If you get arrested before the AWB expires, do you get out Sept 14?


PDA






mondocomputerman
June 4, 2004, 02:56 PM
If you were to get arrested and charged for having too many "evil features" on your rifle before the AWB sunsets, do you get off whenever the ban does expire (assuming it does expire)

If you enjoyed reading about "If you get arrested before the AWB expires, do you get out Sept 14?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jack T.
June 4, 2004, 02:57 PM
Anybody *ever* been arrested for such an offense?

Matthew Courtney
June 4, 2004, 03:03 PM
No. In fact if you break the law on September 13th, you could be arrested on September 15th, prosecuted. and convicted.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 4, 2004, 03:14 PM
Anybody *ever* been arrested for such an offense?

Just recently a member (FFL/SOT) at AR15.com was arrested by ATF for selling a post-ban weapon in pre-ban configuration in Nevada. There were many other arrests announced along with his as part of a year-long investigation.

The member in question isn't around to answer questions; so beyond what the ATF press release says, no more info.

HankB
June 4, 2004, 03:37 PM
With a good attorney, I suspect it would be difficult to convict someone of something that is no longer a crime. Of course, the Feds could throw $10,000,000 into prosecuting you, and you'd have to pay your own lawyer, so even if you win, you've still paid a price. Somehow, "jumping the gun" doesn't sound like a good idea to me. In fact if you break the law on September 13th, you could be arrested on September 15th, prosecuted. and convicted. Hmmm . . . how many bootleggers were prosecuted for violating the Volstead Act after it was repealed? :confused:

Zundfolge
June 4, 2004, 04:24 PM
Hmmm . . . how many bootleggers were prosecuted for violating the Volstead Act after it was repealed? :confused:

Probably ALL of them that where caught for violating the Volstead act before the act was repealed.

When the AWB sunsets then it will be legal to own the banned stuff AFTER the sunset ... not before.

jnojr
June 4, 2004, 07:13 PM
I'm guessing manufacturers can't start making hi-cap magazines until Sept. 15th. But one minute after midnight, you could put that collapsable stock on your AR-15! Personally, I wouldn't risk doing it beforehand, but I would make absolutely sure to do it... if/when a new ban is passed, unless they go to the trouble of trying to make it retroactive, anything between 9/14 and the start of the new ban would stay legal.

Hawkmoon
June 4, 2004, 07:45 PM
I'm guessing manufacturers can't start making hi-cap magazines until Sept. 15th. But one minute after midnight, you could put that collapsable stock on your AR-15! Personally, I wouldn't risk doing it beforehand, but I would make absolutely sure to do it... if/when a new ban is passed, unless they go to the trouble of trying to make it retroactive, anything between 9/14 and the start of the new ban would stay legal.

I wouldn't do it at one minute past midnight, because I wouldn't even have it in the house. BATFE's interpretation (according to what I think I have learned here) is that if you even possess the parts to convert, for example, an AR-15 into a select-fire M16, you broke the law even if the parts haven't been installed. Why would this be any different to them? The "illegal" folding stock is in the closet right next to the "legal" weapon. I think they could claim it was there and ready to be installed whenever you chose, and that it violates the rules.

JMHO

clange
June 4, 2004, 07:52 PM
As others have said, if you break the law before it expires you're just as screwed as you would be now. The law is sunsetting, not being thrown out by some court where they could overturn convictions.

mondocomputerman
June 4, 2004, 09:58 PM
Could the manufacturers remark all of their high capacity magazines from LE and sell them to us, or do they have to make new ones after it sunsets? Knowing that it would probably would sunset, what would keep them from keeping hoards of them ready to remark for sale. If they were smart would they limit the supply to keep the price high...

Kodiak AK
June 4, 2004, 10:15 PM
No If they where really smart they would crank out production of bodies and just skip putting the Leo stamp on them fro right now , but keeping them in parts form in case they have to put the stamp on anyway .


That way they can flood the market right off the bat and scoop up mad cash while every one else plays catch up .

BTR
June 4, 2004, 10:23 PM
LEO mags won't have to be remarked. After the sunset they will be legal for us in the good states to own. Manufacturers will have plenty of time to crank out lots of LEO mags, knowing they can sell them to anyone after the sunset.

Clean97GTI
June 5, 2004, 01:35 AM
If you install too many evil features any time before the ban sunsets, you can be prosecuted after it sunsets(not sure on statute of limitations). When you installed said feature, it was illegal. You can be prosecuted for breaking a law even if it is set to die tomorrow.
Just wait and install all the cosmetic changes (they won't be evil after the ban) you want on the 15th.

Kodiak AK
June 5, 2004, 03:39 PM
The problem with that BTR is you can almost garuntee when the next ban hits that anything marked LEO will be reclassified as verbotn for mere pleebians again.

Zundfolge
June 5, 2004, 03:59 PM
So if I was to go out now and buy a CAR stock for my AR15 and take it to the office and put it in a desk drawer, would the ATF consider that illegal?

As long as I don't have the parts under the same roof as the rifle would that be okay? Or would the fact that I'd own both even though they are across town from each other make me a felon?

I only bring this up because I bet we'll see the prices of "preban" type parts jump quite a bit right after the sunset.

Hkmp5sd
June 5, 2004, 04:12 PM
So if I was to go out now and buy a CAR stock for my AR15 and take it to the office and put it in a desk drawer, would the ATF consider that illegal?
Yep. They are not concerned about the physical location, merely the person that has physical control over them. You could look at it as would they care if you had a full auto parts kit in your desk for one of the autoloaders you have at home. You can bet they would care.

Bainx
June 5, 2004, 05:02 PM
GOLDEN RULE APPLIES HERE

HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES

PLAIN AND SIMPLE

Rabbit9
June 5, 2004, 06:01 PM
I wouldn't do it at one minute past midnight, because I wouldn't even have it in the house. BATFE's interpretation (according to what I think I have learned here) is that if you even possess the parts to convert, for example, an AR-15 into a select-fire M16, you broke the law even if the parts haven't been installed. Why would this be any different to them? The "illegal" folding stock is in the closet right next to the "legal" weapon. I think they could claim it was there and ready to be installed whenever you chose, and that it violates the rules.

Why would this be any different, because you're comparing apples to oranges. The parts necessary to convert an AR-15 to an M-16 (LL/RDIAS) are registered NFA items, and have absolutely nothing to do with the AWB. Other than that, I think you are misinterpreting "constructive posession". There is nothing illegal about a folding stock, or any other pre-ban items, when not a part of the rifle itself. If you already have the complete weapon with a post-ban legal stock, you can't say you are planning to "construct" a pre-ban AW just by having a CAR stock. Now, if you had a stripped lower receiver and a pre-ban parts kit in your posession, that could possibly be construed as "constructive posession".

Hkmp5sd
June 5, 2004, 08:51 PM
Why would this be any different, because you're comparing apples to oranges.
This is not comparing apples and oranges. Being in possession of the parts needed to assemble an particular weapon has been ruled to be the same as having possession of that weapon, be it covered by the NFA, AW ban or GCA.

There is nothing illegal about a folding stock, or any other pre-ban items, when not a part of the rifle itself. If you already have the complete weapon with a post-ban legal stock, you can't say you are planning to "construct" a pre-ban AW just by having a CAR stock.

Incorrect. It is very much illegal, as far as ATF is concerned, to be in possession of the parts to convert a post-ban rifle into an assault weapon and possession of a post-ban rifle. The only quasi-legal way to get around this is to have both a pre-ban and post-ban rifle. Then you can sometimes claim the extra collapsible stock is for the pre-ban. If you need further proof that merely having the parts is illegal, here is what ATF says to a person that has a legally registered M16 and an AR-15. Simply having spare parts for the M16 and the ability to put them in the AR is enough to violate the law. Make note that having the spare parts only applies to a person with both firearms.


The fact that a person lawfully possesses a registered NFA firearm does not grant authorization to possess additional non-registered firearms. A person who possesses a registered M16 machinegun and a semiautomatic AR15 and a separate quantity of M16 machinegun components could be in possession of two machineguns.

We advise any person who possesses an AR15 rifle not to possess M16 fire control components (trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector, and bolt carrier). If a person possessed only the M16 machinegun and spare M16 fire control components for that machinegun, the person would possess only one machinegun.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter90.txt


BTW, a person that does not own an AR rifle can possess all of the full auto parts for an M16. The parts themselves are not illegal, only having the parts and an AR at the same time.

FYI, there is also an overlap in the current AW Ban and the NFA. Some firearms are effected by both.

Rabbit9
June 5, 2004, 10:18 PM
HKmp5sd, if your going to quote ATF "opinion", you might try reading all of it.

The definition of a machinegun in section 5845(b) also includes any
combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if
such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
The definition of a machinegun in section 5845(b) also includes any
combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if
such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
Thus, an AR15 rifle possessed with separate M16 machinegun
components can meet the definition of a machinegun, if the rifle shoots automatically when the components are installed.

Posession, in and of itself, does not constitute violation of the law. And if the NFA/AWB cross-over your talking about concerns post-ban SBR's, I am indeed familiar.

PromptCritical
June 5, 2004, 10:44 PM
How about the gun shops that have post-ban rifles and also have preban parts and accessories in the shop? Bill, the gunsmith, has no intention of doing anything illegal, like puting a flash suppressor on a rifle, but he could... if he wanted to. I guess it just matters if the Feds are having a slow day or someone wants a promotion.

Ya know, with these laws, they really got us by the balls. They can just make up something and, with millions at their disposal, make it stick. I can only imagine the poor plumber who reloads as a hobby. Pipes+powder=explosive device regardless of intent.

Hell, the Navy provided small arms training AND issued me a ski mask. Does owning guns make me a bank robber?

lee n. field
June 5, 2004, 10:44 PM
If you were to get arrested and charged for having too many "evil features" on your rifle before the AWB sunsets, do you get off whenever the ban does expire (assuming it does expire)

I wouldn't count on it.

Did Ohio stop persecuting, excuse me, _prosecuting_, Jeff Jordan once CCW passed? No.

Hkmp5sd
June 5, 2004, 10:46 PM
if your going to quote ATF "opinion", you might try reading all of it.

You may rest assured I have read "all of it" on more than one occassion. Please note they state when the components are installed, not if the components are installed.

Since part of my collection includes many NFA items, I've corresponded with ATF a few times and they have always held the opinion that possession of the disassembled parts constitutes possession of the fully assembled firearm.

One prime example is uppers for my Colt M16A1. They have stated that since I also own a Colt AR-15 SP1, I cannot have more than one upper for my M16 with a barrel less than 16 inches. If I do so, they claim my AR-15 automatically becomes an unregistered SBR.

The definition of a firearm in section 5845 of the NFA includes a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length. An individual possessing more than one short (less than 16 inches) barreled upper receiver for a registered AR15 machinegun along with one or more semiautomatic AR15 rifles would have under their possession of control an unregistered short barreled rifle, a violation of the NFA.

Did you notice the mere "possession of control" part?

Rabbit9
June 7, 2004, 11:40 PM
HKmp5sd, I like my crow blackened cajun style, with some wild rice and a nice red wine.:o

I checked with our "legal eagle" moderator over on AR-15.com. Apparently, and I quote, "there is clear case law" in reference to possession of pre-ban parts and post-ban guns constituting constructive possession.

I wouldn't want to steer anybody in the wrong direction, so please ignore everything I've said.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "If you get arrested before the AWB expires, do you get out Sept 14?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!