AR MR2

dcmdon said:
The reason nobody uses the AR MR2 in MA is because it sucks worse than having a standard compliant AR.

What would you rather have? An AR with a fixed stock, a muzzle brake and no bayonet lug, OR one where you have to open the action to change the magazine.



Comeon, lets be serious here.

About the only application for this device in MA would be if you had some kind of investment grade AR, and didn't want to change anything.
Click to expand...

I'm looking from the perspective of, what could be undone if you moved to a free state, wanted to sell out of state, or AWBs were declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. You could potentially swap out the MR2 for standard lower parts. The Bayo lug is useful if you want to put a Bayo on it. : ). I would also prefer a flash hider to a brake, or the ability to swap out parts.

Can't put a bayo lug back on, and I hear unpinning a brake is not easy.
 
Last edited:
It's very easy to remove.

If you've installed permanent, take a 1/8" bit and drill through the cap screw (destroys it) and pop it's top off.

Also, you can cut the linkage to the upper receiver and it becomes a normal mag release. I'll release a graphic here soon: "In case of Zombies, cut along dotted line." :)

If it's not permanently installed, just unscrew the cap screw and replace with a mag release of your choosing (~3-5 minutes work with the included 7/64 hex key).

You're right about the bayonet lug; once you shave it off your only option is to buy a new Front Sight Tower. Bayonets are lame, as they are heavy and mess with your shot (weight on the end of a rifle is a BAD thing). I have seen some flashlights that mount to a bayo lug, or even bipods, but I've never used one myself.

The pinned muzzle brake is a headache. Drilling through the weld to get to the pin is a real pain, as it is often a curved surface and the material is hardened by the heat. Assuming you get through the weld, you'll have to remove enough material to pop the pin out. A gunsmith will normally do this for you for about $60, + price of whatever barrel accessory that will replace the brake. Personally, I prefer to swap out as I often change my mind, and reconfigure to a new muzzle device.

My .02
 
Last edited:
Which brings me back to my original point. Most people are better served by a brake than a flash hider. And many of us don't plan on using a bayonet lug.

Through a variety of means, I can legally have anything I want on most of my ARs. I could care less about a bayonet lug and prefer brakes over FHs. Choice is good. But its definitely not worth giving up the ability to do a fast single handed mag change.

But thats just me.

The only reason I could ever see using this in MA would be if I just moved here and had a couple of ARs and wanted to use them while I figured out what I was going to do with them.
 
if this passes muster in CT, it will make AR pistols really easy to build and keep you legal when you have it loaded in your truck/car. And if you want to risk it, hide a 30 rounder loaded in your trunk or under hood, first possesion is a misdemeanor.
 
AR M2:

Do you have any confirmation from NYS that this meets the current laws to preclude registration for an AR with this device installed? My friend in NYS wants to know. Thanks.
 
Negative. NY has neither approved nor rejected AR MR2 as a compliance device.

The closest thing to an opinion from NY we can get is from their counsel. I plan to follow in Exile Machine's footsteps with the Hammer Head grip:

https://www.exilemachine.net/shop/pages/new-york-legal-considerations-34.html
"Through our attorneys (Tresmond Law, Hamburg NY) we have had a conversation with the head counsel for the New York State Police. They maintain that an AR-15 rifle with a permanently affixed Hammerhead stock adapter with buttstock attached (in what we call Type I or Type II configuration) and no other NY-SAFE prohibited features constitutes a sporting rifle and not an assault weapon. Sporting rifles do not need to be registered under NY-SAFE. Our customers in California can legally use Type III or IV configuration (Hammerhead as a grip-only) due to their law's precise definition of "pistol grip." New York law has no such definition and we strongly advise against using the product in this configuration in New York State. Note that simply adding the Hammerhead to your rifle is insufficient. It's not made of some magical arrest-resistant polymer. The rifle must have none of the prohibited features. Cementing the product to your receiver using epoxy is a legally sufficient means for securing the product permanently."

Note, even with the opinion in place there is still risk associated with the device. I'm in the same spot.

Exile Machine addresses the featureless configuration. I'm going after the "detachable magazine" portion with AR MR2.
 
AR MR2 - is correct.

Nobody's opinion, including the AG or the DESPP has any weight of law. The only thing that matters is case law, and that hasn't been made yet.

However, opinions rendered by the AG or DESPP give insight into whether they would arrest and prosecute someone with a rifle equipped with this device.
As of now, after being asked explicitly by myself and others, representatives from the DESPP have explicitly said, in writing, that they will not render an opinion.

Don
 
It will be interesting to see if some gun store in CT decides to install these parts and start selling "compliant" evil guns.
 
Update on NY: NYST has acknowledged (verbal, phone) AR MR2 would be legal under the NY SAFE Act. Their opinion is that the magazine cannot be removed during operation for it to be a legal sporting rifle with features.

I'm working to get this in writing.
 
AR MR2 said:
Update on NY: NYST has acknowledged (verbal, phone) AR MR2 would be legal under the NY SAFE Act. Their opinion is that the magazine cannot be removed during operation for it to be a legal sporting rifle with features.

I'm working to get this in writing.
Click to expand...

Any update on a written OK? Inquiring minds want to know.

Actually, I want to take my AR to NYS to hunt with this attached so I can cut through the registration baloney.
 
AR MR2 said:
My bust, I'll stop littering the forums.

If this is to be the dedicated thread, then let me clutter it up exclusively:

Live Fire Demo: Introducing AR MR2 - Magazine Lock for your AR-15 Rifle/Pistol for "Ban" States (CA CT NY) - YouTube
Click to expand...

Since the other thread got locked because of dupe here is my response (copied) to this:


****ing BRILLIANT!

Once again, American ingenuity prevails. If you BAN IT, we will find a way AROUND the ban.

Why?

Because **** you that's why!
 
We're still waiting for Tresmond law to make the meeting mid September. He called 2 weekends ago, sounded puzzled that I haven't received his retainer agreement. 2 weeks later, still no agreement.

Once I have the letter, I don't imagine I'll keep it a secret. [smile]

In the meantime, here's a great page guns.com put up, along with some AWESOME shots from Rainier Arms: Introducing the AR MR2 Bullet Button Alternative (VIDEO)

-AR MR2
 
Ok, back to MA. Any opinions on how this would affect MA for AR pistol builds?

A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of...
Click to expand...

Does this make the magazine not "detachable" thus eliminating the need to comply with the other conditions?
 
Last edited:
soloman02 said:
Since the other thread got locked because of dupe here is my response (copied) to this:


****ing BRILLIANT!

Once again, American ingenuity prevails. If you BAN IT, we will find a way AROUND the ban.

Why?

Because **** you that's why!
Click to expand...

I saw a meme floating around that made me smile to this very effect: Why do I need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine? F*** YOU THAT'S WHY

This should be a T-Shirt.
 
Mr. Brownstone said:
Ok, back to MA. Any opinions on how this would affect MA for AR pistol builds?



Does this make the magazine not "detachable" thus eliminating the need to comply with the other conditions?
Click to expand...

I haven't been chipping away at MA, I only have so much bandwidth to allocate.

Half the battle is asking the authorities the question the "right" way:

"Is a firearm equipped with a device that prevents the insertion or removal of the magazine as long as it is in operation compliant with the laws"

From what I hear, NYS's response over the phone was "Yes, it is compliant as long as the magazine cannot be removed while the firearm is in operation"

In MA's case, I'd imagine the same question would get a similar response. Can you provide a link to the MA section re: assault weapon definition so I can look it over?
 
The reality is based on a couple of things in MA.

1) there is little chance you will get a straight answer
2) if you will do, it will go against your interest.
3) Regardless of the answer, it has no weight of law. It is just an opinion.
4) Although these are opinions, they do have some relevance. it tells you the position of that one particular person in Government at that point in time.

5) The only opinion that has any weight of law is an opinion arrived at by a court.

In the end, it comes down to the question of whether or not you are an ask for permission or ask for forgiveness type of person.

With respect to the MR2's use in CT. I asked the CT DESPP for an opinion. They refused to render one. That is excellent protection against prosecution/persecution. Since it shows that you attempted to comply with the law, and would have, if the government entity enforcing that law had given you their opinion.

I hope this helps.

Don

p.s. Comms from CT DESPP:

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Damato, Kenneth <Kenneth.Damato@ct.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. abc:
I am not inclined to render a decision on this issue at this time.
Det. Kenneth Damato #615 CSP SLFU
 
dcmdon said:
Correct. But this is a CT forum. Just an FYI.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm a M@ssh@le so it's all about me! ; )

Edit:
I mean, I posted this not realizing it was in the CT area, I had just been following the MR2 device thread. There was some talk about NY so I wasn't clued in that it was CT state specific. It would be cool if this device made it so Lowers could be sold as pistols in MA.

Edit2: Just saw your response. Thanks. I know there is no straight answers in MA, but if there was some consensus that it were legal, at least to get the lower sold as a pistol, I would be interested. Also, maybe an ATF ruling, I know that people will say that ATF won't rule on MA law. ATF says you can manufacture (I read build) your own firearms, as long as they comply with state law, so in effect you wouldn't you be complying with their rules?
AR MR2 said:
I haven't been chipping away at MA, I only have so much bandwidth to allocate.

Half the battle is asking the authorities the question the "right" way:

"Is a firearm equipped with a device that prevents the insertion or removal of the magazine as long as it is in operation compliant with the laws"

From what I hear, NYS's response over the phone was "Yes, it is compliant as long as the magazine cannot be removed while the firearm is in operation"

In MA's case, I'd imagine the same question would get a similar response. Can you provide a link to the MA section re: assault weapon definition so I can look it over?
Click to expand...

"Assault Weapon" Facts and Information for MA Residents

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

Please let me know if that is enough, or I dig for some more. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Key phrase in MA: "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--"

A magazine cannot be inserted or removed while the firearm is in an operable state, thus there is no ability to accept a detachable magazine.

I'm not a lawyer.... blah... blah... <cover my butt legal phrase inserted here>.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Brownstone said:
Yes, but I'm a M@ssh@le so it's all about me! ; )

Edit:
I mean, I posted this not realizing it was in the CT area, I had just been following the MR2 device thread. There was some talk about NY so I wasn't clued in that it was CT state specific. It would be cool if this device made it so Lowers could be sold as pistols in MA.

Edit2: Just saw your response. Thanks. I know there is no straight answers in MA, but if there was some consensus that it were legal, at least to get the lower sold as a pistol, I would be interested. Also, maybe an ATF ruling, I know that people will say that ATF won't rule on MA law. ATF says you can manufacture (I read build) your own firearms, as long as they comply with state law, so in effect you wouldn't you be complying with their rules?


"Assault Weapon" Facts and Information for MA Residents

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

Please let me know if that is enough, or I dig for some more. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to the text of the '94 federal law.

Text of H.R. 4296 (103rd): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

Which defines an assault weapon in the "evil features" portion as

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;

The key here is that none of the other items apply if the rifle does not accept a detachable magazine.

So the only issue that applies to both CT and MA is whether the MR2 meets the definition of whether or not its use makes the gun no longer have a detachable magazine.

Don
 
dcmdon said:
Here is a link to the text of the '94 federal law.

Text of H.R. 4296 (103rd): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

Which defines an assault weapon in the "evil features" portion as

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;

The key here is that none of the other items apply if the rifle does not accept a detachable magazine.

So the only issue that applies to both CT and MA is whether the MR2 meets the definition of whether or not its use makes the gun no longer have a detachable magazine.

Don
Click to expand...

Correct. That is the million dollar question. What is the legal definition of "Detachable?"

I have a tendency to yell out" Eureeka!" and then find out something was glaringly wrong with my theory...
 
CA tipped the anti-hand a bit, with the CA DOJ clarifying the issue through regulation

CA Penal Code 12276.1 (a) which defines "detachable magazine" to mean any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.
We kicked their butts in court with Haynie vs. Pleasanton, so they are clarifying further by legislating the phrase "nor use of a tool being required" out of the law and requiring disassembly of the firearm action.

Given Fienswine has been trailblazing the anti front, all the democrats have been copying her language to follow suit. She tried to introduce a federal ban this year (S150), which included the language above prohibiting the use of a tool. Given that failed, the blue states are banning in their jurisdictions per POTUS marching orders. When your party leader issues a platform (in this case, a gun control push), you follow.

My .02
 
AR MR2 said:
CA tipped the anti-hand a bit, with the CA DOJ clarifying the issue through regulation

CA Penal Code 12276.1 (a) which defines "detachable magazine" to mean any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.
We kicked their butts in court with Haynie vs. Pleasanton, so they are clarifying further by legislating the phrase "nor use of a tool being required" out of the law and requiring disassembly of the firearm action.

Given Fienswine has been trailblazing the anti front, all the democrats have been copying her language to follow suit. She tried to introduce a federal ban this year (S150), which included the language above prohibiting the use of a tool. Given that failed, the blue states are banning in their jurisdictions per POTUS marching orders. When your party leader issues a platform (in this case, a gun control push), you follow.

My .02
Click to expand...

To clarify, as I understand it, this device meets the requirement for both the old definition and the proposed definition.
 
i am on the verge of getting it, i believe it complies with the spirit of the law. If some prosecutor wants to charge me for it as a stand alone crime of unregistered assault weapon then it will be real screwed up for me and them
 
Re: New York

http://www.nyfirearm...r-15-kit-2.html

See NYShooter1 (Firearms Lawyer) response in this thread. Snip:

"My legal judgment is that this device makes your AR completely legal and not required to be registered. This is my opinion, I cannot guarantee the state will agree but there is no way they could claim this uses a detachable magazine, and that is the key."
 

Similar threads

New debate on AR style weapons
Replies
4
Views
390
sbhaven
S
Essential arms Pre-ban J-15
Replies
4
Views
2K
413guy
413guy
Fixed Magazine AR law compliance
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
dcmdon
dcmdon
AR-15 Dedicated to 22LR
Replies
9
Views
1K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Plan ahead - legal way to get fully legal AR Rifle.
Replies
12
Views
2K
aeromarine
A
Back
Top Bottom