S.66 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 Defination of "manufacture" not defined.

[QuackXP]

First off, our best bet is to fight a bill like this. Ill get that out of the way.

Full bill text:
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s...S-116s66is.xml

If it where to come to pass. I'm curious how stripped lower receivers, unfinished 80% receivers, and finished stripped 80% lower receivers would be handled.

SEC. 3. Restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

(a) In general.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019.

This basically bans so called assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Grandfathering in devices already owned before "the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019".

(b) Identification markings for semiautomatic assault weapons.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the weapon, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.”.

(c) Identification markings for large capacity ammunition feeding devices.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: “A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 shall be identified by a serial number and the date on which the device was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.”.

This seems to define how to determine a "pre" vs. "post" ban weapon or magazine. Anything without the date is "pre" anything with a date after the act is "post".

SO how do you handle a pre-ban stripped lower?

Would assembling it from parts be considered manufacture?

Or does manufacture mean creating the firearm (in this case the lower) from raw material or from a partially finished (aka 80%) lower?

If you have a finished 80% lower how do you prove it was finished before the AWB took effect?


I think the lack of a definition of manufacture opens a door to buying stripped or 80% lowers and then finishing them before this particular AWB would go into effect. But lets do our best to make sure we never get there and keep this discussion academic.

[eagleclaw]

I skimmed over the bill. It appears to be an updated Clinton 90s ban.

SO how do you handle a pre-ban stripped lower?

Would assembling it from parts be considered manufacture?

Or does manufacture mean creating the firearm (in this case the lower) from raw material or from a partially finished (aka 80%) lower?

If you have a finished 80% lower how do you prove it was finished before the AWB took effect?

I'll answer that question by saying they don't know nor do they care. This bill is coming from the same morons that passed Obamacare with the logic of " we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it".

If this bill becomes law they would likely tell police if they see a questionable firearm part, seize it and let the owner prove that it was made/possessed before the ban.

The best way to fight this is to ensure that the bill never sees the president's desk.

[GOYABEAN]

Best way of fighting unlawfull bill's Attachment 121801

[Fortytwo]

Best way of fighting unlawfull bill's Attachment 121801

Maybe I am naive (don't answer that..). But I thought that the best way to do so, instead, would be to vote for the presidential candidate who would nominate strict constitutionist judges to the SCotUS, and to vote for a Senate who would confirm the said nominees.

Again, I might just be naive.

[QuackXP]

As I stated in the very first line of my post. Yes I know the best way is to fight it.

What I am getting at is if it where to pass could we buy a bunch of stripped lowers before and then do whatever we wanted with them after by assembling them. Or would that be considering "manufacturing".

[ShooterInPA1]