User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:30:36 AM EDT
[#1]
The only real way to tell would be to run the serial number by the manufacturer. And that doesn't always work either, as for example, Olympic Arms lost all their records in a fire.
I'm sure most average LEOs could care less, but BATF crud does-- it's their bread and butter and how they get ahead in their profession. Just ask the folks at Waco. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:32:13 AM EDT
[#2]
I can imagine the only time some one will persue a convition for AW ban violations is when the the prosecution has alreaddy got you on something else and they are just trying to stack up the convictions. Or if they can't get you for the crime they really want.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:34:51 AM EDT
[#3]
its safe until the BATF comes knocking with handcuffs and a rectal plug(to prep you for bubba).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:36:56 AM EDT
[#4]
I think many here would just rather play it safe and NOT go to an expense paid trip to Club Fed.
Av. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:38:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Certainly, all sorts of bad things [b]could[/b] happen, but the question was whether or not there's been an instance in which they actually [b]have[/b] happened.
Has anyone been convicted of "manufacturing" a prohibited SAW by adding pre-ban features to a post-ban rifle? Maybe there haven't been any convictions because no one's broken the law. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 6:28:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Jason280, just don't bring it to the BRC, because we are all law abiding citizens and will yell at you!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 6:47:10 AM EDT
[#7]
I know what you mean, Torf!! But, it cracks me up the way people freak out when you mention using a collapsable stock on a post-ban gun. Besides, I don't think the BATF has (yet) created a special task force to "irradicate the influx of 'illegally' converted guns".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 6:47:51 AM EDT
[#8]
I know what you mean, Torf!! But, it cracks me up the way people freak out when you mention using a collapsable stock on a post-ban gun. Besides, I don't think the BATF has (yet) created a special task force to "irradicate the influx of 'illegally' converted guns".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 6:57:57 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: But, it cracks me up the way people freak out when you mention using a collapsable stock on a post-ban gun. We "freak out" because we follow the laws. I'm sure there are a few people here who put pre-ban parts on a post-ban gun. However, I think the majority do not. As for a "conviction", write a letter to the ATF office asking the same question. They should be able to provide a report on the number of people who have been convicted due to violations of the AW ban. I would have no idea when that data was last complied. Av. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 7:21:14 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: I'm thinking even a BATF agent would have to be really dedicated to charge someone with a felony for failing to have a butthole stock on an AK-47 for example. I'm sure there are those that would do it, but how bad would it look in court if your attorney addressed the jury with: "My client is here today, in jeopardy of losing his freedom, his right to bear arms, his right to vote and to join the military, simply because his rifle doesn't have a small piece of wood between the buttstock and grip." Or for that matter, a screwed on flash hider as opposed to a tack welded muzzle brake, both of which look remarkably alike. I'm sure there are those who would charge a a person for it, but I haven't heard of any cases myself. I believe Ruby Ridge was perpetrated because of a shot gun that was 3/8" too short. Barrel was legal, but stock was a tad too short. Man had his wife, son, and dog killed because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. I'd put nothing past the SOBs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 7:31:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: I'm thinking even a BATF agent would have to be really dedicated to charge someone with a felony for failing to have a butthole stock on an AK-47 for example. I'm sure there are those that would do it, but how bad would it look in court if your attorney addressed the jury with: "My client is here today, in jeopardy of losing his freedom, his right to bear arms, his right to vote and to join the military, simply because his rifle doesn't have a small piece of wood between the buttstock and grip." Or for that matter, a screwed on flash hider as opposed to a tack welded muzzle brake, both of which look remarkably alike. I'm sure there are those who would charge a a person for it, but I haven't heard of any cases myself. I believe Ruby Ridge was perpetrated because of a shot gun that was 3/8" too short. Barrel was legal, but stock was a tad too short. Man had his wife, son, and dog killed because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. I'd put nothing past the SOBs. That's a different law (NFA). Besides, the weapons violation wasn't, as I understand it, the source of the problem. The feds set up Weaver because they wanted him to act as an informant for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 7:35:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: I'm thinking even a BATF agent would have to be really dedicated to charge someone with a felony for failing to have a butthole stock on an AK-47 for example. I'm sure there are those that would do it, but how bad would it look in court if your attorney addressed the jury with: "My client is here today, in jeopardy of losing his freedom, his right to bear arms, his right to vote and to join the military, simply because his rifle doesn't have a small piece of wood between the buttstock and grip." Or for that matter, a screwed on flash hider as opposed to a tack welded muzzle brake, both of which look remarkably alike. I'm sure there are those who would charge a a person for it, but I haven't heard of any cases myself. I believe Ruby Ridge was perpetrated because of a shot gun that was 3/8" too short. Barrel was legal, but stock was a tad too short. Man had his wife, son, and dog killed because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. I'd put nothing past the SOBs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOOTINGS AT RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO DURING ARREST OF RANDY WEAVER In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to aBATF informant. When BATF agents later attempted to enlistWeaver as an informant in their investigation of the AryanNations, Weaver refused to cooperate. Seven months later, thegovernment indicted Weaver for the illegal weapons sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 7:50:12 AM EDT
[#13]
[url]http://www.gunsandgear.com/America%20Outdoors/Archives/fined.htm[/url]
Guns in question were 10-22's equipped with pistol grip sidefolding stocks... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 7:51:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Dukota, you need to read the book. When you say, "In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to aBATF informant," you make it sound much more significant than it really was. He cut off a shotgun to minimum
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 7:56:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Dukota, you need to read the book. When you say, "In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to aBATF informant," you make it sound much more significant than it really was. He cut off a shotgun to minimum Beekeeper, which book is that? I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant. I should have listed the source of that information. Took that off of a Dept of Justice report. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:09:23 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Dukota, you need to read the book. When you say, "In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to aBATF informant," you make it sound much more significant than it really was. He cut off a shotgun to minimum Besides, all that was BEFORE the 1994 bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:15:36 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Beekeeper, which book is that? I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant. I should have listed the source of that information. Took that off of a Dept of Justice report. Not flaming you, just a suggestion, as the books are very frightening/interesting. The one I read was called something like "Incident at Ruby Ridge." I don't think that is the correct title, but it's close. There is a subsequent one called "Every Knee Shall Bow" that I have not read. I think it is told directly by the family. It is not surprising the DOJ would make it sound like a much worse violation than it really was. 7, he violated the 1934 NFA--nothing to do with the '94 law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:21:52 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: Beekeeper, which book is that? I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant. I should have listed the source of that information. Took that off of a Dept of Justice report. Not flaming you, just a suggestion, as the books are very frightening/interesting. The one I read was called something like "Incident at Ruby Ridge." I don't think that is the correct title, but it's close. There is a subsequent one called "Every Knee Shall Bow" that I have not read. I think it is told directly by the family. It is not surprising the DOJ would make it sound like a much worse violation than it really was. 7, he violated the 1934 NFA--nothing to do with the '94 law. Thanks Beekeeper. I'm flying to Dallas this afternoon. I'll stop by Barnes and Noble and see what I can find on the way to the airport. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:26:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: 7, he violated the 1934 NFA--nothing to do with the '94 law. I was replying because the original question had to do with the 94 bill, not NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:37:27 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: [url]http://www.gunsandgear.com/America%20Outdoors/Archives/fined.htm[/url] Guns in question were 10-22's equipped with pistol grip sidefolding stocks... Another casualty of the unconstitutional victimless crime laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:12:27 AM EDT
[#21]
I second what marvl and thebeekeeper said.
My personal opinion is that it's most likely to be used as a tack-on offense, but what if it's noticed during some unrelated police activity? Like your home got burglarized and they notice the gun, or and ex-girlfriend/wife/co-worker gets mad at you and makes up a report that you've got something illegal. Or lets say it's a recovered theft they're going to give back to you ....only ooops! "Is this *your* illegal assault weapon? Come with us son." Or lets say you have a car accident on the way to the range and they remove it from your car to hold while you're in the ambulance/hospital (true story for me). My point is that there are so many unknown instances where the fact that it's in an illegal configuration (no matter how stupid that law is) that for me it's just not worth taking the risk. Believe me, after just *one* run-in with the law where it's discovered that you're carrying an illegal assault weapon, you'll *wish* you had paid the extra $500 just to be legal. You'll probably be happy to get off after paying 10x that amount. For me it's not worth it. ymmv. Have fun, Observer |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:42:46 AM EDT
[#22]
I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant. Was Weaver actually convicted on the weapons charge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:51:59 AM EDT
[#23]
The ATF monitors this site, so why don't you answer us???????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:54:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: I never stated he was running guns or running an illegal business or operation, I merely stated that he sold an illegal weapon/weapons to a BATF informant. Was Weaver actually convicted on the weapons charge? The jury found Randy not guilty. They further found that they (the feds) entrapped him. He did not "sell" illegal weapons. The informant brought him guns to be altered, after bugging him on numerous occaisions to "help" him. Randy finally consented because his family was desperate for $$. It is common practice for undercover types to encourage people to break the law. They "create criminals" to justify their own existence. Beware of those who do this...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:59:29 AM EDT
[#25]
I don't care which law you quote, what a man's politics are, or whether or not there was an actual violation. The facts are plain and simple. The government murdered an innocent man's wife, son, and dog. I'd say that's a very good reason to be paranoid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:00:01 AM EDT
[#26]
Didn't David Koresh receive a fine for this also?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:46:39 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: [url]http://www.gunsandgear.com/America%20Outdoors/Archives/fined.htm[/url] Guns in question were 10-22's equipped with pistol grip sidefolding stocks... That was in Kalie--the '94 ban has nothing to do with rimfire rifles, your .22 can have all the evil features you want on it. Hell, an AR 2 with a .22LR upper can as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:58:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Didn't David Koresh receive a fine for this also? I am not aware of Koresh and company ever having any legal difficulties. He was on good terms with the local sheriff and contacted him regularly for advice on "staying legal." Shortly before he was assaulted/murdered he had discussed the legal status of a "Hellfire" device with the local sheriff. He was murdered over alleged |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
