preban
- Status
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Joined
·
190 Posts
PreBan
Not trying to be smart but seriously, how could you tell when it was put on, provided the rifle was made before the ban. Were some sold new with folding stocks , or did you have to "register" them at the time? I'm not suggesting someone violate the law, just would like to know how this law can be inforced without a record of some sort on a certain firearm. The BATF I know would hardly rely on an "Honor System".
Not trying to be smart but seriously, how could you tell when it was put on, provided the rifle was made before the ban. Were some sold new with folding stocks , or did you have to "register" them at the time? I'm not suggesting someone violate the law, just would like to know how this law can be inforced without a record of some sort on a certain firearm. The BATF I know would hardly rely on an "Honor System".
There is a record.
If the person he is buying this rifle from got it from an FFL they can trace the rifle to that buyer who the ATF could ask if it had a folding stock on it before 94 and ask to see the dated receipt for the stock.
I am not saying the ATF will go to the trouble but they could… say if you were stopped for speeding and the officer somehow decided there was a problem with the rifle.
That does not even address the point that putting the stock on is a felony and if a BC folding stock worth that kind of risk.
If the person he is buying this rifle from got it from an FFL they can trace the rifle to that buyer who the ATF could ask if it had a folding stock on it before 94 and ask to see the dated receipt for the stock.
I am not saying the ATF will go to the trouble but they could… say if you were stopped for speeding and the officer somehow decided there was a problem with the rifle.
That does not even address the point that putting the stock on is a felony and if a BC folding stock worth that kind of risk.
Joined
·
190 Posts
Pre-Ban
I agree with not violating the law. I was just curious how you could tell if the stock was on before the ban. I passed on one at a gun show this morning that had a folding stock (wanted too much for it anyway, 265.00). I was wondering how I could tell other than taking the sellers word for it. Can just see the scenario you mentioned happening on the way home with it, then finding out the guy just put it on this morning!
I agree with not violating the law. I was just curious how you could tell if the stock was on before the ban. I passed on one at a gun show this morning that had a folding stock (wanted too much for it anyway, 265.00). I was wondering how I could tell other than taking the sellers word for it. Can just see the scenario you mentioned happening on the way home with it, then finding out the guy just put it on this morning!
If your rifle was not in pre-ban configuration when the 94 ban went into effect it is post-ban no matter when the receiver was made.
When the receiver was made is not the determining factor, instead the rifle must have been assembled in to a complete rifle in pre-ban configuration before the ban went in to effect.
If you take a pre-ban rifle and put in to a post-ban configuration you must keep the original pre-ban parts if you want to put it back in pre-ban configuration. If you sell the pre-ban parts you lose the pre-ban status.
When the receiver was made is not the determining factor, instead the rifle must have been assembled in to a complete rifle in pre-ban configuration before the ban went in to effect.
If you take a pre-ban rifle and put in to a post-ban configuration you must keep the original pre-ban parts if you want to put it back in pre-ban configuration. If you sell the pre-ban parts you lose the pre-ban status.
The whole problem with this is a real criminal won't get caught up with this crap, it will be the unsuspecting novice or someone that thinks they know the law like Seventeen.
Joined
·
265 Posts
N'KAY... LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.
If I owned a Blue lable colt Match H-bar w/o Bayo lug, but with flash hider manufactured in, lets say.. 1991 or so... I can't put a tele-stock and bayo lug upper on it? Interesting.
Note: The above rifle Was An ASSAULT WEAPON under the terms of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban before the ban, and therefore is a LEGAL Pre-Ban ASSAULT WEAPON, IF you have the DOCUMENTATION to prove it was made in "that configuration" prior to 9/14/1994......! ! [Note added by BigMike, 1/19/03]
If I owned a Blue lable colt Match H-bar w/o Bayo lug, but with flash hider manufactured in, lets say.. 1991 or so... I can't put a tele-stock and bayo lug upper on it? Interesting.
Note: The above rifle Was An ASSAULT WEAPON under the terms of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban before the ban, and therefore is a LEGAL Pre-Ban ASSAULT WEAPON, IF you have the DOCUMENTATION to prove it was made in "that configuration" prior to 9/14/1994......! ! [Note added by BigMike, 1/19/03]
Joined
·
2,843 Posts
Mike, if that is the case, HOW can para ordinance still offer the standard capacity mags with some of their older models....
If you look back at some of the gun mags from just before the crime bill went into effect.. they talked about how para and other manufacturers were making as many "pre ban" frames as they could so they could continue to sell them.
Paul
If you look back at some of the gun mags from just before the crime bill went into effect.. they talked about how para and other manufacturers were making as many "pre ban" frames as they could so they could continue to sell them.
Paul
The frames were sold as frames, not complete guns. Knitepoet, your are correct about about para pumping out the frames, I have had 2. One went 38 super and the other 45. Here is a link to one. Notice the box has no room for a slide.
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7021801
Anyway, if someone will post the regulation from batf on this that should clear it up.
Thanks
JAG
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7021801
Anyway, if someone will post the regulation from batf on this that should clear it up.
Thanks
JAG
The Para magazines were made before the ban. There is no prohibition against using a pre-ban magazine in a post-ban gun. Para-Ordnance is selling the inventory of MAGAZINES they made before the ban. Their pistols are not effected by the 94 crime bill just the magazines (there is no such thing as a pre-ban Para-Ordnance pistol). You can buy a Para-Ordnance high-capacity frame that was made yesterday (Para is still making them) assemble it into a pistol and put a pre-ban high-capacity magazine in it, that is perfectly legal.
You are right some manufactures were building bunches of pre-ban receivers… but the ATF ruled after the ban went into effect the manufacture had to have the parts in stock to complete each receiver into finished pre-ban rifle for the receiver to have pre-ban status. All receivers without the necessary parts to complete the weapon when the ban when into effect were defined as post-ban. And yes the ATF did go to each manufacture and check inventory.
1. A detachable magazine (the defining "evil feature")
2. Has a pistol grip (2nd "evil feature")
3. A threaded muzzle with flash hider. (3rd "evil feature")
(For example "evil features" = pistol grip, threaded muzzle/flash hider, folding/collapsing stock, bayonet lug, grenade launcher)
The manufacture date has nothing to do with the rifles status; the deciding factor is how the rifle was configured when the ban went into effect.
An assault weapon has been defined by the 94 crime bill as a rifle with a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the above "evil feature". So therefore the Blue Label Colt is pre ban because it was configured as an "assault weapon" before the ban.
If a rifle has a detachable magazine it can only have one additional "evil feature" before it is designated an "assault weapon". Your Blue Label Colt had a detachable magazine and 2 evil features before the ban so it was an "assault weapon" and therefore pre-ban. You can add the "tele-stock and bayo lug upper" because that rifle was in an assault weapon/pre-ban configuration when the 94 crime bill went into effect.
But if the rifle had not had the threaded muzzle/flash hider when the 94 crime bill went into effect it would not be pre-ban because it would not have been configured as an "assault weapon". It would have had a detachable magazine but only 1 additional "evil feature" the pistol grip.
You can buy a Springfield M1A now with a flash hider on it, but you cannot put a pistol grip stock on the M1A without creating a new "assault weapon".
The same for a 10/22, (it has a detachable magazine) if you put on a folding stock you would be adding 2 "evil features" (the pistol grip and the folding stock) there by creating an "assault weapon".
I hope this is a clear enough description it makes my head hurt just thinking about it.
You are right some manufactures were building bunches of pre-ban receivers… but the ATF ruled after the ban went into effect the manufacture had to have the parts in stock to complete each receiver into finished pre-ban rifle for the receiver to have pre-ban status. All receivers without the necessary parts to complete the weapon when the ban when into effect were defined as post-ban. And yes the ATF did go to each manufacture and check inventory.
Yes you can, the Blue Label Colt is pre-ban because it had:
1. A detachable magazine (the defining "evil feature")
2. Has a pistol grip (2nd "evil feature")
3. A threaded muzzle with flash hider. (3rd "evil feature")
(For example "evil features" = pistol grip, threaded muzzle/flash hider, folding/collapsing stock, bayonet lug, grenade launcher)
The manufacture date has nothing to do with the rifles status; the deciding factor is how the rifle was configured when the ban went into effect.
An assault weapon has been defined by the 94 crime bill as a rifle with a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the above "evil feature". So therefore the Blue Label Colt is pre ban because it was configured as an "assault weapon" before the ban.
If a rifle has a detachable magazine it can only have one additional "evil feature" before it is designated an "assault weapon". Your Blue Label Colt had a detachable magazine and 2 evil features before the ban so it was an "assault weapon" and therefore pre-ban. You can add the "tele-stock and bayo lug upper" because that rifle was in an assault weapon/pre-ban configuration when the 94 crime bill went into effect.
But if the rifle had not had the threaded muzzle/flash hider when the 94 crime bill went into effect it would not be pre-ban because it would not have been configured as an "assault weapon". It would have had a detachable magazine but only 1 additional "evil feature" the pistol grip.
You can buy a Springfield M1A now with a flash hider on it, but you cannot put a pistol grip stock on the M1A without creating a new "assault weapon".
The same for a 10/22, (it has a detachable magazine) if you put on a folding stock you would be adding 2 "evil features" (the pistol grip and the folding stock) there by creating an "assault weapon".
I hope this is a clear enough description it makes my head hurt just thinking about it.
Max Mike,
That seems to clear the air a bit and I was aware of most of what you said except the requirement about the mfg having "parts on hand" to complete them. So much grey area with these laws, what a load of crap!
We can still dream of the the beautiful sunset in 2004!
THanks Mike,
JAG
That seems to clear the air a bit and I was aware of most of what you said except the requirement about the mfg having "parts on hand" to complete them. So much grey area with these laws, what a load of crap!
We can still dream of the the beautiful sunset in 2004!
THanks Mike,
JAG
Joined
·
209 Posts
Some one stated that the atf could follow the 4470s back and see if it was ever sold in a preban form. I fill out a few of these and do not remember any spots that ask if it is an a pre-ban or assault form or if it has a folding stock. there is the spot that asks "Pistol Rifle Shotgun".
Also, ask a gun dealer what a gun looked like 10 years ago, he wont remember unless it is gold plated or something one of a kind.
Yes, you are not supposed to change it into a pre-ban configuration if it was not already in that configuration.....this is a grey area, and I believe the proof is on the feds to prove it was not in that configuration. I also look at it this way.....it's a 22 for crying out loud. but that is just my homely little opinion. I am not looking for a flame war or anything. Just wanted to make my statement......oh wait, this is rimfirecentral, I can state my opinion here and not have to worry about a flame war....gotta remember that....this is why I like this board so much.
Also, ask a gun dealer what a gun looked like 10 years ago, he wont remember unless it is gold plated or something one of a kind.
Yes, you are not supposed to change it into a pre-ban configuration if it was not already in that configuration.....this is a grey area, and I believe the proof is on the feds to prove it was not in that configuration. I also look at it this way.....it's a 22 for crying out loud. but that is just my homely little opinion. I am not looking for a flame war or anything. Just wanted to make my statement......oh wait, this is rimfirecentral, I can state my opinion here and not have to worry about a flame war....gotta remember that....this is why I like this board so much.
Come on now... There is no need for any "spots" on the form. The factory invoice will tell how a new weapon was configuration when shipped. And the average dealer will also remember if he sold a 10/22 with a folding stock because it would sell for considerably more than one without a folding stock.
There is no gray area it is a felony to "change it into a pre-ban configuration". If the ATF can make their case is another thing, but it is against the law not a gray area.
IMO not worth taking a chance on "a 22 for crying out loud". No flame intended.
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
