Burden of proof in most criminal procedures is on the state to make it's case. They would also have to find someone at the ATF that actually cared. The state ain't getting the BB / 4473 without fed involvement, most of the time. Think about the amount of work required to even prove that....
-
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.
AK-47 and the MA Law
- Thread starter killington
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
I was told that the ones built to be sold as stripped lowers were not on that list. I don't know it as fact however.
Thank you for clarifying, I was just speaking theoretically. The difference from ARs to AKs is that the AK kits were previously assembled rifles, imported minus the receiver, but I guess because they weren't assembled in the US, it is irrelevant.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
You can choose to believe this, but it isn't really true. The "big loss" was ~30K blue cards (pre-1998) only . . . info directly from FRB Director at that time. I'm sure that some got damaged/lost since then (before requiring electronic only), but not any significant number.
So im new to the gun world so I’m reading this old post because I have my eyes on an ak74 on broker,, it’s a 1993 “parts kit” with a modern receiver. But after looking into this even tho it is stamped 1993 it seems I won’t be able to obtain it in ma because of the modern receiver?
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,231
- Likes
- 27,574
For AWB compliance, yes.
If it's a bare receiver, it's not (currently) a firearm in MA. In that case, a knowledgeable dealer might make the transfer. If it's an assembled firearm (maybe I'm just having difficulty with reading comprehension?) then you're definitely out of luck.
Grendizer138
NES Member
This is why God invented Childers receivers.
KMM696
NES Member
The law hasn't changed since then, so yes - still legal.
What has changed is AG Healey's press conference in 2016 where she declared that she has a novel new interpretation of the 1994 law, and that most of the semi-auto stuff we've been buying since then is illegal, but out of the goodness of her black scheming heart she's not going to enforce that against any of us unindicted felons for weapons bought before the press conference. No changes were made to the law, and to my knowledge no one has been charged under her new interpretation to test it in court.
You'll see some talk of 'pre-healey' rifles, some of that discussion is here. A good working theory as to why no one has been charged is that it's unlikely her interpretation would stand up., and she didn't want to be seen losing a gun case. A lot of legal attention was paid to this law nationally in 1994 when the federal AWB (that MA copied) was stood up, and nobody came up with her interpretation as a valid one. Her press conference did have some chilling effect on some people and shops in MA, but that's been diminishing since 2016. If whoever you're dealing with starts talking about 'pre-healey', just walk away. You could see the 2016 press conference as raising the risk slightly, but it did not change the law since 1994. Hell, being a gun owner in MA is it's own risk, and as I see it the healey garbage only raised that slightly.
What has changed is AG Healey's press conference in 2016 where she declared that she has a novel new interpretation of the 1994 law, and that most of the semi-auto stuff we've been buying since then is illegal, but out of the goodness of her black scheming heart she's not going to enforce that against any of us unindicted felons for weapons bought before the press conference. No changes were made to the law, and to my knowledge no one has been charged under her new interpretation to test it in court.
You'll see some talk of 'pre-healey' rifles, some of that discussion is here. A good working theory as to why no one has been charged is that it's unlikely her interpretation would stand up., and she didn't want to be seen losing a gun case. A lot of legal attention was paid to this law nationally in 1994 when the federal AWB (that MA copied) was stood up, and nobody came up with her interpretation as a valid one. Her press conference did have some chilling effect on some people and shops in MA, but that's been diminishing since 2016. If whoever you're dealing with starts talking about 'pre-healey', just walk away. You could see the 2016 press conference as raising the risk slightly, but it did not change the law since 1994. Hell, being a gun owner in MA is it's own risk, and as I see it the healey garbage only raised that slightly.
Last edited:
