Post ban AR lower with collapsible stock in Mass: Legal?

[Reptile]

Say I buy a post ban AR lower and put a collapsible stock on it.

I do not own an upper.

I do not plan on ever using an upper with it.

Is that legal in Mass?

I know post ban rifles are illegal but I'm just talking a lower with a collapsible stock.

 

[drgrant]

There's the old "if you have a loose upper around it might be constructive possession" problem. Who knows how/if/maybe that would fly in MA or not. I would say that if the lower is around and no upper around, you're not violating the AWB, as you don't have a functioning rifle under MGL, but who knows.

-Mike

 

[Reptile]

There's the old "if you have a loose upper around it might be constructive possession" problem. Who knows how/if/maybe that would fly in MA or not. I would say that if the lower is around and no upper around, you're not violating the AWB, as you don't have a functioning rifle under MGL, but who knows.

-Mike

I guess the inverse of that is IF you do happen to have an complete rifle AND a lower with a collapsible stock - you're toast?

 

[drgrant]

I guess the inverse of that is IF you do happen to have an complete rifle AND a lower with a collapsible stock - you're toast?

Maybe. Depends on whether or not someone wants to go after you for constructive possession or not and how far they want to try to stretch the law. There isn't an awful lot of information on AWB cases like this in MA. I doubt there is even a single one, to be honest. I know that BATFE has done it at the federal level with machineguns and the like, but that obviously is a whole different ballgame.

-Mike

 

[Reptile]

It seems to me that the reward for the prosecutor to go after such a person is minimal.

Just sounds like a big waste of time and money for the state to go after a person who supposedly violated this ridiculous law.

Charges get dropped all the time for gun possession without a LTC all the time.

Would it be worth it for the state to charge an otherwise law abiding citizen with such a charge?

 

[soloman02]

Well they do make those tube things that you bury in the ground...

 

[MassMark]

If Massachusetts wants to hem you up - they'll hem you up. Plain and simple.

 

[MisterHappy]

It seems to me that the reward for the prosecutor to go after such a person is minimal.

Just sounds like a big waste of time and money for the state to go after a person who supposedly violated this ridiculous law.

Charges get dropped all the time for gun possession without a LTC all the time.

Would it be worth it for the state to charge an otherwise law abiding citizen with such a charge?

Well, if the State had it in for someone, and this was the only path to the goal, then why not? You're forgetting that the "cost" to the state is an abstract theory. It's the cost to the defendant that is the onerous part.

Think about the Manchester-by-the-Sea guy - he was charged with illegal posession of a variety of legai-to-own items. Were the charges dropped? Yes. But he was still charged, and was a guest of the state for a while, based on his arsenal of illegal, legal, weapons.

When people get handcuffed for posession of toy guns without permission of the local PD (see the thread on the Worcester historical tour) "Having Illegal Assault Weapon Parts with INtent to Make One" is not a big stretch.

Now....for my tinfoil hat - shiny side out works better, right?

 

[KMM696]

Now....for my tinfoil hat - shiny side out works better, right?

It depends - shiny side out to defeat the active mind control satellites, shiny side in to keep the passive satellites from listening to your thoughts.

I always double up.



If the state wants you, they don't have to convict you to screw up your life. All they have to do is charge you.

 

[pdm]

If Massachusetts wants to hem you up - they'll hem you up. Plain and simple.

This. The police might not care, but aren't all of the DAs in Mass antis?

 

[mac67]

Can't you just pin the stock and be MA. AWB compliant ?

 

[crazymjb]

If I had a desire to have a lower that I never wanted to put on a rifle with a collapsible stock on it I wouldn't worry about it. We live in a state that will drag you through the mud all the way to the bank for breaking no laws at all, so why not not break another one? Except for the fact that it is pretty useless if you want to throw it on a rifle, because then you actually are breaking for what is now, a law.

Mike

 

[drgrant]

If Massachusetts wants to hem you up - they'll hem you up. Plain and simple.

This- See also... MTBS guy. His only "crime" was shooting a gun into a bullet trap in his attic, and they wrote him up on like a dozen things, most of which were dropped. Malicious prosecution, anyone?

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Think about the Manchester-by-the-Sea guy - he was charged with illegal posession of a variety of legai-to-own items. Were the charges dropped? Yes. But he was still charged, and was a guest of the state for a while, based on his arsenal of illegal, legal, weapons.

I'll also take a moment to make note of the fact that basically every gun the guy had was boring as hell. Bolt action rifles, etc. Nothing particularly "evil" or "killy" looking. All secured with "locking devices" as required by law.

None of that mattered, they still railroaded the guy.

-Mike

 

[Terminator03]

I guess that I don't understand the intent of this question at all. If you ever have a complete AR in your possession, or any upper that can be mated with that lower, then you are technically in violation, which I had assumed everyone already knows. Everything is about calculated risk, though. Your actual odds of getting nabbed for it are slim to none, but crazy things can always happen. You could be served with a 209A because you pissed off a neighbor, have a heart attack where police enter your home and "accidentally" discover it, etc. So, the bottom line is it takes under 2 minutes to make it completely legal in all situations, so just move it to your desired length of pull, and pin it. Why roll the dice for something so silly?

 

[CIby1012]

I guess that I don't understand the intent of this question at all. If you ever have a complete AR in your possession, or any upper that can be mated with that lower, then you are technically in violation, which I had assumed everyone already knows. Everything is about calculated risk, though. Your actual odds of getting nabbed for it are slim to none, but crazy things can always happen. You could be served with a 209A because you pissed off a neighbor, have a heart attack where police enter your home and "accidentally" discover it, etc. So, the bottom line is it takes under 2 minutes to make it completely legal in all situations, so just move it to your desired length of pull, and pin it. Why roll the dice for something so silly?

Agreed, I wouldn't mess around with it. Pin the bastard, and if you ever get fortunate enough to be able to move to NH, then you can just pull it out with minimal damage.

 

[crazymikie]

If Obama's uncle still has a driver's license, why should anyone follow laws they don't agree with /devilsadvocate

 

[Jamie]

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

 

[TBalls]

Ditch the collapsible stock and just get one of those shoulder things that go up.

 

[Broc]

Say I buy a post ban AR lower and put a collapsible stock on it.

I do not own an upper.

I do not plan on ever using an upper with it.

Is that legal in Mass?

I know post ban rifles are illegal but I'm just talking a lower with a collapsible stock.

Stupid question (keep in mind I dont own any pre-ban guns):

Why would you want to have a lower with a stock and no upper?

 

[crazymjb]

My guess seeing as this is NES so when "SHTF" he can have one with a collapsible stock at the ready. Alternatively, we won many wars without collapsible stocks. Also, it takes about 2 seconds to reverse a "mass legal" pinning.

Mike

 

[thebusinessend]

Maybe he is using it for that fancy crossbow the uses an AR lower? Or maybe he likes spending money on stuff hes cant use.

 

[Gadsden]

I'll also take a moment to make note of the fact that basically every gun the guy had was boring as hell. Bolt action rifles, etc. Nothing particularly "evil" or "killy" looking. All secured with "locking devices" as required by law.

None of that mattered, they still railroaded the guy.

-Mike

What ever happened with him? Last I heard, basically his life was ruined and nothing to show for it.

 

[drgrant]

What ever happened with him? Last I heard, basically his life was ruined and nothing to show for it.

Not sure if this is true.... sounds like he got released, but forced to give up everything...

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1036629599/Manchester-man-escapes-time-in-jail

However, a state police lab later concluded the devices were indeed silencers, Kimball Monahan said.
The DA's office, represented in the case by prosecutor Michelle DeCourcey, pushed for a guilty plea and two-year jail sentence for possession of a firearm with a silencer as well as an additional three months for discharging a weapon within 500 feet of a dwelling.
"We strenuously requested jail time for the offenses due to the serious nature of the events as well as (Blodgett) was very troubled by the presence of the two silencers and felt it merited a jail sentence," Kimball Monahan said.

This is the most puke worthy part of the whole thing... .

What criteria did they use to say "this is a silencer"? "Oh noes he has a silencer he is extra killy and eeeeevil"

 

[glide]

This is the most puke worthy part of the whole thing... .

I disagree.

Girard was arrested Feb. 9 after his estranged wife accused him of preparing for martial law with an arsenal of weapons in their home.

I wasn't aware that was a crime.

He must also continue to take proper medication, and surrender all weapons and military gear taken upon his arrest.

So he is being forced to take 'proper medication' and must surrender his camouflage t-shirts?

I hope this is all just bad reporting.