Afternoon, fellow armed patriots, brothers and sisters. I'm sorry if I'm beating an old path, but I just need to understand something....

I am looking to get in on the pre-ban scene. Now, if I were to purchase a complete pre-ban lower, would that give me carte-blanche to afix any pre-ban upper to it ?

Any help is, as always, appreciated. I'm so jealous of you guys and your evil bayonet-lugs and flash-hiders [8D]

Need one of two things…
a) Needs to say Colt AR15 on the receiver
b) You need proof from the manufacture that the lower was assembled into a complete rifle before the deadline.  If you don’t have this proof then it the burden of proof becomes falls on you to prove it was assembled into a complete rifle before the deadline.  You would probably need to provide receipts that show the rifle was assembled before the deadline.

As far as length goes, as long as the barrel is 16”+ then I think your ok.

Why does it have to say Colt? Is this a personal preference statement leading me in a good direction, or a legal matter?

“Colt AR15” was banned by name – so it dose not matter how it was configured, because it was named it is an assault weapon.  So with that in mind a lower with “Colt AR15” stamped on it is an assault weapon even if the lower no longer has a mag well or a pistol grip.  

Well hopefully I can find one for the right price. Basically, what I want to do is construct, or purchase outright if finances allow, a pre-ban AR carbine. I thought if I could find a complete pre-lower of any manufacture I could, say, toss a BM pre-ban upper on it.

Actually, Sulaco is incorrect as VA-gunnut pointed out.  There are a number of manufacturers that made "preban" rifles, so it does not have to say "Colt AR15" on teh receiver.  

Additionally, the proof on finding out if the gun was FULLY ASSEMBLED before the 1994 ban lies on the agency pressing the charges.  It is only prudent that you find out for yourself that it is in fact a real preban though.  There is not one case I've found on my Lexis search that shows some normal guy at a range that was arrested for possessing a POSTBAN lower with a preban upper.  I am no where near telling or even suggesting to you that you should break the law, I'm just telling you that you need not carry around or even possess the documentation that the rifle is a preban.  

Just do your serial number research, keep your nose clean and you won't have any problems!

According to the BATF, there is no such thing as a complete "preban" AR-15 type [b]lower[/b].  The exception would be a verified pre-09/14/1994 Colt AR-15, so marked.  A non Colt AR15-type lower, including Colts not marked "AR-15", sold as a stripped or complete lowers only cannot meet the definition of a 921(a)(30) assault weapon and therefore aren't 922(v)(2) exempt.  Not being 922(v)(2) exempt, they can't be assembled in 921(a)(30) AW configuraton.  Or so says the BATF.

By the way, Minman72's advice is not mostly all bad.  Do not follow it.

sulaco's advice was correct within is stated limits.

hmm... we learn something new every day [:D]

Oh Dave ...

You may want to go back and read the ATF opinion one more time.

First ATF has always held that the lower is the firearm regardless of what is attached.

Second the latest opinion (note that it didn't come from the technology branch - it came from a field office) is just that an opinion not a sanctioned ruling.

Third a reciever which takes a detachable magazine, has a pistol grip and a collapsable stock has enough features to be classified as an assault weapon.  I believe that the ATF is bound somewhat by their own precedent and that a pre-ban lower with the necessary features is still an assault weapon without the upper.

(Edit - I believe the opinion stated "stripped" lower ... I'll have to go check)

Forth the opinion didn't say anything about functioning (i.e. has to have all parts necessary to shoot).

Just my .02 ...

Ryan

So, are you saying that, legally, all of these pre-ban lowers that I've seen sold individually are therefore exempt, LEGALLY, from the grandfather law, and cannot, LEGALLY, be re-fitted with a pre-ban upper?

My head hurts [>:/]

reidry,

The opinion I referred to is signed by Curtis H. A. Bartlett, Chief, Firearms technology Branch, and is dated November 16, 2001.  I have the original letter on my desk.

A lower receiver, stripped or assembled into a complete lower receiver-only is a firearm, but only a complete lower receiver group which is also a named 921(a)(30) semiautomatic assault weapon is an assault weapon.  To qualify as a semiautomatic assault weapon by features only, the receiver must meet the following as described under 921(a)(30)(B)



A complete lower receiver is a firearm by definition, but, lacking an upper receiver, cannot be classified as a semiautomatic rifle.  In the AR15 system, the upper receiver group configuration defines whether or not the weapon is semiautomatic.  No upper receiver?  It is simply a firearm.

Finally, the opinion does say:

So if you have every evil feature imaginable, but lack a gas tube, you do not have a semiautomatic assault weapon and you do not have a 922(v)(2) exemption.

MDOhmart,

No.  That's what the BATF is saying.

VA-Gunnut,

Good faith and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee.  The law is very specific about what a 922(v)(2) exempt 921(a)(30) is and the BATF opinion clarifies their position.

Alright, since that horse is beaten yet again......... Do you have to have any special forms in place to own/purchase a pre-ban? Or in this case will the BATF come to YOU if they happen to have a problem?

[argue]

PRE-BAN 9mm AR-15 style assault weapons HAVE NO GAS TUBE, which contradicts your semi-automatic statement.


*Edited to remove abusive language and to clear up confusion on my previous statements.

**Apology to Dave_G for my early morning response...  [beer]

Energizer,

You need to take a couple of pills and calm down.  It was just an example and not an exhaustive, all-inclusive one.  If you want one that applies to your weapon, how about this...?

"So if you have every evil feature imaginable, but lack an firing pin, you do not have a semiautomatic assault weapon and you do not have a 922(v)(2) exemption, or in your case, since it was manufactured after 9/13/1994, it was a little too late to play in the game."

And one more thing; with the exception of inclusion of the named 921(a)(30) assault weapons as retaining their status regardless of configuration, the opinion is that of the BATF, Not me.  

But then, if you had bothered to read all of my post, you might have noticed that.  Instead, I have to make a totally off the wall, rude and uninformed assumption that you might have been smoking or drinking something that sufficiently clouded your mind that you were unable to comprehend my response to MDOhmart, who asked:

"So, are you saying that, legally, all of these pre-ban lowers that I've seen sold individually are therefore exempt, LEGALLY, from the grandfather law, and cannot, LEGALLY, be re-fitted with a pre-ban upper?"  To which I replied:

"No. That's what the BATF is saying."

One last thing before I hit the "Submit" button...If people heed the advice I give, they won't get in any trouble because I don't suggest they do anything that violates the law or the BATF regulations or opinions, and that if they do, it would be at their own risk.

You were talking about a gas tube, not a firing pin.

OK, I give up.  You want the last word, take it.

Alright, guys, let's play nice. I appreciate everyone's time in responding to my post. As a relative [newbie] I love that I can stir the pot so much. And on that note I'd like to formally indroduce myself.

You all may be gald to hear I might be able to scrape together enough funds to buy a complete pre-ban outright.

As far as why I think it's worth it:

I am a firearms enthusiast, afficianado, and collector. I can live with a *neutered* weapon, but would much rather prefer to have one as it should be, minus >rock&roll< of course, which I can't afford anyway.

It's truly a pity that such silly laws must make our hobby/sport/devotion/obsession such a royal pain in our collective asses [V]

Dave is right.  The letter exists.  It's a crock-o-shit but, as it stands, it's their position.  

As Dave said, he's just the messenger, so hate the message and not him.