Pre 94 ar15 question

[Joseph Bonavita]

Hello, I'm going to try to be as clear and concise as possible. If I purchase a pre 94 ar15 that has a solid stock. Can I install a collapsible stock now? Im assuming it is and was an evil gun before 94 so I can make it even more evil now, right?

Does it have to have 2 or more evil features before 94 to be considered a pre ban?

Ultimately I'm trying to build a tight packaged sbr capable of 300yrds. I want a pre 94 so I can be free but when they pop up collapsible with a short barrel they're 2g+

 

[DarthRevan]

For the purposes of the AWB and Pre94...
If the gun was manufactured before Sept. 1994 you can have any “evil feature” you want. Bayo lug, flash hider, threaded barrel, collapsible stock. Go wild.

As for SBR of a pre 94, I’ll need to brush up on my reading but I’ve read that there might be an interpretation that SBRs don’t necessarily fall under the AWB for features since they are at the state level “firearms” not “rifles”. Therefore it’s not needed to be a Pre 94 per say. I don’t dabble in NFA stuff and how the state interprets it much so I’ll defer to someone more knowledgeable.

If I’m wrong I’m sure someone will cite the proper language and I’ll update my notes.

Also, you could skip all this nonsense and just get a Tavor...

 

[Joseph Bonavita]

Yea theres a thread on NFA guns being "any other weapon" therefore not an assault rifle and yada yada but with no solid conclusion that I see.

So ultimately if its pre 94 i can do as i please including adding more evil features

 

[daekken]

Does it have to have 2 or more evil features before 94 to be considered a pre ban?

I believe that is traditional strict (and correct) interpretation. For this reason, a pre-94 rifle shipped from the factory in non-AWB-violating configuration may not be "pre-ban."

However, absent something like a signed affidavit of a previous owner saying something like, "I bought this in 1987 and owned it until 2018 and can confirm I never placed it into assault weapon configuration" I think it would be hard to prove.

 

[Len-2A Training]

During the Fed Ban, BATFE ruled that to be a legit pre-ban it not only had to be built (or kitted) on/before 9/13/1994 but also had to have the evil features in place.

MA has no tech people to rule one way or another, so many of us advocate following what the Feds ruled. e.g. I bought a Ruger 10/22 with walnut stock in the mid-1980s and it is my belief that I can not legally modify it with evil features as it had none when I bought it (which was "as manufactured").

 

[SgtHal75]

U can take a pre94 lower and add anything u want to it. U can SBR it, throw on a 4 inch upper (yes they make them that small), a collapsible telescoping stock and a velociraptor under barrel attachment. I have a pre94 SBR, and as long as I don’t get it wet or feed it after midnight it’s all good. Sorry, I don’t post pics on here but u should see it! Get your pre94 Lower/rifle and have fun!

 

[DarthRevan]

During the Fed Ban, BATFE ruled that to be a legit pre-ban it not only had to be built (or kitted) on/before 9/13/1994 but also had to have the evil features in place.

MA has no tech people to rule one way or another, so many of us advocate following what the Feds ruled. e.g. I bought a Ruger 10/22 with walnut stock in the mid-1980s and it is my belief that I can not legally modify it with evil features as it had none when I bought it (which was "as manufactured").

This is the first I’ve ever heard of this interpretation...

 

[CrackPot]

As for SBR of a pre 94, I’ll need to brush up on my reading but I’ve read that there might be an interpretation that SBRs don’t necessarily fall under the AWB for features since they are at the state level “firearms” not “rifles”. Therefore it’s not needed to be a Pre 94 per say. I don’t dabble in NFA stuff and how the state interprets it much so I’ll defer to someone more knowledgeable.

Yea theres a thread on NFA guns being "any other weapon" therefore not an assault rifle and yada yada but with no solid conclusion that I see.

The problem with SBR and AWB in MA is one of definitions. Remember that at a federal level you have Firearm and below that you have pistol, rifle, shotgun. In MA we define Shotgun and Rifle and everything else is a "Firearm".

Firearm includes all pistols, SBRs, SBSs, etc. We have the "list" requirement and the AG regulations that cover "Firearms" which is why a dealer can't see you a SBR

For the AWB, the MA definition of AW is MGL 140 sec 121:

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of ...

So they reference the federal language of 1994 which has totally different definitions. So, an SBR in MA is a pistol, do I use the federal pistol definition? Do I use the federal rifle definition? Do I use nothing since nothing seems to apply?

I think a SBR in MA and the AWB are very poorly defined and the only way you will get an answer is through case law (someone else will have to reference or provide).

We all know lots of people who have decided that the AWB does not apply to SBRs have them in whatever configuration they want.

I am exempt from the AWB so take that into account when I give you my opinion. I would only build an SBR that is compliant with the rifle AWB definition if I had a post 94 lower/rifle/pistol as my starting point.

 

[citoriguy]

Interesting thread. I have a pre-94 AR lower with a collapsible stock, but no upper. I was looking at complete uppers from various retailers, and many of the have flash hiders and the bayo lug installed. I have wavered between thinking I can put it on the lower and can't, primarily because the weapon had no configuration whatsoever since it was the lower only.

Further, if I have a separate lower that's post-94 BUT pre-Healy, and using GOAL's interpretation, which has its own caveats, (https://goal.org/Documents/law_faq_pdfs/awfacts.pdf), can I build that lower, buy a newly manufactured upper, and build an object that looks and performs like a pre-94 AW as long as it has a fixed stock and non-flash suppressing muzzle brake that's pinned in place?

 

[jpm]

Interesting thread. I have a pre-94 AR lower with a collapsible stock, but no upper. I was looking at complete uppers from various retailers, and many of the have flash hiders and the bayo lug installed. I have wavered between thinking I can put it on the lower and can't, primarily because the weapon had no configuration whatsoever since it was the lower only.

If its a pre-94 firearm you can do whatever you want with it.

If its a pre-94 LOWER that was never in an FFL's books (or FA-10'd) as a firearm prior to 9/13/1994 then you cannot make a pre-ban rifle out of it. Whatever you make it into is post-ban since it was never a gun before the ban. Before you say "who would know?" its real easy for ATF to check that if there was ever a legal question about it. Its got no more value or utility than a post-ban lower made today.

 

[daekken]

This is the first I’ve ever heard of this interpretation...

It's come up here a few times. Most people just see "made prior to 1994, I can do whatever I diddly please," which isn't, strictly speaking, actually the case as I understand it. I've gone with Len's interpretation, that at some point prior to the AWB date it had to be in AW configuration.

Basically, as I understand it, ATF ruled that it need to be evil prior to '94, not just "in existence."
Practically speaking, you rarely see anyone make a distinction.

Applying ATF logic to MA laws is a whole other can of worms, as we saw on 7/20. But it seems like a logical standard, absent any other guidance.

 

[SgtHal75]

The problem with SBR and AWB in MA is one of definitions. Remember that at a federal level you have Firearm and below that you have pistol, rifle, shotgun. In MA we define Shotgun and Rifle and everything else is a "Firearm".

Firearm includes all pistols, SBRs, SBSs, etc. We have the "list" requirement and the AG regulations that cover "Firearms" which is why a dealer can't see you a SBR

For the AWB, the MA definition of AW is MGL 140 sec 121:

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of ...

So they reference the federal language of 1994 which has totally different definitions. So, an SBR in MA is a pistol, do I use the federal pistol definition? Do I use the federal rifle definition? Do I use nothing since nothing seems to apply?

I think a SBR in MA and the AWB are very poorly defined and the only way you will get an answer is through case law (someone else will have to reference or provide).

We all know lots of people who have decided that the AWB does not apply to SBRs have them in whatever configuration they want.

I am exempt from the AWB so take that into account when I give you my opinion. I would only build an SBR that is compliant with the rifle AWB definition if I had a post 94 lower/rifle/pistol as my starting point.

It’s real simple:
Anything pre 1994, do whatever the hell u want with it, no AWB rules apply.

Anything Post 1994, apply AWB rules because MA and because guns.

 

[daekken]

It’s real simple:
Anything pre 1994, do whatever the hell u want with it, no AWB rules apply.

Edward M. Owen, Jr., former Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE, disagrees:
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

From the same post, but not a direct quote:
"What he is stating is, as far as pre-ban and post-ban is concerned, the date of manufacture of the receiver has nothing to do with anything. If your SAW was built into a whole SAW, or in a complete kit form, before Sept. 13, 1994 (The Date), you are the lucky owner of a pre-ban receiver. If the gun was built after this date, or if the receiver was without all of the parts to make a SAW as of The Date, then it is post-ban."

Pre-Ban or Post-Ban: More Than Just A Date

As always, proving is another matter, and MA interpretation another matter still. But ATF says it had to be in assault weapon configuration, not just existing.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Edward M. Owen, Jr., former Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE, disagrees:
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

From the same post, but not a direct quote:
"What he is stating is, as far as pre-ban and post-ban is concerned, the date of manufacture of the receiver has nothing to do with anything. If your SAW was built into a whole SAW, or in a complete kit form, before Sept. 13, 1994 (The Date), you are the lucky owner of a pre-ban receiver. If the gun was built after this date, or if the receiver was without all of the parts to make a SAW as of The Date, then it is post-ban."

Pre-Ban or Post-Ban: More Than Just A Date

As always, proving is another matter, and MA interpretation another matter still. But ATF says it had to be in assault weapon configuration, not just existing.

Thanks. And we can guess what "definition" the AG/DA would use if they want to persecute someone . . .

 

[citoriguy]

If its a pre-94 firearm you can do whatever you want with it.

If its a pre-94 LOWER that was never in an FFL's books (or FA-10'd) as a firearm prior to 9/13/1994 then you cannot make a pre-ban rifle out of it. Whatever you make it into is post-ban since it was never a gun before the ban. Before you say "who would know?" its real easy for ATF to check that if there was ever a legal question about it. Its got no more value or utility than a post-ban lower made today.

So if I have the original sales receipt the owner received in 1988 from a FFL (well, his family, anyway - purchaser passed in late 2017), that would make a difference. I have to pull that and see what it says. I do recall the serial number on the sales slip matching that on the receiver.

 

[SgtHal75]

Edward M. Owen, Jr., former Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE, disagrees:
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

From the same post, but not a direct quote:
"What he is stating is, as far as pre-ban and post-ban is concerned, the date of manufacture of the receiver has nothing to do with anything. If your SAW was built into a whole SAW, or in a complete kit form, before Sept. 13, 1994 (The Date), you are the lucky owner of a pre-ban receiver. If the gun was built after this date, or if the receiver was without all of the parts to make a SAW as of The Date, then it is post-ban."

Pre-Ban or Post-Ban: More Than Just A Date

As always, proving is another matter, and MA interpretation another matter still. But ATF says it had to be in assault weapon configuration, not just existing.

Ok, but how would they ever know what configurations a Lower was in, if it was ever in one?? Back in the 80’s did FFL’s specifically log in their books that it was a complete rifle or just a lower?? I’m asking that in all seriousness..

 

[daekken]

Ok, but how would they ever know what configurations a Lower was in, if it was ever in one?? Back in the 80’s did FFL’s specifically log in their books that it was a complete rifle or just a lower?? I’m asking that in all seriousness..

As I mentioned in my earlier posts, I imagine it would be hard to prove absent someone running their mouths. Like my example, where for whatever reason the previous owner provides a signed affidavit saying, "I bought this in 1988, and swear I never placed it into AW configuration until 2008" or something to that effect. Then, I could see the threshold of proof being crossed for a judge or jury.

A prosecutor could try to go circumstantial, like "Factory records confirm it left as a stripper lower or without evil features" but it doesn't really prove it never went into such a configuration. This reminds me of the AK magazine case. The prosecutor claimed that since the guy who had the AK mags admitted he didn't own them in 1994, that this was proof they were not legal. On appeal it was overturned when the defendant's lawyer argued to the judge that the jury didn't get to hear evidence that anyone possessed them lawfully prior to 1994.

So, to me, for general purpose the date is valuable, because I think without supporting evidence it would be hard to prove, unless I'm missing something.
The bottom line, for me, is that the date itself is not the be-all end-all, but it's "step one" in terms of getting a genuine pre-ban.

 

[JNewell]

Edward M. Owen, Jr., former Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE, disagrees:
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

From the same post, but not a direct quote:
"What he is stating is, as far as pre-ban and post-ban is concerned, the date of manufacture of the receiver has nothing to do with anything. If your SAW was built into a whole SAW, or in a complete kit form, before Sept. 13, 1994 (The Date), you are the lucky owner of a pre-ban receiver. If the gun was built after this date, or if the receiver was without all of the parts to make a SAW as of The Date, then it is post-ban."

Pre-Ban or Post-Ban: More Than Just A Date

As always, proving is another matter, and MA interpretation another matter still. But ATF says it had to be in assault weapon configuration, not just existing.

Thank you for posting the actual source, or at least one of them. It was clear during the AWB that a pre-94 lower that had not been fully assembled into an AW configuration before the ban could not, after the ban, be assembled into a legally grandfathered AW. I bought a Bushmaster in the mid-1990. Bushmaster had sold a lot of lower receivers before the ban and there was the possibility that the rifle was not actually a legally grandfathered rifle. I still have a letter I got from the factory confirming that it had been shipped as an assembled rifle on date X (some date before the ban). As Len says, it's unlikely that the Commonwealth would take a more permissive position on the state version of the AWB.

 

[JNewell]

Ok, but how would they ever know what configurations a Lower was in, if it was ever in one?? Back in the 80’s did FFL’s specifically log in their books that it was a complete rifle or just a lower?? I’m asking that in all seriousness..

It should be up to the government to prove all of the elements of a criminal case, including that a rifle had not been legally assembled into AW configuration before the relevant date. But if the rifle was shipped in non-AW configuration, it might be up to the owner to prove that the rifle had been modified into AW configuration before the date of the ban. In practice, as a gun owner, I'd like to have some documentation, ideally from the manufacturer or the dealer/seller, if only because paying lawyers to try to argue the point could be enormously expensive.

 

[SgtHal75]

It should be up to the government to prove all of the elements of a criminal case, including that a rifle had not been legally assembled into AW configuration before the relevant date. But if the rifle was shipped in non-AW configuration, it might be up to the owner to prove that the rifle had been modified into AW configuration before the date of the ban. In practice, as a gun owner, I'd like to have some documentation, ideally from the manufacturer or the dealer/seller, if only because paying lawyers to try to argue the point could be enormously expensive.

Ok, so I bought a pre ban lower and I should of asked the seller for some documentation that it was in AW configuration??

 

[Len-2A Training]

Ok, so I bought a pre ban lower and I should of asked the seller for some documentation that it was in AW configuration??

Yes

 

[JNewell]

Ok, so I bought a pre ban lower and I should of asked the seller for some documentation that it was in AW configuration??

Depends what you bought. In the pre-ban era, Colt never sold receivers, only complete rifles, IIRC. So a pre- ban Colt is always ok. For just about anything else, yes. Especially at today's stratospheric prices.

 

[SgtHal75]

Great info. I did buy a colt preban hbar

Depends what you bought. In the pre-ban era, Colt never sold receivers, only complete rifles, IIRC. So a pre- ban Colt is always ok. For just about anything else, yes. Especially at today's stratospheric prices.

 

[SgtHal75]

Yes

Wow, this is the first I’ve heard of this. Thank you gentlemen for the great input. Like anything else the burden of proof is heavy on the Govs side, even in this state, but this is definitely helpful info. Hopefully I’m ok with my preban Colt, lol

 

[JNewell]

Wow, this is the first I’ve heard of this. Thank you gentlemen for the great input. Like anything else the burden of proof is heavy on the Govs side, even in this state, but this is definitely helpful info. Hopefully I’m ok with my preban Colt, lol

I could be wrong, but before the ban I don’t believe Colt ever shipped anything other than complete rifles. If it’s a Colt you’re good to go. Even the blue label rifles were very evil, scary AWs.

 

[jpm]

Ok, but how would they ever know what configurations a Lower was in, if it was ever in one?? Back in the 80’s did FFL’s specifically log in their books that it was a complete rifle or just a lower?? I’m asking that in all seriousness..

In the log book there is a column for Type of Firearm where it would be listed as a rifle, pistol, shotgun, receiver.

 

[jpm]

A prosecutor could try to go circumstantial, like "Factory records confirm it left as a stripper lower..."

Now it had to go somewhere when it left the factory and that somewhere had to be an FFL since its a receiver, so next stop would be that FFL's books to see where it went and in what configuration. Follow the book trail along down the line of FFLs until it was sold to an individual. Assume they did that and never found it in a configuration other than receiver (and no FA10 before The Date as a rifle) at that point they've shown it is not a legal AW so then the burden would shift to you to prove it was assembled before 'The Date'.

 

[SgtHal75]

I could be wrong, but before the ban I don’t believe Colt ever shipped anything other than complete rifles. If it’s a Colt you’re good to go. Even the blue label rifles were very evil, scary AWs.

Thank you my friend! Very helpful info!!!!!

 

[jpm]

Thank you my friend! Very helpful info!!!!!

you can always call Colt with the s/n and they'll tell you what they have in their records. You can also try here but the database is incomplete: Colt's Manufacturing LLC