The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

JDL said:
However a barrel that is threaded is an evil feature even if it has a permently attached device.
Click to expand...
Nobody knows if this is true yet. Nobody reasonable however, thinks that this would withstand scrutiny.

"A muzzle cap or a PW device rendering the threads inaccessible is still illegal" as an interpretation is getting into guida glue fumes territory imo.

Not that this matters because it's never going to get tested in court regardless. (Cwofs and ple deals don't count).
 
chris_1001 said:
Wut?

Pinned and welded over a threaded barrel eliminates the thread.

Most all ar barrels are threaded
Click to expand...
Yes however these clowns don't seem to realize this and are still listing it as an evel feature if it has it even covered permently it is still a threaded barrel. Just one more stupid inturptation of the stupidity of h4885.
 
JDL said:
Yes however these clowns don't seem to realize this and are still listing it as an evel feature if it has it even covered permently it is still a threaded barrel. Just one more stupid inturptation of the stupidity of h4885.
Click to expand...

Well. Supposedly 10/23 all evil features are grandfathered if owned on 8/1.

Grinder goes brrrrrrr.

Pins go pop.

I just need to find a source of ground off bayo lugs to weld back on.

And score with 50.000001+ ounce pistols.
 
JDL said:
Yes anything pinned welded permently attached pinned and welded as long as the barrel isn't threaded. So all this can be done to a nonthereaded barrel. However a barrel that is threaded is an evil feature even if it has a permently attached device.
Click to expand...

No, no, no.

The current law, until the new one takes effect, specifies a “flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.”

Current precedent (and has been for all 26 years of the MA AWB) is that using ATF approved methods of permanently attaching a muzzle device means that the barrel is no longer threaded.

The new law is “a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature;”

The new law is actually LESS restrictive than the old one in terms of muzzle devices. Now, according to the text of the law, we can have flash suppressors, just not threaded barrels.

The new law does not introduce ANY language stipulating that permanently attaching muzzle devices is no longer legal. The new law does not seem to be sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a different interpretation of threads and permanently attached muzzle devices.
 
PappyM3 said:
No, no, no.

The current law, until the new one takes effect, specifies a “flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.”

Current precedent (and has been for all 26 years of the MA AWB) is that using ATF approved methods of permanently attaching a muzzle device means that the barrel is no longer threaded.

The new law is “a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature;”

The new law is actually LESS restrictive than the old one in terms of muzzle devices. Now, according to the text of the law, we can have flash suppressors, just not threaded barrels.

The new law does not introduce ANY language stipulating that permanently attaching muzzle devices is no longer legal. The new law does not seem to be sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a different interpretation of threads and permanently attached muzzle devices.
Click to expand...

This shit gives me a headache. No wonder I avoided law school.

I can't imagine what's going through the mind of anyone thinking of permanently messing with a rifle in response to this law.
 
PappyM3 said:
No, no, no.

The current law, until the new one takes effect, specifies a “flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.”

Current precedent (and has been for all 26 years of the MA AWB) is that using ATF approved methods of permanently attaching a muzzle device means that the barrel is no longer threaded.

The new law is “a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature;”

The new law is actually LESS restrictive than the old one in terms of muzzle devices. Now, according to the text of the law, we can have flash suppressors, just not threaded barrels.

The new law does not introduce ANY language stipulating that permanently attaching muzzle devices is no longer legal. The new law does not seem to be sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a different interpretation of threads and permanently attached muzzle devices.
Click to expand...
By the letter of the law, you are correct.
Speaking to several reps, they believed that this language excluded everything that attaches to the muzzle.

But the fact remains that federally a pin/weld, silver solder or encircling weld deletes the interface creating a single, inseparable assembly. The remaining threads are not considered significant since they are likely to be destroyed when trying to remove the muzzle device.
 
PappyM3 said:
Then they’re idiots who didn’t know the law they were changing.
Click to expand...
They definitely are retarded.


Besides that factoid why do we even care about whether the barrel is threaded or has a barking spider? The iteration of a non ASF as written is as retarded as the ones who signed this law. Who would buy such an abortion anyways?
 
pastera said:
If you let them control the narrative by redefining language, you have already lost the war.
Click to expand...

The fact that they abandoned “assault weapon” in favor of “assault-style firearm” is indicative of some level of desperation. They know “assault weapon” is doomed because it’s meaningless, which forced them to use a term that shows exactly how stupid the restrictions are; they’re literally going after the style of gun, the cosmetics.

I’m going to say “assault-style firearm” as much as possible around gun confiscationists because it sounds stupid and can’t be defended without sounding like an idiot.
 
42! said:
Are you sure? When I was looking into it I found references that the barrel and firing pin where the only AR standard parts
Click to expand...

Yup. The barrels are pressed into a trunion. Now, if you’re shooting 300blk, you’re not likely to wear the barrel out for a LOONG time. 5.56 will still likely be in the 10s of thousands of rounds range, but still not user replaceable.

Reddit apparently says $350 for a barrel swap by PWS. But another user recently asked PWS and was told they don’t replace BRN180 barrels. Which would be… weird.

Edit: that just shows how much you’re at the mercy of a manufacturer when they limit what wear components a user can replace.
 
Last edited:
PappyM3 said:
Yup. The barrels are pressed into a trunion. Now, if you’re shooting 300blk, you’re not likely to wear the barrel out for a LOONG time. 5.56 will still likely be in the 10s of thousands of rounds range, but still not user replaceable.

Reddit apparently says $350 for a barrel swap by PWS. But another user recently asked PWS and was told they don’t replace BRN180 barrels. Which would be… weird.
Click to expand...

I saw this years ago and thought it was an interesting write-up on guns that see A LOT of use/rounds:

High round count AR/M4's (over 100,000 rounds) and how they have handled on our range - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.
www.ar15.com www.ar15.com

From the above post:

"A forum member asked me if I would give some insight into how our M4's handle on the range because I've started threads on the AK's, pistols and .50 Barretts.

Here's a little background on what we do. We operate a high-volume range in Las Vegas. You can't bring your personal weapons in and rent lanes for an hour. Customers use only our weapons and our ammo. We only use factory new ammo and zero reloads. We keep maintenance log on EACH and every weapon to include cleanings, parts replaced and any other issues that need to be noted. We shoot approximately 400,000 rounds down range each month and the numbers have actually gone up a bit for May and June. Tourists get to shoot everything from Type 99 Arisaka's, M1 Garand C and D's, MP-44's, G43's, M2HB's, 240's, 249's, MG42's, MG34's, M-14's, Luger's, Swedish K's, M203's, M79's and you get the point. Some weapons are very rare historical weapons that rarely come out of collections or museums and see the light of day.

Here are some "facts" about OUR experience with M4's on the range.

- Some of our M4's have well over 200,000 rounds down range. Barrels have been replaced, gas tubes have been replaced, BCG's have been replaced but what sets it apart from the AK47's is that upper and lower receivers continue to function. AK's get to about the 100,000+ round count and rails on the receiver will start to crack. It's an easy fix with tig welding but they crack. We have yet to lose an upper or lower receiver from cracking.

- We get about 20,000 rounds out of bolts before we start experiencing issues. The headspace gauge will start getting closing on NO-GO but not close on field. We will lose a lug on the bolt. The bolt will start skipping over rounds in the magazine and fail to insert a round. We use LMT and Daniel Defense bolts and some will actually go longer but at about 20,000 rounds is when we will start to see issues appear.

- Gas tubes will erode away at the FSB after 12+ months

- Charging handles will "stretch" allowing the locking lever and spring to fly out

- Hammer pins and disconnectors on the 8.5" full-auto's will break after approximately 4,000-5,000 rounds regardless of the buffer weight

- We have yet to lose a single flash hider as compared to muzzle brakes on an AK-47. The muzzle brakes will literally split in half, looking a like bird with his beak open and go flying down range.

- We no longer use ANY piston conversions or factory pistons guns with the exception of the HK-416 "knock-off" TDI upper. I purchased a FACTORY brand-new MR556 and it started keyholing after only 10,000 rounds. I was SO pissed because I spent all that money on the gun and it couldn't last 10,000 rounds. I had barrels from before we even opened the range with 1,000's of rounds on them from J&T Distributing (chrome-lined) that didn't keyhole well into the 80,000-100,000 range. I don't know who makes or made the J&T barrels but I was so pissed that actually wasted the money on a MR556 and that's all I got from it. I purchased two of the 14.5" TDI knock-offs approximately 6-8 weeks ago and they have been on the line daily with ZERO issues. I only purchased them because people will come in specifically request the "416" and even they've never handled a weapon their entire lives, they KNOW that the top half isn't the "416 like in COD/MW".

- USGI mags have outlasted all of the other brands. We use UGSI (Brownell's with tan follower) and on a mag for mag basis, they have outlasted Pmags and a few of the other mags that we get from mfg'ers with new weapons. We don't have to worry about various generations with different weapons like the MR556, SCAR, F2000, Tavor or a couple of others that use AR15/M4 magazines.

- Cleaning bolts and carriers is such a pain in the ass as compared to our AK's, G36's, SCAR's, ACR's and most other platforms. We throw them in the ultrasonic cleaner filled with Simple Green (EPA, OSHA and disposal concerns for us) and they never full remove the carbon from the bolts. The armorers spend so much time cleaning them and keeping all the parts together as compared to most other platforms.

- The only piston system to last on the range so far is the HK416 and TD415 system. Ever other systems we have tried has failed in one way or another. I won't say who's broke or how they broke so PLEASE don't ask. Each mfg has their own system for cleaning intervals and we may not follow their way. We have a way of cleaning and keeping records that suits our needs because of so much use.

- There is company that has an AR system that has some "parts don't need lubrication" and that failed before the end of the first day. I don't think some mfg's understand that people REALLY use their weapons and when you're rocking full-auto all day they NEED lubrication. My armorers and RSO's were laughing when it seized it up because we knew there was NO way it would last on our range.

- The parts that we see break more often are the bolt cam, bolt lugs shearing off, firing pins and gas keys shearing off the bolt carrier.

These are just a few of the things that I can think of on the top of my head. Please feel free to ask questions and I will try to respond sooner than later depending on my schedule."
 
pastera said:
By the letter of the law, you are correct.
Speaking to several reps, they believed that this language excluded everything that attaches to the muzzle.

But the fact remains that federally a pin/weld, silver solder or encircling weld deletes the interface creating a single, inseparable assembly. The remaining threads are not considered significant since they are likely to be destroyed when trying to remove the muzzle device.
Click to expand...
Food for thought. If that was their legislative intent, is that the law? If not, does that then mean same outcome with the 7/20 duplicates? Their intent was not what they wrote.
 
milktree said:
The fact that they abandoned “assault weapon” in favor of “assault-style firearm” is indicative of some level of desperation. They know “assault weapon” is doomed because it’s meaningless, which forced them to use a term that shows exactly how stupid the restrictions are; they’re literally going after the style of gun, the cosmetics.

I’m going to say “assault-style firearm” as much as possible around gun confiscationists because it sounds stupid and can’t be defended without sounding like an idiot.
Click to expand...
I have been thinking about this issue, and I think there are some strong pro-2A arguments that can be built around the new Massachusetts language.

For example, when anyone talks about banning AR-15s, we could respond with: "How could you be so ignorant that you are still talking about AR-15s. The experts in Massachusetts have determined that assault style firearms are the real issue. They haven't given us a coherent definition, but we know they are super bad and important."

Or possibly: "Banning AR-15s? Are you a pro-gun shill trying to turn all the other evil assault style firearms loose on society?"

Basically, the new language is an admission that their previously definitions were either mechanically incorrect or an intentional bait and switch. Neither option reflects well on their cause. Also, they have pretty much admitted that the changing definitions are an endless slippery slope which won't end until they have controlled knives, and also the 80% knives that we currently call spoons.
 
MAJoe said:
Food for thought. If that was their legislative intent, is that the law? If not, does that then mean same outcome with the 7/20 duplicates? Their intent was not what they wrote.
Click to expand...
Legislative intent comes into play when the text is ambiguous or conflicting.
With the feature test the text is clear - the test is a threaded barrel.

The 7/20 date in the definition of ASF has no meaning when ready without intent since the 8/1/24 exemption renders it moot.
The features test has meaning in that going forward a semiautomatic, detachable magazine, center fire rifle cannot have a functionally threaded barrel if it has any other banned features.
 
milktree said:
The fact that they abandoned “assault weapon” in favor of “assault-style firearm” is indicative of some level of desperation. They know “assault weapon” is doomed because it’s meaningless, which forced them to use a term that shows exactly how stupid the restrictions are; they’re literally going after the style of gun, the cosmetics.

I’m going to say “assault-style firearm” as much as possible around gun confiscationists because it sounds stupid and can’t be defended without sounding like an idiot.
Click to expand...

Not at all. They are just re-writing the narrative by redefining the term to cast a wider net and loop as many guns up in the wider net as possible.
 
HorizontalHunter said:
Not at all. They are just re-writing the narrative by redefining the term to cast a wider net and loop as many guns up in the wider net as possible.
Click to expand...

That’s what they want to do, yes.

But the use of “style” and the abandonment of the old term opens the whole class to ridicule.

Jeeps are “assault-style vehicles”, German shepherds are “assault-style dogs”. Anything with camo is “assault-style clothing”. Wrap around sunglasses are “assault-style eyewear”. Cargo pants? Assault-style. Combat boots? Assault-style.

It’s an absurd term, even more meaningless than “assault weapon.”

The fact that Massachusetts is the only place that uses the term makes it even more obvious that it’s a made-up term with no meaning outside the legal function of banning guns with certain cosmetic features.
 
milktree said:
That’s what they want to do, yes.

But the use of “style” and the abandonment of the old term opens the whole class to ridicule.

Jeeps are “assault-style vehicles”, German shepherds are “assault-style dogs”. Anything with camo is “assault-style clothing”. Wrap around sunglasses are “assault-style eyewear”. Cargo pants? Assault-style. Combat boots? Assault-style.

It’s an absurd term, even more meaningless than “assault weapon.”

The fact that Massachusetts is the only place that uses the term makes it even more obvious that it’s a made-up term with no meaning outside the legal function of banning guns with certain cosmetic
Click to expand...

HorizontalHunter said:
Not at all. They are just re-writing the narrative by redefining the term to cast a wider net and loop as many guns up in the wider net as possible.
Click to expand...


Use that wider net in court and argue that assault style weapons are in common use and get the whole mess thrown out…
 
pastera said:
Legislative intent comes into play when the text is ambiguous or conflicting.
With the feature test the text is clear - the test is a threaded barrel.

The 7/20 date in the definition of ASF has no meaning when ready without intent since the 8/1/24 exemption renders it moot.
The features test has meaning in that going forward a semiautomatic, detachable magazine, center fire rifle cannot have a functionally threaded barrel if it has any other banned features.
Click to expand...
As always, thanks.
 
Jsfitzgerald85 said:
Would not be shocked. The AGs office has no idea what the 7/20 date means in the law. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
They know what they meant but screwed up by including the exemption date for copies and duplicates in Sect 121 definitions instead of Section 131m(b) - too much infighting about something they had little to no first hand knowledge of.
 
milktree said:
That’s what they want to do, yes.

But the use of “style” and the abandonment of the old term opens the whole class to ridicule.

Jeeps are “assault-style vehicles”, German shepherds are “assault-style dogs”. Anything with camo is “assault-style clothing”. Wrap around sunglasses are “assault-style eyewear”. Cargo pants? Assault-style. Combat boots? Assault-style.

It’s an absurd term, even more meaningless than “assault weapon.”

The fact that Massachusetts is the only place that uses the term makes it even more obvious that it’s a made-up term with no meaning outside the legal function of banning guns with certain cosmetic features.
Click to expand...
Quoted for truth.

I have been thinking about this same issue, and i really like your take on it. Very succinct and to the point.
 
milktree said:
That’s what they want to do, yes.

But the use of “style” and the abandonment of the old term opens the whole class to ridicule.

Jeeps are “assault-style vehicles”, German shepherds are “assault-style dogs”. Anything with camo is “assault-style clothing”. Wrap around sunglasses are “assault-style eyewear”. Cargo pants? Assault-style. Combat boots? Assault-style.

It’s an absurd term, even more meaningless than “assault weapon.”

The fact that Massachusetts is the only place that uses the term makes it even more obvious that it’s a made-up term with no meaning outside the legal function of banning guns with certain cosmetic features.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree but this is a winning strategy for them. This is exactly the same process they used to re-defiant the term Assault Rifle.

IMG_3206.jpeg
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
39
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Fox News has gone woke?
Replies
11
Views
381
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
593
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Cam Edward's wife has passed away
Replies
3
Views
289
Reptile
Reptile
Holiday Deals Day 9: The Deals are STILL HERE — Don't Miss Out!
Replies
0
Views
56
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Back
Top Bottom