2004 AWB typo?

[myrockfight]

So I am perusing the Colt section of this years Blue Book of Gun Values (29th Ed.).

On page 589, I find this gem:

Pre-ban parts rifles are rifles that are not assembled in their proper factory configuration. Counterfeit pre-ban rifles are rifles using post-ban receivers and assembled into a pre-ban configuration (it is a felony to assemble or alter a post-ban rifle into a pre-ban configuration.) Unstamped L.E. only rifles are a felony to possess, and can be sold only to sworn law enforcement officers.



Am I missing something, or is this not true? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. The only thing that makes me question myself is that it is a respected and published book. You would assume it is all correct.

 

[highorder]

Wow, Thats not correct. After the sunset, you were allowed to assemble any lower in any configuration (all NFA rules apply.)

Aside from the serial number and manufacturer, anything else stamped into the receiver means nothing.

Anyone that knows something I don't, please set me right.

 

[El Tejon]

2004 AWB typo?

Was this written before September 2004?

 

[Animal Mother]

If it was written before the law expired, I believe it would have been a true statement at the time. IANAL.

 

[myrockfight]

Was this written before September 2004?

I was thinking they had written it before the expiration of the AWB, but just forgot to take it out of the following additions. That is just an assumption.

Maybe the author/editors don't care for "assault weapons." I don't see how a collector can have that view, which I assume they are (possibly incorrectly).

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Don't they write the blue book about a year before it comes out (in this case, 2004, same year the bill sunsetted)? I have heard values are about a year off because of that.
Check the 2005 version and see if that's omitted.
Also, some states adopted that do-nothing feel good law to themselves with no expiration, so that's probably still true in places like CA or NJ.

 

[3 gun]

There are some states where a PRE or POST ban configuration and LEO marking make a difference. This copy may have been for on of those regions. Do they print more than one revision a year?

As to the date, he said he was reading in THIS years Blue Book so I would guess that to be 07 or 08. Both well after the AWB sunset.

Unless something was slipped by us, in an add on, it is my understanding that the Federal AWB in null and void.

 

[myrockfight]

The book has a copywright of '08. Well after expiration of the AWB. Like you said 3 Gun, unless we missed something, we are in the clear.

I can't get over how some author/editor could screw the pooch so hard on something like this. You know this generates calls to the ATF by well meaning shooters who would otherwise let alone.

I do believe this warrants an email and a piece of snail mail in addition. To me it is irresponsible. I would say, "it isn't like something like this would get someone killed," but then I realized we are talking about the ATF making it possibly the dumbest statement I have ever made.

 

[Kentak]

I don't know much about the publishing business, but I don't think every word in large volumes that are updated yearly are scrutinized that carefully. A description of a certain model of gun is going to remain the same year to year, so they just leave the description alone and update values, etc. Sounds like this got overlooked and hasn't been updated to reflect the sunsetting of the AWB. Seems like someone should have brought it to their attention by now, though.

K

 

[myrockfight]

but I don't think every word in large volumes that are updated yearly are scrutinized that carefully.

I was thinking the same thing. But the AWB had a significant impact on the value of relevent firearms which would be interesting to the collector. ' Obviously, it inflated prices by holding down the supply not to mention the consumer's mentality to horde, etc. in the face of an action such as this.