Assault Style Firearm Update – March 27, 2025

[pastera]

If it was purchased before 2016, then out was purchased before 8/2024.

So answer my question.

I answered your question
Was the item lawfully possessed (ownership is irrelevant) in Massachusetts on 8/1/2024?

On 8/12024 the old law was active therefore the stripped lower was simply a federally regulated part with no real relevance in Mass law.
Therefore unless you are a prohibited person, it was lawful on 8/1/2024 to possess a stripped AR lower.
On October 2nd, the new law became active and that lower instantly becomes a Massachusetts regulated part treated the same as an operational firearm - it under the law IS an "assault-style firearm" unless it also falls under the 7/20/2016 exclusion from copies or duplicates definition (which as a stripped lower it can not).
People are mixing up how the federal AWB worked with how the Mass ASF ban works.
The federal ban defined only items manufactured after a certain date to be assault weapons creating the concept of "pre-ban"
The Mass ASF defines ALL of the covered items as ASFs regardless of manufacturing date (2016 bs aside) and exempts from prohibition certain ASFs.
If an ASF defined item was in lawful possession on 8/1/2024 per the previous legal framework, then it is exempt from prohibition under the current framework.
Setting aside compliant rifles as having some unanswered questions of legality, there is essentially zero wiggle room to say that a stripped lower possessed by a dealer or LTC holder was anything but lawfully possessed. And an unfinished 80% was unquestionably lawful to possess by anyone INCLUDING an unlicensed individual or even prohibited person (but they were screwed on Oct 2nd)

 

[paul73]

Was the item lawfully possessed

according to new explanation, nothing purchased AFTER 2016 and BEFORE 8/1/24 was lawfully possessed. as they reclassified it to be an unlawful purchase.
post factum.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Restraining orders are one thing.

Worrying about whether you can "legally" sell an 80% lower you bought on 1 August versus 31 July, or worrying you'll be arrested over that, is another.

Agreed, I stopped worrying about all this crap a long time ago. I just mind my business and live my life.

But when people are posting saying “if you don’t do anything wrong nothing will happen” that’s not entirely true. There are other ways it can come into your life without doing anything wrong. Yes the odds are low, very low, but they are not zero.

 

[MAJoe]

I answered your question
Was the item lawfully possessed (ownership is irrelevant) in Massachusetts on 8/1/2024?

On 8/12024 the old law was active therefore the stripped lower was simply a federally regulated part with no real relevance in Mass law.
Therefore unless you are a prohibited person, it was lawful on 8/1/2024 to possess a stripped AR lower.
On October 2nd, the new law became active and that lower instantly becomes a Massachusetts regulated part treated the same as an operational firearm - it under the law IS an "assault-style firearm" unless it also falls under the 7/20/2016 exclusion from copies or duplicates definition (which as a stripped lower it can not).
People are mixing up how the federal AWB worked with how the Mass ASF ban works.
The federal ban defined only items manufactured after a certain date to be assault weapons creating the concept of "pre-ban"
The Mass ASF defines ALL of the covered items as ASFs regardless of manufacturing date (2016 bs aside) and exempts from prohibition certain ASFs.
If an ASF defined item was in lawful possession on 8/1/2024 per the previous legal framework, then it is exempt from prohibition under the current framework.
Setting aside compliant rifles as having some unanswered questions of legality, there is essentially zero wiggle room to say that a stripped lower possessed by a dealer or LTC holder was anything but lawfully possessed. And an unfinished 80% was unquestionably lawful to possess by anyone INCLUDING an unlicensed individual or even prohibited person (but they were screwed on Oct 2nd)

Will Chevron also apply to the registration clause pointing at the new (not old FA10 requirement)? If so, that’ll screw a lot of people.

 

[rogersmithiii]

NH is awesome guys. Come on up. I’ve got 30+ silencers now with tax stamps getting approved in hours, all the “evil” feature rifles, SBRs up the ass, it’s awesome. No state income tax. No sales tax, surrounded by horse farms. All my neighbors own chickens and livestock. I’m 50 min from Boston. Very little traffic. Very few hood rats. It’s great. Every day is Christmas. It’s like 80% MA 20% FL.

You need to do your part and take in your share of hood denizens in your town. All of those boring NH folks create no excitement.

 

[pewpewpew]

Unless, of course, you "registered" a post-7/16 lower with a .22lr upper before 8/1, which Healy's edict explicitly stated was not a copy or duplicate.
View attachment 980075

Granted, just about all of this is guardhouse lawyer BS.

I was curious about this so I went and read the letter. It goes on to say that something can still fail on the features test even if it is exempted from the Copies & Duplicates designation.

I suppose someone who had either a non-compliant, or something not allowed (in the state's eyes) could have just broken it down to not-a-gun level on 8/1 and thus be grandfathered in?

It's just so much stupid legal nonsense with correspondingly stupid contrived loophole scenarios.

Makes my head spin.

 

[MAJoe]

I was curious about this so I went and read the letter. It goes on to say that something can still fail on the features test even if it is exempted from the Copies & Duplicates designation.

I suppose someone who had either a non-compliant, or something not allowed (in the state's eyes) could have just broken it down to not-a-gun level on 8/1 and thus be grandfathered in?

It's just so much stupid legal nonsense with correspondingly stupid contrived loophole scenarios.

Makes my head spin.

I THINK what they’re trying to say is that if you didn’t abide by the old law features (like, had a flash hider on your AR) then you aren’t grandfathered because it wasn’t lawful. Since the clause is on 8/1, not prior to that date, it would seem from a strict reading it would matter what config it was in on that date.

There is a note in GOAL’s post that makes it seem you can’t modify it now that it is grandfathered even though nothing in the law says that.

 

[pastera]

Restraining orders are one thing.

Worrying about whether you can "legally" sell an 80% lower you bought on 1 August versus 31 July, or worrying you'll be arrested over that, is another.

The only hiccup with an 80% is you now need a license to possess after 10/2/2024.
And if it is a generic forged part it would be extremely difficult for the state to prove that you didn't pay cash for it in a random person to person transaction before 8/1/24.

according to new explanation, nothing purchased AFTER 2016 and BEFORE 8/1/24 was lawfully possessed. as they reclassified it to be an unlawful purchase.
post factum.

Purchase is irrelevant - possession is key.
And they can say anything they want at this point - once they publish their "rules" and attempt to enforce them, that's when we find out exactly what the words in the law mean.

The idea that a functional rifle may have been considered an assault weapon regardless of compliance work is debatable and must be adjudicated.

However since stripped receivers had no mention in the previous law they could not be considered banned items and therefore were, on 8/1/2024, lawfully possessed.
There is no question that a stripped receiver became legally defined as a firearm on Oct 2nd. Further if that receiver was a receiver compatible with an enumerated ASF, it is by legal definition an ASF.
We then move on to 131m where the legality of ASF is defined. 131m(a) blanket prohibits possession of ALL ASF designated firearms. The prohibition is excluded from firearms that were lawfully possessed on 8/1/2024
That list includes:
Pre 94 enumerated firearms that were excluded from the previous AWB laws
Certain pre 7/25/2016 enumerated copies and duplicates that are feature compliant.
Those items that were not considered firearms, rifles or shotguns under previous definitions but are now defined as assault-style firearms

Even Mass courts will have serious issues with banning everything post 7/2016

 

[pastera]

Will Chevron also apply to the registration clause pointing at the new (not old FA10 requirement)? If so, that’ll screw a lot of people.

You need to explain the question better.
Chevron stated that courts must accept the government's interpretation of a law or regulation
The new requirement hasn't become active so it can't screw anyone

 

[wcorey]

If it’s an AR or other “banned lower” and it wasn’t serialized by 8/1, then it’s not exempt no matter when you bought it or submitted an FA10 for it.

The more or less rhetorical question I started this with was a general response to people that have been saying and/or insinuating
there was no good reason and/or you were a retarded pant shitting fag to have fa-10'ed stripped/completed 80% lowers in leu of the
upcoming CH135 and 8/1.

My reasoning is that serializing and fa-10'ing was a way to establish some level of provenance as to date of being in the state, as
there was no 4473 involved. Serializing also let you do your own #'s and avoided the future hassle of applying for an assigned one
(with probably lot's of digits) from the state.

That's assuming you wanted to comply with the soon to be enacted law as was written and of course if they decide to pull off some
sort of retroactive 2016 copies & duplicates shenanigan's then you outed yourself...

And for those "you perjured yourself on the fa-10!" finger pointing types...
If you really wanted to dot the i's and cross the t's then slap a trigger/buffer tube and upper on it while you filled out the fa-10
so you could legally call it a functioning gun and have a legitimate caliber/barrel length, lol.

 

[MAJoe]

You need to explain the question better.
Chevron stated that courts must accept the government's interpretation of a law or regulation
The new requirement hasn't become active so it can't screw anyone

Sorry. The state in that guidance is interpreting the law where it says registered to mean under the old system, despite it not saying that and the actuality that it wasn’t a registration system. How much deference is given under Chevron to that wide of an interpretation?

 

[pastera]

Sorry. The state in that guidance is interpreting the law where it says registered to mean under the old system, despite it not saying that and the actuality that it wasn’t a registration system. How much deference is given under Chevron to that wide of an interpretation?

Chevron is dead but I am 100% certain the courts would find the reference to registration in the ASF copies and duplicates definition would be adjudicated to be the same as an entry onto the FA-10 database.

I say Chevron is dead but most Mass courts will give lip service to it's death but defer to the state's interpretation as much as possible.
But where language is clear, the common interpretation holds - this is why I state that post 7/25/2016 firearms are in question but stripped receivers are not.

 

[CrackPot]

Sorry. The state in that guidance is interpreting the law where it says registered to mean under the old system, despite it not saying that and the actuality that it wasn’t a registration system. How much deference is given under Chevron to that wide of an interpretation?

I think it gets even better when you look at the old law. The legal requirement was for the seller to record the transaction at time of transfer/sale. If it was "not a firearm" so a lower, no such thing needed to occur. The requirement on an LTC holder is that if you "purchased or obtained" a firearm from other than a MA dealer or LTC holder you had 7 days from "purchasing or obtaining" to record the transaction.

So, some scenarios

• is assembly of a lower into a rifle by a private party "purchase or obtain"?
  • If yes, then why did the new law change to "purchase, obtain, manufacture or assemble"?
  • If no, then there was never a requirement to "register" so how do you now declare the gun illegal?
• if it was purchased as a rifle and the seller failed to record the transaction, this was not a legal failing on the buyer. BUT you would now say it was not "registered" so not grandfathered. So the buyer met all their legal obligations and you are now saying it is an illegal ASF and not exempt? hmm

There is zero logic to their position. While I believe we would eventually succeed in court, I think the test case is going to go through living hell... The gun community's Karen Read...

 

[pupchow]

I think it gets even better when you look at the old law. The legal requirement was for the seller to record the transaction at time of transfer/sale. If it was "not a firearm" so a lower, no such thing needed to occur. The requirement on an LTC holder is that if you "purchased or obtained" a firearm from other than a MA dealer or LTC holder you had 7 days from "purchasing or obtaining" to record the transaction.

So, some scenarios

• is assembly of a lower into a rifle by a private party "purchase or obtain"?
  • If yes, then why did the new law change to "purchase, obtain, manufacture or assemble"?
  • If no, then there was never a requirement to "register" so how do you now declare the gun illegal?
• if it was purchased as a rifle and the seller failed to record the transaction, this was not a legal failing on the buyer. BUT you would now say it was not "registered" so not grandfathered. So the buyer met all their legal obligations and you are now saying it is an illegal ASF and not exempt? hmm

There is zero logic to their position. While I believe we would eventually succeed in court, I think the test case is going to go through living hell... The gun community's Karen Read...

Zactly.

 

[MAJoe]

I think it gets even better when you look at the old law. The legal requirement was for the seller to record the transaction at time of transfer/sale. If it was "not a firearm" so a lower, no such thing needed to occur. The requirement on an LTC holder is that if you "purchased or obtained" a firearm from other than a MA dealer or LTC holder you had 7 days from "purchasing or obtaining" to record the transaction.

So, some scenarios

• is assembly of a lower into a rifle by a private party "purchase or obtain"?
  • If yes, then why did the new law change to "purchase, obtain, manufacture or assemble"?
  • If no, then there was never a requirement to "register" so how do you now declare the gun illegal?
• if it was purchased as a rifle and the seller failed to record the transaction, this was not a legal failing on the buyer. BUT you would now say it was not "registered" so not grandfathered. So the buyer met all their legal obligations and you are now saying it is an illegal ASF and not exempt? hmm

There is zero logic to their position. While I believe we would eventually succeed in court, I think the test case is going to go through living hell... The gun community's Karen Read...

Fully agree. Also the no requirement for people moving into the state to register. There’s a laundry list of legal, no FA10 guns, and like you said, buyers may be completely unaware if a form was done because it wasn’t their responsibility.

There was also a case discussed here where a Boston resident successfully argued in court that an assembled firearm from a stripped receiver did not require a FA10.

 

[MAJoe]

Chevron is dead but I am 100% certain the courts would find the reference to registration in the ASF copies and duplicates definition would be adjudicated to be the same as an entry onto the FA-10 database.

I say Chevron is dead but most Mass courts will give lip service to it's death but defer to the state's interpretation as much as possible.
But where language is clear, the common interpretation holds - this is why I state that post 7/25/2016 firearms are in question but stripped receivers are not.

Thanks, makes sense to me.

 

[FireMedic102]

I answered your question
Was the item lawfully possessed (ownership is irrelevant) in Massachusetts on 8/1/2024?

On 8/12024 the old law was active therefore the stripped lower was simply a federally regulated part with no real relevance in Mass law.
Therefore unless you are a prohibited person, it was lawful on 8/1/2024 to possess a stripped AR lower.
On October 2nd, the new law became active and that lower instantly becomes a Massachusetts regulated part treated the same as an operational firearm - it under the law IS an "assault-style firearm" unless it also falls under the 7/20/2016 exclusion from copies or duplicates definition (which as a stripped lower it can not).
People are mixing up how the federal AWB worked with how the Mass ASF ban works.
The federal ban defined only items manufactured after a certain date to be assault weapons creating the concept of "pre-ban"
The Mass ASF defines ALL of the covered items as ASFs regardless of manufacturing date (2016 bs aside) and exempts from prohibition certain ASFs.
If an ASF defined item was in lawful possession on 8/1/2024 per the previous legal framework, then it is exempt from prohibition under the current framework.
Setting aside compliant rifles as having some unanswered questions of legality, there is essentially zero wiggle room to say that a stripped lower possessed by a dealer or LTC holder was anything but lawfully possessed. And an unfinished 80% was unquestionably lawful to possess by anyone INCLUDING an unlicensed individual or even prohibited person (but they were screwed on Oct 2nd)

How can it automatically be assumed that a stripped lower is an ASF? What if the plan is to build it into a fixed magazine rifle? How can it be assumed that its a copy or duplicate? What is you put an Sig MCX upper on it? That’s a weapon with a completely different mechanism and widely accepted as not on the copies and duplicates list. Once again more questions than answers.

 

[CrackPot]

How can it automatically be assumed that a stripped lower is an ASF? What if the plan is to build it into a fixed magazine rifle? How can it be assumed that its a copy or duplicate? What is you put an Sig MCX upper on it? That’s a weapon with a completely different mechanism and widely accepted as not on the copies and duplicates list. Once again more questions than answers.

All AR lowers I have are meant to be built into 22LR rifles which cannot be ASFs as they are not centerfire. I am not sure why people are trying to convince other people to their viewpoint. The final answer is NO ONE FCKING KNOWS. Decide your own risk and move on.

 

[CapeCod Shooter_56]

How can it automatically be assumed that a stripped lower is an ASF? What if the plan is to build it into a fixed magazine rifle? How can it be assumed that its a copy or duplicate? What is you put an Sig MCX upper on it? That’s a weapon with a completely different mechanism and widely accepted as not on the copies and duplicates list. Once again more questions than answers.

They make complete upper receivers that are bolt action for relatively short money. I would suggest investing in a couple of those to match your lower count. When new registration goes live register every lower as bolt action. Don’t get caught with old uppers on lower. Enjoy. Not a lawyer here.

 

[MAJoe]

All AR lowers I have are meant to be built into 22LR rifles which cannot be ASFs as they are not centerfire. I am not sure why people are trying to convince other people to their viewpoint. The final answer is NO ONE FCKING KNOWS. Decide your own risk and move on.

They make complete upper receivers that are bolt action for relatively short money. I would suggest investing in a couple of those to match your lower count. When new registration goes live register every lower as bolt action. Don’t get caught with old uppers on lower. Enjoy. Not a lawyer here.

This clause doesn’t require a rifle to be centerfire:

(f) a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a
firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e); provided further, that the firearm shall not be considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016

I’ve seen a few comments on building bolt action or rimfire ARs, but I don’t see that getting around the issue that the receiver is the same. This is why the 15-22 is still fine and I assume manufactured fixed mag rifles.

 

[CapeCod Shooter_56]

This clause doesn’t require a rifle to be centerfire:


I’ve seen a few comments on building bolt action or rimfire ARs, but I don’t see that getting around the issue that the receiver is the same. This is why the 15-22 is still fine and I assume manufactured fixed mag rifles.

A bolt action isn’t semi auto therefore can’t be an ASF regardless if it uses the same receiver. A fixed mag AR uses the same receiver and those are compliant no?

 

[MickeyD’s]

Gotta love mass

We now have interpretation of interpretations ,trying to be codified by an advisory board

After the legislation is passed

 

[MAJoe]

A bolt action isn’t semi auto therefore can’t be an ASF regardless if it uses the same receiver. A fixed mag AR uses the same receiver and those are compliant no?

It doesn’t matter. Clause A requires a rifle to be semi auto, centerfire with a detachable mag to be subject to the new features test. If it’s an enumerated rifle or a copy (Clause F), it only needs to have a detachable mag.

A fixed mag AR would be legal since it was not manufactured or configured after to use a detachable mag, unless of course it’s added to the list the FCAB is drafting.

 

[pastera]

How can it automatically be assumed that a stripped lower is an ASF? What if the plan is to build it into a fixed magazine rifle? How can it be assumed that its a copy or duplicate? What is you put an Sig MCX upper on it? That’s a weapon with a completely different mechanism and widely accepted as not on the copies and duplicates list. Once again more questions than answers.

Unless it currently is configured as a fixed magazine then it is an ASF.
And given the SCOTUS rubber stamp on the ATF screwing with "readily convertible" if you have a fixed mag, a drill and mag release parts then an argument can be made that you have an ASF kit.

 

[CapeCod Shooter_56]

It doesn’t matter. Clause A requires a rifle to be semi auto, centerfire with a detachable mag to be subject to the new features test. If it’s an enumerated rifle or a copy (Clause F), it only needs to have a detachable mag.

A fixed mag AR would be legal since it was not manufactured or configured after to use a detachable mag, unless of course it’s added to the list the FCAB is drafting.

How can it be considered a copy when the action of the rifle is completely different?

 

[FireMedic102]

Unless it currently is configured as a fixed magazine then it is an ASF.
And given the SCOTUS rubber stamp on the ATF screwing with "readily convertible" if you have a fixed mag, a drill and mag release parts then an argument can be made that you have an ASF kit.

It’s not configured as anything if it’s a stripped receiver. Although it’s legally a firearm there’s plenty of possibilities as to how it will be built out.

 

[MAJoe]

How can it be considered a copy when the action of the rifle is completely different?

The lower and LPK are all 100% the same. That’s what they care about.

(ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e)

 

[CapeCod Shooter_56]

The lower and LPK are all 100% the same. That’s what they care about.

(ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e)

And read the clause that bolt, pump, lever, and slide action firearms are exempt. To be considered an ASF it MUST be semi auto.

 

[FireMedic102]

The lower and LPK are all 100% the same. That’s what they care about.

(ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e)

Well so does an MCX but those can still be bought as long as they have the fin grip.

 

[wcorey]

Well so does an MCX but those can still be bought as long as they have the fin grip.

In Ma?
I thought anything rifle post 8/1 that's semi-auto/centerfire/detachable mag had to be manufactured to fixed mag...