M1 Carbine preban assumption...

Y

yankytrash

New member
Can I assume my Iver Johnson M1 Carbine, although not a wartime production Carbine, is a preban?

Are there any real postban, commercially manufactured, M1 Carbines?

Reason I ask is because I've been trying to sell it lately and I see I'm asking way too much. I decided I'll keep it for now, and would like to outfit it with a para-style folding stock and flash hider.

Whacha think?
 
Yank,

Good question. I believe many of the rifle enthusiasts avoid the distracting controversies of the General Forum. Therefore, I'll ship this over to the Art of the Rifle.
 
I think....

In the original configuraton with standard stock and bay lug(if it has one) is okay. Once you add the folding stock and flash suppresor you have now crossed over into `94 ban land. If I am wrong please let me know gang. Just my $.02 thanks DAROGUE1
 
What about reproduction WWII folders?

I was just noticing the reproduction WWII folding type stock that the paratroopers used while looking in Shotgun News. Wouldn't that be legal because you are not altering the rifle from one of its original configurations? It sort of got me interested in one of those reproductions just for the heck of it. It would make concealability much easier should the odd need ever arise.
 
If memory serves, those I-J carbines were made in the 1970/80's time frame as a WW-2 commemerative or sorts. If so, it would be a pre-ban. Try to find out when your rifle was made.
Paul B.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but - - -

If ou are seeking to have a visual duplicate of the WW-II folding stock carbine, such as used by airborne troops for D-Day ilnvasion, I don't think they had bayonet lugs. This was a later innovation. I believe. I beileve I believe that.

Best,
Johnny
 
Any WWII carbine would obviously be "pre-ban", and so is the IJ. The bayonet lug did not come out until late 1944, but no matter, the Federal law doesn't apply. In California, the law is different and if you live in that state you have to check state law.

Jim
 
One other point that is occasionally brought up. If the rifle was in a "post-ban" configuration at the time of the passage of the Crime Bill, it's a post-ban forever. The statutes are a bit fuzzy on this point, but I believe that's what they imply. I know this question was specifically brought up about a pre-94 Ruger 10/22 and adding a folding pistol-grip stock to it, and the BATF said it was illegal. I suspect they'd take the same view with the carbine, since it only has two evil features, the removable magazine and the bayonet lug.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but that's my understanding of the issue.
 
"If the rifle was in a "post-ban" configuration at the time of the passage of the Crime Bill, it's a post-ban forever. The statutes are a bit fuzzy on this point, but I believe that's what they imply. I know this question was specifically brought up about a pre-94 Ruger 10/22 and adding a folding pistol-grip stock to it, and the BATF said it was illegal. "

It's just a little bit different then that but it is a very important difference.

If the rifle was in a PREban condition at any point up to the starting date of the ban then it is PREban forever.

I would bet that the 10/22 issue was over the fact that the rifle had never been in an "assault weapon" configuration prior to the ban. It had never been assembled into a banned weapon, re detachable magazine and more then one other evil feature prior to the ban so it was never an "assault weapon" therefore it could never be one.

The law can be a bit tricky but it's not that difficult.

At some point prior to the ban a gun needs to either have been assembled into an "assault weapon" or you needed to have all of the parts neccessary to complete the gun prior to the ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top