I deliberately posted this topic here because I was told this person sells products and services from this site.

I just bought a "preban" Bushmaster rifle from Arizona Response Systems in Phoenix, AZ.  I received the rifle on 12-20-02.  Upon inspection, I found the lower receiver had been damaged and repaired.  

I have tried to sell the weapon on here at a discount for what I paid.  However, a check of the serial number showed the lower receiver was sold on 9-25-91 as a stripped lower.  

I called the ATF and found out if the weapon was manufactured into a complete rifle prior to 1994 by factory, gunsmith, or uncle joe it is a legal preban.  However, if the preban lower receiver was manufactured into a complete rifle after 94 it was a postban.

I emailed ARS and made a typo about the manufacture date being 2001 as opposed to 1991.  I corrected the mistake and also told ARS about what ATF told me.  

All I wanted was a REFUND.  If he wasn't willing to give a refund, I wanted a legal affidavit stating rifle was made into a preban before 94, so I could sell it to someone else.

I was told I was a liar and to "f**k off."  I have all the emails anyone who doesn't believe me.  

I hope you paid for it on a credit card.  If so, contact them and have them stop payment.  That will get their attention.

Basically, I am told I'm the big liar because I emailed him and told him it was a postban receiver.  I did say that, because I didn't know about all the ins and outs of this stuff until I called the ATF.  

It doesn't change the fact the lower receiver was ground on with some type of tool and then repaired and covered.  I WILL POST PICS.  Then you all can see who is telling the truth.

He is pretty active over at the FALFiles, post in the vendors forum towards the bottom.

If lower receiver was damaged that may be a issue, three day inspection is normal policy.

The "pre-ban" status seems pretty straight forward - there is no requirement that anyone prove a "pre-ban" was made before the 94 ban.
A lower receiver sold in 91 was most most likly assmbled in a pre-ban status well before the ban.  You bought a rifle sold as a "pre-ban", you checked and saw the receiver was made well prior to the ban, you have done your due diligence

Actually, IIRC, unlike magazines, for an assault weapon, the burden of proof is on the possessor. For a magazine, if it's not marked, you're good. For a gun, that's not so. (least of all because they didn't start marking them right away.)

I have talked with this jerk at ARS many times at AZ gun shows and this is his typical way of doing business. He treats everyone like they don’t know shit about guns, all he wants is your money and would rip you off to get it.

I refuse to buy anything from him and I advise people to do the same.

I had one dealing with them and it went fine...

It was a mod to an HK weapon not a purchase, this is the first negative post I have heard about Arizona Response Systems, although I must admit within the last year I have not been around lately.

I had two dealings with ARS.

Both went well, even though the second was a paperwork disaster (that Frickin Border)

I had Wes at ARS build an FAL for me a few years ago. He was a great guy to deal with and the work was first rate. I will use ARS again.

Unfortunately, no.  [b]All[/b] assault weapons are banned.  Having one is illegal since 1994.  The [b]defense[/b] is if you have one that was a complete rifle before the ban went into effect.  The burden of proof is entirely on the defendant.  

If you care about such BullSh!t, that is.  I would love hearing a prosecutor try to explain to a jury how owning a piece of metal made in 2000 is a felony offense, but owning one made in 1990 is ok.  Have I mentioned that I hate JackA$$ politicians?

It continues to astound me that people still do not understand that two of the foundations of this countries justice system in criminal prosecutions are that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that a defendant has the right to remain silent.

The problem, of course, is that with any ban like the '94 AWB, you [b]are[/b] guilty until proven innocent.  Bullsh!t?  Yes.  True?  Unfortunately.  The posession of an AW is a crime.  If you have one, you're guilty.  The [b]affirmative defense[/b] is that the weapon in question was an AW before the ban and thus grandfathered in.  As sh!tty as it is, you have to prove yourself innocent.  Did I mention that I hate politicians?

Perhaps the terms should be clarified,we are discussing a legal process here.
A person is judged guilty and convicted of a crime only after their criminal case has been heard before a judge or jury and a verdict has been rendered.
An officer of the law may make an arrest if he believes probable cause(that belief that is created by an accumulation of evidence to build a case that rises above reasonable suspicion)exists to arrest a person.
In any criminal case a trial WILL be held unless the defendant pleads guilty or "no contest". The only other plea is not guilty.
A person for the most part legally can't keep from being arrested.  There are civil and internal affairs remedies for unlawful arrest but the arrest is just the beginning of a chain of events. Being charged with a crime is quite a distance from being judged guilty.
I am not an attorney and this is just an general view of how the legal criminal process works. The rifles themselves have not been outlawed in most of the country. It's my understanding that only those that possess an accumulation of certain features and were assembled after a certain date are considered unlawful. All others with these features assembled before this date are legal. Lacking other evidence,proving when a rifle was assembled from a pre ban receiver would be close to impossible in a case without the use of an informant. We won't even go into jury nullification possibilities.
Useing the affirmative defense arguement,how can a defendant "Prove" that a rifle was assembled before the ban from a pre ban receiver that was sold by itself. Useing a piece of paper that could have been printed just before the "proof" was needed?
I can think of no verifiable way to prove that any of these pre ban recievers that were sold by themselves were actually assembled into rifles before the ban. So as far as I can tell the law is for all practical purposes unenforcable concerning these receivers.

Answering the original post, I have had no dealings with Arizona Response Systems and can offer no feedback regarding their customer service.  That said, I am an attorney, and I have had some experience in the criminal defense arena, though it has been a few years.  As a flame disclaimer, I do not mean to assert that what I am about to say is the definitve answer on the subject, and I do not intend any disrespect to anyone.  What follows is my understanding of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and represents my opinion only.

Pursuant to the law, after the effective date it is illegal to possess a firearm with a certain combination of "evil features" (pistol grip, detachable magazine, flash hider, etc.) as set forth in the law.  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession of such a weapon that it was assembled in an "evil" configuration prior to the effective date of the law.  

The question is one of burdens of proof.  All that is necessary for the prosecution to prove is that the defendant possessed an "evil" firearm in an "evil" configuration.  The defendant then bears the burden of proof regarding the affirmative defense of whether the "evil" firearm was assembled in the "evil" configuration prior to the date of the ban.  Stated in other words, all the prosecution has to prove is that you possessed an "evil" rifle, not when it became "evil."  

As pointed out by others, in the case of a stripped receiver manufactured prior to the ban, this may be somewhat difficult to prove conclusively.  In the case of a receiver manufactured in 1991, common sense would indicate that it most likely would have been assembled into a complete rifle prior to the ban.  It may reamin somewhat uncertain, however, whether it was assembled into an "evil" configuration prior to the ban.  

At any rate, what a jury is likely to do with such a case depends on who is on the jury.  From a purely legal standpoint there are interesting issues presented which would cause me some concern about owning a "preban" rifle where it cannot be conclusively documented that the rifle was "evil" prior to the ban.  From a practical standpoint, however, I don't think I would lose any sleep over it.

Having wallowed in the minutia of this issue, it may be worth it to pull back and reflect on the silliness of this entire endeavor.  Inanimate hunks of metal are without consciousness or agency, and therefore unable to be either "good" or "evil."  What a sad business it is to observe those who would govern us focusing on politically expedient "effects" or "means" while ignoring "causes."  

Rant mode off.

Anyway, that is my two cents, and I do hope that the silliness will end and the ban will sunset so that I can put a collapsible stock on my Bushy carbine.

Ryan

(edited to add the following disclaimer:  The foregoing is my opinion only and is offered as such in the context of this forum.  This is not intended to serve as legal advice or as the basis for formation of an attorney-client relationship.  Any interpretation as such is strictly repudiated.  (Unfortunately, we live in a silly world where such disclaimers are also necessary)).

Same deal here,

Several years ago I ordered a small item from him. Never received anything but noticed a charge from him on my CC statement.

Emailed him and asked what the deal was and his response was slew of obscenites. Basically he was accused me of being a liar, a cheat, and a scam. WTF?

I told him to just keep the money ($25.00) as he obviously needed it more than I did.

In all of the 100's of deals I have make over the net, this was the only time that I have gotten burned.

What a lowlife..

I've bought parts from Mark Graham/Gunplumber/ARS before. My experience was good. He's not the most personable of fellows, but what the hell. He tends to tell it like it is, and is quick to resort to name calling. The name calling is unprofessional and detracts from him somewhat.

But, he does good work, and has helped LOTS of people by giving out free information to those that were trying to build, or were having problems with, their weapon.

He does tend to hang out at falfiles.com a lot and he has an almost spotless reputation over there. I can vouch for that.

The reviews he is getting here is the opposite from he receives at the "files". It's almost like we're talking about two different people.

I dunno. Maybe he likes FAL guys better? [:D]

Thanks for your post Ryan.  It's difficult to be concise and focused when discussing these types of laws.
Tactical-223,It seems your in the same position as probably hundreds of thousands of other people who have rifles that are built on certain pre ban receivers. There is no conclusive way that anyone can show when the rifle was constructed. Just think of all of the rifles and receivers that have traded hands freely without any documentation.
I would be interested to hear if there are ever any successful prosecutions of this law and the use of an affirmative defense forced by the prosecutor.  The concept of a defendant having to prove anything is opposed to the ideals that I understand our justice system was founded on.
If there ever are any successful prosecutions our legal system has slipped beyond where I thought we were.

It seems to me that as long as [b]tactical_223[/b] keeps his receipt he will be ok if there is ever an issue.

Despite the negative posts here about Mark Graham, he is a well respected FFL. The guy knows the law. If he advertises a weapon as a pre-ban, it's a pre-ban.

What's up with the gundealers in AZ?

First it was American Spirit and now it's ARS.

I thought there was a higher level of lithium in the water out there, so everyone is a little more laid back than us Easterners.

Guess these guys don't drink the water.[;D]

Reguardless of the pre-ban/post-ban issue, if Tactical_223 was not told prior to the sale about the damage and repair of this rifle, the seller neglected full disclosure of the rifle's condition and should honor the return without penalty.  

I just bought a FAL receiver and parts kits and had plans to send it out and have ARS do the work.  Not now.

The damage should have been shown and stated prior to the sale. That is something that shouldn't be hidden.

But as far as you wanting a letter stating it was built before the ban, thats your fault for not getting one or telling him you need one(before the sale). He doesn't have to give you that(after you already bought it), probably because even he doesn't know if it was or not. If you wanted that you should have asked him before you bought it if he could provide you with one, otherwise buy a factory pre-ban or run the numbers thru the company or the wbesite.

The only real gripe you have to stand on is the damage on the receiver. Thats a valid point and you should be able to get a refund for that. So if you can't get a statement from him, use the damage as a way to get a refund.

Well, it looks like the gun is sold.

Tactical_223 paid $1750 for it. I would expect a pre-ban Bushy to be in "as new" condition for that much money. A blemish on the mag well? OUCH!

Mark Graham/ARS should have taken the rifle back since Tactical_223 contacted him within 3 days of receipt of the rifle.

Tactical_223 paid $1750 for it. I would expect a pre-ban Bushy to be in "as new" condition for that much money. A blemish on the mag well? OUCH!

Sounds like you got screwed, You Do not sell a rifle with a blemish as new, and for that price it should have been a NIB without question. How was it damaged? Dropped, Misused, crushed in the vise? ARS should be ashamed, Tactical_223 should have been refunded his$1750 immediately, and not given an English lesson on the pre, post ban terminology. It will make me think when I see their advertisement and I am shopping for a “new” whops sorry, slightly used AR
308Sniper

Could it have been a K-boomed rifle sold to him a while back? HMMMMMMMMMMMMM?    Jerryboy

And for years I've been arguing that it is impossible for anyone to present evidence that will hold up in court that the rifle remained in its pre-ban state every nano second since manufacture. As people argue here once it has been returned to a non-assault rifle putting assault rifle parts back onto it is manufacturing one.

To prove that the rifle had been manufactured and sold complete is only part of the argument that has to be made. The second part, the impossible part, it that it remained an assualt rifle since the very second that it was manufactured ... an auditable trail of evidence that nobody is going to have.

So why even fricken' bother with proving it was manufactured as an assault rifle if you can't finish that argument and prove that it remained so?

HMMMMMMM,never thought of that second part Paul.  If the prosecution puts forth the requirement that the owner "prove" that the rifle has never been out of the legal status that would seem to put everyone with a pre ban rifle at risk of going to the slammer wouldn't it!  If this is true and enforcable all those letters and documents people are proud of are nothing but tinder for the fireplace!

Those familiar with my reputation as a no-bullshit dealer and manufacturer (Tom Bower's RDL, et al) are probably waiting for the "rest of the story".   Greg's dishonesty is what changed the relationship from "show me and I'll take care of you" to "go fuck yourself."  complete transcript follows with slight editing to clear 8000 words.

[img]http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/webpictures/arbushpre.jpg[img]

-----
GREG PANNELL: still available now......interested in purchasing....how new is the lower receiver and also is the serial number verified preban?
---------
ARS: serial number is definitely preban, lower is "like new"
-----
GREG: Any possibility of getting some more photos of the weapon?  Particularly inside the lower receiver?
----
ARS: Is there a question you have?  Something specific you are looking for?  The inside is exactly the same as every other AR 15 ever built by bushmaster. There is clearance for a registered DIAS and there are no extra holes drilled, if thats what you are wondering. Gun is at the Small Arms Review Gunshow show right now, I will be happy to take pictures of every pin and spring on the gun if you would like on Monday if I don't sell it, but it would help if I knew what you were looking for
------
GREG:  I know the internals are same throughout all bushmasters.  If still available, I wanted to see the wear on the hammer.  Thanks,
-----
ARS: is like new - put about 30 rounds through to testfire and zero. pics attached
[img]http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/webpictures/arbushinternal1.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/webpictures/arbushinternal2.jpg[img]
-----
GREG/ARS Phone Conversation, where I give him the serial number and reiterate same data.
------
GREG: Per our conversation by phone, I will buy the bushmaster M-4. I will send off the amount of 1,750 tomorrow to your address with copy of FFL.
------
GREG: I got the bushy on 122002.  I have a quick question was the lower receiver  damaged on the magazine well below the ejection port?  I notice a major blemish and ridge on the outside of the weapon.
-----
ARS: huh? A RIDGE?  As in extra metal? do you have a digital camera? There was no damage to the gun when I shipped it and I think I packaged it pretty well
------
GREG: I understood when I bought the weapon that it was in "like new" condition. Upon inspection of the lower receiver, I have found tool marks below theejection port.  There are grooves and other mark tools where someone took a dremel tool and ground the metal down causing a noticeable indentation.  The receiver was reanondized.  I would like to know what was damaged, or what was removed from the lower receiver where the dremel tool was used on it. I would like to send back the weapon for a full refund.  It was not as advertised.
------
ARS: if the the "grind marks" are what I think you are referring to, they are normal and common on forged receivers from every manufacturer, with Colt probably being the roughest. I offered you the oportunity to photograph the spot in question, which you have chosen not to do. The receiver was not modified in any way, nor reanodized, nor anything.  It is exactly as advertised: Like new preban bushmaster lower receiver, New bushmaster lower parts kit, FN flat top upper with Bushmaster M4 assy and phantom ,green furniture, appx 30 rounds testfired. I stand by my statements.

Without damaged packaging and photgraphic evidence to the contrary, I must assume the rifle reached you in exactly the condition I sent it.  The product is exactly as advertised, photographed, emailed several times, and discussed on the phone.  There are no returns.
------------------
GREG:  I just got confirmation the Bushmaster Preban #L032740 left the factory on  6-25-01 as a stripped lower receiver.  That makes this lower a postban lower.  I want a full refund of my money.
-----
ARS: I will call bushmaster to confirm.  If this is true, I will certaintly provide a
refund when I have the money. Of course it will completely void all of the "official" serial number lists, which clearly have it listed as a preban. Oh - you are still full of shit on the "reanodizing" malarky
-----
ARS: I just called bushmaster to verify your statement. The representative was the same one you talked to and he was very clear that he had told you 1991, not 2001.    The assault weapon ban was 1994.  He did not say 2001.  You are liar and at this point you can go fuck yourself.
-----
GREG: I'm not trying to bust your balls.....This is the information I have learned so far........The lower receiver left the factory on 6/25/91 as a stripped lower receiver only.  I called ATF and spoke with an agent.  If you send me a certified legal affidavit saying you manufactured the COMPLETE rifle prior to the assault weapons ban of 94 then it is legal preban rifle.  However, if you made the receiver into a complete rifle after 1994, then it is a post ban rifle and completely illegal. However, I need proof you manufactured the rifle prior to 94 (receipts preferably for the parts as well.).  As far as the lower receiver goes.  If you look just below the raised
magazine fence there is an oval in the magazine well that looks like a dent. There are circular grooves and tool marks from the metal being smoothed.  If you look in the light you can see everything clearly.  Why in the hell would I make all this up.  I haven't even fired the rifle.  I'm not saying you did this.  I'm saying someone sold you a lower receiver with cleaned up damage. I shouldn't have to bear the responsibility for the damage. I just want my money back.
-----
Call between ARS and Dealer who did the transfer: Rifle arrived in beautiful condition,. no flaws of any kind that he noticed, no damage to the box or packing and the customer has a history of being unsatisfyable
------
ARS: You said: "I just got confirmation the Bushmaster Preban #L032740 left the factory on 6-25-01 as a stripped lower receiver.  That makes this lower a postban lower." And when I called and the same guy you spoke to said "no, of course not, I told him 1991" and you call it a typo.  This puts your being banned from the auction site in a different light.

A ten year typo!  Kindof convenient, don't you think?  Or did you think I wasn't going to check? I guess "that makes this lower a postban" was also a typo?  You got caught in your lie and clearly established your sordid character.

You had the serial number prior to making your buying decision.  The rifle was in a preban configuration prior to 1994.  As I told you, I simply changed the rifle from one style of preban to the M4 style of preban with a complete new M4 kit minus the upper which I already had from FN.

If you had any other questions or concerns, you should have voiced them prior to making your buying decision.  Now of course if you can somehow demonstrate that the rifle was NOT assembledprior to 1994, but instead sat as a stripped lower for three years, then you would be correct and entitled to a refund for "not as advertised".  *I*, however,  am under no obligation to jump through any  hoops for you.  The product is exactly as I represented it, you got caught in a bold-faced lie, and I am done with you.  As I said so eloquently before, you can go fuck yourself.

I have seen lot of lowers and some look rough on some spots, other look very nice, but this one does look a bit strange.

Maybe he should have asked more questions, but there is a very noticeble mark there.

As far as the price all that is between a buyer and seller, if they both agreed on it, what is it to us.

I have read some of GPs posts and he has a real solid reputation over the fal files. I doubt he has the time to mess around with a lower to make a minimal profit.

I would not call tactical 223 unsatisfyable, he is a customer and the customer has a right to decide if he likes what he is buying.

The rifle looks real nice either way.

No Bullshit???

You are nothing BSing liar and a thief.

Your credibility is ZERO!! You lied about me and you are most likely lying about tactical_223.

If you ever make it out to PA, look me up. I'll show you how we handle thieves out here.

Now FOAD!

For all of us out siders lets let this matter drop.

Some of us have opinions on either side of this and name calling is not going to solve anything

XM177 - This was what - 2 or three years ago?  if you really want a public examination of your dishonesty - here goes.

You ordered a product, received the product, wrote "refused - return to sender" on the box, and then contacted me pretending it was never received and wanting a refund including shipping.  I have no time for whiny little sissy-boys.  I have a fantastic reputation for customer satisfaction. I am in the SERVICE business - not SERVITUDE.  That means I ain't your bitch.  I go way above and beyond with my huge satisfied customer base. Try to scam me like you tried and you can go pound sand.  If you had simply said you changed your mind, I would have refunded your order less shipping and a 20% restocking fee (or waived the fee depending on my mood).  But you lied, and you, I, and the post office, know it. As you so conveniently neglected to mention, I still offered to ship it again at my expense, before mentioning I had the "return to sender" box in my hands, but you were not interested.  Thankfully, people with such low character, morals, and upbringing are scarcer in the gun community than the population as a whole and I only run into scammers like you about once a year.

HUH??

WTF you talking about?

What you rip off so many people you can't even keep track?

If it wasn't such a small amount of $ involved, I'd have your ass standing in front of a Magistrate.

Why don't you go crawl back under your rock now.