PDA

View Full Version : OLL Registration - What did they do the last time


GunOwner
02-13-2009, 7:55 PM
I am a little worried the current admin will be able to attain an "assault" weapon ban ala the Clinton era ban. I have a few un-built lowers. Assuming they grandfather in existing "assault" weapons (can you tell I hate that made up label) like the did last time does anyone know if under the rules the last time they did this would I have to have them built in order to register them or could I register the lower by itself. I would think I could because it is the "firearm" but wanted to get some sage advice.


p.s. The foregoing message does not mean I'm laying down for this I will be politically active against it - I just want to be prepared.

ke6guj
02-13-2009, 7:57 PM
there was no federal registration during the 1994 AW ban.

And there is no way to know what a future ban will be like until the legislation is passed and is on its way for the President's signature.

stover
02-13-2009, 8:01 PM
Who knows what our wonderful new administration has in store for us. I will say that the best action is to join and/or donate to NRA and/or GOA asap. I just sent NRA a $50 instead of picking up some more ammo today.

CSACANNONEER
02-13-2009, 8:09 PM
there was no federal registration during the 1994 AW ban.

And there is no way to know what a future ban will be like until the legislation is passed and is on its way for the President's signature.

Why can't people understand this? Lately, there are new threads started every day by people asking, "what if" or "what will happen."

DDT
02-13-2009, 8:14 PM
He simply asked what happened last time. Using history as an indicator for future does not come from a lack of understanding, it comes from clear thinking.

Now, what will the anti's introduce this session and what might they be able to get by the blue dogs are all speculation. What Obama would be willing to sign is spelled out in his historical voting record.

GunOwner
02-13-2009, 8:15 PM
Why can't people understand this? Lately, there are new threads started every day by people asking, "what if" or "what will happen."

Actually I am just asking what they did last time in terms of grandfathering weapons in not sure if it was California or federal but didn't someone require something to prove you had the weapon before the ban? Again not asking what will they do - asking what the did last time.

DDT
02-13-2009, 8:19 PM
Actually I am just asking what they did last time in terms of grandfathering weapons in not sure if it was California or federal but didn't someone require something to prove you had the weapon before the ban? Again not asking what will they do - asking what the did last time.

I don't know about the Federal AWB but in CA there was a period of time during which you could register any weapon that you owned before the law went into effect. Actually there were 2 periods but the fact remains that you had to register them during this timeframe or you had to remove them from the state.

ke6guj
02-13-2009, 8:20 PM
No, there was no federal registration of pre-ban AWs. ATF did say that if a receiver was not built into a AW before the ban, it could not be built into an AW during the ban. But that really only applied to recievers that were in dealers or manufacturers inventory, since ATF could look at the bound book to see if it was assembled on not.

For receivers that were already in the wild, it was functionally impossible to prove that an owner built it up before or after the ban if he had possession from before the ban.


As for the CA ban, you just had to register it before the registration deadline. There was no confirmation of whether or not it was actually an AW or not.

GunOwner
02-13-2009, 8:29 PM
So as to the periods that CA required registration did the gun need to be fully assembled for registration?

DDT
02-13-2009, 8:33 PM
So as to the periods that CA required registration did the gun need to be fully assembled for registration?

If I recall correctly you only needed a make/model/serial number. You could use anything for those 3 fields and some folks did clutter the database with frivolous registration of things that even OUR legislature would never consider an assault weapon.

tiki
02-13-2009, 8:54 PM
I don't see how they can require them to be built up. What are they going to do, make everyone drive thier firearms up there? I don't think they will get a ban post Heller, but even if they did, and they required them to be built up, and they required you to show them built up, what would keep 5 people from getting together and sharing uppers and registering them at different times? They aren't serial numbered. And, if they require receipts, what says your friend can't write you up a receipt that says he sold you 3 uppers? Who says you didn't buy uppers from someone down at the range one day and didn't get a receipt?
I have 3 lower receivers, 1 upper receiver and two middle fingers.

ke6guj
02-13-2009, 9:00 PM
I don't see how they can require them to be built up. What are they going to do, make everyone drive thier firearms up there?

they could require you bring your firearms in person to the police station to be registered.

I don't think they will get a ban post Heller, but even if they did, and they required them to be built up, and they required you to show them built up, what would keep 5 people from getting together and sharing uppers and registering them at different times? They aren't serial numbered.they may not register uppers now, but they have attempted to regulate the part market before. Who is to say that they don't require that all uppers/barrels be serialized also?

There is no way to know what a future ban would look like until it makes it to the President's desk.

CapS
02-13-2009, 9:55 PM
I have 3 lower receivers, 1 upper receiver and two middle fingers.

Amen.

1923mack
02-13-2009, 10:12 PM
Back then few were buying lowers for the "assalt rifles". SKS's and AR's were relative cleap nandeasily available. Most just bought a complete gun.

yellowfin
02-13-2009, 10:36 PM
If they start serializing uppers I'll get all mine done with obscene messages as the serials.

fairfaxjim
02-14-2009, 2:13 AM
The previous Federal AW ban allowed you to keep AW's that you posessed prior to the law. There were interpretations of it that required that it be built into a rifle, with the feature/features that made it an assault weapon, before the ban. IIRC, you couldn't take an AW that didn't have any banned features before the ban and add them after just because you owned the rifle pre-ban. You could purchase and own Post-ban (rifles with features that complied with the AW ban) at any time. There was no registration of AW's under the federal ban. That is why there were Pre and Post ban configurations offered for sale.

California is a bit different. There was registration of AW's owned prior to the CA ban. Once a rifle was registered as an AW (or as a .50 BMG), you could add whatever features you wanted. The ability to add "listed" AW's was relinquished by the DOJ, no new listed AW's will be created by them. The registration period for AW's that were owned prior to the SB-23 "features" ban has also closed - you cannot create an AW by virtue of banned features and register it. If you have one, you can pretty much "trick it out" however you want. As to the CA ban and unbuilt AW's - once registered, it was an AW. Many even registered unbuilt lowers as .50 BMG to allow future building of these rifles by adding a .50 BMG upper at a later date.

Now, as to how all of this will color the future - the crystal ball has been sent out to the cleaners and I can't tell. IF, a federal ban gets implemented, I personally think you will see something closer to the CA ban implemented on a federal level. I also doubt that they can even get something that restrictive to fly at this point in time.

Ford8N
02-14-2009, 5:09 AM
With Heller, the new interpretation, and a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats in the House, it will be quite an up hill for any legislation to get to the Presidents desk. And the longer Obama is in office, the more political capitol he is going to lose. So if you are concerned, the best thing to do is join the NRA and get as many new people involve in recreational shooting as possible.

bwiese
02-14-2009, 6:34 AM
Back then few were buying lowers for the "assalt rifles". SKS's and AR's were relative cleap nandeasily available. Most just bought a complete gun.

In 1998 - 1999 (and even end of 97) people were lining up at gunshops to buy AR lowers.

At one point, Bushmaster was backlogged 5+ months.

I ended up, in 1998, having to buy Colt lowers (didn't really want to, nonstandard pin sizes).

In 1999 I bought another two lowers from ASA 'cuz no one else had them without long delays.

CSACANNONEER
02-14-2009, 6:42 AM
The previous Federal AW ban allowed you to keep AW's that you posessed prior to the law. There were interpretations of it that required that it be built into a rifle, with the feature/features that made it an assault weapon, before the ban. IIRC, you couldn't take an AW that didn't have any banned features before the ban and add them after just because you owned the rifle pre-ban. You could purchase and own Post-ban (rifles with features that complied with the AW ban) at any time. There was no registration of AW's under the federal ban. That is why there were Pre and Post ban configurations offered for sale.

California is a bit different. There was registration of AW's owned prior to the CA ban. Once a rifle was registered as an AW (or as a .50 BMG), you could add whatever features you wanted. The ability to add "listed" AW's was relinquished by the DOJ, no new listed AW's will be created by them. The registration period for AW's that were owned prior to the SB-23 "features" ban has also closed - you cannot create an AW by virtue of banned features and register it. If you have one, you can pretty much "trick it out" however you want. As to the CA ban and unbuilt AW's - once registered, it was an AW. Many even registered unbuilt lowers as .50 BMG to allow future building of these rifles by adding a .50 BMG upper at a later date.

Now, as to how all of this will color the future - the crystal ball has been sent out to the cleaners and I can't tell. IF, a federal ban gets implemented, I personally think you will see something closer to the CA ban implemented on a federal level. I also doubt that they can even get something that restrictive to fly at this point in time.


Great post but, one thing needs to be clarified. If you have a registered 50BMG rifle, you can NOT trick it out in such a way as to manufacture an AW! This would be a blantant violation of the law!

fairfaxjim
02-14-2009, 7:19 AM
Great post but, one thing needs to be clarified. If you have a registered 50BMG rifle, you can NOT trick it out in such a way as to manufacture an AW! This would be a blantant violation of the law!

Good point! I included the 50 BMG. as an example of an unassembled rifle being registered. It is confusing how the 50 BMG is lumped into the AW law, but is an AW for totally different reasons. Well, not really, unrational fear is still the real reason, but I mean simply any rifle with that specific caliber vs. the lists and the features. Even though it is registered, it is not registered as an AW, just in the same manner as one.

tiki
02-14-2009, 9:53 AM
they could require you bring your firearms in person to the police station to be registered.


So? Then I borrow a few and go down and register them. There's no serial number on them. No way to stop/trace the sale of an upper in the future.


they may not register uppers now, but they have attempted to regulate the part market before. Who is to say that they don't require that all uppers/barrels be serialized also?


When that time comes, you stock up on serialized parts. And, a bunch of non serialized parts. I think unserialized uppers may be the new 401k. You've heard of the Roth IRA? We may have the Brady IRA :)