Google AI Says Pre 2016 AR15 Lowers Didn't Need To Be Registered (AG Laws Cited): Info Conflicts With NES Expurts - But Not Massachusetts Gun Lawyers

[Dench]

Reptile AI trolling is now a thing on NES. Time for Derek to buy a new server and double his storage capacity.

When Reptile is old he will program an AI to post on his behalf in perpetuity.

God help us all

 

[Dennis in MA]

AI is terrible at stuff like this.

So is AG, GOV, EOPS and STATE-HOUSE.

 

[Rocky Mosasaurus]

Bro…..

 

[wcorey]

Before July 20, 2016, in Massachusetts, AR-15 lower receivers didn't require registration unless they were part of a firearm that was a copy or duplicate of a banned assault weapon, but after that date, the Attorney General's enforcement notice clarified that copies or duplicates of banned assault rifles, including the Colt AR-15, were prohibited.

• Pre-July 20, 2016:
  AR-15 lower receivers were not subject to registration unless they formed part of a firearm that was a copy or duplicate of an enumerated assault weapon

Seems to me this is a major fly in the ointment of this whole argument, that statement doesn't even make sense.
Receivers weren't a firearm so, duh, didn't require 'registration' before or after the 'enforcement notice' and nothing in the law changed about that until CH135 went into effect. So where did the "unless they were part of a firearm that was a copy or duplicate" come from and how was this law?

So somehow a receiver suddenly became a 'registerable' firearm but only if it was a copy or duplicate?

Ask AI to define exactly what constitutes said copy or duplicate...
Then ask how spew from an AG press conference can be interpreted as law...
Also ask if fa-10 was a registration and how a firearm part was to be legally added to it in 2016...