M1 Carbine Paratrooper Legality Question.

[cslinger]

Whenever I get the urge I am going to drop the ole' BATFE a line but I figured I would ask here to see if anybody knew for sure or had already done so.

Ok so here is my question. As far as I know only one company made M1 Carbine Paratroopers, Inland.

Ok that being said there are many repro's built on various wartime receivers. Now for the question.

Based on that stupid 1994 AWB PITA that we all hope goes away next year an assault weapon is determined by various features including folding stocks, detachable magazines etc.

Ok now I know that any wartime M1 carbine was made way the heck before this 1994 foolishness but I thought that part of the ban centered around the fact that just because you have a receiver made before 1994 doesn't necessarily mean you can do just anything to it. I thought that you had to prove that it was in that evil configuration before the ban was enacted.

Ok now technically since only Inland made M1 carbine para's then any other brand with a folding stock would be sort of gray since there is no way to prove whether or not the folding repro stock was put on before or after 1994.

Ok I know that I might be way off base here but we have some really knowledgeable people here and some FFL holders and who knows maybe even the occasional ATF agent.....we know you are here wink wink.

So since I want to be 100% legal in all my firearm dealings is there anyway I can legally buy or make a reproduction M1 Carbine Paratrooper without paying for an original Inland or breaking any laws.

So now that everybody is confused let me know whatcha' think. I will eventually pen a letter to big brother to find out for sure unless somebody already has.

Thanks so much.

Chris

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Any M1 Carbine that was configured with a folding stock and/or pistol grip on the date of enactment in 1994 is a grandfathered AW. Any M1 Carbine that was not configured with enough evil features on that date cannot now be made into a semiautomatic AW.

If you want a M1 Paratrooper configuration and do not want to wait until next September to make one, you have to purchase one that was in that configuration prior to the ban starting.

The question is, once you have a 50 year old M1 Carbine with a folding stock, regardless of which company manufactured it, how can anyone prove that it wasn't in that configuration in 1994?

AFAIK, the only persons charged with manufacturing post-ban AWs by installing folding stocks were those that installed them on a firearm manufactured/imported after '94, making it obvious for ATF.

 

[DMK]

The question is, once you have a 50 year old M1 Carbine with a folding stock, regardless of which company manufactured it, how can anyone prove that it wasn't in that configuration in 1994?

Yea, that's the part where you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent. Don't you just love the new world order?

 

[carpettbaggerr]

No, you're innocent until proven guilty. And it's pretty hard for the BATF to prove a 50 year old firearm was in a different configuration until 9 years ago. No new world order here. I'm saving the tin foil helmet for when I really need it.

 

[Zundfolge]

Ok now I know that any wartime M1 carbine was made way the heck before this 1994 foolishness but I thought that part of the ban centered around the fact that just because you have a receiver made before 1994 doesn't necessarily mean you can do just anything to it. I thought that you had to prove that it was in that evil configuration before the ban was enacted.

I thought that a rifle was considered "preban" as long as the reciever was part of a complete rifle before the ban (regardless of evil features).

If that wasn't the case then why would a "preban" AR-15 with a 20" barrel without a brake/flash hider and a standard stock be worth more then a "postban" if you can't add "evil" preban features?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I thought that a rifle was considered "preban" as long as the reciever was part of a complete rifle before the ban (regardless of evil features).

Nope. It had to have the evil features back in 1994. You see "pre-ban" in ads all the time, especially with guns such as the Mini-14. In this case, it is meaningless. You cannot now add a 2nd evil feature and make it into an AW.

The "grandfather" exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(2) applies only to a semiautomatic assault weapon which was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the statute. A rifle which did not meet the definition of a semiautomatic on September 13, 1994, does not qualify for this exemption. A firearm which became a semiautomatic assault weapon after September 13, 1994, is subject to the prohibition in section 922(v).


http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter32.txt

 

[BDM]

its true as long as the rifle was complete you can put any preban features on it.Like if you had a preban AR15 that was a complete fullsize rifle you can change it to a carbine.If it were just a receiver then it would fall under post ban because it wasnt assembled as a complete rifle but on a 50 year old receiver its safe to say it was a complete rifle when it was manufatured.
Thats why for ARs like my bushmaster you call the factory to get the documentation that it left as a complete rifle before 94 and its legal to configure any pre ban way you want.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Thats why for ARs like my bushmaster you call the factory to get the documentation that it left as a complete rifle before 94 and its legal to configure any pre ban way you want.

That's not exactly true. It had to be a complete rifle with enough evil features to be classified as an assault weapon. In addition, it also must have been in an assault weapon configuration from 1994 to present. Even completely configured pre-ban assault weapons can lose their status and become post-bans.

Per ATF:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226

NOV 1 6 2001

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX:

<snip>

You describe an AR15 type rifle that met the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon and was lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. At some subsequent time the rifle was temporarily reassembled in a configuration such that it no longer had the qualifying features of a semiautomatic assault weapon. You asked if the original components could then be lawfully reinstalled on the rifle.

Provided that the original components were held by the owner and reinstalled on the rifle, it is our opinion that the rifle would still qualify as an exempted semiautomatic assault weapon even though it had been temporarily assembled in a different configuration. We note, that mere disassembly of a semiautomatic weapon by an owner would not remove the firearm from the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon nor would the reassembly constitute manufacture of a prohibited semiautomatic assault weapon.

Your second question concerns a semiautomatic assault weapon that also meets the exemption in section 922(v)(2). However, this firearm was disassembled and the receiver, without other components, was sold. Since the receiver is no longer possessed with all parts necessary to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon, it no longer meets the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2) and assembly of this firearm in the configuration of a semiautomatic assault weapon would be prohibited under section 922(v)(1).

<snip>

Sincerely yours,

Curtis H.A. Bartlett
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

 

[cslinger]

Thanks guys.

This is really one stupid set of laws. We need to get rid of this thing next year.

Chris

 

[BDM]

tough to know what parts you had prior when there are no serial#s on parts especialy if you find out how it left the factory and configure it the same way wich is hard to find out on a 50 year old rifle from a company that no longer exists I assume inland is no more.

 

[HankB]

. . . once you have a 50 year old M1 Carbine with a folding stock, regardless of which company manufactured it, how can anyone prove that it wasn't in that configuration in 1994?

AFAIK they can only prove it if there's a post-1994 paper trail indicating that it was NOT in evil configuration when it changed hands.

 

[Steel]

It is f-----g ridiculous that citizens have to contend with such confusing laws. If Uncle Sam will not repeal some of these laws, at least make them, collectively, more streamlined and a little more clear.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No, you're innocent until proven guilty. And it's pretty hard for the BATF to prove a 50 year old firearm was in a different configuration until 9 years ago.

The ATFs interpretation is different. The 1994 law actually bans all semi-automatic rifles with the forbidden features:

`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon .

It then goes on to make exceptions for this:

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

Some, including the ATF I believe, have argued that this effectively means that all banned semi-autos are illegal and it is a "defense to prosecution" that it was manufactured before 1994. The legal difference here is that in this case, the burden of proof is on the owner of the rifle to prove it was in evil configuration prior to September 13, 1994.

See this link for an example of this in action at the State level in Texas:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000200.html

 

[dav]

I suggest getting a "pre-ban" calendar from eBay and take a picture of your new toy with the calendar coincidentally in the background.

Then if asked, you can show proof it was already in that configuration before '94!

As long as their paper trail proof isn't better than yours, you might have a chance, at least...

I'm not sure if I'm kidding or serious.

 

[ScottS]

I suggest getting a "pre-ban" calendar from eBay and take a picture of your new toy with the calendar coincidentally in the background.

Just make sure it's not a digital camera!

Scott