preban dpms

[LORD of WAR]

guys...i was gonna buy a "preban" dpms and noticed the serial number on the gun is Serial #F018599K

in the sticky posted by typeo (by the way bj awesome info thanks for the post!)

it says numbers below 10300 i believe are preban...am i right in assuming this gun is not in fact preban?

 

[FPrice]

I would call DPMS if you have any questions. They should be the experts.

 

[LORD of WAR]

wow...that was quick...i called and they verified in about 2 seconds...postban lower made in 12/04


good thing i didnt get suckered into that deal

 

[FPrice]

My bill for consulting services will be in the mail!

 

[Executive]

guys...i was gonna buy a "preban" dpms and noticed the serial number on the gun is Serial #F018599K

in the sticky posted by typeo (by the way bj awesome info thanks for the post!)

it says numbers below 10300 i believe are preban...am i right in assuming this gun is not in fact preban?

I'm pretty sure the "K" at the end of the serial number indicates a firearm that was not assembled at the DPMS factory. This was probably sold as a lower and put together by a distributor, dealer, or individual. Also remember that any pre-ban lower must have been assembled into a complete weapon prior to the ban in order to qualify for pre-ban status.

 

[JackO]

Lately I was shopping for a pre-ban lower on ar15.com . Surprisingly , all 4 different "pre-ban" lowers I found, when checked with manufacturers, left factories as "lowers", not a complete rifles. Only ONE out of 4 sellers, when told a real story, apologized and withdrew his "pre-ban" add. All rest continued and eventually have sold their "pre-ban" lowers. Sorry, I didn't have guts to post in their adds, as AR15.com has a "do not spoil any body's add" policy and I was punished in the past for posting a very proper warning. Their moderators seem to listen just to themself.

 

[FPrice]

Do a Ronnie Reagan. Trust, but verify.

 

[LORD of WAR]

that doesnt make sense to me...if it was built before the ban as just a lower why is it not preban? so youre telling me a a colt sp1 that left the factory as a lower in 89 is not a preban? thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard...i hope this state and all its officials sinks into the effin ocean

 

[bpm990d]

The law said it needed to be assembled into a complete firing rifle before the ban went into effect for it to be considered pre-ban and grandfathered. AFAIK Colt only sold assembled rifles. The problem came from companies that made pre-ban receivers, but never assembled them into rifles.

B

 

[LORD of WAR]

so...if bushmaster took a lower made in 1990 and test fitted it onto an upper...then sold just the lower...the stupid thing was assembled into a rifle...thats how i see it...you put a workin lower on a working upper and its a gun whether or not it leaves the factory like that or not

 

[LoginName]

so...if bushmaster took a lower made in 1990 and test fitted it onto an upper...then sold just the lower...the stupid thing was assembled into a rifle...thats how i see it...you put a workin lower on a working upper and its a gun whether or not it leaves the factory like that or not

You have to realize that this is the ATF we're talking about here, however if you look at the letter of the law (the 94 ban and the legal definition of a firearm), it actually does make sense. The ATF has a whole slew of lawyers and firearms experts whose job it is to examine federal firearms laws passed by Congress and from that, determine/decipher what is legal/allowed and what is not.

By legal definition a frame/receiver is a firearm even though it lacks any of the other parts that would make it functional.

Also by legal definition, an "assault rifle" is

Any semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following features:

* a folding or telescoping stock.
* a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
* a bayonet mount.
* a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.
* a grenade launcher.

So, even though a pre Sept 13, 1994 is legally a firearm it does not become an "assault rifle" until 2 or more of the banned features are added to it.

That's why it's prohibited (or was), to build a pre-ban receiver that was never a complete rifle into an "assault rifle" configuration after that date.


More info here...

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

 

[drgrant]

so...if bushmaster took a lower made in 1990 and test fitted it onto an upper...then sold just the lower...the stupid thing was assembled into a rifle...thats how i see it...you put a workin lower on a working upper and its a gun whether or not it leaves the factory like that or not

Well, it depends on if the prosecutor decides to take someone's assertion to
task or not.

Does the prosecution have to prove that the lower WAS NOT assembled into
an "assault rifle" before that date? If so, that'd be a pretty difficult task
for them. Say the lower was sold in 1992, for instance... during that
period between 1992 and Sept 1994, the owner probably could
have assembled it into a rifle... being that most of the rifles at that time
all had ban features (eg a bayo lug, at a minimum), any rifle upper at the
time would probably have fulfilled that requirement of the law.

Or does the accused have to prove that the lower WAS assembled into an
"assault rifle" before that date?

The question of the day is, in an MA state case, who would have the burden
of proof? Theoretically they'd have to accuse you (or the previous
owner) of not having that lower assembled into a preban rifle. So short
of the prosecutor having a polaroid picture of you holding the unbuilt lower
in someones hand at like 11:59 pm on 9/12/94, I don't really see how they're
going to be able to prove whether or not the gun was assembled as an assault rilfe
before the cutoff date.


-Mike

 

[KMaurer]

so...if bushmaster took a lower made in 1990 and test fitted it onto an upper...then sold just the lower...the stupid thing was assembled into a rifle...thats how i see it...you put a workin lower on a working upper and its a gun whether or not it leaves the factory like that or not

My understanding is that ATF sees is pretty much as you do. A lot of manufacturers were doing exactly shat you described in the weeks before the AWB went into effect: churning our as many lowers as possible, assembling each on in a pre-ban configuration, then stripping them back for sale as officially pre-ban exempt. Whether or not they were sold as complete firearms or as just receivers doesn't matter, only whether or not they had existed in pre-ban configuration prior to the AWB.

Ken