• 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.

10.5" Upper AR Pistol in MA (with FML)

bender73

bender73

NES Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2012
Messages
405
Likes
116
Location
Central Massachusetts
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Question. If I get a Fixed Mag Lower from DSI can I legally order a 10.5" upper online and ship it to MA? Add it to my legal lower that is technically not subject to the AWB? Put an 'arm brace' stock on and make sure to avoid any pistol grip on the forward upper? Then register it as a pistol? Is this the legal process in MA? Am I missing something here? The arm brace makes this not a SBR, correct? Thanks!
 
bender73 said:
Question. If I get a Fixed Mag Lower from DSI can I legally order a 10.5" upper online and ship it to MA? Add it to my legal lower that is technically not subject to the AWB? Put an 'arm brace' stock on and make sure to avoid any pistol grip on the forward upper? Then register it as a pistol? Is this the legal process in MA? Am I missing something here? The arm brace makes this not a SBR, correct? Thanks!
Click to expand...
What you have described is a process for building an AR pistol in MA, yes.
 
bender73 said:
Question. If I get a Fixed Mag Lower from DSI can I legally order a 10.5" upper online and ship it to MA? Add it to my legal lower that is technically not subject to the AWB?
Click to expand...
You should know that the DSI fixed mag lower isn’t legally tested here in MA. The only fixed mag solution that has some sort of legal validity here is the JC Arms fixed mag lower.

Assuming the DSI lower is legally sound, yes all of that is fine.
bender73 said:
Put an 'arm brace' stock on and make sure to avoid any pistol grip on the forward upper? Then register it as a pistol? Is this the legal process in MA? Am I missing something here? The arm brace makes this not a SBR, correct? Thanks!
Click to expand...
The ATF’s new pistol brace rule says that pistol braces do in fact make AR pistols into SBRs. However, the rule is currently enjoined from being enforced by the ATF against FPC, GOA & SAF members through various lawsuits. If you’re a member of one of these organizations, you can ignore the new rule. If you’re not (just sign up already) you have to follow it.
 
bender73 said:
The Thordsen buffer tube cover has a cheek rest and letter of approval from the ATF.
Click to expand...
So did most of the pistol brace manufacturers. Letters of approval don’t mean shit anymore. The ATF said pistol braces were approved and 100% legal for several years, then they changed course and said pistol braces were not cool anymore.

If it increases the rear surface area such that it could enhance or facilitate shouldering, it is a no-go.
 
Joeldiaz said:
So did most of the pistol brace manufacturers. Letters of approval don’t mean shit anymore. The ATF said pistol braces were approved and 100% legal for several years, then they changed course and said pistol braces were not cool anymore.

If it increases the rear surface area such that it could enhance or facilitate shouldering, it is a no-go.
Click to expand...
lovely well they can piss off
 
bender73 said:
Would a fixed mag lower allow for evil features? stock and threaded barrel or flash hider?
Click to expand...
Yes it would for the threaded barrel and flash hider. Putting a stock on a pistol makes it an SBR, regardless of the fact it’s fixed mag. That’s a fed thing, not MA thing.
 
bender73 said:
I joined GOA just now. So can I order a 10.5 barrel, fixed mag 10, and pistol stock brace and build away in 100% legal compliance with this upper? DD AR-15 .223 Wylde Sacrosanct .223 Wylde Upper Build Kit
Click to expand...
First of all, you called it a “pistol stock brace.” There’s no such thing. You have to remember that there’s a difference between a brace and a stock. A stock is used for shouldering the gun, which would make your gun a rifle (or short-barreled rifle if barrel length is less than 16 inches). A brace stabilizes the gun to allow you to shoot it with one hand. Shouldering a brace as if it were a stock was still a no-go even before the recent ATF pistol brace switch up.

With all of that being said, yes you can execute this game plan of yours, provided that it actually is a legal fixed mag lower. I do want to reiterate though that the DSI fixed mag lower you mentioned earlier in this thread is NOT 100% legally approved here in MA. I know the marketing for it says otherwise, but marketing doesn’t mean shit. If you want to go fixed mag, I’d recommend getting a JC Arms lower. If you want to roll the legal dice on a DSI lower, feel free to do so.
 
You can also forget the “brace” baloney and use the buffer tube as a cheek rest for a cheek pistol. Look at Demonstrated Concepts on YouTube.
 
Joeldiaz said:
However, the rule is currently enjoined from being enforced by the ATF against FPC, GOA & SAF members through various lawsuits. If you’re a member of one of these organizations, you can ignore the new rule. If you’re not (just sign up already) you have to follow it.
Click to expand...
Update: a nationwide preliminary injunction has been issued against the pistol brace rule thanks to a federal district judge in Texas.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Update: a nationwide preliminary injunction has been issued against the pistol brace rule thanks to a federal district judge in Texas.
Click to expand...

GOA, SAF and FPC all have injunctions currently issued against the pistol brace rule.
Joining any/all of them is short money and makes you "legal" for the time being.

Because I'm a "belt and suspenders" type of guy, (except for actual belt/suspenders), I joined all three when this nonsense started.

FPC - 30$ 1 year membership
SAF - 15$ 1 year membership, 50$ 5 year membership
GOA - 25$ 1 year membership

www.firearmspolicy.org

Firearms Policy Coalition

FPC is a coalition of hundreds of thousands of Patriots organizing to take back our Constitution and defend the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.
www.firearmspolicy.org www.firearmspolicy.org
saf.org

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.
saf.org saf.org

Join Gun Owners of America – Gun Owners of America

donate.gunowners.org donate.gunowners.org
 
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but didn't the GOA, SAF, and FPC exceptions require one to be a member at the time of the injunction? As in joining later doesn't apply? Any legal ruling on this?
 
Mountain said:
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but didn't the GOA, SAF, and FPC exceptions require one to be a member at the time of the injunction? As in joining later doesn't apply? Any legal ruling on this?
Click to expand...

While the FPC and GOA would not disclose specific membership numbers or how many new members they’ve gained since the rulings, both groups have been active on social media indicating their membership numbers have risen.

“We are excited to have so many new members and look forward to aggressively destroying the Disarmament Regime’s agenda with each and every one of you,” the group tweeted on May 31st.

FPC even recently restructured its membership options to accommodate all the additions. It contends all members, new or old, will be covered by the injunction.

“We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members,” the group tweeted on May 26.

GOA vice president Erich Pratt said the injunction his group received will cover millions of people.

“GOA and our millions of members nationwide will continue to fight back against this rogue anti-gun administration at every turn in defense of our rights,” he tweeted last week.
Source: Gun Group Membership Surges in Wake of Pistol-Brace Ban Injunctions




NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 26, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order clarifying that the Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland applies to FPC’s members, Maxim Defense’s customers, and the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

Source: Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members


BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge has clarified the scope of an injunction in a Second Amendment Foundation challenge to the Biden administration’s new “Arm Brace Rule.” The case is known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al.

SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.

In her prior order granting the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle wrote, “The Court grants in part the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only,” leaving a question as to whether the injunction applied to members of SAF. Late yesterday, SAF filed a motion to clarify the scope of the injunction. Today, Judge Boyle clarified the prior order with a new order and in a docket entry which stated, “The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members.”

“SAF has received numerous inquiries from individuals as to whether the injunction covered our members,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Our attorney had attempted to reach an understanding with the government as to the scope of the injunction and coverage of our members. When it became apparent that the parties were not seeing eye to eye on the matter, despite the 5th Circuit’s clarification in another case on this exact point, we asked the court for clarification. We are pleased to see that Judge Boyle agrees with our interpretation and that our members are indeed protected under this injunction.”
Source: FEDERAL JUDGE CLARIFIES SAF MEMBERS PROTECTED BY PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION - Second Amendment Foundation
Last, but certainly not least:
But another case, Britto v. ATF, which challenges the BATFE rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, has expanded those protected from enforcement. Instead of issuing a temporary hold on enforcement against just those who sued, yesterday US District Judge Matthew Kaczmaryk put enforcement of the rule on ice nationwide.

That means that everyone, whether they’re members of a plaintiff organization or not, is now free to own and use a pistol brace without concern for government thugs enforcing an unconstitutional ban under color of law.

Source: US District Court Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Blocking Pistol Brace Ban Enforcement - The Truth About Guns





I'm NOT an attorney, and I really don't want to become a felon-in-waiting unintentionally; so I joined all three organizations.
 
allen-1 said:
While the FPC and GOA would not disclose specific membership numbers or how many new members they’ve gained since the rulings, both groups have been active on social media indicating their membership numbers have risen.

“We are excited to have so many new members and look forward to aggressively destroying the Disarmament Regime’s agenda with each and every one of you,” the group tweeted on May 31st.

FPC even recently restructured its membership options to accommodate all the additions. It contends all members, new or old, will be covered by the injunction.

“We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members,” the group tweeted on May 26.

GOA vice president Erich Pratt said the injunction his group received will cover millions of people.

“GOA and our millions of members nationwide will continue to fight back against this rogue anti-gun administration at every turn in defense of our rights,” he tweeted last week.
Source: Gun Group Membership Surges in Wake of Pistol-Brace Ban Injunctions




NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 26, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order clarifying that the Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland applies to FPC’s members, Maxim Defense’s customers, and the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

Source: Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members


BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge has clarified the scope of an injunction in a Second Amendment Foundation challenge to the Biden administration’s new “Arm Brace Rule.” The case is known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al.

SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.

In her prior order granting the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle wrote, “The Court grants in part the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only,” leaving a question as to whether the injunction applied to members of SAF. Late yesterday, SAF filed a motion to clarify the scope of the injunction. Today, Judge Boyle clarified the prior order with a new order and in a docket entry which stated, “The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members.”

“SAF has received numerous inquiries from individuals as to whether the injunction covered our members,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Our attorney had attempted to reach an understanding with the government as to the scope of the injunction and coverage of our members. When it became apparent that the parties were not seeing eye to eye on the matter, despite the 5th Circuit’s clarification in another case on this exact point, we asked the court for clarification. We are pleased to see that Judge Boyle agrees with our interpretation and that our members are indeed protected under this injunction.”
Source: FEDERAL JUDGE CLARIFIES SAF MEMBERS PROTECTED BY PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION - Second Amendment Foundation
Last, but certainly not least:
But another case, Britto v. ATF, which challenges the BATFE rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, has expanded those protected from enforcement. Instead of issuing a temporary hold on enforcement against just those who sued, yesterday US District Judge Matthew Kaczmaryk put enforcement of the rule on ice nationwide.

That means that everyone, whether they’re members of a plaintiff organization or not, is now free to own and use a pistol brace without concern for government thugs enforcing an unconstitutional ban under color of law.

Source: US District Court Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Blocking Pistol Brace Ban Enforcement - The Truth About Guns





I'm NOT an attorney, and I really don't want to become a felon-in-waiting unintentionally; so I joined all three organizations.
Click to expand...
Thanks! It looks like Britto vs. ATF covers everyone. The FPC etc. coverage is a little fuzzy since the judges say members are covered and it is the organizations stating new members are covered, not the judges. No matter, given the Britto ruling.

While I have the approved form 1 for a SBR, I still see the value in a brace (outside of Mass) as that doesn't come with the ATF restrictions. Fixed mag AR pistols are PITA if you ever get a jam.
 
Mountain said:
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but didn't the GOA, SAF, and FPC exceptions require one to be a member at the time of the injunction? As in joining later doesn't apply? Any legal ruling on this?
Click to expand...
FPC was saying that membership post-injunction was still valid back when it was originally announced.
 
So here's an additional question I've been curious about that's related.

Can you have a fixed mag lower that's a pre ban 30 round magazine(externally dated)?

If no to the above, can you go the 10 round fixed, can you have an adjustable brace/stock no pin and weld?
 
DarkJoker33 said:
So here's an additional question I've been curious about that's related.

Can you have a fixed mag lower that's a pre ban 30 round magazine(externally dated)?

If no to the above, can you go the 10 round fixed, can you have an adjustable brace/stock no pin and weld?
Click to expand...

No to the 30. This is considered “new” when you make it as part of the firearm (can’t find a reference at the moment).

Yes to the fun features. The semi auto with detachable magazine is the key to kick off the features test. No detachable magazine or not semi auto means it can’t be an assault weapon in MA.
 
DarkJoker33 said:
So here's an additional question I've been curious about that's related.

Can you have a fixed mag lower that's a pre ban 30 round magazine(externally dated)?

If no to the above, can you go the 10 round fixed, can you have an adjustable brace/stock no pin and weld?
Click to expand...
Note on the stocked configuration that barrel length still applies...
 

Similar threads

Is the HK USP .45 legal in MA?
Replies
16
Views
437
drgrant
drgrant
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
12
Views
346
Laura
Laura
Personal transfer of pre-Healy MA compliant AR and/or lowers
Replies
4
Views
266
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
New to MA
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
I open carried in Boston today
3 4 5
Replies
148
Views
3K
fencer
fencer
Back
Top Bottom