AR-10 in Boston?

crescentcap

NES Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2023
Messages
36
Likes
14
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
I posted this over on the sticky thread, but I figured it might be more appropriate to just create a separate thread for my question.

I’m trying to determine the legality, or the proximity to definite legality, of owning an AR-10 in Boston.

Here’s the Boston AWB AW definition:

Assault weapon: “all rifles and shotguns designated as assault weapons in this section and all other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which are determined by the assault weapon roster board, established under the provisions of section five, to be assault weapons. Such term shall include, in addition to any other rifles and shotguns identified by said board, all versions of the following, including rifles and shotguns sold under the designation provided in this section and rifles and shotguns which are substantially identical thereto sold under any designation…

AR-15 semi-automatic rifles”

The AR-10 platform

1. Is not a “version” of the AR-15 platform, since it predates the AR-15 platform

2. Is sold under a different designation than the AR-15 platform

2. Is NOT substantially identical to the AR-15, as the ONLY major interchangeable internal component is the trigger assembly

This ignoring the fact that the law is probably null and void, since the board never convened, among other things.

So, my question is two-fold: is the reasoning here sound - am I good to go with an AR-10? - and pragmatically speaking, what are the risks of taking this approach?
 
I agree with your reasoning. The AR10 can't be a copy or duplicate of the AR15 because it predates the AR15. Of course I'm not the prosecutor and I'm sure this detail will be lost on any judge in MA.

I will watch your case closely.
 
I agree with your reasoning. The AR10 can't be a copy or duplicate of the AR15 because it predates the AR15. Of course I'm not the prosecutor and I'm sure this detail will be lost on any judge in MA.

I will watch your case closely.

Especially reading the roster challenge comments… judges asking why you can’t just go to another state to buy a handgun. Not even aware of federal law.
 
GPT4 Sez:

As of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021, the AR-10 could be considered to be covered under the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), depending on its specific features. The Massachusetts AWB is a state law that mirrors the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

The relevant Massachusetts General Laws can be found in Chapter 140, Section 121, where "Assault weapon" is defined. The AR-10 is not explicitly mentioned in the statute, but the law does reference semi-automatic rifles with certain features, which may apply to specific AR-10 configurations.

Under the Massachusetts AWB, a semi-automatic rifle is considered an assault weapon if it meets the following criteria:

  1. The rifle has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following features: a. A folding or telescoping stock; b. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; c. A bayonet mount; d. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; e. A grenade launcher;
  2. A copy or duplicate of any of the firearms, or types of firearms, defined as an "assault weapon" in federal law as it existed on September 13, 1994.
Please note that the information provided is accurate as of September 2021, and state laws may have changed since then. Always consult the latest state and local regulations or consult with a legal professional to ensure compliance with current laws.
 
I agree with your reasoning. The AR10 can't be a copy or duplicate of the AR15 because it predates the AR15. Of course I'm not the prosecutor and I'm sure this detail will be lost on any judge in MA.

I will watch your case closely.
Thanks. I think I’ll email GOAL and see if they have any thoughts, too. They’re definitely distinct platforms, of which the AR-10 is in the paternity of the AR-15 (and not the posterity).
 
Thanks. I think I’ll email GOAL and see if they have any thoughts, too. They’re definitely distinct platforms, of which the AR-10 is in the paternity of the AR-15 (and not the posterity).
If it wasn't clear, I think they will enforce the AWB on the AR10 as a copy or duplicate regardless of the facts.
 
If it wasn't clear, I think they will enforce the AWB on the AR10 as a copy or duplicate regardless of the facts.
Probably.

But then, assuming your rifle does not meet the MA legal definition of assault rifle, your lawyer will make them cry and get your guns back by beating them over the head with the actual law they are supposed to enforce.

Chapter 140, Section 121, where "Assault weapon" is defined a semi-automatic rifle is considered an assault weapon if it meets the following criteria:

  1. The rifle has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following features: a. A folding or telescoping stock; b. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; c. A bayonet mount; d. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; e. A grenade launcher;
 
If it wasn't clear, I think they will enforce the AWB on the AR10 as a copy or duplicate regardless of the facts.
That seems plausible - I’m still going to talk to GOAL and possibly an attorney. It seems likely that their advice will line up with this thought
 
Probably.

But then, assuming your rifle does not meet the MA legal definition of assault rifle, your lawyer will make them cry and get your guns back by beating them over the head with the actual law they are supposed to enforce.

Chapter 140, Section 121, where "Assault weapon" is defined a semi-automatic rifle is considered an assault weapon if it meets the following criteria:

  1. The rifle has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following features: a. A folding or telescoping stock; b. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; c. A bayonet mount; d. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; e. A grenade launcher;
if you think MA works that way, you go first.
 
if you think MA works that way, you go first.
So the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of MA compliant rifles sold and assembled in MA are all illegal and will get you jammed up you are saying. Every FFL is going to jail. Every owner is risking life and limb,

Please do share us a specific statute. I shared the AWB language statute above.

Lotta pant shitting in this thread.
Lotta pant shitting.
 
So the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of MA compliant rifles sold and assembled in MA are all illegal and will get you jammed up you are saying. Every FFL is going to jail. Every owner is risking life and limb,

Please do share us a specific statute. I shared the AWB language statute above.

Lotta pant shitting in this thread.
Lotta pant shitting.
talk about hyperbolic BS.

we are talking about the copies or duplicate BS Healey put out, nothing else. try to keep up, I know it's tough for you. and all I've said is I think the fact that the ar10 predates the ar15 will be lost on a cp, prosecutor, judge in MA
 
talk about hyperbolic BS.

we are talking about the copies or duplicate BS Healey put out, nothing else. try to keep up, I know it's tough for you. and all I've said is I think the fact that the ar10 predates the ar15 will be lost on a cp, prosecutor, judge in MA
Governors can’t declare things illegal.

There are LAWS for a reason and they are difficult to enact for a reason.

The law says what an AWB is and is not.

Healey can’t change that by wishing it to be so.
 
Last edited:
talk about hyperbolic BS.

we are talking about the copies or duplicate BS Healey put out, nothing else. try to keep up, I know it's tough for you. and all I've said is I think the fact that the ar10 predates the ar15 will be lost on a cp, prosecutor, judge in MA
Except this question by the OP is strictly about the Boston AWB which pre-dates the Federal/Clinton Ban and Maura's drivel.

To the best of anyone's knowledge, nobody has been prosecuted in Boston for the Boston AWB. That was info that Glidden received from Boston's Counsel when he asked them about it many years ago. The problem with this is that there is no history and the past is never a guarantee of what might happen in the future. Add that to the raving anti-Constitutionalists running the city and state, and there could be a "first time".
 
I don’t think that anyone has ever been prosecuted under the Boston law for whatever reason, poorly written and weak some say.
Even as recently as 2021, the Suffolk DA had an opportunity to charge for a violation of Boston AWB but did not tack it on to the violations of federal/ state laws for a case in East Boston

You just can't make this stuff up. Whatadmbfck!
 
Last edited:
As an update:

I contacted GOAL regarding my question. They said that I was textually correct in my reading of the Boston AWB, and they weren’t confident that it would be enforced correctly. By my read of their thoughts, unless I want to be a test case, I’m probably best to steer clear.

They also noted that Maura’s opinions need to be taken into account, at least.
 
I don’t think that anyone has ever been prosecuted under the Boston law for whatever reason, poorly written and weak some say.
The clowns that robbed a national guard armory and were caught with several M4A1s were never prosecuted for violating the ordinance as city residents.
 
As a brief update, I emailed Boston PD a modified version of this question (essentially asking how they enforce this). They (predictably) said to they couldn’t help me and to talk an attorney, as this requires “legal interpretation.” It was worth a try…
 
As a brief update, I emailed Boston PD a modified version of this question (essentially asking how they enforce this). They (predictably) said to they couldn’t help me and to talk an attorney, as this requires “legal interpretation.” It was worth a try…
In BPD speak, that means they'll nail YOUR ass to a cross and let you figure out how to get un nailed.
 
In BPD speak, that means they'll nail YOUR ass to a cross and let you figure out how to get un nailed.
Bingo. I’ll need to tread lightly. At least I now have firsthand experience for how MA treats gun owners who try to follow the law.
 
I *think* I’ll load up an AR-10 and take it with me, barring a nice deal on a Tavor 7 landing in my lap.

Here’s some bullet points that generally mirror my thinking (and I’m continuing to post in this thread for feedback as much as I am for future people who might be interested in this same question):

1. The AR-10 as “Substantially identical” to the AR-15: My first concern is that the Boston AWB would be enforced on an AR-10 by virtue of an AR-10 being “substantially identical” to an AR-15. This is in reference to an LR-308 pattern rifle.

On its face, an LR-308 shares 60% of its parts with an AR-15. This is a weak point for my logic — is “substantially identical” referencing cumulative parts compatibility, or the compatibility of substantial parts (receivers, barrels, fire control groups, etc.)? Who knows?

There’s no case law on this. Based on Maura’s 2016 MA AWB edict, and subsequent interpretations, I’m inclined to lean toward the latter as a precedented interpretation. Because the only major components that the AR-10 shares with the AR-15 are trigger/hammer/buffer tube (and NOT either receiver/barrel/magazines), I think it would be difficult to argue “substantial” indentical-ness.

Note: a weapon has to be substantially identical, not substantially similar. An AR-10 would fail a similarity test, but I struggle to see an otherwise never-enforced statute being ambiguously enforced on an otherwise clearly different rifle platform holding up in court.

Obviously, this is all a huge mumbo-jumbo gray area, the fact of which should also work in my favor, if push ever came to shove (a risk I’m probably willing to run, as I’m pretty confident the facts are on my side, and the fact that this is such an undefined concept that a reasonable judge should throw out pure possession charges, especially when it’s a law student on the hook).

3. Text of the Boston AWB banning AK platform rifles as follows: “Avtomat Kalishnikov, also known as AK-47 semi-automatic rifles…” and the use of this phrase as interpretive over “AR-15 semi-automatic rifles”:

Essentially, I’m confident that I could point to the fact that all “AK pattern” rifles are banned by the inclusion of “Avtomat Kalishnikov,” whereas Boston City had a chance to ban all “AR-platform” rifles with identical language and chose to ban a specific model and its copies instead. They could have said “AR, also known as AR-15 semi-automatic rifles,” but they didn’t.

3. Boston AWB generally: I’m confident that the text of the Boston AWB means it would get struck down in court — the entirety of Section 5 was never implemented, and Boston has had 34 years to do so. If the mayor, police commissioner, and city council have never executed their required duties in operating and maintained an “assault weapon roster” and “board” (which they’ve never convened in a generation+), is the law still in effect? I’m sure they’d think it is, but I don’t think a court would look on it very fondly.

Obviously, this all depends on how you read everything, and how you want to interpret it. I emailed the Suffolk DA’s office asking how they enforce “substantially identical” in this context and never heard back. I’ve done all the homework I can. The enforcement entities have no obligation to clarify ambiguous laws in this manner, but I think them not doing so points to the fact that no interpretation exists.

Would taking an AR-10 be risky? Yep. And I’m probably overly-optimistic that things would go my way if something happened. And who knows, maybe I’ll chicken out and get the Tavor.

But if I’m not willing to risk a little to fight for my rights, who will do it for me? Who better to challenge this 34 year-old law than a law student in Boston, who has a paper trail of clarification requests, and would theoretically be charged with violating an ambiguous, poorly-defined, loosely interpreted archaic statue? The rifle will be otherwise MA AWB compliant, and I’ll be following the licensing, storage, ammo, and magazine laws to a T. If they want to come after me with just the Boston AWB, so be it. If I never get harassed on this front, then so be it (I’ll be keeping my head down either way). But for now, this is where I am with it.

I’ve chewed on this stupid law more than anyone else probably ever has, except for maybe a handful of people (most of which are probably on this forum). There’s nothing left to be said —I’ve just got to make a decision and run with it. And hopefully, every single one of these stupid “AWB” laws go right in the toilet where they belong.
 
I grappled with all this as well. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, even if your legal interpretations are correct, if push comes to shove, no judge would ever agree you because guns are bad.

My ultimate conclusion is that this ordinance is used to scare FFLs from selling to and citizens from keeping ARs within city limits. Given the opportunity, the Suffolk DA will never solely prosecute, add on, or will eventually drop the BS Boston AWB charge to ultimately avoid any possible legal scrutiny.

Generally speaking, there’s been plenty of times the DA could have charged for a Boston AWB violation, but by that point there’s plenty of other MGL or felony charges that are easier to prosecute and therefore can preserve the Boston AWB to serve its intended function: intimidation.

The whole thing is a shell game. The state knows it. We know it. But at the end of the day, if they want to nail you for something, they can and they will. You need to evaluate whether it’s worth it to risk your reputation and future law career over it in which is a very small city once you progress in any given field.

Like you said, there’s no way this ordinance would pass true impartial legal scrutiny. But you’d have to pay big bucks and it would likely have to go all the way to SCOTUS (good luck) as even the First Circuit still rewrites all the rules when it comes to guns.

I agree that if you keep your head down and don’t do something stupid like leaving it unsecured in plain view of a Karen or LEO, chances are you’ll never have anything to worry about. But by that point you are the anomaly while the bigger prize has already been won - FFLs and other residents have been completely intimidated and fully believe ARs are illegal for Boston residents so they wont sell them to and resident won’t keep them in their homes. Checkmate.

FWIW, I also recall reading on NES that when the Boston AWB went into effect, there was a ‘green card’ license available to grandfather residents that already owned AWB. If I recall correctly, the green card license had to be renewed every so often at BPD HQ much like the LTC. Doubt there’s many left that have kept it up but worth noting for reference.
 
Here is the cruel world we live in: someone can go to jail for a long time for having too much marijuana on their person but have no other violent criminal record, whereas someone with a history of violence can rack up cases and be walking home free before dinner time. It's a broken system. Guns are no different. Law aside, probabilities and ratios are your friend. Statistically, the way you would obtain any "assault weapons" charge is because you committed another act that invited police attention. If you talk to enough LEO and do your own homework, you can get a pretty good idea of how people (the few that do) get these charges. Guns are, for the most part, a multiplier. For example: a close family member in law enforcement told me the other day that they discovered a prohibited a person transporting a gun in the glove box/compartment. This prohibited person was caught doing this because she was blatantly speeding. So, aside from illegally possessing a firearm, said person will also be charged with improper transportation. This isn't too far off of how a chain of events would go for a non-prohibited LTC holder, too.

If AR builds were really illegal/prosecutable, no matter which chambering or configuration, anyone who has performed an EFA-10 on any rifle chambered in 5.56 greater wouldn't be in a great place. Sure, anything can happen, but if you (a) aren't a criminal, (b) aren't doing stupid things when you are transporting any weapons whatsoever, (c) don't get police called on you, or end up involved in a scenario where you "suitability" would be questioned, and (d) be the smartest you can about scenarios that give you the options of bad, terrible, and awful, the probabilistic determination of you getting charged with anything for any reason is pretty close to zero.

You'll never get a firm answer because there is no law governing this. It's interpretation only. If you ask the Boston PD if it's legal to urinate on the sidewalk, you will get a clear cut answer.
 
As a final follow-up:

Suffolk DA’s office got back to me (I wasn’t expecting them to, but I am pleasantly surprised). I’ll probably post this over on the Boston AWB thread as well. This was in regard to their interpretation “substantially identical” language of the Boston AWB:

“Thank you for contacting our office. We do not issue permits for firearms or establish ownership rules or regulations. We do prosecute firearm offenses. I am not immediately aware of any prosecutions regarding a properly permitted individual in possession of a weapon banned by Boston’s bylaw. However, I’m told that, hypothetically, a person could be arrested if authorities discovered and determined a weapon to be “substantially similar” to the weapons you mentioned. The burden would then be on the Commonwealth to convince a jury that the weapon is indeed “substantially similar.” So, the jury would be the ultimate litmus test. I would encourage you to contact the City of Boston licensing authority.”

Interesting stuff.
 
Especially reading the roster challenge comments… judges asking why you can’t just go to another state to buy a handgun. Not even aware of federal law.
Honestly most of the population isnt aware, and I wouldn't expect anybody other than a judge versed in firearms cases to even actually know that.

Although this is an excellent point and it really pisses me off that Dearth vs Holder never went anywhere. (Steven Dearth was a US citizen who had no state of residence and couldn't legally purchase a handgun from an FFL because he never made a residency claim in any specific state. If I remember correctly at the time he was living abroad but he wanted to be able to buy a handgun to use/keep with family here. )
 
Back
Top Bottom