MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

I live in the PRM. I did a search for AM-15(as opposed to AR-15) on here and don't see any information. I also looked at the malegislature.gov site but I am not good at legalese. I was speaking with a friend who said he bought an AM-15 lower in MA from an FFL dealer and that he built a rifle with it that is virtually identical to an AR-15. He said the dealer called in the sale to the feds and believes it is legal. His and the dealers rationale is that it is an AM-15, not an AR-15 even though it is pretty much identical. I have a hard time believing that loophole would vindicate him. I also am jealous and want to build my own if it is legal. ;) Is it legal? Thanks in advance.
 
I live in the PRM. I did a search for AM-15(as opposed to AR-15) on here and don't see any information. I also looked at the malegislature.gov site but I am not good at legalese. I was speaking with a friend who said he bought an AM-15 lower in MA from an FFL dealer and that he built a rifle with it that is virtually identical to an AR-15. He said the dealer called in the sale to the feds and believes it is legal. His and the dealers rationale is that it is an AM-15, not an AR-15 even though it is pretty much identical. I have a hard time believing that loophole would vindicate him. I also am jealous and want to build my own if it is legal. ;) Is it legal? Thanks in advance.
Not according to Maura. If it's substantially similar, it's illegal to her.
Then again, her edict isn't codified in MGL.
 
Not according to Maura. If it's substantially similar, it's illegal to her.
Then again, her edict isn't codified in MGL.
Agree. If the below is really the difference, I would say it is not complaint according to her definitions. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
----------------------------------------------------------
What is the difference between am 15 and AR 15?

The AM-15 is Anderson's model name because Colt has a trademark on AR-15. Colt acquired the AR-15 name from Armalite as its 15th firearm design, but after HR3355 banned them by name from 1994–2004 used other designations like “Match Target.”
 
I live in the PRM. I did a search for AM-15(as opposed to AR-15) on here and don't see any information. I also looked at the malegislature.gov site but I am not good at legalese. I was speaking with a friend who said he bought an AM-15 lower in MA from an FFL dealer and that he built a rifle with it that is virtually identical to an AR-15. He said the dealer called in the sale to the feds and believes it is legal. His and the dealers rationale is that it is an AM-15, not an AR-15 even though it is pretty much identical. I have a hard time believing that loophole would vindicate him. I also am jealous and want to build my own if it is legal. ;) Is it legal? Thanks in advance.
It doesn’t matter if it’s AR-15 or an AM15 or XM15. The lower is not illegal. It’s not a crime to build and register (if you so choose to register) your own rifle in this state as long as the final product adhered to the 1994 AWB. There’s more dealers starting to slowly get on board with common sense and sell lowers. In my honest opinion, the more of us that purchase lowers and register builds as a pure and unanimous “f*** you” to this woman, the more likely it becomes that this enforcement notice just falls by the wayside. Again, my opinion.
 
I live in the PRM. I did a search for AM-15(as opposed to AR-15) on here and don't see any information. I also looked at the malegislature.gov site but I am not good at legalese. I was speaking with a friend who said he bought an AM-15 lower in MA from an FFL dealer and that he built a rifle with it that is virtually identical to an AR-15. He said the dealer called in the sale to the feds and believes it is legal. His and the dealers rationale is that it is an AM-15, not an AR-15 even though it is pretty much identical. I have a hard time believing that loophole would vindicate him. I also am jealous and want to build my own if it is legal. ;) Is it legal? Thanks in advance.
Hi Maura
 
I live in the PRM. I did a search for AM-15(as opposed to AR-15) on here and don't see any information. I also looked at the malegislature.gov site but I am not good at legalese. I was speaking with a friend who said he bought an AM-15 lower in MA from an FFL dealer and that he built a rifle with it that is virtually identical to an AR-15. He said the dealer called in the sale to the feds and believes it is legal. His and the dealers rationale is that it is an AM-15, not an AR-15 even though it is pretty much identical. I have a hard time believing that loophole would vindicate him. I also am jealous and want to build my own if it is legal. ;) Is it legal? Thanks in advance.

If you want and AR15 look in the classified section of the forum and/or go to a local gun shop and buy one. It’s really not that hard.

Bob
 
It doesn’t matter if it’s AR-15 or an AM15 or XM15. The lower is not illegal.
Setting aside the AG's argument of what is "similar", her position on the lower is oxymoronic.

- Similar guns are banned
- In order for a gun to be a similar gun, it must be a gun and it must be similar
- A stripped lower is not a gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun under Mass General Law
- Therefore, the first part of the test fails before one even gets to the point of examining similitude

> I live in the PRM DPRM.
FIFY.
 
I legitimately just read all 582 posts and have seen a couple very brief mentions but nothing definitive about AR pistols...

I understand that MAYBE you can fill out all the forms and possibly get approved for a tax stamp for an sbr.

But if there is a postban lower registered as a pistol can it be transferred in a private sale? Because technically it's a pistol and pistols are legal to own (only regulations in regards to sales from dealers). But also technically falls under AWB?
 
I legitimately just read all 582 posts and have seen a couple very brief mentions but nothing definitive about AR pistols...

I understand that MAYBE you can fill out all the forms and possibly get approved for a tax stamp for an sbr.

But if there is a postban lower registered as a pistol can it be transferred in a private sale? Because technically it's a pistol and pistols are legal to own (only regulations in regards to sales from dealers). But also technically falls under AWB?

Few quick points:

1. There's nothing stopping you from EFA10ing anything. Nor will anyone generally care what you type in that system. It's a data collection system, nothing more, at least on the private
sale end of things.

2. There is no "maybe" about it, if you put your ducks in a row you can SBR pretty much anything. Whether your end product meets the original MA AWB (I'm not talking healeyban bullshit, because f*** her) or not is an other story as discussed earlier. The prevailing notion is that SBR doesn't necessarily negate AWB, but some people believe otherwise etc. This does not influence "getting a stamp" at all, as all the ATF cares about is the
paperwork or efile being done correctly.

3. Whether the device in question is "actually legal on the ground as it exists" or not is an entire other story. And if one can't figure that out on their own they probably
shouldn't be messing with AR pistols. As a generality most post 94 AR pistols have to be either f***ed up or crippled (blocked fixed mag) to pass AWB, unless the possessor is otherwise
somehow immune from prosecution. (eg, via LE creds, MA dealer lic, or some other exemption or orbital law that wards off MA bullshit, like .mil acting under specific orders).
 
I'm looking at this well known (I assume) FAQ; particularly this statement:
Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
  • Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;

This leads me to the question... Does this mean that something like an M&P 15-22 can have whatever features you want on it? Or would a rifle like this with a collapsible stock, a detachable magazine, and a removable muzzle device still be considered an assault weapon because of the features and not because they are copies? Just want to confirm. My suspicion is that by the letter of the law they would be, which is why the "MA compliant" versions of this rifle have fixed stocks and no muzzle devices.
 
I'm looking at this well known (I assume) FAQ; particularly this statement:
Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
  • Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;

This leads me to the question... Does this mean that something like an M&P 15-22 can have whatever features you want on it? Or would a rifle like this with a collapsible stock, a detachable magazine, and a removable muzzle device still be considered an assault weapon because of the features and not because they are copies? Just want to confirm. My suspicion is that by the letter of the law they would be, which is why the "MA compliant" versions of this rifle have fixed stocks and no muzzle devices.
The AG's diarrhea does NOT cancel MGL. The AWB in MGL is superior in any court vs. a press conference/memo/FAQ. So your answer is NO!
 
The AG's diarrhea does NOT cancel MGL. The AWB in MGL is superior in any court vs. a press conference/memo/FAQ. So your answer is NO!
Well it depends, because in some ways a savvy attorney can easily use entrapment by estoppel as a defense. "Well the mass AG said it was ok so i did it". There's not really that many places where this would apply with her garbage but it indeed exists.
 
I used to know the answer to this - but over the years I've forgotten, or maybe my brain just refuses to deal with the insanity of it all any more... in any case, I'm hoping somebody can answer these questions for me:

1) Is .50 BMG legal in MA? I can't recall anything I've read in the MA laws that specifically calls it out as illegal...........


2) What is the "Law" in regards to belt fed, If I remember correctly a cloth belt could be considered a "high capacity" feeding device (since they're usually quite a bit more rounds than 10) - but 10 rounds belted together with metal links is ok?
 
I used to know the answer to this - but over the years I've forgotten, or maybe my brain just refuses to deal with the insanity of it all any more... in any case, I'm hoping somebody can answer these questions for me:

1) Is .50 BMG legal in MA? I can't recall anything I've read in the MA laws that specifically calls it out as illegal...........


2) What is the "Law" in regards to belt fed, If I remember correctly a cloth belt could be considered a "high capacity" feeding device (since they're usually quite a bit more rounds than 10) - but 10 rounds belted together with metal links is ok?
1. Legal for now.
2. Correct, belts need to be pre-ban or restricted to 10 or less links (5 for shotgun).
 
Beltless links are usually pre-ban; hard to tell; and only become subject to the ban once linked ..... I think.

If you apply the pre-ban rule, then both cloth and metal links *could* potentially be pre-ban on 1919a4s and M2s. The US stopped using 1919a4s in their inventory in the 1970s I believe. The M2 is still used - but it was only for a period during WW2 that they made cloth belts for them. Cloth belts at least can be date stamped. The tricky part comes in that there have been repro cloth belts manufactured for both - and the metal links are still being manufactured for M2s.
 
So if I buy a lower from a MA FFL and build a rifle with a fixed stock and crowned non-threaded barrel or a pined and welded brake I'm legal per MGL
 
out of transfers ,does anyone know any dealers that will transfer a pre healy ar? please pm me don't post it.
 
So Chapter 140, Section 121 which is referenced in OP, defines an AW per criteria set in Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) which reads:

The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means-

(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);
(iv) Colt AR–15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

My interpretation of the above means that ANY of the four scenarios (A through D) would classify a firearm as an AW. Meaning that any rifle that is obviously a copy of a Colt AR-15 would be an AW per (A) regardless of what features are listed under (B). (B) seems only relevant to rifles which are not obviously copies of the Colt AR-15 (Scar 16/17, etc.).

I guess you can say I interpret this the same way as the AG (ugh). Where am I going wrong? Obviously neutering an AR so that it complies with (B) is acceptable but I don't understand why. Please enlighten me.
 
So Chapter 140, Section 121 which is referenced in OP, defines an AW per criteria set in Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) which reads:



My interpretation of the above means that ANY of the four scenarios (A through D) would classify a firearm as an AW. Meaning that any rifle that is obviously a copy of a Colt AR-15 would be an AW per (A) regardless of what features are listed under (B). (B) seems only relevant to rifles which are not obviously copies of the Colt AR-15 (Scar 16/17, etc.).

I guess you can say I interpret this the same way as the AG (ugh). Where am I going wrong? Obviously neutering an AR so that it complies with (B) is acceptable but I don't understand why. Please enlighten me.
Because when the federal AWB was in effect from 1994-2004, that "copy or duplicate" language was very narrowly interpreted, and the MA AWB, being a carbon copy of the federal AWB, was similarly interpreted from 1998-2016. Basically a new model was only considered a "copy or duplicate" of a banned model if it was an exact copy. Once companies started changing stuff in order to comply with the feature test portion of the ban, those new models were considered different enough that they weren't copies or duplicates.

Ignoring that precedent, one could argue that your interpretation is reasonable (not saying I agree, just saying it is an interpretation that makes a kind of logical sense). However, given the precedent of how the federal AWB and MA AWB were interpreted for over 20 years, it was pretty bogus for the AG to just change it with the stroke of a pen.
 
Back
Top Bottom