Quoted: IIRC, a pre ban cannot have evil features that we're not on it b4 the ban. However, likelyness of you getting nabbed for having a bayolug on a 6551 are probably non existent. I would put whatever I want on it, but you aren't me, and I'm not going to tell you to brake the law.
|
Not quite 100% as I understand it. It is the ATF's interpretation of the law that in order for a rifle to be grandfathered, it must have been in a configuration that made it a "semi-automatic assault rifle" prior to 9/13/94, which is defined as a semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
- a folding or telescoping stock
- a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
- a bayonet mount
- a flash suppressor or threaded barrel
- a grenade launcher
Since the rifle in question presumably had two of those features before 9/13/94, it is grandfathered, no ifs ands or buts. It is either grandfathered or it isn't - it is not the case where you can't add any more "evil" features than it had prior to 9/13/94, but if it had enough features to be considered a "semi-automatic assault weapon", you can legally add anything you want.
Note that the whole idea that it must be in a "evil" configuration prior to 9/13/94 in order to be grandfathered (and not just manufactured prior to that date) is only the ATF's interpretation of the law. I don't believe this has ever been tested in court. While I'm not a lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised if this interpretation would defeated in a neutral or better (read: not anti-gun) court, especially as time passes. Fast forward 10 years (assuming the ban gets renewed in 2004) - that is 18 years after its initial passage. Guns often change hands many times in the course of 18 years, and it is unreasonable to force someone to prove the configuration his rifle was in on a date 18 years earlier, 5 owners ago, just because it left the factory as a stripped receiver in August of 1994.
This interpretation of the ATF's also seems to go counter to the ATF's interpretation on other matters, i.e., the "once a <blank>, always a <blank> ruling". Their argument with regards to their interpretation, is that while a receiver is considered a generic "firearm", it is not known what category of firearm it will become until it is assembled. However, at the same time, they require pistol receivers to be specially designated at the factory. Presuming I could get the weight on an AR-15 pistol under 50oz, I couldn't just buy a normal stripped receiver from the factory - it would need to be specifically designated as a pistol receiver, either through special markings or by using a designated range of serial numbers. Prior to 86, you could stamp a serial number on a piece of metal pipe, pay your $200, and you had a Sten machine gun, as far as the ATF was concerned. It doesn't matter either of these cases when the weapon was actually assembled, but when the receiver was built, yet they declare the opposite is true in light of the 94.
Oh god, I can't believe the stupidity of us even having to argue over such silly things...
Rocko