Quoted:
I take it you dont agree with CJ and WD that this is a pre ban rifle.

Also what do you mean if i buy a postban now it is pre ban if the AWB is renued. You think it will allow Preban features.

Quoted:
They have a 20 inch colt preban at a shop around my area for $1300

Should I throw this one on lawaway?

Quoted:
The ATF is not a law making agency.  

And, despite the claims of some people and even some agencies to the contrary, the fundamental legal principle that our justice system is built upon is "innocent until proven guilty".  NO exceptions.

I state categorically that I would absolutely NOT hesitate to be seen at a range with a rifle that I (A) know to be pre-ban by date of manufacture and (B) know to NOT have any records of its past history that would indicate that it has EVER been transferred while in a post-ban condition.


You're obsessing over what is essentially a very tiny little rock, anyway.  Save your worries for big rocks.   When is the last time anyone checked any of your firearms to see if they're legally configured, anyway?

DON'T SWEAT IT.  REALLY.  Your rifle is pre-ban by date of manufacture and nobody has any proof or even evidence that it has ever been sold when stripped of its pre-ban features,  and that's that.  You're good to go.  

The burden of proof of a crime always rests with the prosecutor.   The burden of proof of innocence does NOT rest with the defense.   You don't have to prove innocence, HE has to prove GUILT...and he can't do that.

CJ

Quoted:
The ATF is not a law making agency.  

And, despite the claims of some people and even some agencies to the contrary, the fundamental legal principle that our justice system is built upon is "innocent until proven guilty".  NO exceptions.

I wish that were true, but infact, it is not always the case.  The 94 ban bans ALL "assualt rifles" and then sets up as an exception, the AFFERMATIVE DEFENSE of the rifle being manufactured before sept 14th 1994.  It is up to the accused to prove an affermative defense.  However, the standard of proof is not as high as when the govt has to prove your guilt (beyond a resonable doubt).  The standard you as a defndant have to meet is the "perponderence of the evidence"  (which boiles down to more likely than not).  So the court is going to want some eveidence form you.

Also the ATF makes laws every day.  When they interpret and impliment acts of congress they make law.  The federal register is filled with millions of pages of executive law.


Edit to add

I don't know if this "compleate rifle" rule was acctually ever published or if it was just an advisory optinion from some geek at ATF.  But if they wanted to, ATF could drag you into court for having a preban that left the factory as a lower only.  Their "compete rifle" rule would be subject to judicial scruntiny to see if it falls within the intent ot purpose of the 94 ban.  Since the purpose of the ban was to limmit the number of assualt rifles a judge might agree with this rule as it further limits the number of assualt rifles.  If taht were to happen the burden would be on you to show evidence that it was assembled before sept 14 1994.  Again, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but more likley than not.

I am not an Attorny but that is my educated understanding of "the law" on this matter.  Any lawyers please chime in.

P.S. Sorry no time to spell check.  I have to get to work.

Quoted:



[blue]Words in blue have been edited to correct spelling for clarity's sake only.  No "spelling nazi" tactics are intended. [/blue]


I know what the ban says and its crap about the affirmative defense.

However, this point by itself is eligible for legal challenge.  There is no other aspect of the law that I can think of at this moment which places the burden of proof on the defense rather the prosecution.


This says that you can be prosecuted for "knowingly possessing" a rifle which is (or presumably, was at some point) configured as an "assault rifle" (though the true definition of an assault rifle includes fully automatic operation...the ban uses a duplicate term with a different meaning)  but in the specific instance we started out discussing here in this topic, the original poster has as much as said that to the best of his knowledge, this particular Bushy has NOT been an "assault rifle" by its configuration.

If there are no records that prove it was ever configured as an assault weapon,  and it has a pre-ban date of manufacture,  and you are not aware of it ever having been so configured, then you have satisfied the letter of this erroneous interpretation of the law.

At NO place in the written text of the law does it say that an assault rifle can lose its pre-ban status by having its distinguishing characteristics removed,  nor does it say that a post-ban rifle which had a pre-ban upper attached to it and then removed and replaced with a legal (for this rifle) post-ban upper has become an assault rifle forever.

You have to get this through your head:  Only the written text of the law is of consequence in a court that properly respects the law.   While the courts are likely to respect the interpretations of agencies like the BATF when it comes to a need for a practical interpretation, but there have been many instances where a smart judge has discounted the testimony and OPINION of such an agency when in fact it is not possible to follow that agency's OPINION on what the law says by evaluating the text of the law.

An opinion that goes beyond the meaning of the text of the law is an invalid opinion that need only be challenged in a court of law which is presided over by an honest and smart judge.

There is NOTHING in the law's text that says that a pre-ban rifle can lose its assault rifle status, for example.   ATF says that, the law's text does NOT.   This OPINION of the ATF needs only to be challenged in the right court to be rejected.


CJ

Quoted:

...I am not an Attorny but that is my educated understanding of "the law" on this matter.  Any lawyers please chime in.

Quoted:
Inkaybee And Shaggy,Thanks for the input.
    CJ and WD commented that if the seller says it was a complete rifle 12/93 it was.Will this fly and if not will it get the buyer off the hook and put the seller on it? Seller is willing to provide a Doc. like this. This seems like a huge issue that needs to be clarified[I guess by a trial]. I'd bet there are truckloads of rifles like this.
Thanks
Bugler

Quoted:
Inkaybee And Shaggy,Thanks for the input.
    CJ and WD commented that if the seller says it was a complete rifle 12/93 it was.Will this fly and if not will it get the buyer off the hook and put the seller on it? Seller is willing to provide a Doc. like this. This seems like a huge issue that needs to be clarified[I guess by a trial]. I'd bet there are truckloads of rifles like this.
Thanks
Bugler

Quoted:

The often mentioned "affirmative defense" clause and related issues mentioned in the unConstitutional Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, directly conflict with these fundamental ideals of American jurisprudence, and if directly challenged in a just court,  will be found invalid.  I'm absolutely sure of it.

You can't be arrested (legally, anyway) for drug possession if you don't possess any drugs.   You can't be arrested for ANYTHING ELSE if there is no evidence supporting the idea that there has been a crime committed.