A question that's been asked a thousand times

[teaser452]

And has been answered by knowledgeable people here both ways.

So of course, I am thoroughly confused.

http://www.brownells.com/userdocs/documents/bt002007.pdf

Stumbled upon this, concerning the AWB.

I've read and can point to dozens of threads and posts where people have said, "Just buy a preban lower and you're good to go with any parts!"

I've also read here and elsewhere that the parts have to also be pre ban.

So, which is it? Can you just go and buy a pre ban lower, and the world of collapsable stocks, bayonets and flash hiders open up to you? Or is that just asking for a felony charge if caught?

Was just browsing this: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=517963477

and it got me to thinking, apparently PWA just made lowers? Never fully assembled rifles?

But the brownells link says :

That means, if you were making AR’s and had 5,000 finished receivers in inventory, but had only enough parts toassemble 1,000 receivers into complete rifles, you now had 1,000 Pre-ban rifles and 4,000 Post-ban receivers in yourshop, even though the receivers were manufactured before the bill had been signed into law. To make things even worsefor identification purposes, the serial numbers may not have been in strict numerical order.

Is that true? Aargh, I hate Mass.

And don't even get me started on the serial number for that PWA receiver. Using my google fu, some people say that There was a strict cutoff from serials number lower than 33k ish being preban and higher numbers post ban. But there is controversy over that! So, how do you go and buy a preban at a broker site, when people black out the serial number and you can't be sure the lower truly is pre ban!?

 

[goodzilla]

The receiver is serial numbered and is "the gun". Everything else is just parts. Hence why you can order an SBR 10.5" AR barreled assembly online all day long. You only go to federal PMITA prison if you assemble that without the proper paperwork.

In regards to the PWA receivers on gunbroker or other sources, they should tell you the receiver serial is 25xxx, or something like that. Therfore that would be good enough for you to determine before you buy. If seller didn't do that, ask. If he doesn't/won't tell you, don't buy.

 

[teaser452]

So, you're saying that the Brownell's "Bench Talk" PDF is pure BS?

I wouldn't be surprised.

It makes sense. If you had a pre ban AR and managed to put enough rounds through it to wear out the barrel, would you be stuck looking for a pre ban barrel? I think NO.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There is a lot of info in that article that does not square with BATFE info released after the ban started. It looks like that was written originally just after the ban started but before BATFE Tech Branch issued all the letters of clarification over those 10 years. I know Pat Sweeney and he wouldn't intentionally mislead folks but we all made mistakes and mis-interpretations over time and some of try to correct that stuff (but info on the Internet lives on forever, whether correct or not). His S/N list isn't complete and therefore really useless as well.

A better resource are the following:

http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/preORpost.html

http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/serialNumberList.html

Now for some clarification:

- BATFE has a Tech Branch where technical questions can be asked and letters which hold legal water are issued (not to say that they sometimes change their mind and issue contrary rulings).
- MA has absolutely NOBODY in a legal position of authority and has technical knowledge about guns. They also will not issue any written responses to citizens that will hold any weight in court. Even the AG is not supposed to respond to ANYONE other than another state agency (not to citizens or city/town officials).
- BATFE eventually ruled that for a gun to be a legal pre-ban, it had to be EITHER built or kitted (mated with an upper, no matter for how short a time) with evil features as a complete rifle on/before 9/13/1994.
- So frames that had never been built into a working gun prior to the ban could not be legally built into a "pre-ban" configuration ever. Guns that had no evil features prior to the ban could likewise never be modified to be "pre-ban" legally.

MA has never interpreted the MA version of that law to codify what BATFE ruled or not. It would be up to an ADA to argue those points (I believe that it would be a strong argument in a MA court) and your attorney to argue otherwise strictly due to no MA interpretations on what is allowed or not (I believe this would be a very weak argument in a MA court).

If you have a legit pre-ban gun, I have never heard anyone state that you can't modify it with more evil features or newer features.

 

[teaser452]

There is a lot of info in that article that does not square with BATFE info released after the ban started. It looks like that was written originally just after the ban started but before BATFE Tech Branch issued all the letters of clarification over those 10 years. I know Pat Sweeney and he wouldn't intentionally mislead folks but we all made mistakes and mis-interpretations over time and some of try to correct that stuff (but info on the Internet lives on forever, whether correct or not). His S/N list isn't complete and therefore really useless as well.

A better resource are the following:

http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/preORpost.html

http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/serialNumberList.html

Now for some clarification:

- BATFE has a Tech Branch where technical questions can be asked and letters which hold legal water are issued (not to say that they sometimes change their mind and issue contrary rulings).
- MA has absolutely NOBODY in a legal position of authority and has technical knowledge about guns. They also will not issue any written responses to citizens that will hold any weight in court. Even the AG is not supposed to respond to ANYONE other than another state agency (not to citizens or city/town officials).
-BATFE eventually ruled that for a gun to be a legal pre-ban, it had to be EITHER built or kitted (mated with an upper, no matter for how short a time) with evil features as a complete rifle on/before 9/13/1994.
- So frames that had never been built into a working gun prior to the ban could not be legally built into a "pre-ban" configuration ever. Guns that had no evil features prior to the ban could likewise never be modified to be "pre-ban" legally.

MA has never interpreted the MA version of that law to codify what BATFE ruled or not. It would be up to an ADA to argue those points (I believe that it would be a strong argument in a MA court) and your attorney to argue otherwise strictly due to no MA interpretations on what is allowed or not (I believe this would be a very weak argument in a MA court).

If you have a legit pre-ban gun, I have never heard anyone state that you can't modify it with more evil features or newer features.

Thanks.

In regards to the parts I bolded, how would anyone know or be able to prove that a pre-ban lower was or wasn't made into a working gun prior to ban going into effect? It's not like they registered every privately owned Ar lower at the time of the ban. Many companies sold just lowers.

Sorry for my massive confusion, because, for example, if I buy a pre ban lower, I can verify (usually) via serial number with the manufacturer that it indeed is pre-ban and sold as a working gun. But with manufacturers that only made lowers, there is no way to PROVE, via the manufacturer, that it was indeed made into a working firearm prior to the ban. The lower may have been sitting in someones closet for the last 30 years for all I know.

So, let's say it gets to court, and in regards to the bolded parts above in your post, the DA argues that hey, this had to have been made into a gun prior to the ban, and the defendant can't prove it. Nor can the DA prove that it wasn't made into a gun. So basically it would come down to a judge or jury considering whether or not the lower had or had not been made into a gun prior to the ban? Holy crap, that's a crap shoot!

I'm sorry to be so not picky, but I don't like the idea of felony charges at all.

 

[jpm]

The manufacturer would have in its bound book whether it was transferred as a receiver or rifle when they shipped it, so it could be proven.

 

[Glockster30]

It makes sense. If you had a pre ban AR and managed to put enough rounds through it to wear out the barrel, would you be stuck looking for a pre ban barrel? I think NO.

This is a very interesting question that you pose. I agree, although IANAL, that the owner is not limited to using a pre-ban barrel on a pre-ban receiver if a barrel replacement is needed. However, if a post-ban barrel is used for a replacement on the pre-ban receiver, can that rifle now be re-sold as a pre-ban rifle since this "new" change/configuration was not built/kitted prior to 9/13/94 (as noted in Len's response)?

Please don't let this question devolve into useless "fearmongering" or who "gives a $hit" responses, as I'm just posing this question from a strictly legal interpretation of the law that we are stuck with in MA.

 

[goodzilla]

However, if a post-ban barrel is used for a replacement on the pre-ban receiver, can that rifle now be re-sold as a pre-ban rifle since this "new" change/configuration was not built/kitted prior to 9/13/94 (as noted in Len's response)?

What matters is that the pre-ban receiver was built into a firearm prior to 9/13/94. If it was built into a firearm before that date, it is forevermore a pre-ban firearm, and is 100% eligible to be a pre-ban firearm no matter what you put on it. Even if you were to strip it down to the serialed lower receiver and completely rebuild it. Even if (heaven forbid) you built it into a MA AWB compliant AR, guess what, you just built an MA Compliant pre-ban AR. (mind blown)

 

[teaser452]

The manufacturer would have in its bound book whether it was transferred as a receiver or rifle when they shipped it, so it could be proven.

Right, but what about the manufacturers who never made guns, just lowers, and sold them to the public? No proof there, at least from the manufacturer. Like I said, the lower could have been lying in someones closet for 30 years, or could have been bought at a store and made into a gun that evening in someone's basement in 1992. No way to know, and certainly no way to prove. That's my point about manufacturers who only made lowers.

 

[Glockster30]

The manufacturer would have in its bound book whether it was transferred as a receiver or rifle when they shipped it, so it could be proven.

Right, but what about the manufacturers who never made guns, just lowers, and sold them to the public? No proof there, at least from the manufacturer. Like I said, the lower could have been lying in someones closet for 30 years, or could have been bought at a store and made into a gun that evening in someone's basement in 1992. No way to know, and certainly no way to prove. That's my point about manufacturers who only made lowers.

That's a good point, and I guess that the only way to prove it is if you had all the receipts for the parts made into the finished rifle, although even having receipts for non-receiver parts doesn't prove that those were the actual parts used to make the rifle since they lack manufacturing dates. However, with receipts, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Glockster30]

BTW, the current bidding on the GunBroker listing for the pre-ban lower is up to $820 (4 to 5 times the cost of a complete post-ban lower). Unless someone is a hard-core collector for this type of an item, one can purchase a complete post-ban AR for that price and still use pre-ban mags in it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The manufacturer would have in its bound book whether it was transferred as a receiver or rifle when they shipped it, so it could be proven.

It would be hard to prove a pre-ban lower was not made into a gun prior to the ban, particularly if the lower was bought from a dealer who required a FA-10 even though thsi was not required (without an FA10, an argument could be made that if the gun was really assembled "way back when", the owner committed the offense of failing to report the newly made gun on an FA10).

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thanks.

In regards to the parts I bolded, how would anyone know or be able to prove that a pre-ban lower was or wasn't made into a working gun prior to ban going into effect? It's not like they registered every privately owned Ar lower at the time of the ban. Many companies sold just lowers.

Sorry for my massive confusion, because, for example, if I buy a pre ban lower, I can verify (usually) via serial number with the manufacturer that it indeed is pre-ban and sold as a working gun. But with manufacturers that only made lowers, there is no way to PROVE, via the manufacturer, that it was indeed made into a working firearm prior to the ban. The lower may have been sitting in someones closet for the last 30 years for all I know.

So, let's say it gets to court, and in regards to the bolded parts above in your post, the DA argues that hey, this had to have been made into a gun prior to the ban, and the defendant can't prove it. Nor can the DA prove that it wasn't made into a gun. So basically it would come down to a judge or jury considering whether or not the lower had or had not been made into a gun prior to the ban? Holy crap, that's a crap shoot!

I'm sorry to be so not picky, but I don't like the idea of felony charges at all.

I have learned over the years that sometimes LEOs and DAs just want to "punish you" by dragging your name thru the mud (press conference with all your guns/ammo/mags laid out, name in the paper/news, etc.) and cost you $5-20K in legal fees even if they don't win a conviction. They also drag it out for a couple of years so you will take a plea bargain even if innocent just so you can move on with your life.

They will use the S/N list in court (URL posted above) to try to convince a judge/jury that it wasn't a legal pre-ban and thus you are guilty. Reality is that you'll have to prove that you aren't guilty, good luck with that.

The manufacturer would have in its bound book whether it was transferred as a receiver or rifle when they shipped it, so it could be proven.

Not if sold as a frame. Difficult to prove real status for those wrt pre-ban or not if a non-FFL built it up from scratch before the ban.

 

[MAJoe]

Right, but what about the manufacturers who never made guns, just lowers, and sold them to the public? No proof there, at least from the manufacturer. Like I said, the lower could have been lying in someones closet for 30 years, or could have been bought at a store and made into a gun that evening in someone's basement in 1992. No way to know, and certainly no way to prove. That's my point about manufacturers who only made lowers.

Just being safe, I'd steer clear in MA of those lowers. You're better off getting something that you can prove from the manufacturer that was built as a complete scary evil black rifle prior to the ban date. Having that paperwork with you is better insurance should anyone question why you have a flash hider and collapsible stock at the range. If all you have is proof the lower was made, but the manufacturer is known to NEVER have built it into complete rifle, that's much weaker assurance.

I'd rather rely on the positive assurance it was built and sold pre-ban in such a configuration rather than the lack of negative assurance it wasn't.

I also tend to play it safer so, your call.