MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

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.

OK, thanks. I suggest for the powers at be to add (A) to the OP to let users here make a more informed decision on whether they want to buy or build a post '16 AR in this state. Or maybe just reference the mass.gov FAQ regarding the AG's edict which does a decent job at providing specifics.

IMHO a narrowly interpreted law that is now interpreted more precisely and seems to follow the written word may be enough to sway someone one way or another.
 
OK, thanks. I suggest for the powers at be to add (A) to the OP to let users here make a more informed decision on whether they want to buy or build a post '16 AR in this state. Or maybe just reference the mass.gov FAQ regarding the AG's edict which does a decent job at providing specifics.

IMHO a narrowly interpreted law that is now interpreted more precisely and seems to follow the written word may be enough to sway someone one way or another.

Lol that's cute but this FAQ refers to something that IS ACTUAL LAW and is well outside of the scope of this thread. This thread is about the actual AWB, not Healey's clown world press conference garbage. If you want to start a thread about Healey's 7/20/2016 Clown World Press Conference Interpretation go right ahead, but it will get subject to some creative editing in the title, etc. There are a bunch of facebook groups which basically lube up over the AGs bullshit and it's nauseating to even read it, because they accept it as fact.

I will add a line/link referencing that thread too, if you want. There probably is some old smelly 7/20/16 thread you can find to link to, as well.

Actually there is one of those right here, it's closed but the horse is beaten to death in here over like 900 pages.


Basically the "wether to build a post 7/20/16 AR or not" question is literally this simple-

Do you believe in Healey's authority to rewrite law out of whole cloth?

If yes, then you can be a beta cuck afraid of your own shadow and not build one.

If no, then you can build one within the confines of the actual law like thousands of other people have done since 7/20/16.

Of course part of the problem with starting another thread on this is the people who believe Healey has authority are going to get a raging case of hemmrhoids very fast, when 90% of NES shows up to basically tell them to shove it. I can't imagine its going to be well received around here.

So on second thought, I would suggest you read through the closed thread above and think, two or three times about starting another one. [laugh]
 
A part of the AG interpretation that is clearly wrong is "A stripped lower is a copy of an AR":
  1. The MA ban applies to firearms
  2. A stripped lower is not a firearm under MA statutory and case law
  3. Therefore a stripped lower cannot be a copy
using the same logic:
  1. The ban applies to witches.
  2. Witches are made of wood.
  3. A suspect made of flesh and bone instead of wood cannot therefore be a witch.
 
Last edited:
OK, thanks. I suggest for the powers at be to add (A) to the OP to let users here make a more informed decision on whether they want to buy or build a post '16 AR in this state. Or maybe just reference the mass.gov FAQ regarding the AG's edict which does a decent job at providing specifics.

IMHO a narrowly interpreted law that is now interpreted more precisely and seems to follow the written word may be enough to sway someone one way or another.
As I read the edict pre or post 2016 does not matter. It calls you out as owning a "AW" and just says they CURRENTLY choose not to charge you will that fact.
Pre 2016 and post 2016, you still own it, going by the BS. So saying this is pre 16 vs post 16 means nothing.
(Of course I am not an expert)

So if you choose to own something post REAL ban you run the same risk (slim)
 
Lol that's cute but this FAQ refers to something that IS ACTUAL LAW and is well outside of the scope of this thread. This thread is about the actual AWB, not Healey's clown world press conference garbage. If you want to start a thread about Healey's 7/20/2016 Clown World Press Conference Interpretation go right ahead, but it will get subject to some creative editing in the title, etc. There are a bunch of facebook groups which basically lube up over the AGs bullshit and it's nauseating to even read it, because they accept it as fact.

I will add a line/link referencing that thread too, if you want. There probably is some old smelly 7/20/16 thread you can find to link to, as well.

Actually there is one of those right here, it's closed but the horse is beaten to death in here over like 900 pages.


Basically the "wether to build a post 7/20/16 AR or not" question is literally this simple-

Do you believe in Healey's authority to rewrite law out of whole cloth?

If yes, then you can be a beta cuck afraid of your own shadow and not build one.

If no, then you can build one within the confines of the actual law like thousands of other people have done since 7/20/16.

Of course part of the problem with starting another thread on this is the people who believe Healey has authority are going to get a raging case of hemmrhoids very fast, when 90% of NES shows up to basically tell them to shove it. I can't imagine its going to be well received around here.

So on second thought, I would suggest you read through the closed thread above and think, two or three times about starting another one. [laugh]
I'm not really interested in starting a new thread which is why I posted in this one. What confuses me is when you or someone asks if Healey can rewrite the law. I quoted the law and that is what I'm questioning. IMO Healey doesn't need to rewrite anything, which is what I find troubling and looking for clarification on.
 
A part of the AG interpretation that is clearly wrong is "A stripped lower is a copy of an AR":

  1. The MA ban applies to firearms
  2. A stripped lower is not a firearm under MA statutory ane case law
  3. Therefore a stripped lower cannot be a copy
using the same logic:
  1. The ban applies to witches.
  2. Witches are made of wood.
  3. A suspect made of flesh and bine instead of wood cannot therefore be a witch.
I didn't know she considered a stripped lower a firearm. Doesn't make much sense to me. But eventually you're going to complete that lower anyway which changes things (maybe?).
 
I'm not really interested in starting a new thread which is why I posted in this one. What confuses me is when you or someone asks if Healey can rewrite the law. I quoted the law and that is what I'm questioning. IMO Healey doesn't need to rewrite anything, which is what I find troubling and looking for clarification on.

Clarification on what? The AWB has been interpreted one way commonly for over 20 years. (Both at fed level until expiration, and similarly in MA, which the MA AWB is a direct, linked derivative of) Healey making noises, making shit up out of thin air, and having a press conference doesn't change any of that.
 
Clarification on what? The AWB has been interpreted one way commonly for over 20 years. (Both at fed level until expiration, and similarly in MA, which the MA AWB is a direct, linked derivative of) Healey making noises, making shit up out of thin air, and having a press conference doesn't change any of that.
Seems more like the AG is trying to enforce MGL that has otherwise not been enforced. I don't think a MA judge will care too much about a 20+ year old weak interpretation if the AG tries to make an example of someone. I don't think she will try it, but you never know. Anyway, your thread, your prerogative.
 
Seems more like the AG is trying to enforce MGL that has otherwise not been enforced. I don't think a MA judge will care too much about a 20+ year old weak interpretation if the AG tries to make an example of someone.
Nothing weak about it, there's 20+ years of case law/enforcement, and the AG is clearly wrong. See Rob's example as part of this illogic from her office. If it was solid she would have rapped someone already. Or other DAs would have used her edict to prosecute someone. (Although ironically an attorney has already used her edict as an estoppel defense from another angle) there were even dealers at the beginning that were like "we're going to sell ARs with this modification is that okay?" Then they got no response from the AG's office other than some canned bullshit. They went and sold the guns nothing happened..... shocker. It's pretty obvious this entire thing is a virtue signaling shitshow by the Attorney General.... she wanted shitlery to win in 2016 and she wanted to get tapped by shitlery to be Attorney General... watch everything that Maura Healey does and it's pretty obvious that it's all about the virtue signaling..... and it goes way beyond guns and way into various other moonbat causes....
 
Nothing weak about it, there's 20+ years of case law/enforcement, and the AG is clearly wrong. See Rob's example as part of this illogic from her office. If it was solid she would have rapped someone already. Or other DAs would have used her edict to prosecute someone. (Although ironically an attorney has already used her edict as an estoppel defense from another angle) there were even dealers at the beginning that were like "we're going to sell ARs with this modification is that okay?" Then they got no response from the AG's office other than some canned bullshit. They went and sold the guns nothing happened..... shocker. It's pretty obvious this entire thing is a virtue signaling shitshow by the Attorney General.... she wanted shitlery to win in 2016 and she wanted to get tapped by shitlery to be Attorney General... watch everything that Maura Healey does and it's pretty obvious that it's all about the virtue signaling..... and it goes way beyond guns and way into various other moonbat causes....
I wasn't going to put in the effort... but once an interpretation gains precedence... courts *usually* defer to it.
 
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.
She did not change anything. She held a press conference. Some people chose to pay attention. Some did not. I am unaware of anyone who has been prosecuted for a "Healey violation" to date so even 5 years after her little stunt, even she does not believe enough in it to do anything.
 
I'm not really interested in starting a new thread which is why I posted in this one. What confuses me is when you or someone asks if Healey can rewrite the law. I quoted the law and that is what I'm questioning. IMO Healey doesn't need to rewrite anything, which is what I find troubling and looking for clarification on.

If all this is troubling to you just buy a Preban and be done with it. No muss no fuss and nothing to worry about.

Bob
 
If all this is troubling to you just buy a Preban and be done with it. No muss no fuss and nothing to worry about.

Bob
I'm not losing any sleep over it. Just trying to wrap my head around it all. I understand why this thread does not acknowledge 921(a)(30)(A) but times are changing and there's now grounds for prosecution in this state. Not saying it's going to happen, but it's irresponsible to deny the possibility.
 
I have decided to get rid of everything legally
And abide by the laws . Except my $&@% and my %#=• and!$<{ and =•¥€and€|€{ and my £>\# and my &$:/ and further more $/@$ off
 
She did not change anything. She held a press conference. Some people chose to pay attention. Some did not. I am unaware of anyone who has been prosecuted for a "Healey violation" to date so even 5 years after her little stunt, even she does not believe enough in it to do anything.
She made it much for difficult for a brand-new LTC holder who doesn't know how things work in MA to obtain an AR. A day-1 LTC holder used to be able to walk into nearly any gun shop in the state and buy a brand new, complete, functional AR (without an evil flash hider or adjustable stock, of course). Can't do that anymore, so the barrier to entry is much higher.
 
Seems more like the AG is trying to enforce MGL that has otherwise not been enforced. I don't think a MA judge will care too much about a 20+ year old weak interpretation if the AG tries to make an example of someone. I don't think she will try it, but you never know. Anyway, your thread, your prerogative.
I wonder how a MA judge would explain deviation from the definition in Chapter 140 Section 121 MGL:

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994"
I would hardly call an interpretation officially adopted by the federal government and consistently applied as a "weak interpretation". The fact that MGL contained a specific definition, rather than ceding the function of creating to the AG also strips the AG of effectively using Cheveron deference to justify her action.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how a MA judge would explain deviation from the definition in Chapter 140 Section 121 MGL:

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994"
Dynamic incorporation of federal law. A MA judge does not even get to have an opinion on whether an object is an assault weapon. That is assuming you have a good attorney who knows how to deal properly "shall have the same meaning as..." Welcome to federal court.
 
I wonder how a MA judge would explain deviation from the definition in Chapter 140 Section 121 MGL:

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994"
I would hardly call an interpretation officially adopted by the federal government and consistently applied as a "weak interpretation". The fact that MGL contained a specific definition, rather than ceding the function of creating to the AG also strips the AG of effectively using Cheveron deference to justify her action.
Has there been any rulings (federal or state) that found neutered ARs not within the jurisdiction of 921(a)(30)(A)? Or is it just that no one since ‘94 has been convicted of possessing a neutered AR?
 
Has there been any rulings (federal or state) that found neutered ARs not within the jurisdiction of 921(a)(30)(A)? Or is it just that no one since ‘94 has been convicted of possessing a neutered AR?
The ATF director at the time the federal AWB was being debated in Congress (John Magaw) stated the following in a letter to Sen. Larry Craig:

You also asked if virtually any firearm on the list of assault weapons could be modified by eliminating the bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or other accessories to remove the firearm from the definition of a banned or assault weapon. The vast majority of the firearms meeting the definition of assault weapon as contained in paragraphs (B), (C), and (D) of the Feinstein amendment could be modified to remove them from that definition.

You can see the exchange of letters between Magaw and Craig since it was entered into the congressional record. Start on page 25 of the PDF linked at the top of the following page. It's labeled as page 8905 in the actual document. Look for the header "ASSAULT WEAPONS"


So, even before the AWB became law, the understanding was that removing the "evil features" from an enumerated AW would make it no longer an AW.
 
There's also some significant language from the case Olympic Arms v. Magaw:

More meritoriously, plaintiffs present arguments which, although not labeled as such, appear to the court to be arguments of underinclusiveness. For example, plaintiffs argue that the prohibited firearms they manufacture or in which they deal are "identical in type, function and capacity," (pl. br. at 1), to nonprohibited firearms that other people manufacturer, deal in or sell. (Id.) For example, plaintiffs direct the court's attention to two rifles, one a MAADI and one a Norinco. Plaintiffs argue that the two rifles are "nearly identical, with parts which were interchangable." (Id. at 11-13.) The Norinco rifle is proscribed; the MAADI rifle is not. This, according to plaintiffs, is irrational.[16]

In analyzing plaintiffs' arguments, the court notes that plaintiffs' briefs at least implicitly indicate that the proscribed firearms are nearly identical, but not actually identical to the nonproscribed firearms. Such a distinction, although minor, is a distinction nonetheless. See Benjamin, 662 A.2d at 1238. While it appears to the court that plaintiffs may, in fact, be correct in their comparisons of prohibited and nonprohibited firearms, the fact that the semiautomatic assault weapons ban may be underinclusive does not necessarily deny them equal protection.

 
The ATF director at the time the federal AWB was being debated in Congress (John Magaw) stated the following in a letter to Sen. Larry Craig:



You can see the exchange of letters between Magaw and Craig since it was entered into the congressional record. Start on page 25 of the PDF linked at the top of the following page. It's labeled as page 8905 in the actual document. Look for the header "ASSAULT WEAPONS"


So, even before the AWB became law, the understanding was that removing the "evil features" from an enumerated AW would make it no longer an AW.
Great info, thanks.
 
Questions Related to building rifles/shotguns/pistols and how the AWB affects these builds:

Rifles:

Q: Can I legally replace parts on a preban lower and still have the gun be pre-ban at the
end?

A: Yes, as long as the lower stays as a constant, the entire gun can be treated as a preban, even if all the other parts are brand new.

Q: If I put a thumbhole stock on my AR can I get an extra evil feature?

A: Yes. That said, beware that in a lot of cases this doesn't buy you much. You could swap out a brake for an FH. There is also the "usable threads" problem you run into on most normal uppers.

ETA: There was some controversy about this. That said, it's somewhat of a moot issue since nobody makes the damned things anymore anyways.

Q: What about this rumination I hear about a rifle being exempt from the AWB if it is an SBR?

A: Controversial/Unknown - This issue is discussed in detail here:
MA-centric NFA FAQ

Flash Suppressors:
Q: What Legally Constitutes/Delineates between a Flash Suppressor in MA?

A: Nobody knows, the assumed guess is it references the old Federal standard, which is defined by this ATF bulletin here: (cite needed). To add to the fun, BATFE no longer conducts any kind of testing to
determine what is or is not a flash suppressor. All you really have to go by is the manufacturers'
claim(s). This is particularly amusing because I've seen at least a couple of rifles on the market that depending on the marketing literature you read, one says "Flash Suppressor" and the other ad blurb for it calls it a "muzzle brake".

Attachment of Brakes/other muzzle devices:
Q: What legally Constitutes "permanent attachment" of a muzzle device in MA?

A: Nobody knows, the assumed guess is it references the old Federal standard, which is either Silver Solder or Blind Pin + Weld over the hole left behind.

Collapsible Stocks:
Q: What legally Constitutes a correct "pinning" of an adjustable or folding stock so that it is not considered as such under the law?

A: Nobody really knows. The generally accepted premise is that it must not be able to be restored to its original state without the use of tools.

Q: Why are stocks like the Magpul PRS considered legal? Doesn't that back section "collapse" ?

A: If you read the law and how it describes a collapsible stock, it does not fit the definition of such a stock. Something like the PRS is "adjustable" but not collapsible. (the parts on the PRS don't really "telescope".

Shotguns:

Q: Can I add a pistol grip to a Saiga shotgun in MA?

A: Not usually, this would push the shotgun above the part count limit for shotguns


Pistols:

Threaded Barrels:

Q: Is a threaded barrel legal on a pistol in MA?

A: Yes, pending the constrictions described in the AWB above... but generally speaking, most common handguns are lawful to use with a threaded barrel, because most of them are way below the AWB criteria.

Pre-Ban Pistol:
Q: Is it possible to build an AR or AK pistol in MA that doesn't violate the MA AWB?

A: Maybe, but what you will end up with is usually best described as a "frankenstein hack job", manly to keep the pistol within the 50 ounce unloaded weight limit.

VFG:
Q: Can I attach a vertical foregrip or a buttstock to a pistol?

A: No. This is prohibited by the Federal NFA. There are ways to do this legally but this is WAY outside the scope of this Faq.... see the NFA faq in the equipment section.

Note well: There are some ancient handguns that have buttstocks that are exempt from being SBRs by Federal Law, for example certain old Mauser pistols and some Browning Hi Powers that had stocks that came
with them. Of course, if you have one of these, you probably already know about the exemption.

Flash Suppressor:
Q: Can I put a flash suppressor on a pistol?

A: Yes, if your pistol does not trip the AWB weight limit described earlier.
So I can't have my Holographic with magnifier,front grip, flashlight, IR designator, sling hook loop and tourniquet attached to my oversized chin rest butt stock? hmm Massachusetts Gun Laws violate the constitution so much so i'm ashamed I was born in this state. The founding fathers would be disgusted.
 
Dumb question.
Im pretty sure i know the answer already to it.

With an 18 inch barrel, do i still have to pin and weld the muzzle device?

My brain says yes, but clarification would be nice.
 
Dumb question.
Im pretty sure i know the answer already to it.

With an 18 inch barrel, do i still have to pin and weld the muzzle device?

My brain says yes, but clarification would be nice.
Depends. Assuming you mean on a semi auto where a threaded barrel is going to be the 2nd evil feature which puts you over the limit?

(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor

MA doesn’t care if it’s 16” or 20”, the muzzle device needs to be permanently attached or the threaded barrel designed to accept a flash hider counts as an evil feature.

If you’re talking about an AR for example, you’d need to pin/weld the brake unless you remove the pistol grip or it’s a fixed mag lower.
 
Depends. Assuming you mean on a semi auto where a threaded barrel is going to be the 2nd evil feature which puts you over the limit?

(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor

MA doesn’t care if it’s 16” or 20”, the muzzle device needs to be permanently attached or the threaded barrel designed to accept a flash hider counts as an evil feature.

If you’re talking about an AR for example, you’d need to pin/weld the brake unless you remove the pistol grip or it’s a fixed mag lower.
Thats what i thought. Thanks
 
Should placing a bead of weld/solder be adequate for making the 'bayonet mount' no longer functional and no longer a feature? Kind of like the concept of how it takes a small pin to make a stock no longer adjustable.
 
Back
Top Bottom