Piston vs Direct Impingement - MA Legality

[twrhnd]

I recently had a discussion with a firearms salesman and it was stated that in MA, Piston driven rifles are not considered AW’s whereas DI driven rifles are “illegal” regardless if they were in state pre 8/1 or sold by a MA dealer after 8/1, claiming they are “pre 8/1 stock”

This is the 1st I have heard this take on the law and I am curious as to the group members thoughts.

Is there truth in this or are these versions equal in the eyes of the law?

 

[jamison55]

I think the firearms salesman was trying to sell you a piston AR! Pretty clear the state’s take on AKs. Plus a piston AR still uses the same lower, so it fails the interchangeability language. But the law is doing its job confusing and confounding and scaring dealers/purchasers out of selling/buying.

 

[aphextwin11]

There's a few things to unpack here but I'll try to keep it simple. Also, because I don't know what I'm talking about in a black letter of the law sense, so take that for what it's worth. I'm significantly less knowledgeable on the topic vs someone like @CrackPot, so id defer to their posts if i were you for a more reliable interpretation.

The distinction between piston vs. impingement does nothing with regard to 8/1, all things being equal.

Short stroke piston rifles, such as the spear, were flying off the shelf pre 8/1 because they were widely considered to not be "copy or duplicates" w/r/t the AWB. An ak-47 uses a piston and is explicitly called out in the AWB, so having a piston doesn't automatically qualify or disqualify anything.

The general consensus in NES seems to be if it exists pre 8/1, the AWB feature tests as well all know them are moot (collapsing stock, bayonet lug, etc). If it wasn't in the state 8/1, then the new goofy feature tests apply (such as barrel shrouds LOL) banning all semiautomatic rifes as we all know them to exist, i.e. without a fin grip, having a barrel shroud, etc.

Hope this helps and that you're either able to find the answer peeling through thread's on the topic, or someone more informed responds. But the ultimate conclusion is that piston vs impingement doesn't directly ffect anything related to 8/1 on its own.

 

[Snora]

I'd be curious which law he's purposefully misinterpreting.

 

[CrackPot]

I'd be curious which law he's purposefully misinterpreting.

He is extrapolating from the MCX being not a copy or duplicate deciding the relevant feature was the piston system. This is bad logic.

As others have said, the key is whether its a copy or duplicate of the AR15. A piston AR15 is still a copy or duplicate of the AR15 so still illegal unless lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1/24 (not PRE 8/1...)

The MCX is NOT a copy or duplicate given it shares nothing but the magwell with the AR15. Upper is different (recoil spring built in above the BCG), different BCG, different trigger, different charging handle, etc. The fact that it is piston really doesnt play.

 

[twrhnd]

He is extrapolating from the MCX being not a copy or duplicate deciding the relevant feature was the piston system. This is bad logic.

As others have said, the key is whether its a copy or duplicate of the AR15. A piston AR15 is still a copy or duplicate of the AR15 so still illegal unless lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1/24 (not PRE 8/1...)

The MCX is NOT a copy or duplicate given it shares nothing but the magwell with the AR15. Upper is different (recoil spring built in above the BCG), different BCG, different trigger, different charging handle, etc. The fact that it is piston really doesnt play.

With regard to 8/1 law in legality, what about purchasing a DI AR from a MA dealer post 8/1, that they claim was in state pre 8/1? Is it still illegal to purchase/own?

 

[LakeTrout]

Is there truth in this

No

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I recently had a discussion with a firearms salesman

Firearms dealers are not experts or authority figures on gun law but often think they are.

 

[aphextwin11]

With regard to 8/1 law in legality, what about purchasing a DI AR from a MA dealer post 8/1, that they claim was in state pre 8/1? Is it still illegal to purchase/own?

If it was in the state pre 8/1, yes. Regardless if it was a dealer or joeschmo

 

[twrhnd]

If it was in the state pre 8/1, yes. Regardless if it was a dealer or joeschmo

Yes, meaning legal..correct?

 

[aphextwin11]

Yes, meaning legal..correct?

Yeah man, yes as in yes it is legal.

 

[twrhnd]

I mean I’d like to believe that if it’s being sold out of an actual business, then everything should be legit. Not haha, I just sold you an illegal item, have fun driving home, as many imply

 

[not new guy]

I mean I’d like to believe that if it’s being sold out of an actual business, then everything should be legit. Not haha, I just sold you an illegal item, have fun driving home, as many imply

You’d be surprised.

 

[MAJoe]

You’d be surprised.

This. And just because they sold it to you doesn’t give you a get of out jail card.

 

[CrackPot]

With regard to 8/1 law in legality, what about purchasing a DI AR from a MA dealer post 8/1, that they claim was in state pre 8/1? Is it still illegal to purchase/own?

No. Not pre 8/1. ON 8/1. Pre 8/1 means nothing. It needs to be in MA ON 8/1. Then yes.

 

[twrhnd]

No. Not pre 8/1. ON 8/1. Pre 8/1 means nothing. It needs to be in MA ON 8/1. Then yes

By Pre 8/1, I was meaning that either a MA resident or the FFL had it in their possession/registered in MA or on that FFL’s shelf.
Which I really don’t understand how a FFL can sell an AR that is technically illegal by the feature test today, and just say it’s - new old stock- hurry now, supplies are low!

 

[CrackPot]

By Pre 8/1, I was meaning that either a MA resident or the FFL had it in their possession/registered in MA or on that FFL’s shelf.
Which I really don’t understand how a FFL can sell an AR that is technically illegal by the feature test today, and just say it’s - new old stock- hurry now, supplies are low!

Word have meaning. Lawfully possessed. Registered is not a thing nor a requirement. It must be registered in the future but 121b has not been implemented by the state yet.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c140-ss-131m

The feature test does not make a gun illegal. The feature test makes a gun an assault style firearm. Whether the assault style firearm is illegal depends on whether it was possessed in MA on 8/1/24.

Read more, posit your confusion less.

 

[Warm_Garand]

Word have meaning. Lawfully possessed. Registered is not a thing nor a requirement. It must be registered in the future but 121b has not been implemented by the state yet.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c140-ss-131m

The feature test does not make a gun illegal. The feature test makes a gun an assault style firearm. Whether the assault style firearm is illegal depends on whether it was LAWFULLY possessed in MA on 8/1/24.

Read more, posit your confusion less.

At the next tightening of the screw, MA will argue (at a moment of their own convenience) that the AR's in wide circulation in MA were actually NOT LAWFULLLY POSSESSED on 8/1.

What they will choose to DO about that is the shoe awaiting droppage.