Posted: 11/1/2005 4:27:07 AM EDT
| If I buy a pre-ban lower and I get questioned on it , how can I prove it is a pre-ban? Is there a definitive source for serial numbers? I couldn't find anything on the BATF site. What if the manufacturer is out of business (ie PWA) and I can't get it from them? I can't just say I saw it on the internet. Is the burden of proof on me to prove it's legal? Just trying to avoid possible future hassles and problems |
|
Technically the burden of proof is on "them" to prove your guilty. It's a tricky thing. You first can start Here with checking your serial numbers. You can try calling your manufacture and verifying it. If your manufacture went out of business before 1994 (EA J-15) then you are all set, that is proof enough that it's a preban. (One of the safest) I have had sellers write a statement on a piece of paper saying that they were the original owner of the rifle and it was purchased pre 1994 as a complete rifle. I figure every little bit could help. Other than that I am not sure. Just keep in mind that it's up to the prosecution to prove it was either post 94 or not a complete rifle before 94. Hope this helps. |
|
The NY AWB bans the possession of named (Colt AR-15 etc.) AW's as well as semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine with more then one feature (pistol grip, bayo lug etc.) under the AW features test. The prosecutor need only establish beyond a reasonable doubt to the trier of facts (Judge or Jury) that you were in possession of the rifle and that in its current configuration it meets the definition of semi-automatic assault weapon and is therefore illegal for you to possess. It is then up to you as the defendant to introduce evidence at trial that your rifle is in fact exempt (as an exception) as provided for in the following: (v) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or any of the weapons defined in paragraph (d) of this subdivision lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four. The ATF was of the opinion that you were required to establish that prior to 09-14-1994 the rifle was a complete rifle configured with at least two banned features or was in kit form with all the parts necessary to assemble a complete rifle with at least two banned features or it was a named AW. It has not been established if NY courts will utilize the ATF definition of a preban but it is likely that they would. Evidence that the AW was lawfully possessed prior to 09-14-1994 might include a dated bill-of-sale, an affidavit of a previous owner, testimony of a previous owner, production records of the manufacturer, transfer records from an FFL, transfer records from a distributor to an FFL, expert testimony, your testimony etc. Stating that "I'm sorry but the manufacturer lost all their records in a fire would likely result in your conviction assuming you had no other competent evidence to establish that your rifle was not an assault weapon under NYS law. PWA never manufactured or shipped a complete rifle in any form. Proceed at your own risk even though the risk of being prosecuted is small. There are so many available documented prebans from Colt and Bushmaster I don’t see the point of it though. |
|
RKBAR, thank you for correcting me on this matter, I was unaware of the things that conflicted in my statement. I have one question. Did EA burn down prior to the AWB? If so wouldn't that be proof enough that your rifle was in fact a certified preban? The factory could not have produced anymore rifles after the fire. I suppose they could lay out the "complete" rifle card and question whether it was built prior to the 94 ban. Damn, this puts me in a pickle with at least 3 of my rifles. I always figured EA was a safe lower to go with. I bought at least 3 as just lowers. in fact only 2 of the 6-7 AR's I own are true from the factory pre 94's 
|
Yes EA was out of business prior to the AWB so all EA receivers are preban. The question in NY as to whether a receiver manufactured prior to the ban is considered an exempt AW has never been litigated in NYS. AFAIK the NYAG or the NYSP not will even issue an opinion on the matter. This was from another thread. Keep in mind this is just the ATF's opinion at the time it was written and does not necessarily mean anything as far as NYS is concerned. archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=226714 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 NOV 1 6 2001 Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX: This refers to your letter of March 19, 2001, in which you ask about the status of certain semiautomatic assault weapons which have been altered to another configuration. As defined in section 921(a)(30), of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C:), the term "semiautomatic assault weapon" includes certain named weapons and certain semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that have a combination of enumerated features. Title 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(1) prohibits manufacture, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons; however, section 922(v)(2) provides that any semiautomatic assault weapon that was lawfully possessed under Federal law on September 13, 1994, is excluded from the prohibition. A frame or receiver of a semiautomatic assault weapon, meets the definition of a "firearm" in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3); however, a firearm frame or receiver alone, without the additional qualifying features, does not meet the definition of a "semiautomatic assault weapon" in section 921(a)(30). Therefore, a firearm frame or receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2). We have also determined that a semiautomatic assault weapon in knockdown (unassembled) condition consisting of a receiver and all parts needed to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon are subject to regulation if the parts are segregated or packaged together and held by a person as the parts for the assembly of a particular firearm. You describe an AR15 type rifle that met the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon and was lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. At some subsequent time the rifle was temporarily reassembled in a configuration such that it no longer had the qualifying features of a semiautomatic assault weapon. You asked if the original components could then be lawfully reinstalled on the rifle. Provided that the original components were held by the owner and reinstalled on the rifle, it is our opinion that the rifle would still qualify as an exempted semiautomatic assault weapon even though it had been temporarily assembled in a different configuration. We note, that mere disassembly of a semiautomatic weapon by an owner would not remove the firearm from the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon nor would the reassembly constitute manufacture of a prohibited semiautomatic assault weapon. Your second question concerns a semiautomatic assault weapon that also meets the exemption in section 922(v)(2). However, this firearm was disassembled and the receiver, without other components, was sold. Since the receiver is no longer possessed with all parts necessary to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon, it no longer meets the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2) and assembly of this firearm in the configuration of a semiautomatic assault weapon would be prohibited under section 922(v)(1). If you are interested in determining the status of a particular receiver or semiautomatic assault weapon, you should contact the manufacturer or importer and ask about the date that it was manufactured and the configuration at the time of sale. It may also be necessary to contact subsequent dealers and owners who possessed the firearm. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Curtis H.A. Bartlett Chief, Firearms Technology Branch |
Essential Arms did not go out of business prior to the AWB. They just stopped making cast lowers and sold their tooling equipment. They continued to produce collapsible stocks. They started to produce cast lowers again a little over a year ago. The difference between pre and post ban is the model marked on the receiver. Preban lowers are marked "Model J-15" and postban lowers are marked "Model J-15-2". Essential Arms will no longer be making cast lowers, they will be available as forged aluminum or stainless steel lowers. |
Thanks for the info. This is what I was using: www.ar15.com/content/legal/serialNumberList.html Essential Arms All are Pre-Ban as they went out of business in 1993. (DPMS bought them prior to the Ban) Call DPMS Lower receiver serial numbers begin with EA. Some or all lowers are cast. Light gray coloring. It is rumored that Ruger investment casted the lowers for Essential Arms. And this: www.mp5.net/info/preban.htm#Essential Essential Arms (tooling bought by DPMS 1-800-578-3767) Per DPMS, Essential Arms went out of business prior to the ban and hence, all Essential Arms lower receivers should be pre-ban. And this: www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/General/DisplayPDF.aspx?f=bt002007.pdf E.A.Co. - Essential Arms Co. P.O. Box 121 Krotz Springs, LA 70750 All receivers were manufactured before the Crime Bill was signed. Almost everyone shipped before the signing. E. A. never assembled or sold complete rifles, so all receivers were shipped as receivers only. You’re on your own. Closed up, and quit manufacture as of March 31, 1996. |
| The ATFE doesnt prosecute people for the NYSAWB, so they cant give a correct response. Neither will the NYSAG prosecute anyone for the ban. Its really a mute issue. I think we have all been looking for a case that resulted in a conviction for this law, all to no avail. And its been with us since 2002 (?). |
|
The NY AWB became effective on Nov 1, 2000. You can pretty much guarantee that an ATF Technology Branch agent will be used as an expert witness by either the prosecution or defense at any trial. Keep in mind that the intent of the NY AWB was to mirror the Federal AWB that was in effect in 2000. I would not call the NY AWB a non-issue. It would suck to be rotting in states prison convicted of a felony over a flash suppressor, collapsible stock or bayo lug etc. It's a really stupid risk to take when you can easily conform to the current NY AWB with a documented preban rifle. YMMV. |
|
|
By the time you get to a trial you will have lost your job, had your pistol permit revoked, had all your firearms confiscated, lost your RKBA at the federal level and be deeply in debt. If you are lucky you will make bail otherwise you will sit rotting in the county jail awaiting trial. You are dreaming if you think a jury will think the AWB is BS. All they will see is a black scary gun whose only purpose is to kill people and little else will matter to them. |
"Lawfully possessed' means possesed by anyone prior to the ban. Also keep in mind that of 63,000 preban Bushmasters, only about 33,000 left the factory as complete rifles. The rest were sold as lowers. All preban Colts came from the factory as complete rifles as they did not start selling lowers until the late 90's. As for preban Eagle Arms AR15s, factory rifles had a white eagle arsenal stamp in front of the magwell. |