Cost of preban AR recveivers is?
- Thread starter Justin
- Start date
Which is why I always get a chuckle out of the price difference...
When one sees preban receivers being listed for so much more than postban receivers. You're not getting anything different, since it has to be assembled with a post-ban upper per the law, assuming it wasn't part of a complete pre-ban rifle prior to September 1994.
When one sees preban receivers being listed for so much more than postban receivers. You're not getting anything different, since it has to be assembled with a post-ban upper per the law, assuming it wasn't part of a complete pre-ban rifle prior to September 1994.
"They will, if they get caught with an assembled piece..."
Of course, you and John can cite some case law for us so that the fear-mongering is justified...can't you?
Names, dates, and dispositions, if you please. I know that prosecutions/convictions of such "violations" would be of great interest to us all.
Otherwise, you're just pandering an urban myth that greatly aids the BATboys...
Of course, you and John can cite some case law for us so that the fear-mongering is justified...can't you?
Names, dates, and dispositions, if you please. I know that prosecutions/convictions of such "violations" would be of great interest to us all.
Otherwise, you're just pandering an urban myth that greatly aids the BATboys...
Zander,
Watch your mouth!
I'm not pandering to anyone, I'm stating the law of the land. You and I don't have to like it, but it is the law. My comment is still valid, there is no difference in value between bare receivers. I know you don't want to hear this, but here it is anyway. From the "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, 2000"
(O10) If a person is in possession of a frame or receiver for a semiautomatic
assault weapon on the date of enactment, may the person acquire the rest of
the parts and assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon?
No. It is unlawful to make such weapon after the law's effective date.
[18 U.S.C. 922(v)(1)]
Watch your mouth!
I'm not pandering to anyone, I'm stating the law of the land. You and I don't have to like it, but it is the law. My comment is still valid, there is no difference in value between bare receivers. I know you don't want to hear this, but here it is anyway. From the "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, 2000"
(O10) If a person is in possession of a frame or receiver for a semiautomatic
assault weapon on the date of enactment, may the person acquire the rest of
the parts and assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon?
No. It is unlawful to make such weapon after the law's effective date.
[18 U.S.C. 922(v)(1)]
johnwill
SEE what I mean?????????............never fails.........
Instead of disbelieving...........verify................
It's for our own good..........
Just when you think your safe, and on the up and up.............WHAMMO.
Someone changes de' rules.................
What's the old cliche'................
That's NOT a cliche'..........."Ignorance of the LAW, is NOT a defense".
SEE what I mean?????????............never fails.........
Instead of disbelieving...........verify................
It's for our own good..........
Just when you think your safe, and on the up and up.............WHAMMO.
Someone changes de' rules.................
What's the old cliche'................
That's NOT a cliche'..........."Ignorance of the LAW, is NOT a defense".
CITADELGRAD87
New member
Zander-
Ease back on the "ALL who question me are government lackeys" crap, OK?
Why draw the distinction between pre and post ban at all, then?
The whole purpose of the distinction is the SAME law that says they have to be complete rifles BEFORE the ban.
Whether or not anyone else has ever been charged has nothing to do with the assertion that a preban configured rifle assembled after the ban is illegal to build, posess, own, sell, etc.
It really doesn't matter that NOBODY has ever been prosecuted or even charged with the offense (although I don't know if that is the case.)
If YOU are the first guy charged with having an illegally configured weapon, it's gonna suck to be you.
This series of posts, if I may speak for my fellow realists Tshoes and johnwill, is INFORMATIONAL, ie that's the law.
You want to discuss whether we AGREE that it SHOULD BE the law, start a different post.
Ease back on the "ALL who question me are government lackeys" crap, OK?
Why draw the distinction between pre and post ban at all, then?
The whole purpose of the distinction is the SAME law that says they have to be complete rifles BEFORE the ban.
Whether or not anyone else has ever been charged has nothing to do with the assertion that a preban configured rifle assembled after the ban is illegal to build, posess, own, sell, etc.
It really doesn't matter that NOBODY has ever been prosecuted or even charged with the offense (although I don't know if that is the case.)
If YOU are the first guy charged with having an illegally configured weapon, it's gonna suck to be you.
This series of posts, if I may speak for my fellow realists Tshoes and johnwill, is INFORMATIONAL, ie that's the law.
You want to discuss whether we AGREE that it SHOULD BE the law, start a different post.
Honestly, this is my take on the whole mater. The all knowing you know who isn't really all that knowlegdable as to snap Decissions or advise at to their own Doctine.
They may or may not check internal parts, they may not even look twice at any one person with a tele stock or birdcage FH and they may not even know what the L03-L06 there about Serial Numbers mean.......But I ain't gonna be testing those waters so when some guy here asks for case #'s and you guys can quote Feds Vs Karsten, Karsten set up for the 50 years in Federal Hieghts Hotel never to own a firearm again.
Now for what you can buy a complete lower for or for that mater even a complete weapon, WHY RISK IT and test the waters
The out come is very one sided in a very bad way.
Just MHO but then again I am still here to type away and ask you guys before I leap.
Karsten
They may or may not check internal parts, they may not even look twice at any one person with a tele stock or birdcage FH and they may not even know what the L03-L06 there about Serial Numbers mean.......But I ain't gonna be testing those waters so when some guy here asks for case #'s and you guys can quote Feds Vs Karsten, Karsten set up for the 50 years in Federal Hieghts Hotel never to own a firearm again.
Now for what you can buy a complete lower for or for that mater even a complete weapon, WHY RISK IT and test the waters
The out come is very one sided in a very bad way. Just MHO but then again I am still here to type away and ask you guys before I leap.
Karsten
Zander-
I'll second what was said: it's not "pandering" or "urban myth", it's LAW OF THE LAND. That gov't agents don't bother enforcing it doesn't make it any less law; most of us are not interested in transgressing that law and being the first one prosecuted for it. Astoundingly few people have actually taken the time to carefully read what the law actually says.
By making the "pre/post-ban receiver" law confusing to the casual observer, the feds have created a class of people who unwittingly or intentionally (i.e.: you) break that law. Sure they won't prosecute most cases - but if they want to prosecute you for something, they just obtain a semi-bogus search warrant (not hard to do), search your house, and ... oh, gee, what's this? an "assault weapon" that looks like it was assembled after the ban? come with us, Mr. Zander - you have a lot of explaining to do...
I'll second what was said: it's not "pandering" or "urban myth", it's LAW OF THE LAND. That gov't agents don't bother enforcing it doesn't make it any less law; most of us are not interested in transgressing that law and being the first one prosecuted for it. Astoundingly few people have actually taken the time to carefully read what the law actually says.
By making the "pre/post-ban receiver" law confusing to the casual observer, the feds have created a class of people who unwittingly or intentionally (i.e.: you) break that law. Sure they won't prosecute most cases - but if they want to prosecute you for something, they just obtain a semi-bogus search warrant (not hard to do), search your house, and ... oh, gee, what's this? an "assault weapon" that looks like it was assembled after the ban? come with us, Mr. Zander - you have a lot of explaining to do...
Humm, I did some thinking and I think I figured out the cost of a Preban Lower.
Take the average family income of say $50,000 per year and multiple by 10 years is $500,000.
Add in the value of one home...Cheap one where I am $100,000.
Add to that the fact one is now a convicted felon and will not be highly desirable as any employee.
Add to that the fact one can NEVER own a firearm again.
And lastly....the loss of your family for say a minimum of 10 years if not forever....most wives don't wait around.
Cost of the Preban Reciever....NOT WORTH IT
Karsten
Take the average family income of say $50,000 per year and multiple by 10 years is $500,000.
Add in the value of one home...Cheap one where I am $100,000.
Add to that the fact one is now a convicted felon and will not be highly desirable as any employee.
Add to that the fact one can NEVER own a firearm again.
And lastly....the loss of your family for say a minimum of 10 years if not forever....most wives don't wait around.
Cost of the Preban Reciever....NOT WORTH IT
Karsten
Last edited:
"Watch your mouth! "
Do I have to, John? I mean, we've been jabbering back and forth so long, it seems sort of wasted effort. LOL!
Here's my point:
I want to know about prosecutions from a real source, not what your second cousin's son-in-law heard about one of the gun shop regulars getting busted by an off-duty park ranger who was buying mil-surp ammo from the "perpetrator".
In point of fact, if you have a receiver manufactured before the ban date, there is no way that the federales can prove that it was not assembled into a rifle or that you had the parts to assemble it into a rifle [also part of the law].
So, instead of squeaking when you [all of you, not just John] walk, do a little research.
BTW, any AR that I own is legal and "legal".
Pre-ban receivers are dropping in price and might actually become good buys again in the near future. If you want those eeeeeeevil features on your rifle, keep shopping.
"Ease back on the "ALL who question me are government lackeys" crap, OK?" -- CITADELGRAD87
Not what I said and not what I meant. Citadel grads usually read and comprehend better than that.
To 'ctdonath'...
Your Rand quote says it all. Why bother to enforce the law if you can scare the subjects into "complying" with any interpretation you choose.
BTW, don't ever again state in a public forum that I've intentionally broken the law. You don't know anything about me or what I own. [yes, I do have a lawyer; don't you?]
Still waiting for a cite...just one.
"Do I have to, John? I mean, we've been jabbering back and forth so long, it seems sort of wasted effort. LOL!
Here's my point:
I want to know about prosecutions from a real source, not what your second cousin's son-in-law heard about one of the gun shop regulars getting busted by an off-duty park ranger who was buying mil-surp ammo from the "perpetrator".
In point of fact, if you have a receiver manufactured before the ban date, there is no way that the federales can prove that it was not assembled into a rifle or that you had the parts to assemble it into a rifle [also part of the law].
So, instead of squeaking when you [all of you, not just John] walk, do a little research.
BTW, any AR that I own is legal and "legal".
Pre-ban receivers are dropping in price and might actually become good buys again in the near future. If you want those eeeeeeevil features on your rifle, keep shopping.
"Ease back on the "ALL who question me are government lackeys" crap, OK?" -- CITADELGRAD87
Not what I said and not what I meant. Citadel grads usually read and comprehend better than that.
To 'ctdonath'...
Your Rand quote says it all. Why bother to enforce the law if you can scare the subjects into "complying" with any interpretation you choose.
BTW, don't ever again state in a public forum that I've intentionally broken the law. You don't know anything about me or what I own. [yes, I do have a lawyer; don't you?]
Still waiting for a cite...just one.
Humm, My understanding is that is NOT their responiblity to prove anything.....It is going to be the responiblity of the one in possession to funish proof that the parts were bought and assembled prior too said ban. Same thing goes for lowers as well.......better have the reciepts.
Karsten
Karsten
Last edited:
Zander,
I don't have to do any research, I have the firearms regulations book here in my file cabinet! Please point to anything that I have posted that was incorrect...
Just as I suspected, there was nothing. I make no judgments what other people do with the information I provide, that's between you and whatever deity you communicate with. I was pointing out that the law is that receiver is not legal to assemble into a pre-ban configuration. That is 100% true. I don't recall mentioning any prosecutions, but that is a possibility, however remote.
You got one, check my previous message! Now, show me ANY legal opinion that what you state is true, that a bare pre-ban manufacture date receiver can be legally assembled into a pre-ban configuration today.
Still waiting for a cite...just one. To quote your qualification, "not what your second cousin's son-in-law heard about one of the gun shop regulars getting busted by an off-duty park ranger who was buying mil-surp ammo from the "perpetrator". "
As far as "rereading the Constitution", you obviously haven't been following the news for the last 30 years or so. I seem to recall about 70 folks that died at Waco in what certainly seemed to be an unconstitutional engagement! You're talking theory, and I'm talking reality!
I don't have to do any research, I have the firearms regulations book here in my file cabinet! Please point to anything that I have posted that was incorrect...
Just as I suspected, there was nothing. I make no judgments what other people do with the information I provide, that's between you and whatever deity you communicate with. I was pointing out that the law is that receiver is not legal to assemble into a pre-ban configuration. That is 100% true. I don't recall mentioning any prosecutions, but that is a possibility, however remote.
You got one, check my previous message! Now, show me ANY legal opinion that what you state is true, that a bare pre-ban manufacture date receiver can be legally assembled into a pre-ban configuration today.
Still waiting for a cite...just one. To quote your qualification, "not what your second cousin's son-in-law heard about one of the gun shop regulars getting busted by an off-duty park ranger who was buying mil-surp ammo from the "perpetrator". "
As far as "rereading the Constitution", you obviously haven't been following the news for the last 30 years or so. I seem to recall about 70 folks that died at Waco in what certainly seemed to be an unconstitutional engagement! You're talking theory, and I'm talking reality!
CITADELGRAD87
New member
One side here is arguing philosophy and one is stating reality.
I read and comprehend fine, thank you.
TO those who point out, correctly, the constitutional provisions regarding the burden of proof in matters, please review the way the IRS has been doing "business" for DECADES.
If you get audited and or dragged into TAX COURT (yeah, it's a separate system) don't plan on crossing your arms and relying on the "prove it" defense, as the burden of proof is on YOU.
The tax judges can and do impose penalties and fines on those who can't PROVE that they are innocent.
You guys are apparently betting that the government won't take on a case that you consider unwinnable.
One beurocrat with a hard on will make somebody's life miserable, believe me.
Ever see the mountain of hard evidence the gov't amassed against R Weaver?
Heck, they didn't even screw him IN the courthouse, did they?
I read and comprehend fine, thank you.
TO those who point out, correctly, the constitutional provisions regarding the burden of proof in matters, please review the way the IRS has been doing "business" for DECADES.
If you get audited and or dragged into TAX COURT (yeah, it's a separate system) don't plan on crossing your arms and relying on the "prove it" defense, as the burden of proof is on YOU.
The tax judges can and do impose penalties and fines on those who can't PROVE that they are innocent.
You guys are apparently betting that the government won't take on a case that you consider unwinnable.
One beurocrat with a hard on will make somebody's life miserable, believe me.
Ever see the mountain of hard evidence the gov't amassed against R Weaver?
Heck, they didn't even screw him IN the courthouse, did they?