MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

[Rob Boudrie]

got 2 years following a domestic violence charge for having pre ban mags, but no pre ban gun, just post ban.

It would be easier to believe a prosecution for high cap mags absent an LTC than for high caps for an LTC holder.

It's also worth remembering that people are often sentenced for other things they did, with the actual conviction used as a pretext. Look at Hastert - he violated banking regulations in an attempt to get privacy for his hush money payments, but the judge went on about how he was being punished for the horrendous things he did (which I think could not be prosecuted for the statute of limitations).

Despite the judge's admonishment to the contrary, the 30 years OJ got for his botched attempt to steal his own stuff back was clearly a sentence for the murder, not for a crime that the prosecution was offering no jail time deals for pre-trial.

So, if the person in a domestic violence case got 2 years for mags, there is a good chance that the defendant was really being sentenced for aspects of the case other than possessing a box with a spring in it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Attached below is the AG memo that the guy was using to terrorize you. Read it for yourself.

 

[saber19]

Attached below is the AG memo that the guy was using to terrorize you. Read it for yourself.

Uhhhmmmm, yea nothing there about pre or post ban anything lol. CARRY ON!

 

[drgrant]

So, forgive me if this has been hashed out before...

Someone at my club today adamantly asserted that you cannot (legally) attach a pre-ban magazine to a post ban AR-15. I say nay nay... however his assertion was that because the attorney general wrote some letter, a person could be prosecuted for simply having a large capacity pre-ban magazine in your house and not having a pre-ban AR to accompany that magazine, just having a post ban AR.

Is there any legal precedent, or basis for this assertion, or for that matter case law? (Yes, I read the FAQ, however, who is the source for the FAQ? or is there an official determination?)

Any Lawyers, cops, judges etc out there to opine?

The assertion is crap as others have stated. There is nothing in MGL that changes AWB issues as the guns and magazines covered by the AWB are both regulated as separate entities within the law. That's all the law says, when it's distilled to the component level.

Now, this doesn't preclude a DA from inventing a bogus charge and trying to use it as leverage if the accused has a dumb attorney, but if they're going to play nifong fantasy land stuff, then they don't need a large capacity feeding device to do it, they can just invent something else, at that point let your imagination run wild.

-Mike

 

[rivet_42]

Between my Basic Pistol class, keeping aware of the news, various GOAL and Comm2A postings, having taken Len2A's class on MA gun laws, and discussions on NES, I think I'm about as up on MA firearms law as it's reasonable for a layperson to be. I don't want to go to jail or lose my 2A rights!

So my usual response any time someone says something that's counter to what I know is,

[ citation needed ]

I swear, that should be an emoticon/emoji/smiley on here.

 

[diesel112]

I searched and couldn't find it discussed. What are our thoughts on the LAW Tactical Folding Adapter. Essentially you have a single shot if it was successfully fired with the buffer tube folded (if it doesn't blow the BCG straight out the back). Then you can swing your pinned or rifle stock back in place and make it legal. It's not like an AK folder that can be fired with the stock folded.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Exibar]

I searched and couldn't find it discussed. What are our thoughts on the LAW Tactical Folding Adapter. Essentially you have a single shot if it was successfully fired with the buffer tube folded (if it doesn't blow the BCG straight out the back). Then you can swing your pinned or rifle stock back in place and make it legal. It's not like an AK folder that can be fired with the stock folded.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it's a folding stock, therefore illegal on any post ban firearm in mass.. no discussion needed about that, it's illegal to attach in Mass....
attach it on a Pre-ban al you want though

"old"ban law and "new" ban (july20) as well...

 

[faheyra9]

Couldn't find any solid answers around, hoping you guys will know. With the 'new ban' on "assault rifles" this past week, do you know if gun stores are still allowed to sell the Preban (before 9/1994) 20 & 30 round magazines for AR-15s?

 

[Exibar]

Couldn't find any solid answers around, hoping you guys will know. With the 'new ban' on "assault rifles" this past week, do you know if gun stores are still allowed to sell the Preban (before 9/1994) 20 & 30 round magazines for AR-15s?

the way the law is written, nope. zero transfers of anything that meet the criteria of the law.... you can keep whatever you currently have, but cannot sell or buy or otherwise transfer it.... there is NOT even a measure written in for inheritance of a firearm that meets the criteria of an "assault weapon"

 

[Mach]

the way the law is written, nope. zero transfers of anything that meet the criteria of the law.... you can keep whatever you currently have, but cannot sell or buy or otherwise transfer it.... there is NOT even a measure written in for inheritance of a firearm that meets the criteria of an "assault weapon"

Preban mags are grandfathered by MGL if made before 13 Sep 1994.

The AG made up definitions for the words "copies or duplicates" and claims that is what those words always meant and and therefore changed the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon under the law.

This has no effect on grandfathered pre-ban magazines.

 

[MAJoe]

Couldn't find any solid answers around, hoping you guys will know. With the 'new ban' on "assault rifles" this past week, do you know if gun stores are still allowed to sell the Preban (before 9/1994) 20 & 30 round magazines for AR-15s?

I would say safe to do so. They are covered under the MGL and her new guidance also does not apply to true preban weapons so I'd say minimal risk in shops selling these.

 

[Exibar]

Preban mags are grandfathered by MGL if made before 13 Sep 1994.

The AG made up definitions for the words "copies or duplicates" and claims that is what those words always meant and and therefore changed the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon under the law.

This has no effect on grandfathered pre-ban magazines.

Correct, I mistakenly read 'recievers" I stead of magazines..... preban mags are still ok.....

However, zero transfers of any receiver, regardless of date made is now allowed under the new law...

 

[Exibar]

That memo was superceded by July 20th changes

 

[MTC]

Are 10-22's now illegal to buy in mass?

 

[soam]

Are 10-22's now illegal to buy in mass?

Nobody knows. Out of an abundance of caution some dealers have stopped selling any semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Nobody knows. Out of an abundance of caution some dealers have stopped selling any semi-automatic rifles.

Not quite correct. Those that can actually read App. A that the AG referenced as "exempt" from her highness' ruling would know. Sadly most FFLs can't/won't do the reading.

 

[42!]

Not quite correct. Those that can actually read App. A that the AG referenced as "exempt" from her highness' ruling would know. Sadly most FFLs can't/won't do the reading.

I was looking at appendix A and couldn't help thinking that a mini thirty would be exempt regardless of configuration, and a mini 14 would only be required to not have a folding stock. Am I wrong?

 

[soam]

Not quite correct. Those that can actually read App. A that the AG referenced as "exempt" from her highness' ruling would know. Sadly most FFLs can't/won't do the reading.

So after much digging I actually found Appendix A, and I have to say it's a bit of a joke. Most of the list is lever actions, bolt actions, pump actions, single shots, and over-unders, which is ridiculous since guns that are not semi-automatic are not affected by the AWB at all. Why they felt the need to include a "list" of exempted guns that are not covered by the law anyways is beyond me.

But as you say, the 10/22 is included on the list. Also included are the Mini-14 and Mini-30.

Search for "Appendix A" in the link below for anyone who wants to see the complete list.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3527/text

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Why they felt the need to include a "list" of exempted guns that are not covered by the law anyways is beyond me.

It's cover so the AG's attorney can tell the court "we're not banning all guns, just a very select set of types that the little people should not be allowed to have."

 

[Len-2A Training]

So after much digging I actually found Appendix A, and I have to say it's a bit of a joke. Most of the list is lever actions, bolt actions, pump actions, single shots, and over-unders, which is ridiculous since guns that are not semi-automatic are not affected by the AWB at all. Why they felt the need to include a "list" of exempted guns that are not covered by the law anyways is beyond me.

But as you say, the 10/22 is included on the list. Also included are the Mini-14 and Mini-30.

Search for "Appendix A" in the link below for anyone who wants to see the complete list.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3527/text

I'm with you. No idea why that list was created by the Feds. I had never looked at it before either. It's a head-scratcher.

 

[jasons]

Not quite correct. Those that can actually read App. A that the AG referenced as "exempt" from her highness' ruling would know. Sadly most FFLs can't/won't do the reading.

The full exemption is as follows:

....any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993

So my take on that is that the only "list exemptions" would be the specific models that were manufactured on October 1, 1993. (Note that it says "on" not "on or before.") So - was the Ruger 10/22 model #1103 manufactured on October 1, 1993? Maybe... Was the Ruger 10/22 model #1104 (which is an exclusive distributor model that has a different stock)? I doubt it....

The point here is that what the law says really doesn't mean shit anymore. The AG wants all of the guns and it's only a matter of time before the next "interpretation" comes out and bam, we're all criminals again (or still as the case may be.) She seems to have figured out that the laws are unclear in the extreme and open to all sorts of interpretations that can be, and now have been, used to screw over gun dealers and owners. (Which not for nothing is something that certain people here have been predicting would happen for years. We were pretty much all laughed at.) This is only the beginning folks.

 

[napoleon1815]

I saw this in the enforcement notice FAQ:

"Q: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons?

...Any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine."

So if I am reading this correctly the Benelli M2 and M4 are legal still? They are capped at 5rds, no mag. I only ask as in all this back and forth I thought I heard semi auto shotguns were more or less banned.

 

[EJFudd]

So my take on that is that the only "list exemptions" would be the specific models that were manufactured on October 1, 1993. (Note that it says "on" not "on or before.") So - was the Ruger 10/22 model #1103 manufactured on October 1, 1993? Maybe... Was the Ruger 10/22 model #1104 (which is an exclusive distributor model that has a different stock)? I doubt it....

In a rational world, I think that reasonable people would say that the date stamp... "as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993"... is only there to be clear about what general configuration they were exempting. The problem, of course, is that we no longer live in a rational world. We live in Queen Maura's new Massachusetts.

The point here is that what the law says really doesn't mean shit anymore.

Here is one question I've been going over again and again: Queen Maura may have a ton of intimidating direct control over the dealers (I get that) but I keep reading that it will be the state police and local cops and the DA's who will enforce her new unilateral decree upon us poor everyday licensed peons. So my question is this: Will the police and the DA's continue to apply the law as it is written? Or will they be forced to ignore the old law (or parts of the old law) and apply Queen Maura's new law to us instead? It's not a trick question but there are a lot of very tricky details and aspects to it when you start to consider various plausible scenarios.

I'm also wondering what direction the police have received in regard to Queen Maura's new decree. Are they as much in the dark as we are... reading the ever changing FAQ's right along with the rest of us? Or have they been given more detailed and specific instructions on what to do or not do? I'd sure like to know.

 

[92G]

I saw this in the enforcement notice FAQ:

"Q: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons?

...Any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine."

So if I am reading this correctly the Benelli M2 and M4 are legal still? They are capped at 5rds, no mag. I only ask as in all this back and forth I thought I heard semi auto shotguns were more or less banned.

you are assuming 2.75" shells. the law does not state this. what about mini shells? it will hold like 8 or 9 of them. my point is the law is vague as to which type of shotgun ammo.

 

[jasons]

I saw this in the enforcement notice FAQ:

"Q: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons?

...Any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine."

So if I am reading this correctly the Benelli M2 and M4 are legal still? They are capped at 5rds, no mag. I only ask as in all this back and forth I thought I heard semi auto shotguns were more or less banned.

It depends on what her definition of "cannot" is. You CAN put an extended mag tube (and a magazine tube is a magazine by the way) on an M2 or an M4, so it CAN hold more than 5 rounds. You also CAN stuff more than five short shells in the "five round" tube (it'll hold them, not sure they'd feed but that's beside the point.)

Then again it CAN NOT hold more than five rounds if you don't actually have an extension tube installed....

So given that the M2 and M4 both can and cannot hold more than five rounds depending on the circumstances, what does cannot really mean? It is "under any circumstances" or is "only under certain circumstances?" And if it's the later what are those specific circumstances where cannot can mean can? Make sense?

 

[jasons]

I'm also wondering what direction the police have received in regard to Queen Maura's new decree.

Read Glidden's book for your answer. He's been coming up with wacky interpretations for a long time now, I'd be shocked if he didn't have a revised edition with Healey's new interpretations added at the print shop already.

 

[KMM696]

Read Glidden's book for your answer. He's been coming up with wacky interpretations for a long time now, I'd be shocked if he didn't have a revised edition with Healey's new interpretations added at the print shop already.

He's probably so excited by this he's wetting himself, gonna sell a ton of new editions because "everything's changed!!!"

 

[Len-2A Training]

The full exemption is as follows:


So my take on that is that the only "list exemptions" would be the specific models that were manufactured on October 1, 1993. (Note that it says "on" not "on or before.") So - was the Ruger 10/22 model #1103 manufactured on October 1, 1993? Maybe... Was the Ruger 10/22 model #1104 (which is an exclusive distributor model that has a different stock)? I doubt it....

Except once the gun is "out of the box" all those 42+ model variation numbers aren't available to the buyer or seller to prove one way or another.

I'm also wondering what direction the police have received in regard to Queen Maura's new decree. Are they as much in the dark as we are... reading the ever changing FAQ's right along with the rest of us? Or have they been given more detailed and specific instructions on what to do or not do? I'd sure like to know.

As of now my LE contacts are as in the dark as all of us. Also DAs and police do NOT take orders from any AG, so they will do what they want regardless of her handing down her commandments.

It depends on what her definition of "cannot" is. You CAN put an extended mag tube (and a magazine tube is a magazine by the way) on an M2 or an M4, so it CAN hold more than 5 rounds. You also CAN stuff more than five short shells in the "five round" tube (it'll hold them, not sure they'd feed but that's beside the point.)

Then again it CAN NOT hold more than five rounds if you don't actually have an extension tube installed....

So given that the M2 and M4 both can and cannot hold more than five rounds depending on the circumstances, what does cannot really mean? It is "under any circumstances" or is "only under certain circumstances?" And if it's the later what are those specific circumstances where cannot can mean can? Make sense?

You just gave me a headache trying to follow that!!

 

[jasons]

Except once the gun is "out of the box" all those 42+ model variation numbers aren't available to the buyer or seller to prove one way or another.

With the AG's "guilty by default" policy, it's not hard to see why some FFLs are playing it extra safe for now. Many of the smaller guys are just a lawsuit away from closing their doors for good at this point. (If that...)

As of now my LE contacts are as in the dark as all of us. Also DAs and police do NOT take orders from any AG, so they will do what they want regardless of her handing down her commandments.

The ones who want royal favor will play ball.

You just gave me a headache trying to follow that!!

I recommend treatment with liberal quantities of decent Bourbon. Repeat as needed.

 

[TLB]

It depends on what her definition of "cannot" is. You CAN put an extended mag tube (and a magazine tube is a magazine by the way) on an M2 or an M4, so it CAN hold more than 5 rounds. You also CAN stuff more than five short shells in the "five round" tube (it'll hold them, not sure they'd feed but that's beside the point.)

Then again it CAN NOT hold more than five rounds if you don't actually have an extension tube installed....

So given that the M2 and M4 both can and cannot hold more than five rounds depending on the circumstances, what does cannot really mean? It is "under any circumstances" or is "only under certain circumstances?" And if it's the later what are those specific circumstances where cannot can mean can? Make sense?

I would hope the defendant''s attorney would argue strongly that it cannot if it was left in factory condition with no attachments.

Half joke's aside, I really don't think the AG or anyone else really wants to start arresting guys at the range or doing no knock raids. They are just trying to ban stuff through the back door like as worked with online ammo sales, handgun list's etc.