"pre-ban 10/22"?

[ccouture1]

Wondering if anyone can answer a quick question for me. Looking to do a deal and the seller is offering to throw in a "pre-ban" ruger 10/22 receiver. I am no pre-ban/post-ban expert but I thought that had to do with the mags not the receiver. Am I missing something? Is there such thing as a "pre-ban" receiver? Even if there was I am pretty sure you can't put brand new/post ban 30 round mags in it correct?

 

[apander]

Please STOP with "Pre-Ban" BS....Please

 

[Rick O'Shea]

It refers to its date of manufacturer being before the original AWB, thus exempt from limits on evil features. It has nothing to do with magazines.

 

[daekken]

It refers to its date of manufacturer being before the original AWB, thus exempt from limits on evil features. It has nothing to do with magazines.

Provided it was in AW config prior to Sept 1994.
If it's only ever been a receiver or in vanilla configuration, it technically can't be put into "evil" configuration, although proving this could be tough.

To round out OP's post, pre/post ban often comes up with ARs/AKs and similar.
The general concept is that if you had an "evil config" rifle made prior to Sept. 1994 then you can keep the features (bayonet lug, folding stocks, threaded barrel, etc.). For people that want those features, they prize older rifles since they can still legally incorporate those things that would otherwise not be kosher for the AWB (think "Massified rifles" with target crowns and fixed stocks, etc.).

With 10/22s, you could put a pistol grip, have a folding/telescoping stock, etc. So, if those things are desirable for you, then you may want a pre-ban 10/22.

The magazine stuff is similar in terms of legality of > 10 round magazines (if the mag is pre-Sept 1994), but you can put preban magazines in any rifle that will take them.

 

[kalash]

Provided it was in AW config prior to Sept 1994.

The general concept is that if you had an "evil config" rifle made prior to Sept. 1994 then you can keep the features (bayonet lug, folding stocks, threaded barrel, etc.).

Source? Why did it have to have evil features before the ban?

 

[daekken]

Source? Why did it have to have evil features before the ban?

I'll look for it. It was an ATF director or assistant director, some kind of official in ATF. I think the reasoning was that you didn't have an "assault weapon" without those features. Therefore, you didn't have a "preban assault weapon" and were effectively creating one by adding the features to something, even if the receiver was dated prior to 1994.

We've covered this a few times; it would probably be tough to prove unless you talked yourself into it or you had testimony from the previous owner saying "I owned this receiver from 1990 to 2000 when I sold it, and it was always a stripped receiver."

Edit: Found it:
Edward M. Owen, Jr., as Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE:
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

 

[Deleted member 67409]

I'll look for it. It was an ATF director or assistant director, some kind of official in ATF. I think the reasoning was that you didn't have an "assault weapon" without those features. Therefore, you didn't have a "preban assault weapon" and were effectively creating one by adding the features to something, even if the receiver was dated prior to 1994.

We've covered this a few times; it would probably be tough to prove unless you talked yourself into it or you had testimony from the previous owner saying "I owned this receiver from 1990 to 2000 when I sold it, and it was always a stripped receiver."

The 10/22 came out in 1964 but I highly doubt many if any were made as either raw receivers or in tactical configuration before 1994. One would need a book on 10/22 production over the years or a collection of catalogs, but I know the stainless 10/22 came out in 1992, so a tactical one at the same time would be unlikely. Bill Ruger Sr. and all that.

 

[daekken]

The 10/22 came out in 1964 but I highly doubt many if any were made as either raw receivers or in tactical configuration before 1994. One would need a book on 10/22 production over the years or a collection of catalogs, but I know the stainless 10/22 came out in 1992, so a tactical one at the same time would be unlikely. Bill Ruger Sr. and all that.

The nuance is that it did not have to come from the factory in tactical mode, it just needed to have been put into that config prior to Sept 1994. I assume there was an aftermarket for them even in 1994, perhaps not as robust as today, so putting "tactical" stuff on the 10/22 could have been possible. It likely falls into the "unenforceable absent a fawning prior owner or stupid person gabbing to the authorities" section.

I just like to point this out since I think many people assume prior to 1994 means they can do whatever they want with a receiver/rifle, which is mostly accurate in terms of the de facto way things are, but is not technically correct per ATF opinion.

 

[Mesatchornug]

and, as a point of reference, recall that Mini-14s were available in AW configuration before the ban. I can't say if the 10/22 was ( I was 11, and not in the market at the time) but they were making things that met the definition.

 

[mac1911]

and, as a point of reference, recall that Mini-14s were available in AW configuration before the ban. I can't say if the 10/22 was ( I was 11, and not in the market at the time) but they were making things that met the definition.

The mini 14 GB was pistol grip , folding stock , flash hider , bayo lugged model in tge mid 80s
Think A team! I wanted a stainless version after watching the A team!

 

[Mesatchornug]

The mini 14 GB was pistol grip , folding stock , flash hider , bayo lugged model in tge mid 80s
Think A team! I wanted a stainless version after watching the A team!

Someday I'll buy one simply because I grew up on the A-Team. I don't have any real need for it. There are so many other firearms that make more sense, but...

 

[mac1911]

Someday I'll buy one simply because I grew up on the A-Team. I don't have any real need for it. There are so many other firearms that make more sense, but...

View attachment 459451

What I thought was funny, a few seasons in the A team members had the cool stainless folding stock models while the bad guys just had plain Mini’s

 

[daekken]

Someday I'll buy one simply because I grew up on the A-Team. I don't have any real need for it. There are so many other firearms that make more sense, but...

View attachment 459451

Just make sure the ATF doesn't confiscate it...

ATF Seized my Replica Mini-14

About a month and a half ago I bought a Replica Mini-14 on GunBroker. The guy selling it said he bought it from an FFL and wanted to send it to an FFL so I went with it. Had the thing shipped to Guns Inc. in West Springfield. Waited almost 3 weeks and didn't hear anything so finally called to...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[Gasgunner]

I just like to point this out since I think many people assume prior to 1994 means they can do whatever they want with a receiver/rifle, which is mostly accurate in terms of the de facto way things are, but is not technically correct per ATF opinion.

Does the ATF’s ruling even matter anymore now that the federal AWB is no longer in force? Pre ban/post ban being strictly a Massachusetts thing, would the ATF even offer an opinion if it doesn’t concern current federal law?

 

[daekken]

Does the ATF’s ruling even matter anymore now that the federal AWB is no longer in force? Pre ban/post ban being strictly a Massachusetts thing, would the ATF even offer an opinion if it doesn’t concern current federal law?

It may, insofar as the MA AWB, as I understand it, points to the Federal AWB. And the Federal AWB includes:

• ‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

And, going off of the ATF ruling, a person having just a receiver or "non-evil" 10/22 prior to 1994 did not possess a semiautomatic assault weapon on that date, since such a rifle or receiver did not meet the definition of an assault weapon. They were therefore, they were creating an assault weapon after the 1994 date by adding prohibited features. The text does not state that it does not apply to "any firearm or receiver possessed before the date" but rather specifically to what they define as an assault weapon.

I'd say it goes into the realm of "who knows?" at this point. It's just something to be aware of.

 

[TheGreekFreak]

A pre ban 10/22 is one that comes with a M203 grenade launcher attachment on it. Nothing Maura can do about it, its pre ban.

 

[ccouture1]

Please STOP with "Pre-Ban" BS....Please

it's BS to ask a legit question?

 

[Rick O'Shea]

Pay no attention to some of us,...

 

[MaroonedinMA]

A while back I saw an add here for a “Pre-Ban Sig 226... ?!?

I’m still trying to figure that one out.

Hell, by that logic my johnson is pre-ban given that it was made before the 90’s.

 

[not new guy]

Edward M. Owen, Jr., as Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE:
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

Did he mean to say it was inconclusive? Immaterial doesn't seem like the right word here.


And what's the correct bayonet for a 10/22? Anybody?

 

[daekken]

Did he mean to say it was inconclusive? Immaterial doesn't seem like the right word here.


And what's the correct bayonet for a 10/22? Anybody?

Immaterial in this context means it has no bearing.
In other words, the fact that a receiver was made before Sept 1994 doesn't mean that it is preban. I think inconclusive would work as well.
The date of manufacture alone is not indicative that something is preban per his definition.
According to his statement, an AR receiver made in 1960 is not preban if it remained a stripped receiver until 2000.
Naturally, proving it was not built at any point over those 40 years is a different story.

 

[not new guy]

Immaterial in this context means it has no bearing.
In other words, the fact that a receiver was made before Sept 1994 doesn't mean that it is preban. I think inconclusive word work as well.
The date of manufacture alone is not indicative that something is preban per his definition.
According to his statement, an AR receiver made in 1960 is not preban if it remained a stripped receiver until 2000.
Naturally, proving it was not built at any point over those 40 years is a different story.

Immaterial means it's not material when you're considering whether something is an AW or not (due to preban status). Whether or not it was made before 9/94 is very much material to that analysis, but on its own it's not conclusive.

 

[daekken]

Immaterial means it's not material when you're considering whether something is an AW or not (due to preban status). Whether or not it was made before 9/94 is very much material to that analysis, but on its own it's not conclusive.

Yes, I agree it's a poor word choice. But it's ATF, do you expect clarity and consistency?

 

[apander]

it's BS to ask a legit question?

I'm just tired of the whole "Pre-Ban" thingy and I refuse to call and get Our AG's permission on what weapon I can own. I guess I'm just a grumpy old man but our AG can kiss my A** before I would buy anything legally and jump through her silly Hoops like a trained dog. I apologize if I was short with you, didn't mean to take it out on you but I wish I had nickel for every pre-ban post I have read on NES.

 

[daekken]

I'm just tired of the whole "Pre-Ban" thingy and I refuse to call and get Our AG's permission on what weapon I can own. I guess I'm just a grumpy old man but our AG can kiss my A** before I would buy anything legally and jump through her silly Hoops like a trained dog. I apologize if I was short with you, didn't mean to take it out on you but I wish I had nickel for every pre-ban post I have read on NES.

We're talking the codified MA AWB ban, not "pre-Healey" but I understand your frustrations.
The silly hoops have been in place long before Frau Healey.

 

[apander]

We're talking the codified MA AWB ban, not "pre-Healey" but I understand your frustrations.
The silly hoops have been in place long before Frau Healey.

I guess most of my problem is that I moved to Ma. in 1980 from Idaho/western Oregon area and was Not prepared for the Moonbat silliness that has spread in a one-party blue state.