MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

[rommel]

I wanted to discuss a piece of the MA AWB but did not thought it deserved a new thread. Specifically about " A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon."

We all agree that her interpretation of the federal AWB was warped, political, and counter to any precedence that was already in place. We all disagree with her unilateral interpretation. We all agree that it was not or is not her duty to legislate. That being said, I can see how some moonbat liberal who is in her position could make the irrational, political and emotional argument and interpretation she did regarding copies and duplicates (which were never defined federally). I could see how she could purposefully neglect the semi automatic feature test to define a gun as a semi automatic by just claiming that these semi autos are copies and/duplicates of assault weapons. I could see all this because there some text written in the law regarding copies, duplicates, assault weapons, semi automatics, features etc. Of course she would have to selectively cherry pick the words in the laws to achieve her agenda. I can see how people in this state may support her because the ends justifies the means.

But in no where in the federal awb or in any piece of the MA laws have I found any reference to a receiver being treated the same as an assault weapon. This goes way beyond overreach. This piece is completely made up and fabricated in delusion. I can understand her sending a threatening letter to dealers stating that she has now interpreted an existing law in a completely new way. There is no connection to include a receiver and treat it as an enumerated weapon? To extend it further, she could put anything in place of "receiver". A keyboard will now be treated the same as an enumerated weapon.

I have my reasons for bringing this up which I will disclose in due time.

 

[92G]

I wanted to discuss a piece of the MA AWB but did not thought it deserved a new thread. Specifically about " A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon."

We all agree that her interpretation of the federal AWB was warped, political, and counter to any precedence that was already in place. We all disagree with her unilateral interpretation. We all agree that it was not or is not her duty to legislate. That being said, I can see how some moonbat liberal who is in her position could make the irrational, political and emotional argument and interpretation she did regarding copies and duplicates (which were never defined federally). I could see how she could purposefully neglect the semi automatic feature test to define a gun as a semi automatic by just claiming that these semi autos are copies and/duplicates of assault weapons. I could see all this because there some text written in the law regarding copies, duplicates, assault weapons, semi automatics, features etc. Of course she would have to selectively cherry pick the words in the laws to achieve her agenda. I can see how people in this state may support her because the ends justifies the means.

But in no where in the federal awb or in any piece of the MA laws have I found any reference to a receiver being treated the same as an assault weapon. This goes way beyond overreach. This piece is completely made up and fabricated in delusion. I can understand her sending a threatening letter to dealers stating that she has now interpreted an existing law in a completely new way. There is no connection to include a receiver and treat it as an enumerated weapon? To extend it further, she could put anything in place of "receiver". A keyboard will now be treated the same as an enumerated weapon.

I have my reasons for bringing this up which I will disclose in due time.

having read through the MGL now a few times, I agree with you that claiming a lower constitutes an AW is totally inconsistent with what is written. further, a lower can be handled in several ways none of which would constitute an AW:

1) nothing
2) built into manual loading firearm
3) built into a fixed-magazine firearm
4) assembled with 22lr upper (per MA AG is exception to AW)

despite this I understand the trepidation of an FFL to transferring them given their livelihood can be snatched at any time over essentially nothing. now this question comes up like every 3 days on NES: whether it's kosher to FA-10 a new build. that's been discussed ad nauseum here and I'm not looking to add anything there.

 

[jhallgren22]

I know I am going to get torn to shreds since this is one of my first posts but Im going for it.

I noticed a few shops that have been able to work around the AWB by making rifles with the magazine locked, and not detachable (one had a whole page on their site about their correspondence with the AG's office as well as some lawyers). A local shop is now going to be doing the same thing. Do you think I would be able to order a Springfield Saint to my local FFL, have a mag lock put on it before transferring, and then take ownership of my non-detachable mag rifle?

 

[drgrant]

Do you think I would be able to order a Springfield Saint to my local FFL, have a mag lock put on it before transferring, and then take ownership of my non-detachable mag rifle?

Can't because the gun wasn't originally manufactured that way. At least according to some people making these fixed mag guns that is an absolute requirement, so the gun had to be "birthed" from the manufacturer with the cripplemag locked in place. (despite the fact that everyone knows it'll be removed within an hour after purchase but that's another story, LMAO.... )

Please Note: This is according to 7/20_HealyBanBullshitLogic(TM) and not actual law, but that's what dealers/manufs seem to be going by.

Honestly though the Saint is like a Tier 3/4 gun anyways, not sure I'd want to waste my cash on that one. The 3rd party AR wallhack guns being sold by a few FFLs are of much better quality. Poke around on the forum enough and you'll find a few guys selling them.


-Mike

 

[jhallgren22]

Can't because the gun wasn't originally manufactured that way. At least according to some people making these fixed mag guns that is an absolute requirement, so the gun had to be "birthed" from the manufacturer with the cripplemag locked in place.

Please Note: This is according to 7/20_HealyBanBullshitLogic(TM) and not actual law, but that's what dealers/manufs seem to be going by.

Honestly though the Saint is like a Tier 3/4 gun anyways, not sure I'd want to waste my cash on that one. The 3rd party AR wallhack guns being sold by a few FFLs are of much better quality. Poke around on the forum enough and you'll find a few guys selling them.


-Mike

That is kinda what I figured, but when I asked the LGS they weren't sure, but I noticed they were selling the mag locks from MEAN so thought it might be worth the chance. Would rather pay $1000 for a saint then $1000-1800 for the LGS cripplemag rifle.

 

[jhallgren22]

Just to see what happens I emailed Springfield to see if they make a CA complaint version of the saint that should already have a mag lock on it

 

[Varmint]

Can't because the gun wasn't originally manufactured that way. At least according to some people making these fixed mag guns that is an absolute requirement, so the gun had to be "birthed" from the manufacturer with the cripplemag locked in place. (despite the fact that everyone knows it'll be removed within an hour after purchase but that's another story, LMAO.... )

Please Note: This is according to 7/20_HealyBanBullshitLogic(TM) and not actual law, but that's what dealers/manufs seem to be going by.

Honestly though the Saint is like a Tier 3/4 gun anyways, not sure I'd want to waste my cash on that one. The 3rd party AR wallhack guns being sold by a few FFLs are of much better quality. Poke around on the forum enough and you'll find a few guys selling them.


-Mike

Lol at wallhack. Haven’t played Counterstrike since it was a mod for Half-life, but remember the term.

I find it odd the AG hasn’t updated the faq to ban these, since the entire faq is fake law anyway, what’s stopping them?

 

[Varmint]

That is kinda what I figured, but when I asked the LGS they weren't sure, but I noticed they were selling the mag locks from MEAN so thought it might be worth the chance. Would rather pay $1000 for a saint then $1000-1800 for the LGS cripplemag rifle.

I think the LGS models start at like $900.

 

[jhallgren22]

I think the LGS models start at like $900.

Talking to my local they estimated they would have three tiers. One around $1000, one from $1200-1500, and top model would be $1800.

They have one at the range I can shoot, so I might have to check it out.

 

[Varmint]

Littleton shop? I will check it out sometime. But I’m thinking of a regular Sig MCX, which some shops sell.

 

[browncoat]

Lol at wallhack. Haven’t played Counterstrike since it was a mod for Half-life, but remember the term.

I find it odd the AG hasn’t updated the faq to ban these, since the entire faq is fake law anyway, what’s stopping them?

Probably thinking about the eventual law suit

 

[Keop]

Thankful I picked this thread back up as the whole "Fixed Mag" info is timely. Interesting stuff.

 

[Veritas]

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

If I were to buy a private sale pre-7/20 AR or AK am I GTG as long as the I abide by tje evil features rule? What about pre-ban (94) mags to go with it?

 

[fishgutzy]

MY BIL is in MA. Looks like his case will soon be finished with a positive outcome. The next hurdle will be getting the hardware he transferred custody of too me for the duration of his ordeal. The pistols are not going to be an issue. The two modern sporting rifles, sent out pre-BONEHEAD re-imagining the law, is another story. Hopefully that all gets squared away soon up their. Probably gonna take a SCOTUS ruling to undo that mess as the MASJC is generally for anything that is against the 2A.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

If I were to buy a private sale pre-7/20 AR or AK am I GTG as long as the I abide by tje evil features rule? What about pre-ban (94) mags to go with it?

It's been answered dozens of times here.

Yes to both questions. Just abide by the MGL AWB.

 

[boatman]

Sorry if this is not the correct thread, but I am really confused by what is going on with current AW regulations.

Let's just say someone has have a MA unrestricted LTC and 5 years ago that someone purchased an AR15 from a MA gun store that met all the MA requirements at the time for ARs and stored in a house in MA that meets all storage requirements for that said firearm. I do understand Martha changed what things are, and no MA gun store will sell that same rifle today.

Is there anything that would stop that someone from going to another state, where let's just say that same AR15 with those same restrictions for meeting the past MA requirements (pinned stock, 10rd mag, no suppressor, etc.) was available, and purchasing it and bringing it back to their home in MA?

From my understanding no one is prosecuting (at least currently) anyone from currently storing a firearm meeting those requirements, so why would it be wrong to have a newer one. Can it not travel over state lines? Would a gun store in say NH, VT, ME, etc. not sell to a MA resident? Or am I wrong on all these premises.

 

[milktree]

Let's just say someone has have a MA unrestricted LTC and 5 years ago that someone purchased an AR15 from a MA gun store that met all the MA requirements at the time for ARs and stored in a house in MA that meets all storage requirements for that said firearm. I do understand Martha changed what things are, and no MA gun store will sell that same rifle today.

Yes. Mostly. I bet there exists some Mass. FFLs who would transfer an AR, but I don't know of any specific ones.

Is there anything that would stop that someone from going to another state, where let's just say that same AR15 with those same restrictions for meeting the past MA requirements (pinned stock, 10rd mag, no suppressor, etc.) was available, and purchasing it and bringing it back to their home in MA?

Legally, no. But good luck finding any non Mass. FFL who would transfer an AR to you in any configuration. The possible exception would be a pre '94 AR that would't be subject to the AWB anyway. If you find such a dealer/rifle combo, it's likely to be quite expensive.

From my understanding no one is prosecuting (at least currently) anyone from currently storing a firearm meeting those requirements, so why would it be wrong to have a newer one. Can it not travel over state lines? Would a gun store in say NH, VT, ME, etc. not sell to a MA resident? Or am I wrong on all these premises.

Your mistaken assumption is that you can find a non-Mass. FFL willing to transfer one to you.

 

[boatman]

Yes. Mostly. I bet there exists some Mass. FFLs who would transfer an AR, but I don't know of any specific ones.

Legally, no. But good luck finding any non Mass. FFL who would transfer an AR to you in any configuration. The possible exception would be a pre '94 AR that would't be subject to the AWB anyway. If you find such a dealer/rifle combo, it's likely to be quite expensive.

Your mistaken assumption is that you can find a non-Mass. FFL willing to transfer one to you.

Milktree, many thanks for your quick answers.

What if said person had another LTC from another state. So say besides your MA LTC you had a ME LTC, and you went to ME to purchase the AR with all the restrictions. Would the FFL make the sale in this case? Or would you have to show a ME address as well?

 

[drgrant]

Milktree, many thanks for your quick answers.

What if said person had another LTC from another state. So say besides your MA LTC you had a ME LTC, and you went to ME to purchase the AR with all the restrictions. Would the FFL make the sale in this case? Or would you have to show a ME address as well?

lol, they only care about residency. an ME carry permit doesn't really determine that, per se.

That said every remote does business differently. There are likely some out there not quite afraid of mauras bullshit, but nobody is going to run thier
mouth in public about that, if they're smart.

-Mike

 

[Varmint]

Is there anything that would stop that someone from going to another state, where let's just say that same AR15 with those same restrictions for meeting the past MA requirements (pinned stock, 10rd mag, no suppressor, etc.) was available, and purchasing it and bringing it back to their home in MA?

Federal law says a gun sold must be legal in the state the buyer resides. So this is a gray area - the actual Mass law says that AR is legal but the AG say in her made-up online FAQ that it's illegal. So the issue is really finding an FFL willing to ignore the AG's BS decree. I don't know if one exists and wouldn't out them if I did.

I think why take a risk on a $600 AR. They'd rather sell you a legal $2000 non-AR (Tavor, Scar, Sig MCX etc).

 

[Len-2A Training]

He also said that he lives in Boston. Boston has banned ARs since 1989, so again nobody should sell him one anywhere regardless of the AG BS.

 

[Tinkermatic]

He also said that he lives in Boston. Boston has banned ARs since 1989, so again nobody should sell him one anywhere regardless of the AG BS.

I’m just hearing about this Boston AWB. If I’m reading it correctly, regardless of pre ‘94 or pre Healy, as a resident of Boston specifically, I can not possess an AR style rifle?
I would be breaking the law if I bought one from someone on this forum and EFa’d with my Boston address?

 

[drgrant]

He also said that he lives in Boston. Boston has banned ARs since 1989, so again nobody should sell him one anywhere regardless of the AG BS.

Lol not sure if serious Len, There are tons of gun stores that would sell a Boston resident AR no problem, even before all the AG's BS. There is nothing illegal about the sale. Storage/movement of the gun inside the boundaries of the city is another issue and the better dealers will obviously tell people about this. This is no different than the shops in IL that sold plenty of handguns to Chicago residents during the chicago handgun ban era. Nothing illegal about the sale, just that the buyer could not (at that time) legally bring them into the city.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mike, I'm serious . . . just like the other thread about buying a gun in NY w/o any MA LTC/FID by a MA resident. BATFE mandates that FFLs not transfer anything not legal for the buyer to possess where they live. They provide every FFL with a book (now CD) with all the purchase/sale laws/regs for every state and every city with restrictions. The fact that FFLs don't read or abide by them is another story. I'm sure that there are >1000 ARs illegally possessed (relative to Boston AWB) and probably >10K illegal large capacity mags (pre-ban by state but not allowed in Boston) within city limits.

Yes, if they store it out of the city it would be legal to own, but again dealers aren't supposed to transfer them.

 

[Tinkermatic]

Lol not sure if serious Len, There are tons of gun stores that would sell a Boston resident AR no problem, even before all the AG's BS. There is nothing illegal about the sale. Storage/movement of the gun inside the boundaries of the city is another issue and the better dealers will obviously tell people about this. This is no different than the shops in IL that sold plenty of handguns to Chicago residents during the chicago handgun ban era. Nothing illegal about the sale, just that the buyer could not (at that time) legally bring them into the city.

-Mike

What about private sale? I’ve never been a party to one, so I don’t know how the process works. Would they not know what exactly it was that I just bought from Mr. drgrant?

 

[parallax222]

Sorry if this has been asked... or if this is the wrong place to post this? i searched and didn't find anything....

what effect, if any, does the healey re-interpretation have on finishing an 80% lower?

I read somewhere that you can only make one into a .22 rifle otherwise it violates the healey thing??

or does this fall under "who knows, we'll find out if/when someone gets in trouble" ??

thanks all.

 

[babygorilla]

Sorry if this has been asked... or if this is the wrong place to post this? i searched and didn't find anything....

what effect, if any, does the healey re-interpretation have on finishing an 80% lower?

I read somewhere that you can only make one into a .22 rifle otherwise it violates the healey thing??

or does this fall under "who knows, we'll find out if/when someone gets in trouble" ??

thanks all.

who knows, we'll find out if/when someone gets in trouble

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

The Maura Healy answer is you as the manufacturer are violating her guidance and are risking prosecution when you register it unless you can prove it was manufactured prior to 7/20.

As far as anyone knows she has yet to prosecute anyone.

 

[uncle griz]

I have an AR15 that I bought before Healy opened her mouth. Can I face to face with another Mass resident with a class a LTC? I have heard it being done with nothing said or done...

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

I have an AR15 that I bought before Healy opened her mouth. Can I face to face with another Mass resident with a class a LTC? I have heard it being done with nothing said or done...

Yep happens everyday. Has it ever been registered? It should be go to go until she decides to call in everyone's marker and fill the courts with felons post facto.