SBRs and the new assault weapon ban

[ChargingCharlie]

Unlike a court decision or legislation, an AG's opinion is not a legally binding change to the definition. It is just accepted as such because of he ability to inflict pain.

The courts could uphold the opinion (or not), however, the legal reasoning would be it's analysis of the opinion, not "the AG has the authority to determine what any law actually means."

The point I was making was that they still enforce the new interpretation as law until it's challenged and overturned. It's their way of changing a law immediately and keeping it in place for (potentially) years all while wasting time and money of tax payers and those who have the time and money to fight it.

 

[steve8140]

Is an SBR a rifle in ma ?

My 9mm SBR is registers as a handgun, I know it's wrong. But 3 different calls to the state FRB spoke with different people including someone higher up in charge told me because it is shorter than 16" it can not be a rifle in the state of MA. And no they would not give me that in writing.

 

[bigblue]

My 9mm SBR is registers as a handgun, I know it's wrong. But 3 different calls to the state FRB spoke with different people including someone higher up in charge told me because it is shorter than 16" it can not be a rifle in the state of MA. And no they would not give me that in writing.

It isn't "wrong", it is more that they fall into a grey area that is undefined in the law. For what its worth, they told me the same thing. If you add a trust to the mix, you fall further into MA grey foggy firearm lawr. Not to worry though, I'm sure the AGO will err on our side!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My 9mm SBR is registers as a handgun, I know it's wrong. But 3 different calls to the state FRB spoke with different people including someone higher up in charge told me because it is shorter than 16" it can not be a rifle in the state of MA. And no they would not give me that in writing.

I am sure the AGs office would be glad to explain the "not a rifle or shotgun" definition makes the Serbu Super Shorty a handgun, and thus subject to the EOPS list and AG's regulations on handguns.

 

[01SVTvert]

I would think anything FILED before the 20th would be good to go - The only gray area I see is filings after the 20th, as everyone before that point "believed they were in compliance" - where as afterwards you'd have to be under a rock to not know about the decree.

The ATF will deny based upon the AG, "it's illegal" statement, regardless of the intent. The ATF is very black and white and will base a decision upon the AGs office making a call to the NFA branch. That already happened with short barreled shotguns having to be factory original due to our wording of "sawed off" shotguns in a law

Look at Vermont. It's a civil fine (IIRC $25) if you have a suppressor and because of that the ATF will not transfer them in Vermont.

It may not happen unless the AG makes that call, though. That and anything pre 98 / pre 94 should still be legal to form 1 and law enforcement should still be able to make. If it flies I predict a bunch of preban lowers becoming SBRs instead of new lowers.

 

[bigblue]

The ATF will deny based upon the AG, "it's illegal" statement, regardless of the intent. The ATF is very black and white and will base a decision upon the AGs office making a call to the NFA branch. That already happened with short barreled shotguns having to be factory original due to our wording of "sawed off" shotguns in a law

Look at Vermont. It's a civil fine (IIRC $25) if you have a suppressor and because of that the ATF will not transfer them in Vermont.

It may not happen unless the AG makes that call, though. That and anything pre 98 / pre 94 should still be legal to form 1 and law enforcement should still be able to make. If it flies I predict a bunch of preban lowers becoming SBRs instead of new lowers.

Thankfully you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My 9mm SBR is registers as a handgun, I know it's wrong. But 3 different calls to the state FRB spoke with different people including someone higher up in charge told me because it is shorter than 16" it can not be a rifle in the state of MA. And no they would not give me that in writing.

This is correct under MGL. The problem is that registering a new SBR as a "AR15" "handgun" could raise red flags when the AG scans for dealers to procesute, as the "handgun" notation might be considered an error or, stretching it further, she could assert that a handgun that is similar to a rifle is an AW despite the clear definition in the law.

A curious offshoot of the SBR being a "Firearm" is that you are allowed to carry a concealed and loaded "firearm" with an LTC but not a concealed and loaded "Rifle or shotgun". The implications of this to the LTC holder who wears a long coat are not hard to figure out.

 

[Ranger007]

Are coffee grinders still ok?

No one knows what anything is anymore. Even Pre-7/20 expert opinion varied, but these days a toaster might be an AW if the AG says so

 

[Mass-diver]

Are coffee grinders still ok?

No civilian needs a coffe grinder, let the experts grind it at the store.

 

[drgrant]

The ATF will deny based upon the AG, "it's illegal" statement, regardless of the intent. The ATF is very black and white and will base a decision upon the AGs office making a call to the NFA branch.

Well, kinda.... some state interlopers tried to **** up NFA trusts in MA and they ultimately failed. (hicksonj at the time straightened this out, iirc).

I also don't see ATF having enough data on an SBR application to deny it based on being AR15 based, either. If you submit a Form 1 for a Mutumbo industries .223 rifle it's not like they have a pic of the firearm with the application. There will be 100 ways around the BS unless they start blanket denying all SBR apps. Of course the AG could try to do that too (in the "AG invents her own laws.com" department) but I don't anticipate such a blanket ban lasting very long until some people start getting pissed and get an NFA lawyer to talk to the feds like they did last time.

-Mike

 

[Lxpony]

a SBR isn't a rifle by definition in MA. Based on this I don't believe the 7/20 change will impact the AFT from approving form 1s....

Rifle is defined as- , a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger.

A SBR isn't a Large capacity weapon either since it isn't a firearm or rifle

''Large capacity weapon'', any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon. The term ''large capacity weapon'' shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun and shall not include: (i) any weapon that was manufactured in or prior to the year 1899; (ii) any weapon that operates by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that is a single-shot weapon; (iv) any weapon that has been modified so as to render it permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a large capacity weapon; or (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable large capacity weapon.

A SBR isn't a firearm either since by definition it is specifically excluded

''Firearm'', a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors.

 

[JFR2]

Mind. Blown.

a SBR isn't a rifle by definition in MA. Based on this I don't believe the 7/20 change will impact the AFT from approving form 1s....

Rifle is defined as- , a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger.

A SBR isn't a Large capacity weapon either since it isn't a firearm or rifle

''Large capacity weapon'', any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon. The term ''large capacity weapon'' shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun and shall not include: (i) any weapon that was manufactured in or prior to the year 1899; (ii) any weapon that operates by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that is a single-shot weapon; (iv) any weapon that has been modified so as to render it permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a large capacity weapon; or (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable large capacity weapon.

A SBR isn't a firearm either since by definition it is specifically excluded

''Firearm'', a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

a SBR isn't a rifle by definition in MA. Based on this I don't believe the 7/20 change will impact the AFT from approving form 1s....

Rifle is defined as- , a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger.

A SBR isn't a Large capacity weapon either since it isn't a firearm or rifle


A SBR isn't a firearm either since by definition it is specifically excluded

So, since MGL 269 bans possession of a rifle, firearm or shotgun unless the holder has an LTC or FID as appropriate, wouldn't this therefore mean that one does not need an LTC to possess and carry an SBR in the DPRM?

 

[massBRS]

So, since MGL 269 bans possession of a rifle, firearm or shotgun unless the holder has an LTC or FID as appropriate, wouldn't this therefore mean that one does not need an LTC to possess and carry an SBR in the DPRM?

woah.

 

[bigblue]

The AGO already made the best argument against a logical interpretation of the written law and we saw it on July 20th: Because gun.

Don't get me wrong: I have made those very same arguments in favor of SBR's for YEARS and I own a safe full of them.

The environment is currently such that words and laws no longer carry their original intent or meaning. Because of that... Make your own decisions.

 

[dennism]

Still no approvals or denials?

 

[Knicks]

Still no approvals or denials?

I see a single form 3 approved post 7/20 from MA that's it.

 

[dennism]

What is the risk to current outstanding tax stamps if the ATF refuses to issue new stamps?

 

[Lxpony]

On AKfiles.com two guys who filed on 2/25 got approved today. I also filed a form 1 on 2/25. Soooooooo I will be reporting back to this thread when I get approved or denied. Fingers crossed

 

[rcwhat]

I still haven't heard a peep about my form1 from 2/18

 

[JFR2]

Fingers crossed for you guys. This latest infringement has prodded me to covert a lower to NFA status once the dust has settled.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

So, since MGL 269 bans possession of a rifle, firearm or shotgun unless the holder has an LTC or FID as appropriate, wouldn't this therefore mean that one does not need an LTC to possess and carry an SBR in the DPRM?

All a liberal judge needs to say is that it looks like a rifle to him. Jack

 

[dennism]

On AKfiles.com two guys who filed on 2/25 got approved today. I also filed a form 1 on 2/25. Soooooooo I will be reporting back to this thread when I get approved or denied. Fingers crossed

Could you link that? AR platform?

- - - Updated - - -

Fingers crossed for you guys. This latest infringement has prodded me to covert a lower to NFA status once the dust has settled.

I already have one lower SBRd, nervous about applying for another one getting denied and as a result getting the other stamp pulled.

 

[steve8140]

They wouldn't, at least I hope net, pull a previous stamp. Even our AG says we can keep for now our legally possessed rifles.

But who knows what will happen come November.

 

[bigblue]

They wouldn't, at least I hope net, pull a previous stamp. Even our AG says we can keep for now our legally possessed rifles.

But who knows what will happen come November.

Which is good since we aren't talking about rifles anyways.

 

[steve8140]

Which is good since we aren't talking about rifles anyways.

True, in my case it's an overweight handgun

 

[bigblue]

True, in my case it's an overweight handgun

It's not that either actually. Hell according to MGL I'm not even sure it's a firearm. These fall into that wonderful grey area between all of the defined categories. That isn't a bad thing.

 

[Lxpony]

http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216384&page=17

 

[drgrant]

What is the risk to current outstanding tax stamps if the ATF refuses to issue new stamps?

Nothing. They're not going to retroactively go back and revoke stamps.

-Mike

 

[RockMaple]

A SBR isn't a firearm either since by definition it is specifically excluded

''Firearm'' ... weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches[/COLOR] the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a ... short-barreled rifle...

Unfortunately, what is specifically excluded in the definition is a weapon that is "constructed in a shape that does not resemble a short-barreled rifle", and not an actual "short-barreled rifle", which has all of the other characteristics of a "firearm" under the statute. (The fact that "short-barreled rifle" isn't defined under Mass law won't necessarily be a problem for the AG, who, as we have seen, asserts the right to interpret statute to her liking.)