If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
So, I was just thinking about this. If a new Assault Weapons Ban gets past at the federal level, would that technically mean I can now buy all those wonderful AR mags made before 2008 that I currently cannot in MA?
If any ban is like the first, a lot of us are screwed IIRC, as anything that didn't ship as a completed upper is considered a post-ban regardless of how many years you had it completed.
I believe that all you need is proof that it was a complete rifle as of the ban date. Obviously that's most easily and reliably obtained from the manufacturer, but a notarized statement and photograph ought to work fine. Perhaps it will all lead to an NES photographing-and-notarizing party.
This, of course, assumes the terms of any hypothetical ban look something like the last one. What's been proposed recently has been basically a rehash of the original AWB with the dates changed, but those seem to have been filed in order to please a small constituency, not with any real hope of passage; it's not clear to me that the anti-gun lobby has the votes for this now any more than they have for the last few years.
While you may not be able to prove said rifle was in a AW condition on or before said date, they cannot prove contrary to that.
hmmmm...perhaps, "they may have difficulty or "it would be very hard to" ?
I wouldn't underestimate the thuggish buffoonery of the BATFE. No matter which freak flag flies on Capital Hill, that loutish cadre of boorish reprobates is simply a "see-you-next-Tuesday" hair away from the criminals, the fundamentally stupid, and the perennially unlucky, on the sh@t stain measuring stick of cosmic justice...
I don't even know what I mean sometimes.
Which raises the lovely question: who has the burden of proof? (This is a different way of saying, who has the risk of not being able to determine?)
"No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994." This would appear to impose a burden of showing "not otherwise lawfully possessed" on the Commonwealth (my first example above).
If any ban is like the first, a lot of us are screwed IIRC, as anything that didn't ship as a completed upper is considered a post-ban regardless of how many years you had it completed.
huh? "ship"? Please elaborate
hmmmm...perhaps, "they may have difficulty or "it would be very hard to" ?
I wouldn't underestimate the thuggish buffoonery of the BATFE. No matter which freak flag flies on Capital Hill, that loutish cadre of boorish reprobates is simply a "see-you-next-Tuesday" hair away from the criminals, the fundamentally stupid, and the perennially unlucky, on the sh@t stain measuring stick of cosmic justice...
I don't even know what I mean sometimes.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257
sponsored by Republicans
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]