I plan to send my Mini-14 to Accuracy Systems...what can I legally have them do?

That is a nice looking gun for sure and would add nicely to someones collection. I am thinking at least $1k or more?....................IF you can get it running right. I am quite sure that changing to 223 ammo wont change a thing. There has to be some issue with the bolt assembly or ejector. Let Ruger or any gunsmith have at it. Once its fixed you'll be a happy camper
 
No threaded barrel but I think theres a pistol grip. Definitely know its marked for 5.56 just because its run a lot of 5.56 without blowing out the barrel but I think .223 will be less hard on the extractor.

My previous post about threaded barrels was in response to another poster asking about an AR15. But now that I have seen the pictures, I'll say a bit more about your Mini-14.

That is a desirable mini-14. That is an original Ruger folding stock, and the stock alone is worth several hundred dollars. And I have good confidence that stock is original to the rifle because the forward sling attachment on the gas block is on the side. Most mini-14s have the sling swivel on the bottom, but rifles that originally had the factory folding stock have that special gas block with the sling attachment on the side. So I am pretty sure that it is an original factory folder, and that makes it a legitimate pre-ban rifle since the pistol grip plus folding stock is two evil features. Do keep in mind though, that what I just said is just an opinion on the internet, so do your own research if it is important.

That is an evil preban rifle that you can def milk for enough money to buy a useful rifle.

Agree. Your rifle looks cool by any standard, and it looks like the A-Team. If you decide to trade it, it will get you well towards another pre-ban rifle.
 
Last edited:
The rules for mini-14s are different than other, so called, AWs. It's on the exempt list.

ETA: OP that's a good looking mini, if you give up on it, well I'm sure you could find an interested party or two.
 
The rules for mini-14s are different than other, so called, AWs. It's on the exempt list.

ETA: OP that's a good looking mini, if you give up on it, well I'm sure you could find an interested party or two.
Not exempt from MGL definition of AW.
 
Not exempt from MGL definition of AW.
I'll have to re-read but didn't the MA AWB incorporate the provisions of the, now sunsetted, Fed AWB, which would include it's Appendix A list of exempted firearms?
 
I'll have to re-read but didn't the MA AWB incorporate the provisions of the, now sunsetted, Fed AWB, which would include it's Appendix A list of exempted firearms?

In my understanding, the list of exempted firearms prevents firearms on that list from being summarily banned. So no lawyer can claim that a mini-14 or an M1A is a copy or duplicate of a banned firearm, and is therefore banned. But being on the exempt list does not exempt those rifles from also being subject to the features test. Thus you can readily buy a mini-14 or an M1A in Massachusetts, but you cannot legally add a pistol grip and folding stock to either one unless it is a true pre-ban receiver.
 
In my understanding, the list of exempted firearms prevents firearms on that list from being summarily banned. So no lawyer can claim that a mini-14 or an M1A is a copy or duplicate of a banned firearm, and is therefore banned. But being on the exempt list does not exempt those rifles from also being subject to the features test. Thus you can readily buy a mini-14 or an M1A in Massachusetts, but you cannot legally add a pistol grip and folding stock to either one unless it is a true pre-ban receiver.
It actually allows copies and duplicates of the exempted firearms as they were built. So if you have a new mini-14 in a configuration that was available at that time, or if you convert it to that configuration, it is a copy/duplicate of an exempted firearm, therefore it is also exempt. And they were available with folding stocks, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs. My only question is, would those items have to be exactly what was available, or would any folding stock be ok. Until Healy suggested the idea that "similarity" was the standard it would have been hard to say a non-Ruger folding stock was OK. But with Healey's BS it could be argued that similarity works both ways.
 
Not technically correct. This only applies if the firearm was in preban configuration prior to the ban. You cannot take a Mini-14 that was always in a fixed stock with no threaded muzzle, etc. and then "do whatever you want." One could argue this would be hard to prove in court (i.e., unless you had one previous owner willing to state he bought it in like 1985 and kept it stock until 2010), but nevertheless, that's the ATF's opinion regarding "really preban."

So, the first question is was the rifle ever in true "preban" configuration (i.e., folding stock, pistol grip, etc.). If so, then yes, do whatever you want short of making it an SBR or other federal no-nos.

True, but unenforceable so nobody cares. ATF doesn't care anymore either.
 
True, but unenforceable so nobody cares. ATF doesn't care anymore either.
Unless someone talks their way into trouble or there is one previous owner who "gets spooked" if the ATF comes knocking and sells out the buyer, yes, pretty much unenforceable. Plenty of people screw themselves or others by trying to be "cooperative."

Like some other technicalities (like some of the exemptions for non-residents in MA that, under scrutiny, don't actually apply but are pretty much never enforced, etc.), I figured the OP and others should be aware of this nuance.
 
True, but unenforceable so nobody cares. ATF doesn't care anymore either.
Pardon if the following has been beaten to death someplace else, but...

Q1: Are there gun configurations which are otherwise legal to buy from an out-of-state FFL,
but which violate some Marsha AW rule?

If so, then...

Q2: Has ATF expressed an opinion about such putative Marshabanned firearms
being illegal to sell to a Mass. resident because they're illegal to possess in the PRM?
(Or legal to sell, because they don't regard the Marshaban as having the force of law).
 
Pardon if the following has been beaten to death someplace else, but...

Q1: Are there gun configurations which are otherwise legal to buy from an out-of-state FFL,
but which violate some Marsha AW rule?

If so, then...

Q2: Has ATF expressed an opinion about such putative Marshabanned firearms
being illegal to sell to a Mass. resident because they're illegal to possess in the PRM?
(Or legal to sell, because they don't regard the Marshaban as having the force of law).

Yes.

Yes, it must be legal for you to possess in your state of residence.
 
Q1: Are there gun configurations which are otherwise legal to buy from an out-of-state FFL,
but which violate some Marsha AW rule?
Yes.
Thanks for the sanity check.
Q2: Has ATF expressed an opinion about such putative Marshabanned firearms
being illegal to sell to a Mass. resident because they're illegal to possess in the PRM?
(Or legal to sell, because they don't regard the Marshaban as having the force of law).
Yes, it must be legal for you to possess in your state of residence.
Sure, sure; but note the political angle:
The ATF could endorse the Marshaban,
by threatening (or actually) prosecuting interstate transfers which violate it;
or dis the Marshaban by announcing (or just declining) to prosecute.

(One would have to be a special kind of naive to actually violate it,
and trust ATF not to retroactively prosecute after a change in the climate...)
 
Thanks for the sanity check.

Sure, sure; but note the political angle:
The ATF could endorse the Marshaban,
by threatening (or actually) prosecuting interstate transfers which violate it;
or dis the Marshaban by announcing (or just declining) to prosecute.

(One would have to be a special kind of naive to actually violate it,
and trust ATF not to retroactively prosecute after a change in the climate...)

IIRC the feds have already sucked for this, or at least remotes are being threatened by them to not sell, say a brand new (even ban compliant) AR to an MA resident.... based off the AG's bullshit. But it's the same deal as marshaban- lots of empty threats....

-Mike
 
IIRC the feds have already sucked for this, or at least remotes are being threatened by them to not sell, say a brand new (even ban compliant) AR to an MA resident.... based off the AG's bullshit. But it's the same deal as marshaban- lots of empty threats....
(I haven't been haunting all the Marsha threads, so much thanks for the Current Events recap - very much on point).
 
Staaaaaaaaap. Why is it every time I I'm in my rack after drinking I see this thread?

Just do what's right and tell this kid to sell his shit to some ma retard and buy a real rifle.
You've given me several smiles though out this thread. And yeah, edmorseiii, for me it wasn't 4,000$ into a Mk14EBR clone it was $1800$ into building up a UMP clone from a USC. But at least my UMP clone holds tight groups at reasonable distances for .45 unlike the mini mentioned in post.
That being said I'm completely for saying keep the rifle as is and get it fixed by Ruger. And spending the 1,000$ towards an AR. Because who needs an excuse to have two guns instead of one? Or sell the thing and spend the money towards rifle complete with everything you want/need and still having cash for ammo or whatever. But one thing is for certain, short of getting Ruger to fix it. Don't go dumping money into it trying to make it a Mk12 or something when it'll never be that. I think we can all agree on that.
 
Thanks for the sanity check.

Sure, sure; but note the political angle:
The ATF could endorse the Marshaban,
by threatening (or actually) prosecuting interstate transfers which violate it;
or dis the Marshaban by announcing (or just declining) to prosecute.

(One would have to be a special kind of naive to actually violate it,
and trust ATF not to retroactively prosecute after a change in the climate...)
The feds don't prosecute for violations of state laws, it doesn't work that way.
 
I am going to send the rifle in for sure. All of a sudden I have a problem with my Glock EDC that is going to take priority over this unfortunately. I will keep you guys updated on the status of the mini in the next couple months, shouldn’t be any later than October.
 
The feds don't prosecute for violations of state laws, it doesn't work that way.
18 U.S. Code § 922. Unlawful acts
...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any ... licensed dealer, ... to sell or deliver—
...
(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;​

So are you saying this is a Federal criminal law which ATF refuses to enforce?
 
18 U.S. Code § 922. Unlawful acts
...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any ... licensed dealer, ... to sell or deliver—
...
(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;​

So are you saying this is a Federal criminal law which ATF refuses to enforce?

I've never heard of it being pressed all the way i think it's because it's the legal equivalent of dividing by zero. I don't think it would withstand any serious scrutiny. So they threaten dealers with it instead... which works, because few want to be a test case. It's one of the worst fed gun laws in print, outside of the ones that define straws, etc.
 
18 U.S. Code § 922. Unlawful acts
...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any ... licensed dealer, ... to sell or deliver—
...
(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;​

So are you saying this is a Federal criminal law which ATF refuses to enforce?
Where did you get that idea. If you violate 18 US Code ss922, the Feds can prosecute you under the Fed law.
 
The feds don't prosecute for violations of state laws, it doesn't work that way.

There's a chunk of US code that allows them to do so in a very limited context, as AHM indicated, however I've never actually seen it enforced on a dealer, just threatened. For example say I (as a mass resident) want to buy a normal AR in Maine and keep it there- unless I assert Maine residency, the maine FFL cannot sell me the rifle because it violates the garbage in that section of federal law. It's very existence likely violates some other kind of legal concept, although the feds have gotten away with similar bullshit before but not that I can think of domestically. (For example, the lacey act is pretty f***ed up, but thats usually international stuff, not between states. )

-Mike
 
Seems to me that 18USC§922(b)(2) is the lesser alternative to requiring that
longarms, like handguns, only be transferred via a destination state FFL.
(Who will then bear the burden of knowing whether it's a legal gun).

To put it another way,
would people complain about 18USC§922(b)(2) if it were extended to handguns?

It's very existence likely violates some other kind of legal concept, although the feds have gotten away with similar bullshit before but not that I can think of domestically.
If you ever lodge in Greater Dayton (not Xenia) for the Hamvention,
you should detour to get a picture of
the nation's most constitutionally evocative suburban road sign.
Note all the wheat fields - not.
 
in the example of the mini 14, i would imagine whoever was prosecuting would go to ruger with a court order to find out what configuration the rifle left the factory in.

Doesn't matter even under the strictest reading of the old AWB, I believe. The legal question is not what configuration it was in when shipped but what configuration it was in on the magic date. If the situation you described were the case, literally no lower shipped before the AWB could ever be pre-ban, which is not the case, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Not true, per above. ATF has ruled on this.
Edward M. Owen, Jr., former Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE,
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."

This was a big deal for AR-15s because there were many stripped and assembled lowers sold before the AWB became effective. It's a slightly different question for rifles like a Mini-14 because nearly all were shipped in non-AW configuration, but many could be easily (and temporarily, in the sense that "prohibited" parts could be installed and removed by the user without modifying the receiver or barrel).

Not technically correct. This only applies if the firearm was in preban configuration prior to the ban. You cannot take a Mini-14 that was always in a fixed stock with no threaded muzzle, etc. and then "do whatever you want." One could argue this would be hard to prove in court (i.e., unless you had one previous owner willing to state he bought it in like 1985 and kept it stock until 2010), but nevertheless, that's the ATF's opinion regarding "really preban."

So, the first question is was the rifle ever in true "preban" configuration (i.e., folding stock, pistol grip, etc.). If so, then yes, do whatever you want short of making it an SBR or other federal no-nos.

This post is legally more accurate. However, there were folding and PG stocks and flash hiders that didn't require threading the barrel for the Mini-14 before the ban. So almost 40 years later, it will be very hard to prove one way or the other what configuration the Mini-14 was in before the AWB.

Proving it in court is of course a different matter, but people should be aware that the date of manufacture alone isn't sufficient to permit you to make any desired changes to the rifle.

This is important (at least in theory and hopefully in real life, too, although you can't guarantee good justice and even if you get it, you may need to pay a fortune to get it). The burden of proof should be on the government to prove that a rifle manufactured before the AWB that is found after the effective date of the AWB was not in an AW configuration before the ban.

Unless someone talks their way into trouble or there is one previous owner who "gets spooked" if the ATF comes knocking and sells out the buyer, yes, pretty much unenforceable. Plenty of people screw themselves or others by trying to be "cooperative."

Like some other technicalities (like some of the exemptions for non-residents in MA that, under scrutiny, don't actually apply but are pretty much never enforced, etc.), I figured the OP and others should be aware of this nuance.

Yes, this. If you install prohibited features now and do something like telling a LEO or posting in a public forum that the rifle had never been in AW configuration until you recently made it so, you have tied the knot and handed the prosecution the rope.
 
Last edited:
I am going to send the rifle in for sure. All of a sudden I have a problem with my Glock EDC that is going to take priority over this unfortunately. I will keep you guys updated on the status of the mini in the next couple months, shouldn’t be any later than October.

FWIW, I had several of the old Mini-14s back in the 80s and early 90s. Take it for what it's worth, but none of them would group in any sense of that word. They all made patterns, not groups. The new ones are inescapably post-ban, at least as sold in MA, but the one I now own is a very good and reliable rifle. If you really want a pre-ban 5.56x45 rifle, find the scratch for the crazy prices that pre-ban AR-15s are getting. My $0.02.
 
Back
Top Bottom