AWB sunsets, how to prove pre-ban configuration?

[Zircon]

Let's assume the AWB sunsets in September. Let's assume I have a post-ban AR-15, and that I'd like to add more than two of the evil features - namely a flash hider and a collapsible stock. Let's say I do this, come Sept. 15th.

Now let's say that the AWB is reinstated, some months after I get done legally modifying my AR. As I understand, under the current AWB, if pre-ban weapons are already assembled with more than two of the evil features they are legal. Let's say that the reinstated AWB grandfathers all configurations legal at the time the reinstated AWB becomes effective, much like the current AWB.

What are peoples opinions? Would any weapon produced with a serial number prior to the reinstated AWB be considered pre-ban? Would such weapons only be considered pre-ban if they were in correct configuration prior to reinstatement of AWB? How would one best go about proving that he had a legit pre-ban weapon?

This is kind of a complex scenario, but one that I see perhaps likely.

Zirc

 

[boofus]

Wouldn't it be nice if the government had to prove you did something illegal instead of you having to prove your innocence?

Could take photos of the gun lying on a newspaper with the date showing or something.

 

[Gray Peterson]

to retroactively ban "Assault Weapons" like the way you're talking about with no grandfather clause is not going to happen, no way no how. That would require widescale firearms confiscation.

 

[Mulliga]

Could take photos of the gun lying on a newspaper with the date showing or something.

That doesn't make any sense. Couldn't someone just take an old newspaper and take a picture?

The best proof is a *GASP* 4473. Assuming your FFL keeps them, that'd be easy proof you bought it before any new ban. Also keep your receipts, and photocopy them and send them to yourself in the mail. Not foolproof, but better than nothing.

 

[Das Pferd]

"Semiautomatic pistols and rifles assembled after September 13, 1994, and possessing two or more of the features listed in [Section 921 (a) (30), Title 18 U.S.C.] are semiautomatic assault weapons as defined. 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. Additionally, payment or non-payment of excise tax is also immaterial to classification of a firearm as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

 

[No4Mk1*]

Fortunately you don't have to prove you are innocent, only that you might be. They would have to prove your guilt, which would be impossible if you were innocent.
As far as an outright ban, if any of my personal property is banned by any level of government I don't care. I have a right to keep my personal belongings and I don't feel the need to respect any law telling me otherwise.

 

[Zak Smith]

Um, they would probably do it the same way they did do it, by when the firearm was made and not by when it was modified.

They will say that any firearm manufactured before X date is pre ban and thus can have all the evil features, any firearm manufactured after X date are post ban. Same way they did it with the last ban. Has nothing to do when it was modified.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you bought a new AR15 in 1990 which did not have enough features to be classified as a SAW before Sept 1994, you cannot now add those evil features. If you had added the evil features in July 1994, you can continue to possess the SAW throughout the AWB, though it would be prudent to have some proof it was assembled before.

The "pre-ban" status of a SAW depends wholly on whether or not it was in SAW-condition before Sept 1994, not how it was manufactured.

-z

 

[Zircon]

If you bought a new AR15 in 1990 which did not have enough features to be classified as a SAW before Sept 1994, you cannot now add those evil features. If you had added the evil features in July 1994, you can continue to possess the SAW throughout the AWB, though it would be prudent to have some proof it was assembled before.

The "pre-ban" status of a SAW depends wholly on whether or not it was in SAW-condition before Sept 1994, not how it was manufactured.

And therein lies the crux of my assumption that the same scenario happens with a sunset of the current AWB, and then an extension takes place at a later time. One will have to physically modify their weapon during the "legal" period between bans, and then somehow prove that the modification(s) took place during this window of opportunity.

Also, thanks for many of your creative replies. Keep 'em coming!

Zirc

 

[Das Pferd]

Ah I see now, all the BS about serial numbers isnt straight from the laws.

 

[carp killer]

Has anyone ever heard the BATFE file charges on an "evil" feature? Or is it used as a add on charge to some other crime.

 

[cpileri]

mail

I wonder if the US mail can be used.

Not foolproof, but sometime before the sunset in spetember you could take a pic with a camera that has the date printed on the picture, then put it in an envelope go have it postmarked and mailed to yourself and LEAVE IT UNOPENED forever. This proves that sometime before the sunset, it was in whatever configuration.

Then during the legal period, take a pic with all the mods in the whole world installed and have it postmarked on a date during the legal period and mail it to yourself and again LEAVE IT UNOPENED forever. This proves that during the legal period it was in 'post-new-ban' configuration.

Together, the 2 envelopes prove you made the changes during the legal period.

The key is to never break the seal on the envelopes.

How's that?
C-

 

[Brett Bellmore]

to retroactively ban "Assault Weapons" like the way you're talking about with no grandfather clause is not going to happen, no way no how. That would require widescale firearms confiscation.

Kind of like retroactively converting hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor convictions, some decades old, into the equivalent of felonies, for the purposes of disqualifying people from owning guns? Sure, they'd do it in a flash if they could, then instead of going door to door, just charge the people as they happened to catch them. Remember, they're a lot more obsessed with getting these laws on the books, than with enforcing them.

 

[Zircon]

Before I started this thread I had given some thought to the dated-camera approach along with mailing a sealed, certified envelope to myself with the appropriate date stamps. I see three problems with this approach standing up in a court of law.

First, with every tom, dick, and harry capable of doing image manipulation on their home computers what date stamp would be believable? Yes, I know that you can supposedly detect manipulated images, but I've seen some very, very good artwork out there from amateurs. My assumption here is that the authorities will believe you're guilty from the get-go and you will have to prove your innocence, so now the burden of proof falls back on you, not the government.

Second, it would seem like somehow you would have to get a picture with the mods in place, and at the same time have it clear enough to display the serial number. With my photographic skills that may be a difficult thing to pull off. LOL! Without the serial number and the mods in the same photo the authorities could just say, "well those are two different weapons."

Third, it's too easy to steam open an envelope and get it resealed, after substituting documents inside.

I guess the real question is how far would the government go to "hang 'em high" in case of an arrest? We've all seen the BATF go to some pretty extreme lengths in a previous administration haven't we? So, there's no wonder why I have so little trust.

 

[boofus]

You could always march off to the ATF offices in DC with the rifle in your hands to show them it's legal.

 

[Zircon]

LOL!! Duh...is there a less risky approach? Guns in DC? You gotta be kiddin!!

Actually, is there some way to exploit ATF paperwork to "prove" the gun is legal-stegal? Something along the lines Mulliga suggested? I don't know too much detail about ATF procedures or forms.

 

[rick_reno]

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates how they've got us believing in their legislation - lock, stock and barrel to use an appropriate phrase. With these attitudes, they won't have to gather them up when they want them - we'll gladly turn them in.

 

[tyme]

The take-a-picture-and-mail-it-to-yourself plan works somewhat for protecting copyrights, but I doubt it'd work for this. The sealed picture proves (if you believe the postmark) that you had a rifle with serial number X in a pre-ban configuration before the ban expired; it doesn't prove that it was legal for you to do so unless you already have pre-1994-09-13 evidence that the rifle (serial number X) was in an assault-weapon configuration.

 

[ProGlock]

If such a case ever got so far as a federal appeals court, they probably would dismiss the case because you simply can't prove it. I haven't exactly noticed a specialized BATF task force for simply AWB infringements.

If they give you trouble, tell them to go pound sand.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

Barring any extension, after September 13th, 2004, the 1994 feature based system sunsets.

Any US made semi auto EBR assembled after that date,
including adding a flash hider or a collapsing stock to a "post ban" AR15,
violates no law.

Any new law would have to encompass these post 9-13-04 SAWs.

The simple way would be to make a new date, after which, no more than 2 evil features can be incorporated into a rifle. Thus a new "preban" date would be minted.

IMHO, The earliest they could railroad that under the Kerry administration would be January 2005.

If every postban owner added a bolt on bayonet lug on September 14th,
the wicket would indeed become stickier.

Proving that your 1999 AR15 did not grow a pair of evil features on 9-14-04
is a task for the Dick Schummers. The stickness of the resulting Quagmire is why Feinstein is pushing for an extension now.

The fact is, the 10 year ban was to study the effect "assault rifles" had on crime

The numbers are in, and its a statistical wash.

 

[spacemanspiff]

so.....theoretically, a post-ban EBR that is marked "for law enforcement only", would be legal for a lowly serf to own after the ban sunsets?

wasnt there some talk about taxes paid on law enforcement only weapons? and that there was no real way to obtain the tax once its in the retailers inventory?

or did i dream that up?

 

[Poodleshooter]

to retroactively ban "Assault Weapons" like the way you're talking about with no grandfather clause is not going to happen, no way no how. That would require widescale firearms confiscation.

All they have to do is pass a law in January 2005 that only firearms as of the original 1994 pre-ban date can be equipped with the evil features. If that happens, everyone who doesn't remove evil features becomes a felon. They don't have to actively confiscate either. They can simply grab folks on a one by one basis in traffic stops,at the range or in concert with other violations. As mentioned, wide scale, proactive confiscation will never occur. Only slow methodical confiscation of non-registered weapons is practical.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

Ex post facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Art 1, § 9
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

and Art. 1 § 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility

http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm


i have seen LEO prebans for sale
and those would have had "making tax" issues as well

 

[Bainx]

All they have to do is pass a law in January 2005 that only firearms as of the original 1994 pre-ban date can be equipped with the evil features.

I ain't no lawyer but, I would not think they could lock me up for owning a perfectly legal gun made by Armalite in October, 2004 that had a flash hider, bayonet lug and pistol grip.
But then again, I could be wrong

 

[Poodleshooter]

Ex post facto

My suggestion need not violate the ex post facto principle. Simply make the possession of converted post 1994 rifles illegal in the present with no grandfathering. Your legal possession of them in the past is not in question, simply your possession of them currently is in question. It doesn't criminalize your addition of the new parts in the past, it simply criminalizes your possession of them in a certain configuration in the present on what we currently know as a "post ban" weapon. The end result is the same. Of course this would only be practical if tagged onto a new assault rifle ban,but it would cover everything and wouldn't leave a class of "new prebans".