-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Why do I need to efa10 a SBR anyway
- Thread starter Lxpony
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 731
- Likes
- 1,201
I think he answered that in post #20
So if the MA AWB is defined solely off the 1994 federal definition of an assault weapon and reviewing the 1994 language it says:
An assault rifle is defined as X
An assault pistol is defined as X
How does that hold up in a Massachusetts court if my SBR is neither a rifle or a pistol as defined by MGL?
Is the term "rifle" or "pistol" defined by federal law? If not I'm not so sure the MA AG would ever want to bring charges against someone because it's definitely not clear..... which would favor the defendant in court.
Thoughts?
An assault rifle is defined as X
An assault pistol is defined as X
How does that hold up in a Massachusetts court if my SBR is neither a rifle or a pistol as defined by MGL?
Is the term "rifle" or "pistol" defined by federal law? If not I'm not so sure the MA AG would ever want to bring charges against someone because it's definitely not clear..... which would favor the defendant in court.
Thoughts?
CrackPot
NES Member
Having explained this 90 times now...
The definition of Assault Weapon in MA is "as defined in USC blah blah of 13-sep-1994". MA definitions are not in play. You go to federal law and read federal law stand alone as it existed in 1994 and make a determination if the weapon in question is an AW. Then you come back to MGL and chap 140 131M and it is illegal for you to possess an AW that was manufactured after 13-sep-1994. The MA definitions of firearm, rifle, shotgun are not in play when you are off reading federal law.
This is all actually quite straight forward and consistent. MGL does not include USC language which would cause the problem you are hoping it does. MGL is a straight up pointer to federal law. No contamination of terminology allowing you to magically get out of the AWB is in play.
Thanks, so are in in agreement of there not being any federal definition of rifle or pistol?
If so then might a court default back to states definition? In which case there is the crux of my loophole argument?
If so then might a court default back to states definition? In which case there is the crux of my loophole argument?
CrackPot
NES Member
This is certainly true, but sometimes the law is against us. Just like when the AG went off and tried to figure out how to get rid of dealers selling 14" shockwaves and correctly determined that an SBR was in fact a "firearm" in MA so subject to both the EOPs list and the AG regulations. No more Form 4 transfers from dealers to inmates.
SBRs are evaluated as AWs under federal law and definitions so the rifle definition. Wishing it is otherwise is what I like to refer to as magical thinking.
But you are right, even if this was not true, they would interpret the way that was as bad as possible for you.
Lets follow the magical thinking to its illogical conclusion. I have an AR pistol. Under federal law it is a pistol and under MA law it is a "firearm". What part of the federal AWB would you apply? Pistol? Why. Under magical thinking it is a "firearm" and there is no definition of AW for a "firearm" under MA law. So how can we use the pistol definition? That means all AR pistols are legal in MA because they are "firearms" and not subject to the AWB. Let me know how that works out.
But if you then accept that we use the federal pistol definition, why would we, under magical thinking, not apply the federal pistol definition to an SBR? If the firearm uses pistol then why dont we always use pistol?
See, even under magical thinking, people are not consistent. They claim "contradiction" when it suits them, but otherwise don't.
An SBR is subject to the federal rifle AW definition.
Mass-diver
NES Member
Sorry officer, but it’s only been 6 days
CrackPot
NES Member
Michael Michael Michael
No. Federal law defines rifle, pistol, etc. You read "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994" in its context and federal definitions are in place. There is no loophole or missing definitions or anything. I know that you live what you are preaching but please don't think you are not at serious risk.
USC stands on its own and is self contained. Had they copy/pasted federal law into MGL then you would be right that we had a problem. They did not. They said "as defined in USC" which makes it all work correctly. Seriously though, ask a lawyer how to read the law when it has pointers like this.
The legal doctrines at play here are the "Dynamic Incorporation of Federal Law" (into state law) and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution)
Shevchenko
NES Member
Reminds me of an argument my friends were having, one is a conspiracy theorist, the other works for the Secret Service in their financial crimes department, and he (SS) was like "If you understood how incapable the US Gov is of functioning as a normal system, you would realize they could never pull any of this insane shit off"
yanquidog
NES Member
Sounds like a good way to get “Weavered”
I think if we start efa-10ing flashlightss, hammers and individual rounds of ammo, the state would be happy.
You are reading too much into this. There are no loopholes. You shall comply.
I'll also add here that if you take a scorpion pistol and form 1 it making it an sbr it is no longer a pistol, it's a rifle per federal definition. That's how you legally can own a scorpion in Massachusetts. Whether you think a sbr'd scorpion must follow MA awb language or not is a different conversion.
Pretty positive there are definitions for both rifle and pistol that apply to the USC at the time it is being cited in MGL.
If you really wanna be on the bleeding edge and get cute, then I’d think long and hard about what exactly the federal definitions are. Seems to me that If you had a firearm that was incontrovertibly NOT a rifle per federal definition, and also incontrovertibly NOT a pistol per federal definition, then you might have yourself something that is not subject to the AWB.
But as many have said, just because you’re right doesn’t mean the prosecutor isn’t going to ignore that version of reality and charge you with their own.
yanquidog
NES Member
Sounded like if we have a rifle, then turn it into an sbr ( less than 16”)
The warrant the feds were trying to serve in Idaho,was for a sawed off/ less than legal length firearm.
Maybe I’m reading too much into the post
The feds could not possibly care less about whatever you put into the EFA10 system. It doesn't really mean anything. Also we're talking SBRs right? If the
person has a stamp, gun is engraved, etc.... the feds are happy, end of discussion. They're not going to care how you "declare" it in some system that they don't even
use. As far as the feds are concerned the EFA10 system could be a fortune telling machine at disneyland.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 262
- Likes
- 407
No, you should still get a stamp and engraving. I'm only saying to submit it as a rifle to the state
I’m curious about instances like my own. I had a 16” rifle that I used for a couple years. Decided to turn it into an sbr. I got a stamp, got it engraved, then got an sbr upper. It was Fa10’d years ago as a rifle.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting some posts but it appears it’s suggested to FA10 as a pistol and and its wrong to FA10 as a rifle. I can’t be the only one who had a lower on an FA10 as a rifle that switched to an sbr. Is this an issue?
The reality is in the real world, none of this actually matters. If you EFA-10ed it once as whatever, after it became a functioning firearm (of any type) your obligation with that is over. There's no need to revisit it later.
I need to go back and read what MGL says about the FA10 system, but I'll throw this out there for discussion anyway. Isn't the FA10 a "transaction" record not a gun registry. That is it's intended to track the buying and selling of guns, not the gun itself (yes I know how it's actually used). If that is in fact how it's written then there would be no reason to file an FA10 unless ownership changed. Converting a rifle or piston to an SBR is not a change in ownership.
But what do I know, up here the state doesn't care what NFA item you may or may not own.
So they use the words "obtain" and "purchase" so I would say building a firearm is obtaining one. But once the FA10 is filed, there is no need to re-file if you alter it since you are not purchasing or obtaining it.
