Archived Posts » 59,672,804
Bushmaster can't tell me if my rifle is pre ban or not, so I turn to you
3/1/2012 8:13:19 PM
Long story mildly shorter: I need to know if this rifle is pre ban.
I managed to talk my dad out of his bushy A2 that he got in 97 from a friend in unfired condition. It is still unfired. But I am moving to NY soon and want a non-neutered rifle so I talked him out of this one. I always assumed it was pre ban because it has flash hider, bayonet lug, and pistol grip, but the friend was kinda crazy that we got it from (one of those "fuck the state" types) so who knows. My research indicated that it is indeed pre ban, but I thought someone here might have a better source than a rough list of serial numbers.
I called Bushmaster, and while polite, they were completely unhelpful. They said that records of serials produced before '04 were unavailable to them at the moment and had been for 8 months and that they couldn't predict when they would have that information back online.
Serial number is L0550XX
Any info is greatly appreciated.
3/1/2012 1:12:30 PM
3/1/2012 1:14:03 PM
Well, it's either pre-ban or post-ban. The serial tells it all, as they are the same.
3/1/2012 1:14:08 PM
Originally Posted By Vega68:
They said that records of serials produced before '04 were unavailable to them at the moment and had been for 8 months and that they couldn't predict when they would have that information back online.
Looks like it's post ban. A pre ban gun that you cannot prove is pre ban isn't worth anything anyway.
3/1/2012 1:15:48 PM
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Originally Posted By Vega68:
They said that records of serials produced before '04 were unavailable to them at the moment and had been for 8 months and that they couldn't predict when they would have that information back online.
I'm not the only one either.
3/1/2012 1:19:44 PM
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Originally Posted By Vega68:
They said that records of serials produced before '04 were unavailable to them at the moment and had been for 8 months and that they couldn't predict when they would have that information back online.
Looks like it's post ban. A pre ban gun that you cannot prove is pre ban isn't worth anything anyway.
Obviously it is much better to have a letter from bushmaster saying that it is pre ban before I get into trouble, assuming I get into trouble at all, but if it is in fact pre ban, then I feel that I am covered either way.
3/1/2012 1:20:56 PM
NOTE: THIS IS NOT SOUND LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY IN FACT ACTUALLY BE VERY POOR ADVICE
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
3/1/2012 1:24:55 PM
Originally Posted By Krylancelo:
NOTE: THIS IS NOT SOUND LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY IN FACT ACTUALLY BE VERY POOR ADVICE
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT SOUND LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY IN FACT ACTUALLY BE VERY POOR ADVICE
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
Depends on how the law is written. If it's something like "All assault weapons with this and that feature are banned, UNLESS the rifle was assembled into that condition prior to 9-94", that could set up the pre-ban status as an affirmative defense, which has to be proven by the defendant. Sometimes a law is written as a blanket prohibition on something, and it'll say something in a subparagraph like "It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the weapon was made prior to 9-94"; if that's the case, the burden is on the defendant.
3/1/2012 1:27:12 PM
Originally Posted By Krylancelo:
NOTE: THIS IS NOT SOUND LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY IN FACT ACTUALLY BE VERY POOR ADVICE
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
Thats what I was thinking, and since the gun was purchased in pre ban configuration during the ban and the serial does fall center of the range listed as "Mixed Pre-Ban Assembled Rifles and Pre-Sept 94 Lowers" here, I feel that it is pre ban, I just can't prove it with a letter from Bushy. I still have a few months before I leave for NY, so I will be calling back regularly in an effort to get that letter, but in the mean time I was hoping someone had a better source than the serial number list or any info on when bushy would get their ducks in a row. What could possibly have them so stuck that they couldn't get the archive working for 8 months?!?NOTE: THIS IS NOT SOUND LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY IN FACT ACTUALLY BE VERY POOR ADVICE
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
3/1/2012 1:34:13 PM
Originally Posted By Eric802:
Depends on how the law is written. If it's something like "All assault weapons with this and that feature are banned, UNLESS the rifle was assembled into that condition prior to 9-94", that could set up the pre-ban status as an affirmative defense, which has to be proven by the defendant. Sometimes a law is written as a blanket prohibition on something, and it'll say something in a subparagraph like "It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the weapon was made prior to 9-94"; if that's the case, the burden is on the defendant.
Originally Posted By Krylancelo:
NOTE: THIS IS NOT SOUND LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY IN FACT ACTUALLY BE VERY POOR ADVICE
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT SOUND LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY IN FACT ACTUALLY BE VERY POOR ADVICE
Technically, don't they need to prove it's a not a pre-ban rifle/lower to prosecute you? IE, isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution since "innocent until proven guilty?"
I mean, is it worth the risk? Probably not. But if you can't prove it isn't a pre or post ban, chances are they can't either.
I would keep checking.
Depends on how the law is written. If it's something like "All assault weapons with this and that feature are banned, UNLESS the rifle was assembled into that condition prior to 9-94", that could set up the pre-ban status as an affirmative defense, which has to be proven by the defendant. Sometimes a law is written as a blanket prohibition on something, and it'll say something in a subparagraph like "It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the weapon was made prior to 9-94"; if that's the case, the burden is on the defendant.
Here is the pertinent text. The specific parts that I believe apply are bolded by me.
22. "Assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an
ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the
following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a
flash suppressor;
(v) a grenade launcher; or
(b) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following
characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds;
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(c) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the
pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash
suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm
with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is
unloaded;
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm;
or
(d) any of the weapons, or functioning frames or receivers of such
weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known
as:
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all
models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street
Sweeper and Striker 12;
(e) provided, however, that such term does not include: (i) any rifle,
shotgun or pistol that (A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or
slide action; (B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or (C) is an
antique firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16);
(ii) a semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine
that holds more than five rounds of ammunition;
(iii) a semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds
of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine;
(iv) a rifle, shotgun or pistol, or a replica or a duplicate thereof,
specified in Appendix A to section 922 of 18 U.S.C. as such weapon was
manufactured on October first, nineteen hundred ninety-three. The mere
fact that a weapon is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to
mean that such weapon is an assault weapon; or
(v) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic
pistol or any of the weapons defined in paragraph (d) of this
subdivision lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen
hundred ninety-four.
23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September
thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include
an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating
only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
3/1/2012 1:59:20 PM
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
3/1/2012 2:04:14 PM
Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
This. I would be sure. A felony conviction is no joke and not something you want to take a chance on.
My "advice" was primarily meant tongue-in-cheek, but I am curious who the "burden of proof" is legally on.
3/1/2012 2:04:54 PM
Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
Roger that. However, "Some guy on AR15.com gave me a link to a page on the bushmaster site that had a good list of serial number production time lines which I used to make an educated guess until Bushmaster could confirm my exact serial number" is good enough for me for the likely hood that I will run into trouble in NY. But thanks for contributing.
3/1/2012 2:07:34 PM
Originally Posted By Krylancelo:
This. I would be sure. A felony conviction is no joke and not something you want to take a chance on.
My "advice" was primarily meant tongue-in-cheek, but I am curious who the "burden of proof" is legally on.
Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
This. I would be sure. A felony conviction is no joke and not something you want to take a chance on.
My "advice" was primarily meant tongue-in-cheek, but I am curious who the "burden of proof" is legally on.
I don't have infinite funds to build a complaint rifle now and a post ban rifle when I come back to Colorado, and compliant rifles have very little value to me. This will be the one and only center fire rifle in my collection from here until I get a better job or otherwise stumble upon more funds. I need a collapsable stock for my fiancee's use, pistol grips are infinitely more ergonomic than a clumsy complaint stock, and a comp is a required component for my recoil sensitive fiancee.
3/1/2012 2:22:58 PM
Originally Posted By Vega68:
Roger that. However, "Some guy on AR15.com gave me a link to a page on the bushmaster site that had a good list of serial number production time lines which I used to make an educated guess until Bushmaster could confirm my exact serial number" is good enough for me for the likely hood that I will run into trouble in NY. But thanks for contributing.
Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
Roger that. However, "Some guy on AR15.com gave me a link to a page on the bushmaster site that had a good list of serial number production time lines which I used to make an educated guess until Bushmaster could confirm my exact serial number" is good enough for me for the likely hood that I will run into trouble in NY. But thanks for contributing.
"Good enough for you" You are going to stand behind that? Pass on the gun and find something that is not in a grey area...
3/1/2012 10:31:14 PM
Originally Posted By Krylancelo:
This. I would be sure. A felony conviction is no joke and not something you want to take a chance on.
My "advice" was primarily meant tongue-in-cheek, but I am curious who the "burden of proof" is legally on.
Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
"They told me on AR15.com that this is a preban rifle" is not an affirmative defense OP.
This. I would be sure. A felony conviction is no joke and not something you want to take a chance on.
My "advice" was primarily meant tongue-in-cheek, but I am curious who the "burden of proof" is legally on.
That depends on which state you are in and how their specific law is written.
3/2/2012 8:22:50 AM
I sent you another email Vega.
3/2/2012 9:12:05 AM
I contacted BM back in 09 and here is the response I got:
Serial Number: L0579XX
The reply From them was:
Shipped on 9/10/94 as a lower only.
Most of those that live in NY have said as long as the lower was made before the ban is all you need for NY.
However I did buy the lower complete back in 97-98 during the ban from an FFL and paid at least twice as much as a post ban at the time.
The only change since 09 was BM was sold to someone else, so they may not have access to the old record books.
Serial Number: L0579XX
The reply From them was:
Shipped on 9/10/94 as a lower only.
Most of those that live in NY have said as long as the lower was made before the ban is all you need for NY.
However I did buy the lower complete back in 97-98 during the ban from an FFL and paid at least twice as much as a post ban at the time.
The only change since 09 was BM was sold to someone else, so they may not have access to the old record books.
3/2/2012 9:18:26 AM
FIND A VERIFIABLE PRE-BAN.
There are PLENTY of them running around, especially if you aren't in NY yet.
I wouldn't put my freedom on the hook of "maybe" or "i think". When it comes to the .gov..........it's best to just be definitively in or out of the ok zone. Gray areas will work against you as they like to use those as avenues to further fuck over gun owners.
There are PLENTY of them running around, especially if you aren't in NY yet.
I wouldn't put my freedom on the hook of "maybe" or "i think". When it comes to the .gov..........it's best to just be definitively in or out of the ok zone. Gray areas will work against you as they like to use those as avenues to further fuck over gun owners.
