Read what EasyD wrote, if you don't get it you don't get it. People are going to believe what they want, just like the S128A/B disco. I can get 3 gun attorneys in a room and they
will all disagree on what those two piles of shit mean.
EasyD's logical is flawed. He says since rifle is not defined in that section you must use MA definition of rifle. A SBR is not a rifle, poof. It does not work that way. If it pulled in federal law by saying the text of federal law appears HERE in our definition, then we would fall back on MA rifle definition. Instead it says AW is as defined in this section of federal law which means you have to take the full context and relevant definitions in federal law around the section in question.
If we accept EasyD's logic, then lets talk pistols and the AWB. No one reasonably thinks all pistols are exempt from the AWB because the referenced law does not define pistol. MA does not define pistol so we cannot fall back on the MA definition. This would mean that pistols are exempt from the AWB. Hmm. that does not hold water.
So how did we decide to apply the semiautomatic pistol section of federal law to "firearms" as defined by MA (usually pistols). Since a SBR is a "firearm" and identical to any pistol under MA law, would not the semiautomatic pistol definition of the federal AWB not apply to SBRs?
The logic of EasyD is not self consistent. There are 3 choices that are logically self consistent
- SBRs are exempt. Pistols ("firearms under MA law") are exempt
- "Firearms" (pistols) are subject to federal semiauto pistol definition so therefore so are SBRs
- SBRs are subject to rifle definition and "firearms" when they are pistols are subject to pistol definition
So if you go with (1) you have to go with all of (1). So build out your AR and AK pistols because clearly they are exempt by the same logic.
Then we had that fun thing where the AG was all like "YOU CANT LET UNWASHED PEOPLE SHOOT MACHINE GUNS!" tries to prosecute police chief guy. Fails. But now everyone
still believes her drivel on that and it became gospel.
Unfortunately the way our shitty laws are written, this interpretation is likely "correct" even if not the original intent. Similar to the fact that an SBR is not a rifle but a "firearm" which fell out of the AG desire to shutdown sale of Shockwaves. They read the law and actually correctly parsed what it said. You can carry a loaded SBR under your direct control, or a shockwave. They are "firearms" just like all handguns.
On the topic of machine guns. I will go pull out the relevant references if needed but a) it is illegal to possess one w/o a license and b) there is no carve out for under the direct supervision of someone who is allowed to possess. General possession of a firearm, shotgun or rifle has a carve out for when you are under the supervision of a LTC/FID holder as appropriate. Machine guns no such luck. So the moment you take possession you have committed a felony with a life sentence.
It sucks, but that is how the law is constructed.
This state is f***ed.
ETA: Actually in light of what happened with the fixed mag pistol thing, anything is possible- because basically they used Healey's edict to prove that was legal, and her edict isn't even really law.... or is it?
Yes, this state is fuhked and otherwise sucks. The laws were written by untrained monkeys. The fact that the definition of barrel length includes the cylinder in a revolver and that an SBR is the same as a handgun ("firearm") and that receivers/frames are unregulated and... The people who wrote these laws thought they were smart but were stupid.
The fixed mag pistol arrest shows they will arrest and attempt to prosecute on any pretense. Fortunately the judge was having none of it in that case, but I would not expect logic to always prevail.
The arguments made around SBRs being exempt might work in a free state w/o a gun bias but no chance here. I say might because I believe as written there is not a lot of wiggle room to support your/EasyD's position and even in a free state you would be screwed should this be the law of the land.