Suppressor on a bolt action?

Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,600
Likes
1,880
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
I am a noob so please be gentle. Anyway, I'm trying to digest MA laws and have just finished reading MGL Section10A. It appears that the suppressors are specifically prohibited in firearms. Considering that definition of the firearm in Section 121 is basically any handgun, revolver and shotgun with a barrel under 18", does it mean that a bolt action rifle with a 24" barrel can have a suppressor?
Did I miss something in reading Section 10A? Is there another section that deals with supressors?
 
No suppressors unless you are a 07 FFL/SOT. What they go on does not matter. You can’t have the suppressor period.
Can you please point me to the law section? The one I found(Section 10A), describes as such:
any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm
The list does not contain the term "rifle" as in other sections of MGL. Am I missing some other regulation?
 
It doesn't matter what it attaches to- hell the law even uses the word gun in it it's pretty obvious that the intent of the law in question was designed to be expansive to cover everything. Even if your fairytale logic had a fragment of validity, the ATF is going to deny the stamp anyway, so what functional difference does it make? Zero.

The other part you're missing is 269/10A stands alone, it's not dependent on definitions within 121A. Separate sections of law.
 
Sammy is reading the law with a fresh set of eyes. Something that brings value.

If we accept that a rifle is not considered to be a firearm in MA then based on the language of the statute, a silencer for a rifle would be legal.

"gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years"

Please don't bother with non logical responses like "I'd like to see you try it". We can discuss practical applications later.

The analysis that matters is whether or not the law AS WRITTEN wouuld apply to rifles.
 
Last edited:
Note when I moved to MA 8 years ago I found that most MA gun owners had the laws around transport wrong.
I saw people putting trigger locks on guns. (useless per the transport law)

I saw people putting locks on pistol cases before transport. (unnecessary. The only items that need to be in a locked container ar large capacity rifles and shotguns. read the law). There are NO restrictions on the transport of unloaded handguns.
 
Note that the definitions section of MA law does not include a definition of a silencer.
Also, while you are there, read carefully the definition of a firearm. It really goes out of its way to exclude rifles and shotguns.


TO THE OP - the correct term is SILENCER. Not suppressor. Simply because the word silencer is what is used in the statutes. We can debate the better term in common use. but the correct term here is "silencer".

I think the OP may be on to something truly important.
The key to compliance with the statute would be to develop a proprietary attachment method so that it could not be affixed to a pistol (firearm per MA law)

Or better yet, a rifle with an integrally silenced barrel.

This is very interesting.
 
@Sammy whether the reading of the law supports your opinion, you will find that if you file a form 4 for suppressor the ATF will reject it citing MGL.

Would be interesting to participate in a well-funded legal fight based on the MGL language however it can't be me to pay for it.
.
 
Please don't bother with non logical responses like "I'd like to see you try it". We can discuss practical applications later.

The analysis that matters is whether or not the law AS WRITTEN wouuld apply to rifles.

Seriously? Dude you're not this stupid to entertain the OPs phantasm.

But practically it does matter- get the ATF to approve a stamp for "rifle suppressor" for a peon in mass, and then we'll talk.

The class will wait. You know its stupid, so you're not going to spend the money. (the 5, 10, 20 grand to get an attorney to entertain the phantasm) And neither is anyone else.
 
Note that the definitions section of MA law does not include a definition of a silencer.
Also, while you are there, read carefully the definition of a firearm. It really goes out of its way to exclude rifles and shotguns.


TO THE OP - the correct term is SILENCER. Not suppressor. Simply because the word silencer is what is used in the statutes. We can debate the better term in common use. but the correct term here is "silencer".

I think the OP may be on to something truly important.
The key to compliance with the statute would be to develop a proprietary attachment method so that it could not be affixed to a pistol (firearm per MA law)

Or better yet, a rifle with an integrally silenced barrel.

This is very interesting.

From C.269 S.10A

...any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm...

If read under the theory that the definitions from S.121 do not carry over from C.140 to C.269, then I see the terms 'any gun...or other firearm' as broad enough to prohibit a silencer on a rifle.

If read under the theory that the definitions from S.121 do carry over from C.140 to C.269, and that the term 'firearm' is the MA definition of handguns and does not include rifles, I see the term 'any gun' as broad enough to cover rifles. Gun is not defined in S.121, and if we go to common usage one of the definitions from Webster is " a portable firearm (such as a rifle or handgun) ".

In my non-lawyer opinion dcmdon, there is nothing here to work with.
 
I think the OP may be on to something truly important.
The key to compliance with the statute would be to develop a proprietary attachment method so that it could not be affixed to a pistol (firearm per MA law)

Or better yet, a rifle with an integrally silenced barrel.

This is very interesting.
Don't spend so much time inventing a "proprietary attachment method"
or "integrally silence barrel" that you neglect to invent a silencer
which is neither an "instrument" nor "appliance".

Because your possession of an instrument which causes the firing of any gun ...
to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle its noise ... is illegal.

And your possession of an appliance which causes the firing of any gun ...
to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle its noise ... is also illegal.

So maybe you could work on that, too.
 
Also lets look at it critically

Section 10A. Any person, other than a federally licensed firearms manufacturer, an authorized agent of the municipal police training committee, or a duly authorized sworn law enforcement officer while acting within the scope of official duties and under the direct authorization of the police chief or his designee, or the colonel of the state police, who sells or keeps for sale, or offers, or gives or disposes of by any means other than submitting to an authorized law enforcement agency, or uses or possesses any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in state prison or for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit a federally licensed firearms manufacturer from selling such instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance to authorized law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes or to the municipal police training committee for law enforcement training. Upon conviction of a violation of this section, the instrument, attachment or other article shall be confiscated by the commonwealth and forwarded, by the authority of the written order of the court, to the colonel of the state police, who shall destroy said article.

So you guys are arguing, that suddenly, the word "gun" lacks meaning because it's not defined in MGL? [rofl]

It's trivially easy for shitbag antis to argue that "any gun" means exactly what you think it would mean.

Also why do they mention "revolver, pistol, or other firearm" if the law is supposedly aware of the other definition of "firearm" in MGL? It isn't. Otherwise they would have just use the
term "firearm".

ETA:
@KMM696 beat me to it....
 
Also why do they mention "revolver, pistol, or other firearm" if the law is supposedly aware of the other definition of "firearm" in MGL? It isn't. Otherwise they would have just use the
term "firearm".
OTOH, the appearance of both "gun" and "firearm" in the statute is unfortunate.

If a firearm a kind of gun that uses gunpowder to propel projectiles,
then employing the rule against surplusage in the interpretation of the statute
implies that the silencer prohibition may apply to air guns, too.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for examining laws to find potential areas of re-interpretation that can be challenged with any degree of success, but I don't think this one is it.

On a side note, the laws are written poorly with far too many areas of ambiguity and contradiction, so I understand the desire to press the laws in all areas where they are deficient. For example:

"...any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm "

Does that mean earpro is included? lol. 5 years in the can for everyone!
 
The statute says "any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm ". If it was using chap 140 sec 121 definitions it would say firearm, rifle or shotgun. The fact that they use terms like gun, revolver, pistol means you are not in Kansas (chap 140) anymore but using commonly used/defined terms.

Anyone who knows me and my business knows I am ALL about working within the law to deliver to people what other FFLs wont or cant. Finding "loopholes" or workarounds or creative solutions is my business model. I would not get near this one with whatever length proverbial pole you choose. It smells of the same magical thinking that cause people to declare SBRs are exempt from the AWB because they are not rifles in MA (when the AWB is a POINTER to federal law and federal definitions are in play, not MA).

The ATF won't approve a form 1 or form 4. But you could test it out by being a resident of another state and moving to MA. Let us all know how it works out.
 
Ray - after a fresh read. Do you agree that a permanently affixed silencer on a rifle would be in compliance with MA law?

I think there is a case, a strong case in fact, that it would be in compliance. However that isn't all that is needed to get our hot little hands on one legally. There are plenty of laws that don't represent reality. That's why I am saying get some legal funding and see where you can go with it. Nothing will happen otherwise.
.
 
Yeah. It all comes down to the ATFs willingness to approve form 1s or form 4s with a MA address.

Though one work around, if it is determined that this angle has merits is for people with legitimate residences in other states to simply bring them to MA.

It would be interesting to send a well written, well researched document describing this concept to the FRB and see what they think. If they say "makes sense" then you save on the attorney's fees. if they say "no way". then you are in the same boat you would be in if you did nothing.
 
The statute says "any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm ". If it was using chap 140 sec 121 definitions it would say firearm, rifle or shotgun. The fact that they use terms like gun, revolver, pistol means you are not in Kansas (chap 140) anymore but using commonly used/defined terms.

Anyone who knows me and my business knows I am ALL about working within the law to deliver to people what other FFLs wont or cant. Finding "loopholes" or workarounds or creative solutions is my business model. I would not get near this one with whatever length proverbial pole you choose. It smells of the same magical thinking that cause people to declare SBRs are exempt from the AWB because they are not rifles in MA (when the AWB is a POINTER to federal law and federal definitions are in play, not MA).

The ATF won't approve a form 1 or form 4. But you could test it out by being a resident of another state and moving to MA. Let us all know how it works out.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the common language term "gun". If it just said "revolver, pistil, or other firearm", then it would clearly not include rifles.
 
"...any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm "

Does that mean earpro is included? lol. 5 years in the can for everyone!

Nope. Earpro doesn't lessen or muffle the noise of a gunshot pretty much like sunglasses don't reduce the brightness of the sun.
 
No, he's saying that wearing ear pro
doesn't do a damned thing to make the gun quieter for everyone else.

...you miss my point. The ambiguity of the wording doesn't specify to whom the sound is muffled or reduced. Thus earpro would technically qualify, as it muffles or reduces sound for the wearer. It is just written terribly, as most laws are.
 
...you miss my point. The ambiguity of the wording doesn't specify to whom the sound is muffled or reduced. Thus earpro would technically qualify, as it muffles or reduces sound for the wearer. It is just written terribly, as most laws are.
A "sound" requires 3 things, a transmitter, a transfer media, and a receiver. Take one away and there is no sound. So if you muffle the transmitter, you muffle all sound because all media and receivers are affected. If you muffle a single receiver you only affect that one receiver, the sound still exists for all other instances of the 3 requirements. If you remove the media.... everyone dies because we can't breath and the existence of a sound, or not, doesn't matter anymore.
 
Last edited:
...you miss my point. The ambiguity of the wording doesn't specify to whom the sound is muffled or reduced. Thus earpro would technically qualify, as it muffles or reduces sound for the wearer. It is just written terribly, as most laws are.
Bring the gun into the courtroom.
Have only the defense wearing ear pro,
and light off a blank.

After everyone else in the room is done dabbing up the blood running from their eardrums,
ask scream at the prosecution over their new life-long tinnitus
if the sound was muffled or reduced.
 
@Sammy whether the reading of the law supports your opinion, you will find that if you file a form 4 for suppressor the ATF will reject it citing MGL.

Would be interesting to participate in a well-funded legal fight based on the MGL language however it can't be me to pay for it.
.
So then the pols would just rewrite the MGL to fix that problem. They like to think everything is illegal unless there is a law that allows otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom