AR Maglock Legality for FID Holder

Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
18
Likes
43
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Hi all, I am an FID holder and I was curious about the legality of the AR Maglocks used to comply with gun laws in similar 2A-hostile states like CA and NY. Obviously since there hasn't been case law about it in Massachusetts, it's impossible to know for sure, but I was more curious to understand how risky using one with my FID would be.

For those who aren't familiar, an AR Maglock is a magazine release button that only works when the lower and upper receiver of an AR are separated. The reason this is useful for complying with CA/NY type laws is because typically 2A-hostile states let you have ARs with all the banned features if your rifle has a fixed magazine.

You might wonder how a rifle can still be considered to have a fixed magazine if you can remove the magazine. The trick they use is basically when the rifle is in a semi-automatic state, the maglock does not allow you to release the magazine. When you separate the lower and upper receiver, although the magazine IS detachable, that is no longer a semi-automatic rifle because while the rifle is in that magazine detachable state, it is impossible to shoot it.

I am by no means a lawyer, but I am capable of understanding legalese to an extent which is why I'd like to try and share portions of state law that could make Maglocks illegal. As many of you are aware, you are not allowed to have a "large capacity weapon" with an FID. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140 Section 121, a large capacity weapon and feeding device is defined as:
''Large capacity weapon'', any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon.

''Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

For an AR Maglock, the relevant portions of the definitions is "that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device" and "a ... detachable magazine ... capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition".

The reason I believe there is good argument to make for why it's legal is because as an FID holder is because for a weapon to be considered large capacity, it needs to be BOTH semiautomatic and capable of accepting a detachable magazine. When an AR Maglock rifle is semiautomatic, it is not capable of accepting or detaching the magazine. When I separate the lower and upper receivers, although the magazine is detachable, I believe that the same arguments used in CA/NY apply where it is no longer a large capacity rifle since it is no longer semiautomatic.

One counter-argument to this point I thought of was that AR Maglock rifles are still capable of accepting a magazine greater than 10 rounds by separating the receivers, detaching the 10 round magazine, and inserting a 30 round magazine. The problem I see with this argument is that as an FID holder, I could get an AR with a normal non-permanent fixed magazine such as a lower receiver modified with this shear bolt magazine lock. With a non-permanent fixed magazine rifle, just as you can with an AR Maglock, you could simply remove the bolt and insert a 30-round magazine. The only notable difference between the two is that with a non-permanent fixed magazine, you typically need a readily available tool like a hex key to remove it, whereas with an AR Maglock you don't, however, I haven't seen MA law that cares about that distinction. If these non-permanent fixed magazine rifles are legal under my FID, why shouldn't an AR Maglock rifle be too? Aren't AR Maglock rifles also fixed magazine and simply a new variant?

Also, even for those with LTCs, I wonder if AR Maglock rifles could be a good alternative for complying with Massachusetts' Assault Weapons Ban since fixed magazine rifles can't be considered an Assault Weapon. Could you own an AR Maglock rifle with 30 round magazines and prohibited features under an unrestricted LTC?

As I said at the start of the thread, I know there is no definitive answer since there hasn't been a ruling in MA supporting either side. I would simply like to get an idea of what risk I'm taking by owning one of these rifles. For example, one controversial debate I've seen on this forum is the legality of rifles for FID holders that accept detachable magazines but whose manufacturer never made a magazine larger than 10 rounds. Would you say an AR Maglock fixed magazine rifle is more or less risky than owning a rifle whose manufacturer has never made a magazine greater than 10 rounds?
 
Good luck getting a dealer to move an AR-anything to an FID holder. Are you under 21? Better off just waiting or move out of this dump.
I am under 21, hence only have an FID. I already own a normal permanent fixed magazine AR-style (JC Arms) rifle I got through an MA dealer so it doesn't seem too impossible.

In my specific situation, since I also hold residence in the state of New York, I believe I could get an unmodified lower receiver shipped to an FFL there and then modify it myself with the AR Maglock (NY has its own problems, but you don't need a license for long guns).

In general too I'm sure you could find a New Hampshire FFL who'd be willing to transfer in an AR Maglock lower (these are stupidly overpriced) or a normal completed lower anyway. I remember when I was looking for my first rifle, plenty of NH FFLs were willing to sell me a large capacity rifle even with only an FID and without shipping to an MA FFL.

The post here is more around the legality of possessing one.
 
I am under 21, hence only have an FID. I already own a normal permanent fixed magazine AR-style rifle I got through an MA dealer so it doesn't seem too impossible.

In my specific situation, since I also hold residence in the state of New York, I believe I could get an unmodified lower receiver shipped to an FFL there and then modify it myself with the AR Maglock (NY has its own problems, but you don't need a license for long guns).

In general too I'm sure you could find a New Hampshire FFL who'd be willing to transfer in an AR Maglock lower or a normal completed lower anyway. I remember when I was looking for my first rifle, plenty of NH FFLs were willing to sell me a large capacity rifle even with only an FID and without shipping to an MA FFL.

The post here is more around the legality of possessing one.
You can't get a lower in nh unless you're a resident there, plus under 21 limits you to finished rifles and shotguns, federally. Buying more fixed mag junk is probably not smart idea financially unless you can repair it later. If I was in your shoes I would be focusing on other stuff that's easier to get. Having an FID I would want things like a scout style bolt rifle in 308, 556. 762x39, , or similar. Or better yet, an M1 Garand, probably the best "FID rifle " you can buy. And normally I'm the type of guy that would s*** all over Milsurps but an M1 Garand is something special. If somebody doesn't like a Garand there's probably something wrong with them.... and you can probably still get one before the price gets retarded and start hoarding some good ammo for it.
 
You can't get a lower in nh unless you're a resident there, plus under 21 limits you to finished rifles and shotguns, federally. Buying more fixed mag junk is probably not smart idea financially unless you can repair it later. If I was in your shoes I would be focusing on other stuff that's easier to get. Having an FID I would want things like a scout style bolt rifle in 308, 556. 762x39, , or similar. Or better yet, an M1 Garand, probably the best "FID rifle " you can buy. And normally I'm the type of guy that would s*** all over Milsurps but an M1 Garand is something special. If somebody doesn't like a Garand there's probably something wrong with them.... and you can probably still get one before the price gets retarded and start hoarding some good ammo for it.
"You can't get a lower in nh unless you're a resident there"- forgot about that, then you'd probably just need to buy a large capacity rifle and modify it yourself with the AR Maglock to make it FID legal. I agree fixed magazine rifles are a dumb financial move (the one I do have was at a good discount at the time). The difference here is AR Maglocks are not permanent, function close to a normal semiautomatic AR, and can be used in a LOT of places. I appreciate the recommendations around what other guns I could be buying, but I am still interested in hearing people's takes around the legality of possessing an AR Maglock rifle with an FID.
 
That's a long post.

AR Maglock doesn't meet SAFE act requirements.

As far as being in Mass, I'm willing to bet, if the wrong person sees you with a maglock equiped ar and a FID, instant trip to the courthouse.

I agree with @drgrant get a Garand. If you don't like it, you're probably a commie and shouldn't own a gun anyway.
 
AR Maglock doesn't meet SAFE act requirements.
I've heard mixed things. Some people say it does, some people say it doesn't. There's been a decent bit of debate over it.
As far as being in Mass, I'm willing to bet, if the wrong person sees you with a maglock equiped ar and a FID, instant trip to the courthouse.
I don't think it'd be that bad, but yes there certainly is a risk there could be police officers who think AR Maglocks are illegal. They're certainly not lawyers. The question here was more about the risk associated if I did happen to get taken to a court of law. Is my interpretation that AR Maglocks are legal a huge stretch? Would be interested to hear from some of the lawyers on NES if in a hypothetical situation like that I'd have a good chance of winning.
I agree with @drgrant get a Garand. If you don't like it, you're probably a commie and shouldn't own a gun anyway.
Haha a Garand is on my list of guns I want, but it's not currently my priority. I promise I'm not a commie though :)
 
I've heard mixed things. Some people say it does, some people say it doesn't. There's been a decent bit of debate over it.

I don't think it'd be that bad, but yes there certainly is a risk there could be police officers who think AR Maglocks are illegal. They're certainly not lawyers. The question here was more about the risk associated if I did happen to get taken to a court of law. Is my interpretation that AR Maglocks are legal a huge stretch? Would be interested to hear from some of the lawyers on NES if in a hypothetical situation like that I'd have a good chance of winning.

Haha a Garand is on my list of guns I want, but it's not currently my priority. I promise I'm not a commie though :)
You are 100% correct, police officers are not lawyers, and they don't have to be. I also know for a fact they can be 100% wrong, and it won't matter one bit when it comes to throwing a curve ball into your day. So, to answer your question, yes, there huge risk if you go to court. Because before you even attempt to enter the courtroom over this gay workaround, the prosecutor will try to scare you into pleading out and becoming a prohibited person. If you hired the run of the mill lawyer, he will agree with the prosecutor. Because you know, a quick $1500 is better than nothing.

If you do go to court over this, then get ready to pony up some money for a good lawyer. Maybe throw some cash at Len, you will need someone to try to talk sense into the Judge. Which will be a tall order by the way, next to impossible in MA. Don't forget, not everyone will be available for the scheduled court days, be prepared for this to drag out for anywhere between 10-18 months. Which by then you would have been 21 and able to purchase a non f*cked lower, and had an extra $3k in your pocket, and be able to build a nice ar.

Hopefully at the end of the day, a technicality will arise for the case to get tossed. Because the Judge won't want to rule on that garbage mag lock, and you won't want to keep throwing money at your lawyer. You'll go on your way, happy it all ended. But, when you renew your LTC, you'll have to check the box saying you were in a court case for a gun charge. You'll have to explain what happened, and hopefully they will renew your license without busting your balls.

The juice isn't worth the squeeze. I know an ar15 looks cool. But, I thought I looked pretty hot with an M24. Nothing wrong with a bolt gun. Stop trying to find a workaround on a law that was left vague in order to f*** you over by the government. It certainly wasn't left vague to help you out.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I am an FID holder and I was curious about the legality of the AR Maglocks used to comply with gun laws in similar 2A-hostile states like CA and NY. Obviously since there hasn't been case law about it in Massachusetts, it's impossible to know for sure, but I was more curious to understand how risky using one with my FID would be.

For those who aren't familiar, an AR Maglock is a magazine release button that only works when the lower and upper receiver of an AR are separated. The reason this is useful for complying with CA/NY type laws is because typically 2A-hostile states let you have ARs with all the banned features if your rifle has a fixed magazine.

You might wonder how a rifle can still be considered to have a fixed magazine if you can remove the magazine. The trick they use is basically when the rifle is in a semi-automatic state, the maglock does not allow you to release the magazine. When you separate the lower and upper receiver, although the magazine IS detachable, that is no longer a semi-automatic rifle because while the rifle is in that magazine detachable state, it is impossible to shoot it.

I am by no means a lawyer, but I am capable of understanding legalese to an extent which is why I'd like to try and share portions of state law that could make Maglocks illegal. As many of you are aware, you are not allowed to have a "large capacity weapon" with an FID. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140 Section 121, a large capacity weapon and feeding device is defined as:


For an AR Maglock, the relevant portions of the definitions is "that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device" and "a ... detachable magazine ... capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition".

The reason I believe there is good argument to make for why it's legal is because as an FID holder is because for a weapon to be considered large capacity, it needs to be BOTH semiautomatic and capable of accepting a detachable magazine. When an AR Maglock rifle is semiautomatic, it is not capable of accepting or detaching the magazine. When I separate the lower and upper receivers, although the magazine is detachable, I believe that the same arguments used in CA/NY apply where it is no longer a large capacity rifle since it is no longer semiautomatic.

One counter-argument to this point I thought of was that AR Maglock rifles are still capable of accepting a magazine greater than 10 rounds by separating the receivers, detaching the 10 round magazine, and inserting a 30 round magazine. The problem I see with this argument is that as an FID holder, I could get an AR with a normal non-permanent fixed magazine such as a lower receiver modified with this shear bolt magazine lock. With a non-permanent fixed magazine rifle, just as you can with an AR Maglock, you could simply remove the bolt and insert a 30-round magazine. The only notable difference between the two is that with a non-permanent fixed magazine, you typically need a readily available tool like a hex key to remove it, whereas with an AR Maglock you don't, however, I haven't seen MA law that cares about that distinction. If these non-permanent fixed magazine rifles are legal under my FID, why shouldn't an AR Maglock rifle be too? Aren't AR Maglock rifles also fixed magazine and simply a new variant?

Also, even for those with LTCs, I wonder if AR Maglock rifles could be a good alternative for complying with Massachusetts' Assault Weapons Ban since fixed magazine rifles can't be considered an Assault Weapon. Could you own an AR Maglock rifle with 30 round magazines and prohibited features under an unrestricted LTC?

As I said at the start of the thread, I know there is no definitive answer since there hasn't been a ruling in MA supporting either side. I would simply like to get an idea of what risk I'm taking by owning one of these rifles. For example, one controversial debate I've seen on this forum is the legality of rifles for FID holders that accept detachable magazines but whose manufacturer never made a magazine larger than 10 rounds. Would you say an AR Maglock fixed magazine rifle is more or less risky than owning a rifle whose manufacturer has never made a magazine greater than 10 rounds?
Just buy an sks or m1 garand and be done with it.
 
Getting arrested and going to court is its own punishment. Even if by some miracle the judge throws it out on a technicality, it’s not fun to spend a year and $10k defending yourself, and the whole time the prosecutor just wants you to plead guilty and is threatening you with spending your 20s in MCI Walpole.

If you really want a detachable mag lower, get a SAFE Act compliant rifle and keep it at your NY residence until you turn 21.
 
Thanks for purchasing a JC Arms product, I appreciate the business and support. With regards to the fixed mag aspect, my product won a favorable judgement in court for after I outlined a few things.....

1. It was originally manufactured as a fixed magazine
2. Per 501 CMR, it was not "immediately capable of being altered so as to accept a large capacity magazine.."

I would think that the product you are describing makes it "immediately capable" as described above. I would tread carefully, because just being charged will cost you attorney fees, having a permanent mark on your criminal history, and likely having your license suspended until the charge is disposed. As someone said above, cops are not lawyers, and that's why they only need to articulate probable cause, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is reserved for court. Having gone through a court case that specifically centered on the fixed magazine aspect, I can assure the probable cause threshold will likely be met at arraignment. I am a full time police officer, hold 4 FFL's (3 07's & an 01), and I love firearms....this is my .02
 
Thanks for purchasing a JC Arms product, I appreciate the business and support. With regards to the fixed mag aspect, my product won a favorable judgement in court for after I outlined a few things.....

1. It was originally manufactured as a fixed magazine
2. Per 501 CMR, it was not "immediately capable of being altered so as to accept a large capacity magazine.."

I would think that the product you are describing makes it "immediately capable" as described above. I would tread carefully, because just being charged will cost you attorney fees, having a permanent mark on your criminal history, and likely having your license suspended until the charge is disposed. As someone said above, cops are not lawyers, and that's why they only need to articulate probable cause, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is reserved for court. Having gone through a court case that specifically centered on the fixed magazine aspect, I can assure the probable cause threshold will likely be met at arraignment. I am a full time police officer, hold 4 FFL's (3 07's & an 01), and I love firearms....this is my .02
OP, listen to Joe. He knows what he is talking about and this advice is solid.
 
If you are at a point where a cop is looking at your fid while you are in possession of a firearm, you are already in a heap of trouble.

Just buy a fixed mag lower from JC arms and be done with it. When you get your LTC, go buy a regular lower from someone at the Mill.
 
Thanks for purchasing a JC Arms product, I appreciate the business and support. With regards to the fixed mag aspect, my product won a favorable judgement in court for after I outlined a few things.....

1. It was originally manufactured as a fixed magazine
2. Per 501 CMR, it was not "immediately capable of being altered so as to accept a large capacity magazine.."

I would think that the product you are describing makes it "immediately capable" as described above.

I have a vision in my head of the police armorer being called to the stand in court. He pulls the rear pin on the AR, ejects the mag with the "AR Maglock", inserts a 30 rounder, and closes the receivers.

The prosecutor turns to the jury of not-your-peers and asks, "Is that immediately capable enough for you?"

The armorer would to have a much harder (though not impossible) time getting a PMag out of a JC Arms receiver.
 
Back
Top Bottom