Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

[chris_1001]

I’m not saying it is.

I’m just saying that people shouldn’t think they can do anything with anything owned on 8/1.

Only something that was an assault style firearm according to any of the new tests lawfully possessed on 8/1 can upgrade. Everything else doesn’t get covered by the exemption in 131M sub B.

If you have a unassembled receiver that isn’t a copy or duplicate under the new definition and doesn’t end up on the new roster, you don’t have a path to a lawfully assembled Assault-Style firearm.

For example a mini 14 ranch cannot add additional features under this language even if possessed prior to 8/1.

I’m not commenting on whether the Flux itself is an assault style firearm. Just saying that a FCU can’t be upgraded to an assault style firearm.

I’m sure the flux with a pre or post 8/1 FCU is not an ASF as it’s under 50oz

 

[chris_1001]

Ok, not going to get into an argument that has useless replies tacked on. Just simply. Cite with quotes, the section of the new law to support this wild argument.

Pretty sure @pastera and @CrackPot have proven this.

 

[KH56010]

I’m sure the flux with a pre or post 8/1 FCU is not an ASF as it’s under 50oz

I’m going to help you out. Pull up a PDF of the new law. Do a CTRL+F command and find “50 ounce”

 

[KH56010]

Pretty sure @pastera and @CrackPot have proven this.

I posted it first. And you are correct, it has been proven

 

[Hombiez]

So, if you want want to have the argument and make me pull up the laws I will. But you should just go read them. The whole reason. The ENTIRE reason that everything as of 8/1 is preban on 10/23 is because it is all an assault style firearm. This isn’t based off what the manufacturer stated when they sold it to you. If you legally possessed an FCU on 8/1. And can state “I bought this with the intent of turning this into an assault style firearm. Therefore this was a receiver of an assault style firearm on 8/1”. Then it’s preban. Now, if you want to run to the AG or DA or Police and state on record “ I bought this with the pure intent of making it a single stack 45 ACP pistol that weighed 24 ounces” I mean.. have at it. But why would you..

Ok, not going to get into an argument that has useless replies tacked on. Just simply. Cite with quotes, the section of the new law to support this wild argument.

Section 131M:

"Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

It does not say "shall not apply to a firearm lawfully possessed on 8/1". Any competent prosecutor could argue you don't qualify for the exemption in front of any anti 2A judge in this state based on that language. It just would be incredibly difficult for the state to prove it.

Section 121 Defintions

Assault-Style Firearm:

These are all the ways for the law to recognize a FCU as an assault style firearm:

(b) a semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) the capacity to accept a feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; or (iv) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

A FCU on 8/1 does not fail the features test

Any of the following firearms, or copies or duplicates of these firearms, of any caliber, identified as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov, or AK, 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 including, but not limited to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

A FCU on 8/1 is not an enumerated weapon

a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses

A FCU is neither substantially similar in construction and configuration nor is it interchangeable with an upper of an enumerated firearm

Any firearm listed on the assault-style firearm roster pursuant to section 128A.

This is the one chance an FCU has to be an ASF - if something with a FCU gets listed on this roster, then all its copies and duplicates are ASF and if you owned it prior to 8/1 you're golden. If nothing with an FCU or nothing that is substantially similar in construction and configuration ends up on the list you can't fail this test.

For clarity - you want the FCU owned prior to 8/1 to FAIL one of these new tests. That makes it an ASF and gives it grandfathering.

 

[pastera]

I do not see any reason the flux raider as built today or 10/23 is running afoul any laws, federal or MA

@pastera @CrackPot

Looks good to go as long as no threaded barrel

151 (b) a semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features:

(i) the capacity to accept a feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(iii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; or (iv) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel
​

One could argue that the mag storage violates (i) but that's a real stretch.

 

[KH56010]

Section 131M:

"Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

It does not say "shall not apply to a firearm lawfully possessed on 8/1". Any competent prosecutor could argue you don't qualify for the exemption in front of any anti 2A judge in this state based on that language. It just would be incredibly difficult for the state to prove it.

Section 121 Defintions

Assault-Style Firearm:

These are all the ways for the law to recognize a FCU as an assault style firearm:

(b) a semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) the capacity to accept a feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; or (iv) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

A FCU on 8/1 does not fail the features test

Any of the following firearms, or copies or duplicates of these firearms, of any caliber, identified as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov, or AK, 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 including, but not limited to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

A FCU on 8/1 is not an enumerated weapon

a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses

A FCU is neither substantially similar in construction and configuration nor is it interchangeable with an upper of an enumerated firearm

Any firearm listed on the assault-style firearm roster pursuant to section 128A.

This is the one chance an FCU has to be an ASF - if something with a FCU gets listed on this roster, then all its copies and duplicates are ASF and if you owned it prior to 8/1 you're golden. If nothing with an FCU or nothing that is substantially similar in construction and configuration ends up on the list you can't fail this test.

It will always be incredible to me how I can find a loophole in a law. Post it on NES, watch people shred me on why it isn’t a loophole (by just making up bullshit). Then watching the tide turn, to where everyone agrees with me, because you can just simply read the law. Then come back a month later and see shit like this. You conveniently left out “the frame or receiver of any such firearm or the unfinished frame or receiver of any such firearm;”

 

[pastera]

Section 131M:

"Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

It does not say "shall not apply to a firearm lawfully possessed on 8/1". Any competent prosecutor could argue you don't qualify for the exemption in front of any anti 2A judge in this state based on that language. It just would be incredibly difficult for the state to prove it.

Section 121 Defintions

Assault-Style Firearm:

These are all the ways for the law to recognize a FCU as an assault style firearm:

(b) a semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) the capacity to accept a feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; or (iv) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

A FCU on 8/1 does not fail the features test

Any of the following firearms, or copies or duplicates of these firearms, of any caliber, identified as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov, or AK, 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 including, but not limited to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

A FCU on 8/1 is not an enumerated weapon

a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses

A FCU is neither substantially similar in construction and configuration nor is it interchangeable with an upper of an enumerated firearm

Any firearm listed on the assault-style firearm roster pursuant to section 128A.

This is the one chance an FCU has to be an ASF - if something with a FCU gets listed on this roster, then all its copies and duplicates are ASF and if you owned it prior to 8/1 you're golden. If nothing with an FCU or nothing that is substantially similar in construction and configuration ends up on the list you can't fail this test.

For clarity - you want the FCU owned prior to 8/1 to FAIL one of these new tests. That makes it an ASF and gives it grandfathering.

The FCU is the serialized part and therefore the receiver/firearm
But it's not a ASF when built if the barrel isn't threaded.

And if you are trying to argue that only assault-style firearms possessed on 8/1 are exempt then NOTHING is exempt because on 8/1 there was no legal classification of assault-style firearm.
It is read as a firearm that is configured as an ASF is exempt if that firearm was legally possessed on 8/1.
It did not need to be an ASF on that date since the definition does not exist until 10/24.

 

[pastera]

It will always be incredible to me how I can find a loophole in a law. Post it on NES, watch people shred me on why it isn’t a loophole (by just making up bullshit). Then watching the tide turn, to where everyone agrees with me, because you can just simply read the law. Then come back a month later and see shit like this. You conveniently left out “the frame or receiver of any such firearm or the unfinished frame or receiver of any such firearm;”

Join the club...

 

[KH56010]

Join the club...

lol I can always count on you to have my back.

 

[KH56010]

The FCU is the serialized part and therefore the receiver/firearm
But it's not a ASF when built if the barrel isn't threaded.

And if you are trying to argue that only assault-style firearms possessed on 8/1 are exempt then NOTHING is exempt because on 8/1 there was no legal classification of assault-style firearm.
It is read as a firearm that is configured as an ASF is exempt if that firearm was legally possessed on 8/1.
It did not need to be an ASF on that date since the definition does not exist until 10/24.

Everything I owned on 8/1 I will state for fact was the “ receiver of a future assault style firearm”.

 

[Hombiez]

The FCU is the serialized part and therefore the receiver/firearm
But it's not a ASF when built if the barrel isn't threaded.

And if you are trying to argue that only assault-style firearms possessed on 8/1 are exempt then NOTHING is exempt because on 8/1 there was no legal classification of assault-style firearm.
It is read as a firearm that is configured as an ASF is exempt if that firearm was legally possessed on 8/1.
It did not need to be an ASF on that date since the definition does not exist until 10/24.

We can agree to disagree on this. I am trying to argue the bolded part. I believe that the definition can be applied in this state with this anti-2a judiciary which will always give the narrowest and most favorable interpretation to the state possible.

 

[KH56010]

The FCU is the serialized part and therefore the receiver/firearm
But it's not a ASF when built if the barrel isn't threaded.

And if you are trying to argue that only assault-style firearms possessed on 8/1 are exempt then NOTHING is exempt because on 8/1 there was no legal classification of assault-style firearm.
It is read as a firearm that is configured as an ASF is exempt if that firearm was legally possessed on 8/1.
It did not need to be an ASF on that date since the definition does not exist until 10/24.

So this is kind of like the old interpretation of the AR pistol. It used to be “once a rifle always a rifle”. And the way they are interpreting this new law is “once a non assault style firearm always a non assault style firearm”. But it’s simple.. that’s not what the law says. The law is very clear. If you had the frame or receiver of a an ASF on 8/1. You’re preban. So you can’t say “this wasn’t an assault firearm because it didn’t have a threaded barrel”. The law literally says it doesn’t have to have a barrel. Because a receiver doesn’t have to have a barrel. You would literally have to argue your way into guilt. Do you have a receiver you legally owned on 8/1? Yes. Is it a receiver for an ASF regardless of its current stripped down to a paperweight configuration? Yes. It’s preban.

 

[KH56010]

We can agree to disagree on this. I am trying to argue the bolded part. I believe that the definition can be applied in this state with this anti-2a judiciary which will always give the narrowest and most favorable interpretation to the state possible.

I’ve been to court in this state. Judges sometimes can read the law. Donate to Comm2a.

 

[Hombiez]

So this is kind of like the old interpretation of the AR pistol. It used to be “once a rifle always a rifle”. And the way they are interpreting this new law is “once a non assault style firearm always a non assault style firearm”. But it’s simple.. that’s not what the law says. The law is very clear. If you had the frame or receiver of a an ASF on 8/1. You’re preban. So you can’t say “this wasn’t an assault firearm because it didn’t have a threaded barrel”. The law literally says it doesn’t have to have a barrel. Because a receiver doesn’t have to have a barrel. You would literally have to argue your way into guilt. Do you have a receiver you legally owned on 8/1? Yes. Is it a receiver for an ASF regardless of its current stripped down to a paperweight configuration? Yes. It’s preban.

Yes this is a much simpler way of saying what I meant to say, once a non ASF on 8/1 always a non ASF. I see the state claiming that and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a judge to agree with that.

For the receiver part, I'm not ignoring that, it's just possible for a receiver on its own to be an ASF if it's a copy or duplicate of the receiver of an enumerated weapon. An AR-15 receiver isn't a ASF waiting to be built - it is an ASF by definition in the new law. AR-15 lowers can be built into complete ASF's in my reading. A FCU doesn't have a copy or duplicate to make it an ASF in frame only form. This is what the state could claim to resolve the ambiguity and give meaning to every part of the bill. Legislative intent is satisfied as it's clear the legislative intent was to limit the number of ASFs as much as possible.

I can see both interpretations. If we were all reasonable and actually interpreted the law properly, I'd agree with you. I just watched Minnesota's court make up a duty to retreat out of nowhere though. I just don't think ambiguity is going to break our way in many cases and I think there is just enough for them to go off of.

I’ve been to court in this state. Judges sometimes can read the law. Donate to Comm2a.

I do contribute to all the usual suspects.

I'll stop now - I know this is not a popular opinion.

 

[DJBrad]

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/C-p7C9pvozG/?igsh=a25nbmk4eXYzeGdu

 

[chris_1001]

I’m going to help you out. Pull up a PDF of the new law. Do a CTRL+F command and find “50 ounce”

?

The flux is UNDER 50 ounces.

Pistol braces are legal here and the host gun/fcu does not have a threaded barrel (not that it matters after 10/23)

What is your point?

Please educate me, I don’t want to misunderstand it. But I don’t think I am.

 

[KH56010]

?

The flux is UNDER 50 ounces.

Pistol braces are legal here and the host gun/fcu does not have a threaded barrel (not that it matters after 10/23)

What is your point?

Please educate me, I don’t want to misunderstand it. But I don’t think I am.

You’re coming around and I understand where you are getting hung up. There is the old law. The 1994-2004 crime bill law. That was then adopted by MA from 2004-10-23-2024. And even though there is basically zero case law. For 30 years we argued about AR pistols and how much they weighed. And we argued about intents, ATF definition, the AG definition. It was a mess.

But we now have this new law. That was proposed last year. And sucked. And the. After having a bunch of secret meetings where no one could argue the intent or interpretation. They specifically added this part about all legal frames or receivers being preban. The original law proposed that everyone put adorable signs in their front lawns about did not have an 8/1 exemption. They added it to keep jerks like me happy. And specifically in the new bill that has passed and will go into effect on 10/23. The 50 ounce definition that you keep referencing from the 1994 crime bill. It no longer exists. So, using a windows PC. Pull up the new Bill. CTRL+F. Type in “ounces” you will get zero matches.

There’s many other parts of this bill being misinterpreted. Same argument. I see things about LEO. And go to cops and say “well what about this?” And they respond “well according to POST”. CTRL+F. We are not debating how Maura intends to interpret it. We are debating what is actually written. “The flux is under 50 ounces”. WHO CARES

 

[chris_1001]

You’re coming around and I understand where you are getting hung up. There is the old law. The 1994-2004 crime bill law. That was then adopted by MA from 2004-10-23-2024. And even though there is basically zero case law. For 30 years we argued about AR pistols and how much they weighed. And we argued about intents, ATF definition, the AG definition. It was a mess.

But we now have this new law. That was proposed last year. And sucked. And the. After having a bunch of secret meetings where no one could argue the intent or interpretation. They specifically added this part about all legal frames or receivers being preban. The original law proposed that everyone put adorable signs in their front lawns about did not have an 8/1 exemption. They added it to keep jerks like me happy. And specifically in the new bill that has passed and will go into effect on 10/23. The 50 ounce definition that you keep referencing from the 1994 crime bill. It no longer exists. So, using a windows PC. Pull up the new Bill. CTRL+F. Type in “ounces” you will get zero matches.

There’s many other parts of this bill being misinterpreted. Same argument. I see things about LEO. And go to cops and say “well what about this?” And they respond “well according to POST”. CTRL+F. We are not debating how Maura intends to interpret it. We are debating what is actually written. “The flux is under 50 ounces”. WHO CARES

I think we are on the same page ultimately. The Flux is good to go...

No more 50 ounces... I understand that. I was pointing out that today it matters, 10/23 it does not.

Looks good to go as long as no threaded barrel



One could argue that the mag storage violates (i) but that's a real stretch.

Sadly you might have a point...

 

[CrackPot]

(b) a semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) the capacity to accept a feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; or (iv) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

I believe under the new law the Flux is an ASF because of the two bolded items above. As such, to have a flux, you must have the FCU on 8/1 (or the donating pistol with the FCU in it)

We could argue over (iv). But since there is enough room to hold it regardless of (ii) I think the state has a good case it has both (ii) and (iv) and is therefore an ASF. I can see arguments on both features not being features, but I think they fail in a MA court.

 

[chris_1001]

I believe under the new law the Flux is an ASF because of the two bolded items above. As such, to have a flux, you must have the FCU on 8/1 (or the donating pistol with the FCU in it)

We could argue over (iv). But since there is enough room to hold it regardless of (ii) I think the state has a good case it has both (ii) and (iv) and is therefore an ASF. I can see arguments on both features not being features, but I think they fail in a MA court.

Crap, I was looking forward to this...

So if I buy a FCU that was in State before or on 8/1 that should cover me?

 

[CrackPot]

Crap, I was looking forward to this...

So if I buy a FCU that was in State before or on 8/1 that should cover me?

On. Always ON 8/1. If in the state before, and the owner spends all of 8/1 up on NH shooting targets, then before does not work. ON.

But yes, you need a grandfatherable FCU for your purposes. Remember, it can come from any P320 handgun that was in the state on 8/1. There are lots of these if you cannot find just an FCU

 

[DJBrad]

On. Always ON 8/1. If in the state before, and the owner spends all of 8/1 up on NH shooting targets, then before does not work. ON.

But yes, you need a grandfatherable FCU for your purposes. Remember, it can come from any P320 handgun that was in the state on 8/1. There are lots of these if you cannot find just an FCU

Why are we discussing FCUs wrt the Flux and RT braces and not the pistol itself? These are addon items and they were never built as a braced pistol from the FCU or frame since the pistol must be built first (Sig, Glock, 1911, M&P, etc). Am I missing some context here?

 

[CrackPot]

Why are we discussing FCUs wrt the Flux and RT braces and not the pistol itself? These are addon items and they were never built as a braced pistol from the FCU or frame since the pistol must be built first (Sig, Glock, 1911, M&P, etc). Am I missing some context here?

The FCU is like the lower receiver. It is the lowest level serialized part. You can buy all the other parts to build your Flux. The pistol being in state on 8/1 is fine also, because it has an FCU and the FCU was in the state on 8/1. What matters is the FCU whether naked, with a grip module, with a full pistol, or a full Flux surrounding it.

Same logic as your 8/1 AR lower. What matters is the lower. If it is stripped, complete lower, full rifle, whatever, what matters is that the lower is present in the state on 8/1 regardless of form.

 

[drgrant]

Only something that was an assault style firearm according to any of the new tests lawfully possessed on 8/1 can upgrade.

Not provable, nobody cares.

More USC922R style madness to burn up brain cells for nothing.

 

[DJBrad]

The FCU is like the lower receiver. It is the lowest level serialized part. You can buy all the other parts to build your Flux. The pistol being in state on 8/1 is fine also, because it has an FCU and the FCU was in the state on 8/1. What matters is the FCU whether naked, with a grip module, with a full pistol, or a full Flux surrounding it.

Same logic as your 8/1 AR lower. What matters is the lower. If it is stripped, complete lower, full rifle, whatever, what matters is that the lower is present in the state on 8/1 regardless of form.

Thank you.

 

[CrackPot]

Not provable, nobody cares.

More USC922R style madness to burn up brain cells for nothing.

Totally aligned with @drgrant on this one.

 

[CrackPot]

Found a good oops.

Section 131 3/4 (a) The secretary of public safety and security shall, with the advice of the firearm control advisory board established in section 131 1/2 compile and publish a roster of assault-style firearms banned under section 131M and a roster of firearms approved for sale and use in the commonwealth using the parameters set forth in section 123

“Assault-style firearm”, any firearm which is:

...


(d) Any firearm listed on the assault-style firearm roster pursuant to section 128A

The reference to 128A should be to 131 3/4

So with this mistake, the roster of assault-style firearms, should they choose to assemble such a list, has no context or meaning. While it will call itself a list of assault-style firearms, the law where they are declared, does not reference this roster. So should they put something on the roster that is NOT an ASF as defined by the criteria in section 121 definition, then it would not be by virtue of being put on the roster like they intended.

 

[pastera]

We can agree to disagree on this. I am trying to argue the bolded part. I believe that the definition can be applied in this state with this anti-2a judiciary which will always give the narrowest and most favorable interpretation to the state possible.

I'll accept that and raise you a Massachusetts v Canjura.

Also, ambiguities in criminal law go to the defendant per the rule of lenity.

 

[pastera]

Why are we discussing FCUs wrt the Flux and RT braces and not the pistol itself? These are addon items and they were never built as a braced pistol from the FCU or frame since the pistol must be built first (Sig, Glock, 1911, M&P, etc). Am I missing some context here?

FCU is the serialized part and therefore a firearm per the new law