I am guessing that banditone is asking what is a Mass resident to do if they don't already have an AR-15 and want one to compete in 3-gun style matches. In which case I would say that he should find a MA resident who is selling either a lower or a complete rifle in a private sale and obtain one that way. Preferably a stripped lower since then he can build it up to his exact specifications for competing rather than having to modify an existing rifle.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ
- Thread starter drgrant
- Start date
I am guessing that banditone is asking what is a Mass resident to do if they don't already have an AR-15 and want one to compete in 3-gun style matches. In which case I would say that he should find a MA resident who is selling either a lower or a complete rifle in a private sale and obtain one that way. Preferably a stripped lower since then he can build it up to his exact specifications for competing rather than having to modify an existing rifle.
What's the point of a ban without prosecution? I'm guessing prosecution would expose her.
I hear a lot of talking about building one. Do you just attach a lower with an upper and fire?
I hear a lot of talking about building one. Do you just attach a lower with an upper and fire?
Depends on how involved you want to get. Assembling a lower is pretty easy and takes basically no specialized tools (just some basic hand tools). Assembling an upper is slightly more involved and requires at least an AR-15 armorer's wrench. Many people go the route of assembling the lower themselves and buying a complete upper with the barrel/handguard/etc already installed. Once you have a complete lower and complete upper, then yes you just attach the upper to the lower and you're ready to fire.
She is facing 3 Federal lawsuits on her BS. The rules for a criminal prosecution is pretty high and inventing law out of the AG's a-hole may not succeed even in a MA marsupial court. So she isn't willing to lose her FUD advantage by prosecuting gun owners. This is my take on the situation (IANAL but do study MA gun laws).
i think that's correct. Years ago Citibank wanted to sue people for questionable defaults and when Citi realized they would have to expose trade secrets in discovery they dropped the suits.
In regards to obtaining an AR15 or similar using an EFA10 private transfer.... If the previous owner that you are buying said ar15/ak off of doesn't know when the weapon was registered (They are the 2nd owner) is there any recourse or risk on your end? If there is no way for you to find out if it was registered PRE new Healey Ban, is the buyer at risk? OR at this point is the question pointless considering we are all felons now...
Mr. Brownstone
NES Member
Are you looking for a guarantee?
[video=youtube_share;dAkSziqGk00]http://youtu.be/dAkSziqGk00[/video]
Mr. Brownstone
NES Member
That wasnt legislation. The whole point of her notice was to be ambiguous. She is an awful human, but not stupid.
The seller should have a copy of their FA10 showing the transfer date they received it.
If that date is pre-maura then you're 'good to go'.
When I bought my AR I kept the sellers FA10 showing original date of purchase.
It really doesn't matter. She isn't and won't go after any individual. Doing so, the court is likely to collapse her entire deck of cards and she knows it . . . thus her pronouncements that individuals won't be persecuted.
What makes you think that she is human?
Do you have any proof?
Hey everyone, maybe this is a noob question, but are there any updates on the legal challenges to Healey's 7/20 ban? This is the latest thing I could find online, but it's only from April. http://newbostonpost.com/2017/04/07/ag-healeys-gun-directive-being-tested-in-court/
Does anyone know where the challenges stand now? Any estimates for the legal timeline? Thanks
Does anyone know where the challenges stand now? Any estimates for the legal timeline? Thanks
Check back in 3-5 years. Seriously.
Read the thread I created in my training forum onthis topic.
CrackPot
NES Member
Ah no. There is no federal assault weapon any longer. It becomes a gun federally if you improve past 80% but not an AW.
By law in MA it is not a gun even at 100%. It needs an upper to become a gun in MA. By law it needs evil features to be an AW in MA.
Only in Maura’s fantasy land is a receiver an AW.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Read my post. I said "firearm" not AW. I assumed it was understood that it can't be an AW until it is at least a firearm. After that it depends on if you go with the law or the AG's interpretation. But it's not anything until it passes 80%, and there is no set amount past 80%, just past 80%.
But this is just how I interpreted the question.
CrackPot
NES Member
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Is there any legal guidance with regards to fixed stocks and muzzle devices? That is, how permanently does a muzzle device need to be attached and how permanently does a stock need to be fixed? I would argue that nothing is really truly permanent, welds can be broken, etc. Is it enough if reversing cannot be done by hand and involves tools?
The MA AWB points to the federal AWB of 94, which doesn't address this. Was there BATFE guidance in the 90s about this?
The MA AWB points to the federal AWB of 94, which doesn't address this. Was there BATFE guidance in the 90s about this?
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-atf-p-53208/download
Document page 5, file page 17:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/4lliwz/how_would_atf_determine_if_a_permanently_attached/
Looking for language RE: pinning a stock and can't find anything from the ATF yet, just forums talking about blind pinning.
If you got jammed up for my not being able to prove your 80% was acquired before the ban do you think they would prosecute.? Seems like if they did then they’d run the risk of the ban being overturned.
I have no comments on the rest of your post, I honestly have no clue.
But I just wanted to add: The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Supposedly you can sit there, say nothing, and if they can't prove it, you walk.
Not that it would stop MA from going after you. (or you being convicted, unfortunately)
Which is exactly why they will never prosecute anyone.
Basis for illegality:
- Press Conference
- Notified by 1st Class Mail (no proof or receipt required) DAYS after it became "illegal" to do transfers
- Based on very shaky interpretation of Federal (which became state) law which flies in the face of all the interpretations of the BATFE Tech Branch over 10 years.
- Based on everyone else in the US was wrong except the MA AG some 22 years after it was passed as Federal law.
Yup, all that would go over very big in a criminal law case, even with the Marsupial judges in MA! . . . NOT!!!
