500 cash no paper (yeah, I should have known). Got home and did my research and cried. I even logged onto this site for the first time ever only to have members here reinforce the bad news.
No LEO only stamp or anything indicating it was a post ban. For a moment I had it in my mind to just to play dumb because it was such a beauty. Well after coming to my senses I went back the following day, approached the men about the legality and they took the rifle back and refunded my money.
I’m convinced they knew all along and were trying to pass it off. Unscrupulous crooks, at least they didn’t play dumb with me and rectified the matter.
Maybe it’s your turn to cry over it.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 9:01:17 AM EDT
So that is it then... Anything over 134 is no good and there is no way to tell one from the other... Nice!! Thanks all you nit wit politicians panicking through legislation after legislation... Jeepers, what a mess these gun laws all are... Thanks all, better to find out now than to get into a gun that is illegal... Illegal by a number and nothing more... Go figure...
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 12:01:24 PM EDT
I just called Colt so we don't have to go by rumors. As soon as the guy on the phone heard me say model 6721, he knew exactly what I was talking about. He confirmed that there were only 134 pre-bans built and the last preban was BD000134.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 12:33:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2002 1:29:36 AM EDT by Arock]
Yes it is illegal for sure and here it is...

www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=2831857

Only sellable to dealers or LE and note that missing from the text... Worries me that someone is in for a suprize...
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 12:40:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2002 1:28:50 AM EDT by Arock]
Since you're not going to buy it, I will go ahead and post the auction so everyone can see what this seller is doing.

www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=2831857

Notice all he mentions is that the gun is not stamped LEO/military only as if to say it is not a restricted post ban assault weapon.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 12:45:34 PM EDT
I tried contacting the one bidder...can't do that..new gunbroker policy.

Tried contacting GB, the only feedback they want is in suggestion/survey form

I sent an email to the seller, but I doubt he gives a shyte.

FWIW, I've seen two 6721's sell, both were advertised on the EE here. The asking prices for each were over $4000, and they sold quickly. If this guy was trying to sell his a restricted LEO only, wouldn't his price be much lower?
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 1:49:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By slt223:
... $4000, and they sold quickly.



... Thats roughly the going price on one of the 134 pre-ban models. My whole fiasco sucked!


ginally Posted By ahhfoo:
... Illegal by a number and nothing more...



... That sucks as well
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 3:52:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:14:14 PM EDT
Not ignorance unfortunately... Initially stated was not real sure at the onset but after a few emails and my report that I was going to call Colt to get a ruling he admitted it was a LE only gun that could go to a dealer or department only... Problem is, there still is no mention of it on there and I suspect he got stuck with it by accident and is trying to pass the bad luck on... Either way, some poor dealer will probably end up losing his license if he does not catch it and it is sad to say but given the dollar amount, it is plain to see it is no better than what it appears to be...

I just looked up the price at work for the same gun made now for departmental use and brand new it is $749.00... They also offer a 3 round burst version for $949.00... That is new and that is Colt... What is the likelihood a department will spend double that to buy a 10 year old model from a private party?? The truth is that no one would ever buy one used nor would they buy one without a maintenance program, warrantees and a dealer contract... Not to even mention the price...

In fairness I suppose he could be selling it to a private FFL dealer whom is also collecting under his FFL... Not sure if that is legal or correct but as long as it is possible, don't want to condemn the seller... We all know by now that it is buyer beware so if you don't look before you leap, you might find the ATF at your door to pick up your gun for free... You would be fortunate at that point to not get charged and just lose your $2000.00... Began wanting to protect me from that and now just hoping to protect those of you nice enough to help me out... So no one buy it on here and we will be OK...

As for Gunbroker.com, they protect themselves from side deals and in the process prevent us from protecting our fellow gun owners... I too tried to speak to people following auctions and what not but they prevent it so we have done what we could do and I thank all of you for helping me...
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 11:38:12 AM EDT
I got through to the seller via email. FWIW, he responded today with

"you are right it is a little misleading I will not run this add like it is written again. thanks Greg"
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 11:00:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Oh man, this reminds me of an episode several years ago when I was a little more naive about pre/post matters. At a local two-day fun show this father and son outfit from the next state to the east was selling various Steyrs, Galils, Valmets, AR15’s and such.
I’m drooling over these carefully when the son pulls from underneath the table a brand new boxed Colt AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine S/N BD000134 (above S/N by a few hundred)
I fell in love and bought it for $1500 cash no paper (yeah, I should have known). Got home and did my research and cried. I even logged onto this site for the first time ever only to have members here reinforce the bad news.
No LEO only stamp or anything indicating it was a post ban. For a moment I had it in my mind to just to play dumb because it was such a beauty. Well after coming to my senses I went back the following day, approached the men about the legality and they took the rifle back and refunded my money.
I’m convinced they knew all along and were trying to pass it off. Unscrupulous crooks, at least they didn’t play dumb with me and rectified the matter.
Maybe it’s your turn to cry over it.



I'm a little confused here. You say the rifle was serial #BD000134,so it was the last legal preban,correct?
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 1:57:25 PM EDT
... I see the confusion.

... "S/N BD000134 (above S/N by a few hundred)..."

No, mine was a few hundred numbers above BD000134. I'm thinking it was BD0003XX or so
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 2:06:54 PM EDT
Forgive my ignornace.... but how is it that he can have a lower marked A3 Tactical Carbine with a Serial Number that high and it is NOT marked LEO/MIL only on it? Did they make Postban Lowers stamped that way that had a fixed stock or something?
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 2:28:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DarkHelmet:
Forgive my ignornace.... but how is it that he can have a lower marked A3 Tactical Carbine with a Serial Number that high and it is NOT marked LEO/MIL only on it? Did they make Postban Lowers stamped that way that had a fixed stock or something?



I think the answer to your question lays with in the consistency, or lack there of, in Colt's manufacturing practices. The lack of "RESTRICTED LEO/MILITARY" stamp doesn't suprise me at all. Colt had manufactured some blue labels with bayo lugs some w/o, some with sear blocks and some with out. I'm not sure how they got away with manufacturing post ban assault weapons w/o the correct markings, but it doesn't suprise me the least that Colt would fail to do that.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 2:31:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By slt223:

Originally Posted By DarkHelmet:
Forgive my ignornace.... but how is it that he can have a lower marked A3 Tactical Carbine with a Serial Number that high and it is NOT marked LEO/MIL only on it? Did they make Postban Lowers stamped that way that had a fixed stock or something?



I think the answer to your question lays with in the consistency, or lack there of, in Colt's manufacturing practices. The lack of "RESTRICTED LEO/MILITARY" stamp doesn't suprise me at all. Colt had manufactured some blue labels with bayo lugs some w/o, some with sear blocks and some with out. I'm not sure how they got away with manufacturing post ban assault weapons w/o the correct markings, but it doesn't suprise me the least that Colt would fail to do that.



Yeah I've kind of noticed that. I thought it was required by law to be stamped.... but oh well. All I know is all my lowers are verified so....
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 3:48:51 PM EDT
My guess is that Colt ran the run as the law was being ratified and subsequently went back and retroactively sorted the pres from the posts as of the date in the middle of that run... It is hard to imagine that the law required them to power down that night and retool with the stamp... They were probably given to the end of the run and once the gun is finished, you can't stamp through the Parkerizing... I say this all because as I get it, this is the only model with the mid stride serial problem...

As for this seller, have had numerous messages back and forth and am confident he is fully aware of the move as they are made... I just ran my 6601 on the Gunbroker and I wrote numerous updates to explain the there was a mistake made in my originally listing it as a 6600... A tiny problem in light of this situation but nonetheless, I went to all reasonable lengths to ensure bidders knew exactly what was being sold... An update would take him 5 minutes max and being that there are new bidders with no transactions yet on file, he really should... Unfortunately, he has known about this since I made it clear 4 days ago so the exit of ignorance is less than sincere... Disingenuous is more likely and while I refuse to condemn anyone without facts, I would say some buyer is more than likely in for a visit from the ATF a short time into the ownership... What is worse, there is nothing we can do to help because of the rules that apply on Gunbroker.com with regards to emails...
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:01:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2002 4:05:49 PM EDT by Winston_Wolf]

Originally Posted By ahhfoo:
My guess is that Colt ran the run as the law was being ratified and subsequently went back and retroactively sorted the pres from the posts ...



... I requested a formal answer from Colt regarding this. In short that was their answer. The worker order was in, they were machined and finished and anything ASSEMBLED after 9/94 (in this case S/N BD000135 and above) was considered post.

... Believe me, I tried EVERY angle to retain the gun and because there was no stamp I almost did! Just figured I would always be "looking over my shoulder" when shooting it and that didn't settle well.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 5:36:47 PM EDT
I remember something about this in my "Green Book" that the ATF gives you when you start your FFL. I will look up the reference when I get home, but if memory serves me correctly there was a few months where a loophole existed where the receivers were not required to be marked. They were restricted mind you, but not marked as such.

Naturally, this was slammed shut quickly to avoid the obvious confusions later. Also, it would be difficult to convict someone for purchasing one of these that isn't marked as restricted. There's alot of plausible deniability IMHO as long as you aren't an expert.


Saleen
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 6:26:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2002 6:29:52 PM EDT by Hoople]
I brought up the same questions about 6721 LEO only marking in a thread in the Colt forum. As usual Stokes was the man with the answers.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=67192
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 8:37:35 PM EDT
The statute I was looking for is found on page 58 of the 2000 edition of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide. Specifically, it is in 178.92(a)(2) and states:

"Special markings for semi automatic assault weapons, effective July 5, 1995. In the case of any semi automatic assault weapon manufactured after September 13, 1994, the frame or receiver shall be marked RESTRICTED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT / GOVERNMENT USE ONLY or, in the case of weapons manufactured for export "FOR EXPORT ONLY" in the manner perscribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section."

So, it seems that for any semi automatic assault weapon manufactured for members in the "Restricted" class between 9-14-94 and 7-4-95, the weapon was not required to be marked. My guess is that all of these unmarked 6721s were made between those dates.


Saleen
Top Top