The AR-15 pre and post ban Q's

[Mass-diver]

I vote for just getting a post ban AR. The telescopic stock, flash hider and bayonet lug is overrated. Not worth the extra money to get them in this state. This is coming from someone with two pre-ban ARs..

On the flip side, the pre-ban lower basically cost you about another $500 +/-, for me it's worth it for a carbine. For a full size rifle, I would (and have gone post-ban) but for a shorty, I just can't stand having a pinned/"fake" stock.

It's all personal preference though. I would certainly take a quality post-ban built over some jury/Frankenstein preban build where someone ran out of money after the pre-ban lower and Mikey moused the upper.

With that said, I had to sell most of my guns to pay the bills during grad school, but one the few the survived the culling was a pre-ban lower with a noveske monolithic upper.

 

[Shame302]

Likely I will just go with a post S&W sport for the time being. I very likely will be in the market for a pre-ban later on if I remain within the state. If I can sell (the home) and move that would be fantastic but the market isn't there. I really appreciate the info gentlemen. Thank you again.

 

[delgrifith]

With the following definition of MGL 140 s121:

In the case
of rifles, the assault weapon definition applies to any semiautomatic
rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:
· a folding or telescoping stock;
· a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon;
· a bayonet mount;
· a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
· a grenade launcher;

I don't know how someone could be prosecuted for a rifle that used to have those features but had been made MA compliant (i.e.bayo lug removed etc). How can someone be in possession of a AW when the rifle does not meet the definition of an AW!

 

[KMaurer]

Is there any case-law on this or is this just another biased opinion of a certain former chief?

That's how ATF and the entire firearms industry interpreted it for ten years.

No, that's how ATF interpreted and still interprets what constitutes a machine gun. Glidden and others are simply attempting to expand that interpretation to apply to assault weapons.

BTW, all the discussion of what defines a pre-ban lower or pre-ban AW are incorrect when they use the condition of the lower when it left the factory or was sold. The federal law required and the Massachusetts law still requires only that the lower (or AW) have been lawfully possessed in an AW configuration prior to the cut-off date, not that it left the factory or was sold in that configuration prior to the date. Most manufacturers tended to max out their production of lower receivers prior to the cut-off date and temporarily assemble them as AWs in order to sell them for a premium "pre-ban" price. They might have left the factory or been sold as lowers or complete rifles in any configuration, but they were still legally possessed as AWs prior to the ban, and are thus legitimate "pre-ban lowers". That's what the manufacturers' lists of serial numbers show.

Ken

 

[delgrifith]

But what if the lower was originally sold as a post ban AW but then the stock is pinned and all other parts of the upper are also made compliant. It seems as If someone could buy a rifle used from someone who converted an AW to a compliant rifle and would never know it and then somehow be found in possession of a AW that isn't even an AW in its current state.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[glide]

But what if the lower was originally sold as a post ban AW but then the stock is pinned and all other parts of the upper are also made compliant. It seems as If someone could buy a rifle used from someone who converted an AW to a compliant rifle and would never know it and then somehow be found in possession of a AW that isn't even an AW in its current state.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

That's the rub. Even if it doesn't have the required features to be defined as an AW, it is still considered one because that is how it left the factory. Once an assault weapon, always an assault weapon.

And you can buy them in that state from a private party, OR from a dealer who has done the work themselves to make it 'compliant'.

Note: this is only opinion and is a B.S one at that.

 

[OfficerObie59]

EOPS has ruled "once an AW (post-ban with evil features), always a AW" claiming that you can't legally grind off bayo lugs, change flash-hider, remove/pin collapsible stock to make it MA-compliant . . . even if done outside MA by gunsmith. This has not made it to court yet, so untested, although I'm sure that a MA court would convict on this if tested.

Len, have they given a rationale for that interpretation? Not that I expect there to be one...

EDT: Disregard...see above.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Buying a pre-ban lower does NOT automatically allow you to construct a legal pre-ban gun. To do that, there has to be some proof that that lower was ONCE part of a FULL GUN (or GUN KIT) in "evil configuration". Plenty of lowers were made before the ban that were merely sold as bare lowers . . . if they weren't built up with evil features prior to that fateful day, it would be ILLEGAL to build them up any time after 9/13/1994 (wrt to MA AWB)!!

it is written in the law you are just missing it. It wouldn't be an assault weapon if it wasn't configured as an assault weapon prior to the ban, it would just be a "regular" gun.

I'm glad someone understands. Thanks!

Note: In MA terminology of C. 140, it wouldn't be a gun if it were a mere bucket of parts either.

Although if you had a bucket of parts with a post-ban stripped lower, what are the odds they would now attempt to say you had constructive possession of a post-ban rifle? Wouldn't put it past this state to try and have it both ways.

 

[delgrifith]

Although if you had a bucket of parts with a post-ban stripped lower, what are the odds they would now attempt to say you had constructive possession of a post-ban rifle? Wouldn't put it past this state to try and have it both ways.

In this scenario I don't think they would try to prosecute. I believe they would have a significant chance of losing and losing a very thin case such as this may crumble a portion of their sacred AWB and they know it.

 

[loki32687]

Would putting a side folder on a Mak 90 be legal? From my research they were all imported/sold before 94

 

[drgrant]

Would putting a side folder on a Mak 90 be legal? From my research they were all imported/sold before 94

The problem with the MAKs is the whole "did it start life as an AW" thing, and they all didn't... that said if you had one that was an AW before 9/13/94, you could be fine.

Years ago I thought this was not the case, but it turns out I was wrong. All MAK-90s are preban date wise; they might not all be "upgrade eligible" though, if they were not in AW config on the ban date. (of course, hats off to the authorities, have fun figuring that out! )

IIRC the last MAK90s were imported in April of 1994 or somesuch, so that makes them all preban date wise, but not necessarily feature wise. Someone would have had to legally modify/reconfigure the gun before the AWB took effect. Some of the importers could have done this, too, depending. (eg, after the gun was in the US, they could have gussied it up with (whatever) if they met the 922R BS. )

-Mike

 

[Romeosierra616]

@thousm:

I have that same build, minus the optic, for $700 lol. although I guess the optic could really cost the difference. any good optic tends to be more that the gun itself lmao

 

[thousm]

So...... you cant buy a pre-ban from out of state and have it sent to a firearms dealer in MA and do the transfer threw them?

 

[Len-2A Training]

So...... you cant buy a pre-ban from out of state and have it sent to a firearms dealer in MA and do the transfer threw them?

The unsigned, undated memo from EOPS has had it's intended effect. Many non-MA dealers and some distributors have stopped shipping any pre-ban stuff to MA according to what I've been told.

[The memo states that all pre-ban items HAD TO BE IN MA ON 9/13/1994. This is NOT in MGLs and in fact it fails on two points . . . Point 1-The actual wording of the law allows pre-ban status if mfd on/prior to that date, Point 2-It could be located anywhere in the universe, location is NOT restricted by law.]

FUD at it's finest is a very effective tool and utilized with surgical precision by those running the gov't!

 

[thousm]

The Law sounds unclear. Is this a gray area? Who is EOPS? I heard a memo was sent out saying gun dealers cant sell preban mags in MA also. @LenS.....If there was a preban AR in NH you wanted would you pass on it? Or would you think it perficaly legal to send it MA?

 

[Len-2A Training]

The Law sounds unclear. Is this a gray area? Who is EOPS? I heard a memo was sent out saying gun dealers cant sell preban mags in MA also. @LenS.....If there was a preban AR in NH you wanted would you pass on it? Or would you think it perficaly legal to send it MA?

No the LAW is very clear!

The memo is BS and is intended to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's been very effective in carrying out that mission!

EOPS = Exec. Office of Public Safety - they are charged with creating regulations to enforce MA gun laws.

Yes they sent out that memo, a copy of which is sitting on my desk as I write this.

Those that know me know my reaction to this. If I saw something I desperately wanted and is legal to own, I'd try to buy it.

I teach this MA gun law stuff regularly. I even taught this seminar (covering all these areas of questionable legality-the unsigned/undated memos, and a ton of other stuff) at Manchester Firing Line. I was very pleased that Jim McLoud and Junior sat thru most of it. The 3 hour seminar ran almost 4 hours due to all their questions. They are victims of trying to understand this stuff too. I don't know if my seminar made any difference in what they will sell to MA folks, but I hope so.

 

[thousm]

@Romeosierra616. Happy you are able to build your AR. Lots of fun. But I dont think we have the same thing.

Bushmaster did not make the upper I wanted. Mid length, Light weight and 1/7 twist barrel. So I went with a BCM. Very happy I did.

BCM Standard 16" Mid Length (LIGHT WEIGHT) Upper Receiver Group w/ Daniel Defense OmegaX 9 Handguard. Mil-Spec 11595E - Barrel Steel. USGI 1/7 Twist Rate. Chrome Bore and Chamber

BCM Bolt Carrier Group.

Knight's Armament Flip Up Rear Sight 200-600 Meter. Knight's Armament rail covers.

Lower reciever...

Geissele SSA Super Semi-Automatic Trigger. The Geissele SSA has a pull weight of about 4.5lb. 2.5 lbs on the first stage and 2lb on the second stage.

Magpul trigger guard and pistol grip.
Ambidextrous safety and mag release.
LMT Sopmod Buttstock Assembly.
All pins a springs replaced and more.

For an optic I went with a Aimpoint Comp M4s with a LaRue Tactical QD Mount (Med. 1.535) for absolute-cowitness and compatibility with USGI night vision mounts.

Vickers Padded Sling with front and rear QD push button adapters.

Magpul 10 round Magazine.

See pics on FB. http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.103375473013620.7076.100000235039106&type=1

 

[glide]

The Law sounds unclear. Is this a gray area? Who is EOPS? I heard a memo was sent out saying gun dealers cant sell preban mags in MA also. @LenS.....If there was a preban AR in NH you wanted would you pass on it? Or would you think it perficaly legal to send it MA?

The law is plain as day. It is 100% okay for you to own a pre-ban AR provided it was in AW configuration and legally possessed (anywhere in the world) before the cutoff date.

If you can get documentation from the manufacturer that the rifle was assembled in AW configuration prior to the ban, all the better. There is no grey area.

If it's in NH, buy it, bring it back to MA, and file an FA-10. Problem solved.

 

[Red Lagoon 6]

The law is plain as day. It is 100% okay for you to own a pre-ban AR provided it was in AW configuration and legally possessed (anywhere in the world) before the cutoff date.

I understand that EOPSS/ Firearms Record Bureau is reading the CMR about lawfully owned to mean previsouly owned in Massachusetts. I happened to be in the free state of NH and entered a gun store around Christmas. I was chatting with the owner and he showed me a really nice pre-ban AK. I told him that I was from MA and he showed me a letter from EOPSS that he recieved. He related a story that a guy from MA came to the store and wanted to buy the AK. The guy from MA apparently spoke with EOPSS and they told him that it would be illegal for him to possess the AK in MA as it had not been previously owned in MA. I did not read the EOPSS letter in any detail, but he gun store owner told me that he spoke with EOPSS and they told him that if he sold the AK to the guy from MA then they would refer the matter to ATF. The gun store owner did not want the hassel and the deal never happened.

He then made some disparaging remarks about the People's Republic and inquired how I could live there. I did not have a good answer.

I have dealt with Firearms Record Bureau before and I was also told that they read the "lawfully possessed" language to mean "possessed in Massachusetts."

FWIW

 

[jasons]

I have dealt with Firearms Record Bureau before and I was also told that they read the "lawfully possessed" language to mean "possessed in Massachusetts."

It amazing how they can see stuff that just isn't there. They must all wear special glasses or something. What great public servants.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It amazing how they can see stuff that just isn't there. They must all wear special glasses or something. What great public servants.

It is "agenda driven". The memo/reading what isn't there is NOT ACCIDENTAL. And it is very effective. Even if you are 100% right, nobody wants the Feds sniffing up their ass, so dealers/distributors will comply with whatever EOPS/CJIS tells them.

 

[glide]

I understand that EOPSS/ Firearms Record Bureau is reading the CMR about lawfully owned to mean previsouly owned in Massachusetts. I happened to be in the free state of NH and entered a gun store around Christmas. I was chatting with the owner and he showed me a really nice pre-ban AK. I told him that I was from MA and he showed me a letter from EOPSS that he recieved. He related a story that a guy from MA came to the store and wanted to buy the AK. The guy from MA apparently spoke with EOPSS and they told him that it would be illegal for him to possess the AK in MA as it had not been previously owned in MA. I did not read the EOPSS letter in any detail, but he gun store owner told me that he spoke with EOPSS and they told him that if he sold the AK to the guy from MA then they would refer the matter to ATF. The gun store owner did not want the hassel and the deal never happened.

He then made some disparaging remarks about the People's Republic and inquired how I could live there. I did not have a good answer.

I have dealt with Firearms Record Bureau before and I was also told that they read the "lawfully possessed" language to mean "possessed in Massachusetts."

FWIW

That's what they would like it to mean, but that does not make it so.

 

[Red Lagoon 6]

That's what they would like it to mean, but that does not make it so.

I agree. Why don't they just come and say, "Guns are bad and you guys are too stupid to have guns so we think that they should be outlawed."

 

[Dream to Dream]

I agree. Why don't they just come and say, "Guns are bad and you guys are too stupid to have guns so we think that they should be outlawed."

Baby steps. Give them time...