Form 1 MCX SBR - will I need a pinned/welded barrel and non adjustable stock in MA?

[Sumkallmetim]

Hello, hope you’re well.

Need help please. I have a 16” MCX I’m hoping to SBR. Since the SBR is a “firearm” would I 1) still need the short barrel pinned and welded? And 2) can I use a normal adjustable/folding stock for the SBR? please let me know

Thanks for your input!

 

[drgrant]

The predominant opinion these days is that compliance bullshit is needed even for SBRs. This basically means you're faced with the choice of....

A- complying with the law by pinning stocks, f***ing your gun up, welding brakes etc.
B- play by big kid rules and don't get caught

But the fact that you're asking this tells me you're not likely too keen on option B.

There was also an indictment/plea deal recently where some unlicensed guy got bagged with "possession of an assault weapon" even though the gun was, at least via mechanical description and observation, an SBR (albeit illegal) so it would appear the authorities seem to care, at least in that one way.

 

[Parker Duofold]

 

[Da_lucche]

Hello, hope you’re well.

Need help please. I have a 16” MCX I’m hoping to SBR. Since the SBR is a “firearm” would I 1) still need the short barrel pinned and welded? And 2) can I use a normal adjustable/folding stock for the SBR? please let me know

Thanks for your input!

what drgrant said. It is a gray area that hasn't been tested in court. My opinion is that SBRs are not held up by the AWB, but that is how I interpret it. Honestly, the chances anything is gonna happen is almost none but again, it comes down to what you feel comfortable with doing and whether you comply or not is up to you.

 

[Shawnyc]

Another gray area, all depends on your risk tolerance.

 

[nstassel]

My opinion is that SBRs are not held up by the AWB, but that is how I interpret it.

Why?

 

[Drix]

Why?

MA's awb directly quotes the federal law.

Federal law defines an assault weapon as "Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:"

Now, here's where it gets sticky. How MA defines a rifle and how the feds define a rifle is slightly different.

MGL: C140 S122 "Rifle" a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger.

Since the definition in MA law says a rifle is a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length greater than 16 inches, a SBR isn't a rifle- its barrel length is shorter than the legal definition.
It is a weapon, as later defined in the same text: “Weapon”, any rifle, shotgun or firearm. But there isn't any other clearer definition other than firearm or weapon.

 

[CrackPot]

This again? It’s not grey. It’s black and white. It has not resulted in prosecutions but the law is clear. The chances of being caught and them understanding and being prosecuted seem small. But it is not grey. The argument that the difference in definitions makes it confusing or ambiguous or not required is what I call “magical thinking”, Having a desired interpretation and warping reality to match it.

MGL 140 121 defines an assault weapon as “shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994”. Mass definitions of weapon, rifle firearm, shotgun, etc are not in play. Federal definitions are. You go read federal law and make a determination solely in that context if the weapon is an assault weapon. Then you come back to MA law with that tag: assault weapon or not assault weapon.

Under federal law a SBR is a rifle and you apply the rifle definition. Then you come back to MA context. So yes, pin and weld a brake and fix your stock.

If we go with magical thinking there are no handguns or pistols defined in MA law. This means I can have an AR pistol since it’s a “firearm” in Ma and federal law has no assault weapon criteria for a “firearm”. Now no one tries that stupid argument so why do they try it with an SBR?

The other variation is the same except you decide that firearm is a pistol and use the pistol standard. So no AR pistols. But in MA a SBR is the same as a handgun so let’s apply the pistol definition to it also. Boom, assault weapon. But the magical thinkers say no, that is confusing and I magically want federal pistols to apply to handgun “firearms” but not SBR “firearms”. It’s all crap logic.

SBRs are subject to the federal rifle definition for an assault weapon.

 

[Da_lucche]

This again? It’s not grey. It’s black and white. It has not resulted in prosecutions but the law is clear. The chances of being caught and them understanding and being prosecuted seem small. But it is not grey. The argument that the difference in definitions makes it confusing or ambiguous or not required is what I call “magical thinking”, Having a desired interpretation and warping reality to match it.

MGL 140 121 defines an assault weapon as “shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994”. Mass definitions of weapon, rifle firearm, shotgun, etc are not in play. Federal definitions are. You go read federal law and make a determination solely in that context if the weapon is an assault weapon. Then you come back to MA law with that tag: assault weapon or not assault weapon.

Under federal law a SBR is a rifle and you apply the rifle definition. Then you come back to MA context. So yes, pin and weld a brake and fix your stock.

If we go with magical thinking there are no handguns or pistols defined in MA law. This means I can have an AR pistol since it’s a “firearm” in Ma and federal law has no assault weapon criteria for a “firearm”. Now no one tries that stupid argument so why do they try it with an SBR?

The other variation is the same except you decide that firearm is a pistol and use the pistol standard. So no AR pistols. But in MA a SBR is the same as a handgun so let’s apply the pistol definition to it also. Boom, assault weapon. But the magical thinkers say no, that is confusing and I magically want federal pistols to apply to handgun “firearms” but not SBR “firearms”. It’s all crap logic.

SBRs are subject to the federal rifle definition for an assault weapon.

You mean Mass laws totally contradict each other so we have no real answer? Shocked I tell you. The way I see it, states make up their own laws and supersede those federally all the time. As it is with here with suppressors. I can have a suppressor federally but nanny state Mass says I can't unless I am an FFL SOT. Mass says a rifle is a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger. An SBR has a barrel length less than 16 so it is not a rifle per MA law. That is all I care about to make my own interpretation.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Dude, it is an MCX. It is literally made for MA residents that care about the AWB. If you want to comply, pin a barrel and fix a stock. When you decide you don't care, or go somewhere that isn't retarded, swap in a normal barrel and folding stock in 5 minutes.

 

[drgrant]

You mean Mass laws totally contradict each other so we have no real answer? Shocked I tell you. The way I see it, states make up their own laws and supersede those federally all the time. As it is with here with suppressors. I can have a suppressor federally but nanny state Mass says I can't unless I am an FFL SOT. Mass says a rifle is a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger. An SBR has a barrel length less than 16 so it is not a rifle per MA law. That is all I care about to make my own interpretation.

Lol there never was a real answer because of a lack of challenges etc. I doubt there ever really be a real answer, but I'm more of the mind of what crackpot is saying. Even if I want to believe the fairytale, IMHO the state is more likely to pick his version. This even happened recently. Some unwashed guy who had an unregistered SBR got whacked with an AWB charge for it and ended up pleading guilty. Now, that's not a be-all-end all, but at least its an indication that the state, at least optically by default, doesn't care about the "SBR ignores AWB" fairytale. Now I know what you're saying - oh the guy had no LTC and didn't have a stamp. Well, still, even an illegal SBR is still an SBR under the eyes of the law, at least federally. So there's that problem, so via "legal mechanicals" his device should still be AWB exempt. The prosecution said "this is an assault weapon" and the defense sucked for it and plead out to
it. Is that a full legal challenge? No, not really, but it's not a good look. Admittedly the guy had a pile of other shit on him too, plea deal was probably cheapest way
out.

The older I get, I find that diving into the weeds to try to find wishful excuses/escape clauses in MA bullshit is largely a waste of time. On the same token, I truly believe that the only way to really, truly be risk averse in this state is to not own guns, or not live here. Plenty of people have had screwings and "attempted screwings" while trying to obey the lawr.

 

[CrackPot]

You mean Mass laws totally contradict each other so we have no real answer? Shocked I tell you. The way I see it, states make up their own laws and supersede those federally all the time. As it is with here with suppressors. I can have a suppressor federally but nanny state Mass says I can't unless I am an FFL SOT. Mass says a rifle is a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger. An SBR has a barrel length less than 16 so it is not a rifle per MA law. That is all I care about to make my own interpretation.

You are allowed to proceed with magical thinking. It is a free country. You will likely never know if you are right or wrong. But your position fails under any logical analysis.

 

[SgtHal75]

Hello, hope you’re well.

Need help please. I have a 16” MCX I’m hoping to SBR. Since the SBR is a “firearm” would I 1) still need the short barrel pinned and welded? And 2) can I use a normal adjustable/folding stock for the SBR? please let me know

Thanks for your input!

Always follow MA AWB. Not enforcement notices. That’s all I have to add.

 

[Drix]

Always follow MA AWB. Not enforcement notices. That’s all I have to add.

In order for the enforcement notice to be binding, wouldn't it have to share the position of the feds in '94 for definitions including copy or duplicate?

We can cherry pick, state can cherry pick, none of it matters until someone's fighting in court.

 

[Da_lucche]

Lol there never was a real answer because of a lack of challenges etc. I doubt there ever really be a real answer, but I'm more of the mind of what crackpot is saying. Even if I want to believe the fairytale, IMHO the state is more likely to pick his version. This even happened recently. Some unwashed guy who had an unregistered SBR got whacked with an AWB charge for it and ended up pleading guilty. Now, that's not a be-all-end all, but at least its an indication that the state, at least optically by default, doesn't care about the "SBR ignores AWB" fairytale. Now I know what you're saying - oh the guy had no LTC and didn't have a stamp. Well, still, even an illegal SBR is still an SBR under the eyes of the law, at least federally. So there's that problem, so via "legal mechanicals" his device should still be AWB exempt. The prosecution said "this is an assault weapon" and the defense sucked for it and plead out to
it. Is that a full legal challenge? No, not really, but it's not a good look. Admittedly the guy had a pile of other shit on him too, plea deal was probably cheapest way
out.

The older I get, I find that diving into the weeds to try to find wishful excuses/escape clauses in MA bullshit is largely a waste of time. On the same token, I truly believe that the only way to really, truly be risk averse in this state is to not own guns, or not live here. Plenty of people have had screwings and "attempted screwings" while trying to obey the lawr.

I would say since his device was an unregistered SBR, it did not have the federal (or Mass law) privilege to be considered a Title 2 firearm (firearm being the key definition that people say exempts it from the MA AWB). Federally and per MA law, it would be considered a Title 1 rifle and because of this, it could only have a 16 inch or longer barrel on it - making the AWB enforceable on said device if he had more than 2 evil features.

But to add to that, we would need to know where exactly the AWB charge stemmed from and the specifics; as he could have been charged with an AWB crime if he only had post ban mags.

The only way this gets solved is for someone with an actual registered/paid stamp SBR with an unpinned stock and muzzle device getting caught up in a court case.

 

[drgrant]

I would say since his device was an unregistered SBR, it did not have the federal (or Mass law) privilege to be considered a Title 2 firearm (firearm being the key definition that people say exempts it from the MA AWB). Federally and per MA law, it would be considered a Title 1 rifle and because of this, it could only have a 16 inch or longer barrel on it - making the AWB enforceable on said device if he had more than 2 evil features.

That's not how gun laws work, an unregistered SBR is still an SBR in the eyes of Federal law. Same thing as an unregistered machinegun. Even if unstamped, those things are still Title II firearms, even if contraband. Being contraband does not magically make them "something else". "What the thing is" does not change unless there's some weird provision in the law that makes it so. There is nothing in MGL or USC to support this idea of "gun morphing". The guns don't magically get some weird technical definition that only applies when its unregistered.

But to add to that, we would need to know where exactly the AWB charge stemmed from and the specifics; as he could have been charged with an AWB crime if he only had post ban mags.

It was a gun, some kind of AR variant that had like a 10-12in upper on it and a normal stock. There may or may not have been mag charges, I don't remember.

I'd have to find it but in one of the guns of mass groups on faceplant someone posted it. Basically a guy with no LTC got caught on a bunch of rando shit and he sucked for a plea on all of it, including an AWB charge. It sounded like the guy had priors which is why charges weren't dropped and no CWOF out deal or dropped charges was offered, instead it looks like the guys attorney got offered a shit sandwich deal by the prosecutor that consisted of "get him to suck for all this shit, and we'll agree to only put him away for 2-3 years" So he sucked for a guilty plea on all of the shit including the AWB charge.

The only way this gets solved is for someone with an actual registered/paid stamp SBR with an unpinned stock and muzzle device getting caught up in a court case.

Lol the highlighted part is meaningless. Again, show the class where this makes a difference. It doesn't,. under MA or federal law. It doesn't change what
the thing is, and how it relates to the MA AWB. There's no magical clause that says "If something is contraband, its always an assault weapon".

Further, the likelihood of your posited scenario happening are somewhere between slim and none. 99% of people with NFA are going to get an attorney. The attorney will cut a deal and the problem quietly goes away or gets turned into a lesser charge that the client CWOFs out to, etc. Or the charge will just get dropped along the way, etc.

It's exceedingly difficult to get a fully exposed in court test case. It's also exceedingly difficult to have a case where this gets a 110% test. Where a defense attorney goes "my client is legal because of this and this and this, and technically this is not illegal because that, and therefore he is not guilty" (and judge or jury plays along and agrees with it). That shit almost never happens in mass. Hell the only time I ever heard of it happening was with the Joe Car/AR pistol thing, where basically they had used the AGs garbage to convince the (judge?) that the cleint's AR pistol was exempt "because it had a 10rd mag pinned in it and was not an AW per the edict... "