User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/29/2003 10:30:39 PM EDT
[#1]
IT would depend on the wording of the new law.
Take a look at the current ban. A weapon must have been LEGALLY possessed prior to the ban. That's why it's extremely rare (if even possible) to find a true pre ban MAK-90. They were imported as non assault weapons. IT was illegal to modify them to a non imporable status. So, if you had the bayonet lug and FH on before the ban passed, it was illegal anyway, therefore NOT grandfathering it. I would play it safe, naturally. But realistically, it all depends on how you word it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 1:57:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Say someone illegally puts a collapsible on their post-ban today. If you commit a felony today, it is still a felony tomorrow. It is highly unlikely they are going to pass any law that gives amnesty from such illegal activity that has already occurred. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 2:11:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Unless new legislation is created to immediately follow the sunset provision, post ban rifles will not be grandfathered to allow for collapseable stock, bayonet lug and flash hider. Any new legislation MUST be written to immediately succeed the 94 AWB. If new or same legislation is approved into effect at 12:01 a.m. on 9-14-04, that is one minute late and all the evil features will be grandfathered.
It would be impossible to prove that you didn't add the evil features within the one minute period in which the ban was expired. It will sunset, however new legislation may be voted in to immediately follow the 1994 law. This would proclude you from any additions or modifications to your post 1994 weapon. Pre-bans would remain unaffected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 2:20:29 PM EDT
[#4]
[B]There is always someone looking to get around the LAW, this will get your right to own a firearm, taken away QUICKLY. It's usually called a FELONY. Enjoy the rights you have and fight through legal channels to get the desired rights you prefer.[/B]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 3:16:03 PM EDT
[#5]
I wouldn't do it. I'd just wait till the ban sunsets and EVERYONE can either do it, or not do it. And just to be safe, buy a preban, just in case the ban were to get re-signed and kept in place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 4:03:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: that is one minute late and all the evil features will be grandfathered. It would be impossible to prove that you didn't add the evil features within the one minute period in which the ban was expired. Do you then run the risk with being charged with constructive intent? Because, really, where does one buy a tele-stock at midnight. You must have had it before the ban expired, so you were conspiring to assemble a SAAW. It's all theoretical BS, and unlikely to happen, but I'm curious anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 4:42:35 PM EDT
[#7]
It would be difficult for the BATF to disprove the following possibilities.
1) My neighbor sold me the collapseable stock within that minute. 2) A deal to purchase a preban M4gery fell through at the last minute. I intended to replace the existing stock, but the deal fell through. 3) I expected there would be some time gap between sunsetting and sunrising of a new ban, and I was prepared. 4) There is no way to prove that a collapseable stock wasn't inadvertantly sent to me by mistake from whichever company. I could be wrong, however those are a lot of ifs. Would I be in violation of federal law if I have already purchased preban uppers in anticipation of the AWB sunsetting? I don't see how that could be conspiring to assemble an illegal assault weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 5:37:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: It would be difficult for the BATF to disprove the following possibilities. 3) I expected there would be some time gap between sunsetting and sunrising of a new ban, and I was prepared. That was my question. I'm not saying you are wrong, in fact I agree with you. But, legally, could something be made of this as far as constructive intent? 4) There is no way to prove that a collapseable stock wasn't inadvertantly sent to me by mistake from whichever company. That one I like. Probably the best thing to do would be exercise your 5th ammendment right to keep your mouth shut. Let the gov. try to make your case, and then hit 'em with your lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 6:07:34 PM EDT
[#9]
There very well may be certain provisions in the 1994 AWB that allow for interpretation. I don't know for sure. I wonder if even the BATF would spend the time and effort to prosecute someone in this specific incident.
STRYFE, you are absolutely correct about invoking my 5th amendment right. Nontheless, I am currently preparing as if the AWB will sunset without further legislation or extension of the current ban. I hope to be able to legally modify my AR15 at the appropriate time. Maybe some MODS would like to shed some light on this hypothetical scenario. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 6:14:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Regarding possibility #4, it would be hard for you to prove that the company that SENT you the "wrong stock" also came to your house and INSTALLED it, wouldn't it?
(unless you meant that they sent you a complete rifle with illegal features installed; in that case, don't expect the company to say, "yeah sure, we sent an illegal rifle out, fine us not him") I think you would have a hard time claiming that you didn't know what you yourself obviously installed on your evil black rifle... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 8:17:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Constructive intent could be charged against someone who had a complete pre-ban upper and only post-ban lowers, since the upper could be installed in seconds with no tools. A collapsable stock requires tools to install and considerably more time, both of which would make a constructive intent ruling almost impossible (I said ALMOST; anything is possible in court!).
-Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 8:39:46 PM EDT
[#12]
The overidding thing here is that if you don't do anything illegal, it won't come under scrutiny whether or not you conspired to do things or not. You would have to do something else for them to search your house, and chances are normal cops wouldn't know what's legal or not even then.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2003 9:00:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Constructive intent could be charged against someone who had a complete pre-ban upper and only post-ban lowers, since the upper could be installed in seconds with no tools. With the exception of the anything is possible clause I'm going to respectfully disagree with Troy. If the government were to apply constructive intent to the 94 AWB the list of defendants charged would look like this: Colt's Bushmaster Armalite/Eagle Rock River Arms DPMS, et al. None of these are making pre-ban lowers. All of them have warehouses full of post ban lowers as well as uppers with banned features for replacement parts and collapsable stocks. These companies are high profile and have larger assets than individuals and advertise that they have those parts. The law restricts possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. I haven't found a law that prohibits possession of parts with or without banned features. Maybe someone can tell me where to find that one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2003 12:43:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Maybe you didn't read the part I wrote where it says:
"Constructive intent could be charged against someone who had a complete pre-ban upper and [b]only[/b] post-ban lowers" All of the manufacturers you listed are fully allowed to manufacture post-ban AWs legally anyway, and in fact, all of them are SOTs, and can manufacture post-86 machine guns, SBRs, and AOWs legally as well. FFLs and SOTs are nifty things. But those don't apply to non-licensed folks, do they? -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2003 5:57:56 PM EDT
[#15]
OK, this just brings up numerous situational questions. I'd like to learn more and if you can direct me to the regulations covering constructive intent relative to the AWB it would probably save us both a lot of typing.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2003 7:40:44 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: If the ban is extended (a bill is passed striking the expiration, leaving the other parts of the AW ban intact) then there is no window to convert post-94 rifles to a grandfathered AW configuration. It is possible that the ban will expire, and be reinstated at a later date. If that was the case, there wouldn't be any way to know when the conversion was done, so long as they didn't catch the hypothetical person over the course of the next year. Also, keep in mind even the present grandfather status applies only to rifles that were legally possessed prior to the enactment of the AW ban. That's why I say without a gap, even a few seconds would do, there can be no 1994-2004 preban grandfathered rifles. Unless a provision for amnesty is attached to the bill :) Sort of a similar situation happened with the '89 ban of imported AWs (I never heard them referred to as such, but rifles with similar features were banned from import.) There were some neutered thumbhole stocked rifles imported post-89, like the Springfield SAR-8 (made in Greece, HK91 type rifle with no flash supressor and one of the ugliest butthole stocks imaginable.) If you replaced enough parts it would be considered a US made rifle and you could restore it to full pre-ban configuration, if done before '94. But I don't think there were enough US HK91 parts available pre-94 to do this (there were Thermold HK91 mags, which count as 3 US parts, but you would need a few more.) So, if you see a SAR-8 in AW format with US parts, likely the conversion was done after '94 and while complying with the '89 ban, would be in violation of the '94 ban. If you did the conversion BEFORE '94, but didn't use enough US parts, then you were in violation of the '89 ban. The rifle, not being legally possesed in AW format pre-94, would not be grandfathered, even if you replaced foreign parts with US parts some time after '94. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm now assuming all AW format SAR-8 rifles are in violation of the AW Ban. Maybe yes, maybe no. If the Post '89 imported weapon had anything done to it, prior to the AWB, that would have qualified it as a grandfathered weapon, it could later be upgraded with U.S. parts into a military (read non-sporting) configuration. For Example: Owner had his thumbhole stocked sporting weapon threaded by a gunsmith for a muzzle brake. The brake was not permanently attached by any of the BATF approved methods. This was legal prior to the '94 AWB. Since the weapon had a thumbhole stock, which for the purposes of the AWB is considered a pistol grip, and an additional qualifing feature of a threaded barrel, it would now be considered to be a grandfathered AW. Last week, you purchased the weapon from the original owner, who provides, among other things, a receipt indicating the barrel threading prior to the '94 AWB. I don't think there is anything preventing you from removing the thumbhole stock and restoring to military configuration, as long as the requisite number of U.S. parts are used. It already is grandfathered under the '94 AWB and the U.S. parts will ensure it stays compliant with the '89 ban. HTH. |
|
|
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.
