Pre- Ban 10-22????

Hog Sniper

Does anyone have a source to verify the status of Ruger 10-22 rifles?

Ampersand

Under federal law the 10-22 is not considered an assault weapon so there is no such thing as a pre-ban 10-22 as they were never banned at all. However, it would be illegal to convert one into an assault weapon by adding the "features" that constitute an assault weapon no matter when it made.

&

madnes

What Ampersand is saying is that a Ruger 10/22 had to have all those nasty/dangerous parts installed on the rifle before the bill went into effect in late 1994.

If you already have a 10/22 or are considering purchasing one that has items of the banned nature and just want to verify the rifles date of manufacture I can help. Let me know the serial # ( pre-fix and first two numbers followed by X's i.e. 233-34XXX).

Hog Sniper

Thanks for the reply guys.
AMPERSAND:
Not trying to be smart but as I read the law any Semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and the features you describe can qualify for an assault weapon.(Including the 10-22). You are correct that a post 94 Ban gun can not be legally changed to an assault weapon. However there are quite a few 10-22's with folding stocks, high cap mags, and pistol grips that were made prior to the ban that would quailfy as an assault weapon. I've seen a few come up for sale and would like to check the numbers. If you have other info on this please pass it on. Thanks again.

Ampersand

No 10-22 ever came from Ruger looking like an assault rifle. All of the folding stocks, flash hiders, etc. are aftermarket items. Therefore, as I stated, the 10-22 was not and is not considered to be an assault rifle. Now, as I also mentioned, if these things are added that would be illegal under current law if done after 1994. If the gun had these items prior to 10/94 then that fact would have to be documented in case anyone ever asked so if you have such a gun and don't even know the date of manufacture you may have a problem. Simply telling the nice ATF agent that the gun was made prior to the law won't be enough. I don't know if the burden of proof is on them to prove that the gun was converted post 1994 or if you have to prove it was done earlier.

Who wants an "assault 10-22" anyway? Besides, as far as I can tell nobody is enforcing this law.

&

madnes

Believe me when I say that i'm not promoting the illegal building of an "assault rifle". I'm pretty sure the burden of proof falls to the law enforcemnt officer because once it has been determined that the gun itself was made prior to 10/94 how in the world could it be proven wether the parts were added before or after. Even if the LEO could prove that a certain banned part was made after 10/94 it is stiill legal to install brand new made "banned parts" if they are replacing an old or worn part because the rifle IS grandfathered as an assault rifle if in the banned configuration before 10/94.

I know this can all sound a little confusing as that is the way it's written (CONFUSING). If someone can come up with something that blows away what I've said please let me know as I'd rather be wrong now than imprisoned later.

gunnut505

My two cents: ASSAULT Weapons are centerfires.
Politically Incorrect rimfires can also be painted as ASSAULT weapons by the ignorant or politicos.
Calico, Grendel, and others made Politically Incorrect rimfires and are out of that business.
Ruger only makes fine sporting firearms for the law abiding citizen; Congress makes ASSAULT weapons.

If you know it all; you must have been listening.WEAR EAR PROTECTION!