User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:22:21 AM EDT
[#1]
Depending on the manufacture of the lower there may be no way to prove that it was not assembled into a complete weapon. And... i'm doubtful that anyone would go to the trouble to try and prove otherwise.
I agree with you... if i were new to AR's i would not pay a premium for a pre. i would just buy a post ban and assemble it into pre. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:22:38 AM EDT
[#2]
Last time I checked, people innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:22:44 AM EDT
[#3]
well atomic punk, you find a dealer that has documentation of it being a rifle before the ban, as you would have to do with a full rifle. also, the numbers can tell you if it left the factory as a rilfe, again, just as a rifle
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:23:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Atomic..........It is my understanding that one can do whatever the F one wants with a pre-ban lower, stripped or not...........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:23:52 AM EDT
[#5]
Wouldn't any pre-ban paperwork be kept with the rifle (lower)? If I had a preban rifle and needed the money, I would strip it apart, sell the lower and buy a postban receiver. Maybe pre-ban is not that important to some of us. Im not sure what you don't understand? As long as the paper said that SN****** was an assembled rifle before 94 then what would the problem be?
Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:24:02 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Last time I checked, I'm innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date. unfortunatly, the ATF has decided the bill of rights dosent apply to us, the "law" says you have to prove it is preban, what a load of sheit |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:25:40 AM EDT
[#7]
Speaking for myself and Bushmaster, here's my experience.
I found a beautiful pre-ban Bushmaster for a great price. I called Bushmaster to verify the serial number. It took about 3 minutes to get an answer from them, and they told me the year it was made, and that it had left the factory as a complete rifle. I don't know how the others AR makers deal with this, but Bushmaster seems pretty willing to verify a rifle if you just ask. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:26:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Last time I checked, I'm innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date. unfortunatly, the ATF has decided the bill of rights dosent apply to us, the "law" says you have to prove it is preban, what a load of sheit Do you have a link to that law? I don't remember it saying anything about proving it was a preban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:33:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Swire...you're absolutely right. Also totally irrelevant. Neither the IRS nor the BATF have to prove anything to wreck your life. If you think differently, you've missed the last twenty years and you're living in a fantasy world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:34:55 AM EDT
[#10]
From the time of production untill the '94 ban, as long as the lower was ever atached to an upper, wouldn't that constitute a complete weapon? There would also be no paperwork for the most part to prove that this happened, but many people attached uppers to check for fit, even if it was for only ten minutes it still would have been a complete weapon. I am not sure if this is legal and it may be hard for you to prove, but it will also be just as hard to disprove.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 8:49:10 AM EDT
[#11]
The lower would be considered preban even if it weren't assembled into a rifle. All you need is a "collection of parts". That, together with a receiver, in the eyes of ATF, is sufficient.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 9:02:31 AM EDT
[#12]
this has got to be the stupidest crap law still that I have heard out of those people, If I have to go through a nics and yellow form to buy a lower it IS the firearm itself, and it's date of manufacture is not when I put a buncha detent pins and a barrel on it (which any felon can legally buy, up to a full minus lower parts kit) but when IT the lower was actually manufactured, bunch of crap read garandman's thread "i think this says it pretty well" our federal government for their own interest is in the business of MANUFACTURING CRIMINALS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 10:25:12 AM EDT
[#13]
SWIRE -
Do you have a link to that law? I don't remember it saying anything about proving it was a preban. 18 USC 922(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection. Note how its written - the gov't merely has to prove you were in possession of an assault weapon as defined by 921(a)(30) - doesn't matter if its a bonafide preban or not. Subsection 2 creates an affirmative defense to a charge of possession, but ultimately the burden does fall on the accused to plead and prove it was lawfully possessed on or prior to 9-13-94. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 10:30:06 AM EDT
[#14]
Ericm -
this has got to be the stupidest crap law still that I have heard out of those people, If I have to go through a nics and yellow form to buy a lower it IS the firearm itself, and it's date of manufacture is not when I put a buncha detent pins and a barrel on it (which any felon can legally buy, up to a full minus lower parts kit) but when IT the lower was actually manufactured Yeah, but unfortunately (...or maybe fortunately) the law defines an "assault weapon" by when the gun had certain features, not by when the gun or receiver was manufactured. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 10:43:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Taking a pre- or post ban and adding any two of the five characteristic assemblies would constitute manufacturing a semiautomatic assault weapon and would be a violation of 18 USC: Section 922 (v) (1), which states...
"(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection." See this link: [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html[/url] Shaggy mentions this above and it is important since it is your butt you will have to defend and this is how the law reads. The ATF does not have to come to your defense nor do they have to get documentation for you. If you buy a pre-ban anything in the year 2001 it will appear as though you are trying to skirt the law, especially with an incomplete rifle and certainly with a stripped lower receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 10:45:56 AM EDT
[#16]
Originally Posted By Atomic Punk: Tell me why is it many people still think you can buy a pre-ban lower and put a pre-ban upper on it and be in compliance with the Federal Assault Weapon law? How are you going to prove that this lower was assembled as a complete rifle before the cut-off date in 1994? And now that it's the year 2001, a stripped pre-ban lower has to be a near impossibility. Why buy a $500 "pre-ban" lower that can only legally be built as post-ban? Are you on drugs? Why cant I strip my fully assembled preban lower and then sell it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 10:57:37 AM EDT
[#17]
Ripmeyer,
You can do whatever you like. Would you sell it at a premium and make an enormous profit and leave the buyer to defend his purchase and subsequent assembly into a pre-ban configuration because you implied it's legality due to the premium you charged him for pre-ban status? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:03:01 AM EDT
[#18]
It left the factory fully assembled in 92.
Whats your point? once an assault weapon always an assault weapon. You worry to much. Steer you effort towards fighting this law not defending it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:08:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Atom:
I posted an explanation to some of this it may help [URL]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=20744[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:12:55 AM EDT
[#20]
Atomic Punk wrote: Taking a pre- or post ban and adding any two of the five characteristic assemblies would constitute manufacturing a semiautomatic assault weapon Wrong!!! Assembling parts is [b]not[/b] manufacturing. Creating a serial-numbered lower is manufacturing. Norm |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:13:58 AM EDT
[#21]
Atomic -
There are types of receivers that are just obviously bonafide preban because thats the only way they left the factory. For example, Colt never sold stripped SP1 lowers- they all left the factory as completed rifles with enough features to meet the statutory definition of a "assault weapon". I have a Colt Gov't Carbine receiver I'm thinking of selling; just by looking at it, any doofus can tell its a preban. Colt never sold stripped "Gov't Carbine" receivers - they all left the factory as complete rifles (hence the "carbine" designation) and by virture of the fact that there's no sear block, its obviously pre-89. Withother manufacturers and models it can be a little more problematic, but all it takes is a quick call to the manufcturer to find out when it left the factory and in what configuration. Failing that, it may still be a bonafide preban, but you should get some sort of documentation from the seller and make sure you have some sort of recourse against him should it turn out to be a post ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:18:40 AM EDT
[#22]
Norm -
Wrong!!! Assembling parts is not manufacturing. Creating a serial-numbered lower is manufacturing. Norm, for purposes of creating an "assault weapon", assembling parts IS manufacturing. See my post above to EricM and see 18 USC 921(a)(30), 18 USC 922(v) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:31:32 AM EDT
[#23]
As Rip pointed out, there ARE stripped preban lowers.
Any other stupid statement you want to make? Maybe you should seek council first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:31:34 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Last time I checked, I'm innocent until proven guilty. That means the ATF has to prove that it was not built into a rifle before that date. unfortunatly, the ATF has decided the bill of rights dosent apply to us, the "law" says you have to prove it is preban, what a load of sheit Do you have a link to that law? I don't remember it saying anything about proving it was a preban. Actually I beleive the law states that the burden of proof falls on the ATF, I will search for an online reference. If anyone knows where I can find it please help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:37:03 AM EDT
[#25]
slt223-
The burden of proof falls on BATF to prove your hi-cap mags were made after '94 (18 USC 922(w)), but the burden runs the other way for assault weapons (18 USC 922(v))- see my post above - I copied the relevant parts of 922(v). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:40:15 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: From the time of production untill the '94 ban, as long as the lower was ever atached to an upper, wouldn't that constitute a complete weapon? Not necessarily. For example, Eagle Arms made a target model called the Golden Eagle. These were all made before the ban, and shipped as complete rifles, and Armalite can prove it, so they're preban, right? Wrong. These guns didn't have enough evil features to be considered "Assault Weapons", so they don't qualify for grandfathering. On the other hand, you could have theoretically bought a stripped lower, and seperately purchased a complete "kit" (everything but the stripped lower), all before the ban, and that lower would qualify as a pre-ban even if it had never been assembled. The problem is that you need SOME kind of proof ON PAPER regarding your gun's status. This can be a letter from the manufacturer, dated receipts for the lower and parts kit, or a letter from the person who owned the rifle on 9/13/94 stating that the rifle was a complete AW (if YOU owned it since before the ban, your own first-hand account is also good enough, apparently). So, who has a problem? The guy that bought a "pre-ban" lower or rifle at some point since the ban, without paperwork of any kind, and can't get a letter from the manufacturer for whatever reason. If you can't provide the proof above, proof good enough to stand up in court, you have a post-ban lower. Is this fair? Of course not; the whole AW ban is totally unConstitutional, but when the Supremes refuse to take a 2nd Amendment case, there's little more you can do within the system. Today, people very rarely get busted for AW violations alone; most of the charges are add-ons to existing crimes. Tomorrow, who knows? -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:41:43 AM EDT
[#27]
RK -
As Rip pointed out, there ARE stripped preban lowers. Any other stupid statement you want to make? Maybe you should seek council first. You talkin' to me or Atomic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:44:22 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: The lower would be considered preban even if it weren't assembled into a rifle. All you need is a "collection of parts". That, together with a receiver, in the eyes of ATF, is sufficient. This is incorrect. The '94 AW ban states that a complete set of parts that could be used to assemble an AW, cannot be assembled into AW configuration if assembled after the '94 bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 11:53:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Hey Shaggy, can you send me a link to the Federal AW ban? Do you know where I can get a copy of it a it appears in U.S. Code?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 12:04:35 PM EDT
[#30]
slt223 - try this...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html Thats the 94 AWB and other related gun laws in the same section of the USCode. Note however that many of the terms in the law are defined terms, so refer to back to 18 USC 921 (just change 922 to 921 in the URL) for the statutory definitions which are in operation in 922. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 12:08:55 PM EDT
[#31]
It's always a good thing to rile the choir members. I'll state for purposes of those who wish to try to understand my intentions that I had an ATF agent (friendly guy, and is not the "enemy", that title goes to others who write legislation) research this very question and that's how it came back. Yes, assembling for purposes of trying to own or possess the legal definition of "Assault Weapon" after the ban by putting together a pre-or post ban receiver with a pre-ban upper will get you in trouble. That's the bottom line. Do I disagree with the intent of the assault weapons legislation? YES!!!!
Furthermore, is it ethical to sell to a fellow gun owner something that could get them in trouble for mere possession and for you to take a profit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 12:22:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: From the time of production untill the '94 ban, as long as the lower was ever atached to an upper, wouldn't that constitute a complete weapon? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not necessarily. For example, Eagle Arms made a target model called the Golden Eagle. These were all made before the ban, and shipped as complete rifles, and Armalite can prove it, so they're preban, right? Wrong. These guns didn't have enough evil features to be considered "Assault Weapons", so they don't qualify for grandfathering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 12:40:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Originally Posted By Atomic Punk: It's always a good thing to rile the choir members. I'll state for purposes of those who wish to try to understand my intentions that I had an ATF agent (friendly guy, and is not the "enemy", that title goes to others who write legislation) research this very question and that's how it came back. Yes, assembling for purposes of trying to own or possess the legal definition of "Assault Weapon" after the ban by putting together a pre-or post ban receiver with a pre-ban upper will get you in trouble. That's the bottom line. Do I disagree with the intent of the assault weapons legislation? YES!!!! Furthermore, is it ethical to sell to a fellow gun owner something that could get them in trouble for mere possession and for you to take a profit? I dont think you phrased your question to the BATF correctly. Try asking them if you can put a upper with evil features on a Verified Pre ban Semi-Automatic Assault weapon lower. This should be legal because all you really are doing is replacing parts on a grandfathered weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 12:57:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Only grandfathered if the weapon was already a fully built AR15 with all the evil features before the 94 AW ban. Pre-ban lowers by themselves dont count. If it wasnt assembled as such before the 94 ban, you will need to have your pre-ban lower built into a post ban rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 1:00:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: RK - As Rip pointed out, there ARE stripped preban lowers. Any other stupid statement you want to make? Maybe you should seek council first. You talkin' to me or Atomic? Sorry Rip, I was referring to the statement “No such thing as pre-ban stripped lower!” by AtomicPunk Looking back my statement was vague. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 1:08:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: The problem is that you need SOME kind of proof ON PAPER regarding your gun's status. -Troy Care to elaborate on that statement? Who, what, where, when and why? I was not aware of any such requirement. RK |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 1:59:35 PM EDT
[#37]
oneshot1kill,
The Eagle Arms "Golden Eagle" was a target AR, with fixed stock, heavy 24" barrel with float tube, and no bayo lug, FS, or threaded muzzle. In other words, it looked like a typical post-ban, yet they were made before 1994. Unless the owner had a second upper with at least one additional "evil feature", these are post-ban rifles. Righteous Kill, The only time pre vs. post-ban status matters is in court, right? If an LEO suspects you of having an "illegal AW," he will either "let it go", or he will confiscate it and charge you, and you'll end up in court. So, because of the way the law is written, the prosecuter would display the rifle in "AW" configuration, read the text of the law, and show the jury that the gun in question meets the definition of "AW," and therefore you're guilty. Now, it's your lawyer's turn to stand up and present evidence to use in your defense. Either you'd need to testify to having first-hand knowledge of the rifle's AW configuration on or before Sept 13, 1994, or you'd need to present some kind of paperwork to prove the same. If you owned the rifle since before the ban, you can stand up and tell the jury that you yourself had the gun in AW configuration, and you'll be ok. But if you didn't own the rifle at the time of the ban, you can't give that evidence, as you have no first-hand knowledge. All you can present in your defense at this point is a letter from the manufacturer, receipts for the parts, or a letter from the person who DID own the rifle at the time of the ban. If you don't have any of these, what evidence will your lawyer submit to the court in your defense? The Bart Simpson defense, maybe? "Nobody saw me; can't prove a thing!" [:)] In court is the ONLY place it really counts. Otherwise, why are you spending the extra money for a pre-ban? To have a warm-fuzzy? [:)] -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 4:14:25 PM EDT
[#38]
For Pete's sake, people..if the ATF decides to, they can kick in your door, trash your house, cuff you, your wife, your kids and your dog, toss all your guns in a trashcan and haul you off. You then have to spend every last dime you have on a legal defense while they stall and postpone. When it's finally decided that they can't "Prove" the thing was a postban, you can go home to what's left and try to scrape up money to mount a legal attempt to reclaim your guns. Oh, and your job is long gone too.
There is nothing in the above that they haven't already done to innocent people. Now who really gives a rat's ass about whether you were innocent or not? The last Jews to be taken were found arguing about whether it was technically legal for the Nazis to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 4:22:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Let's beat another dead horse to death! There are those that think/say that you must be able to proce your weapon is pre-ban. There are still others that think/say ATF must prove it is not pre-ban.
As a police officer and a licensed FFL I'm with the folks who think ATF must prove it is not pre-ban. Don't get me wrong, though I defiently welcome any supporting documentation when dealing with pre-ban items. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 4:48:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Well I wonder what was in that package that I just sent off to DPMS to have re-finished then, if there is no such thing as a stripped Pre Ban lower?
When I get it back, I still have not decided if I will build another AR (pre ban) or sell it to fund a different type weapon purchase. Either way, it is pre ban, and it is stripped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 5:02:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Just be warned that building an AR15 with evil features after the 1994 (even though you are using a "pre-ban" receiver assembly)is NOT legal. Unless that preban receiver was a whole rifle with bayo-lug, etc. before the ban. Who has the burden of proof (You v. the Gov't)? Lets hope none of us has to find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 6:10:52 PM EDT
[#42]
There is nothing in assault weapon ban that says you must provide proof of status.
Do you have proof your preban mags are indeed preban? There has been after all accounts of postban mags without the leo/govt marking or a date of mfg stamp. There are also thousands of preban mags without dates. In unlikely chance I’m questioned about the status of my preban AR-15. First I’ll show how the serial number falls within the range of preban. If for some really far fetched chance the inquisition continues, I’ll tell it to the judge and/or jury. If it goes on even further, I’ll testify under oath the rifle in question was represented to me by the seller as a grandfathered preban assault rifle, and I have know reason to doubt that it was anything else. That’s a lot more than the prosecution will have. The most they will have is the lower left the factory stripped and was sold sometime before the ban stripped, that hardly proves the rifle was never assembled. You think some letter written by a former owner proves anything? Get a clue, there are FFL dealers out there who will sell what they know is an illegal postban lower configured as an assault rifle and smile while they tell you it’s preban. I’m sorry, but some of you are paranoid beyond reason. And people with paranoid delusions love nothing better than convincing everyone else to be paranoid along with them. Celt is also very correct, if the ATF, IRS or any other govt agency wants your ass, you’re going down, right, wrong or indifferent, that’s the way the system works. Even if you’re right, you can not afford to fight the government. I’ve seen it happen several times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 6:13:23 PM EDT
[#43]
There is nothing in assault weapon ban that says you must provide proof of status.
Do you have proof your preban mags are indeed preban? There has been after all accounts of postban mags without the leo/govt marking or a date of mfg stamp. There are also thousands of preban mags without dates. In unlikely chance I’m questioned about the status of my preban AR-15. First I’ll show how the serial number falls within the range of preban. If for some really far fetched chance the inquisition continues, I’ll tell it to the judge and/or jury. If it goes on even further, I’ll testify under oath the rifle in question was represented to me by the seller as a grandfathered preban assault rifle, and I have know reason to doubt that it was anything else. That’s a lot more than the prosecution will have. The most they will have is the lower left the factory stripped and was sold sometime before the ban stripped, that hardly proves the rifle was never assembled. You think some letter written by a former owner proves anything? Get a clue, there are FFL dealers out there who will sell what they know is an illegal postban lower configured as an assault rifle and smile while they tell you it’s preban. I’m sorry, but some of you are paranoid beyond reason. And people with paranoid delusions love nothing better than convincing everyone else to be paranoid along with them. Celt is also very correct, if the ATF, IRS or any other govt agency wants your ass, you’re going down, right, wrong or indifferent, that’s the way the system works. Even if you’re right, you can not afford to fight the government. I’ve seen it happen several times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 6:29:13 PM EDT
[#44]
RK -
I believe you, me,Troy, and a few others went through this in the legal section before. Read my previous posts in this thread and read the relevant sections of Title 18. All the gov't has to do is prove you possessed a gun that meets the statutory definition of an "assault weapon". Doesn't matter if its preban or not. The burden of proof is on the accused to prove it was a legally possessed assault weapon (as defined) on or before the date 922(v) took effect. With mags the burden of proof runs the other way and is on the gov't to prove the hi-cap mags possessed by the accused were made after the ban. Its not about being paranoid, its about knowing the law (regardless of whether you like it or not). If someone wants to break the law, thats fine, but at least they can make an informed decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2001 6:33:46 PM EDT
[#45]
Troy has it right, people. Listen to him. What the law should be, and what we want the law to be, doesn't mean anything. If you want to debate this, first read the law. Or ask an attorney who has spent some time in court defending someone on an illegal possession charge. Or do some research on this very forum, since this question has been done to death. The Legal forum probably has 10 million words on this subject. Just don't ignore the facts--you'll get yourself into more trouble than you ever dreamed of.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2001 1:32:57 AM EDT
[#46]
There are still people advertising for sale pre-ban lowers at substantially higher prices than post-ban lowers. Is it greedy to charge these prices and then steadfastly believe that what you're doing is within the law without even bothering to get the facts? Isn't it obvious that some choose to read the law one way, others are unsure, and some interpret the law to mean anything other than a complete pre-ban rifle is not grandfathered? I guess wishful thinking gets in the way of what really is written as law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2001 1:46:27 AM EDT
[#47]
simple solution, the law is unconstitutional, therfore i won't recignise it. case and point
there are a lot of me out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2001 2:31:29 AM EDT
[#48]
Well, to really answer your question:
If I take my SP-1, strip the receiver and sell it as a pre-ban receiver, then I believe that I should be able to charge whatever the market will bear for a pre-ban stripped receiver. I find nothing unethical about that. Another good reason to own Colt. If I take a "bare" receiver (as opposed to "stripped" which used to be assembled) that was manufactured before the ban, but doesn't qualify for pre-ban status because it has remained "bare" since then, and try to sell it as a "pre-ban" receiver, then I'm not accurately representing the item I'm selling. So to answer your first post: Yes, you can sell a "stripped pre-ban receiver at a premium and there's nothing wrong with it (I have seen SP-1 stripped receivers for sale). The way I read the law is: The Govt has to prove it's an AW. Once that's done you will have to prove it's a legal AW. Sort of like self-defense shooting. They have to prove you shot the guy. Once they do that, you have to prove you did it in self-defense. Ross |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2001 2:37:23 AM EDT
[#49]
There's serial numbers stamped on the lower. Wouldn't the manufacturer keep records of when that serial number was produced?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2001 3:35:47 AM EDT
[#50]
The “default” theory is interesting, I’ve even suggested it, but I have never seen
anything that supports it. No case history, nothing in the law, not even wild stories about someone who knew this guys brother kinda thing. Why everybody seems to think there is some crime being committed when a person does not have proof of status? There is not. Someone has made this fallacy up. I”VE READ THE LAW. I”VE READ THE LAW. I”VE READ THE LAW. There’s nothing in there about proof of status. Why is this so hard for you to believe? All you people can do is keep droning on me, proof required, proof required, yet you never can back that statement up. You insist I’m in the wrong here, yet once again provide nothing. |
|
|
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.
