80% lower

babygorilla

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
2,017
Likes
782
Location
South Shore of Massachusetts
Heres something Ive been wondering about. (I am not SUGGESTING or encouraging this, merely asking about the legal ramifications of the scenario)

So from what ive heard if you posessed an 80% lower before the enforcement notice, it was legal to complete (and register?) it after the notice similiair to how it works with stripped lowers.

Scenario: an unmarked 80% lower, completed and kept in the home, perhaps even post-healey (Hi Maura!) for personal use only (not pinned 10 round). Some fanatical anti-2A LEO shows up and books you for posession of an AW or a "copycat weapon" post Healeys decree. You claim it was completed before the decree. Therefore the burden of proof would be on THEM to prove it was completed after the Healey notice wouldnt it?

Scenario 2: same as above, except you claim you possessed the 80% lower BEFORE the enforcement notice but COMPLETED it after, as allowed by lord Maura.

Scenario 3: Not really a scenario, just wondering how registration would effect the scenarios above.
She has decreed that even OWNING one is illegal, even if bought prior to her decree and after '94. Build it now, own it now. Still the same felon in waiting.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
8,332
Likes
4,891
I'm certainly no lawyer but here's my two cents:

So from what ive heard if you posessed an 80% lower before the enforcement notice, it was legal to complete (and register?) it after the notice...
I disagree simply because it wasn't a firearm part while it was at the 80% stage so what you possessed was just a hunk of metal. Now, if you finished it into a lower receiver prior to the enforcement notice, you could then legally build that into a firearm. It would be nearly impossible to definitively prove when the lower was completed.


Scenario: an unmarked 80% lower, completed and kept in the home, perhaps even post-healey (Hi Maura!) for personal use only (not pinned 10 round). Some fanatical anti-2A LEO shows up and books you for posession of an AW or a "copycat weapon" post Healeys decree. You claim it was completed before the decree. Therefore the burden of proof would be on THEM to prove it was completed after the Healey notice wouldnt it?
Yes, I would tend to agree (IANAL) although I would imagine they'd subpoena your online posts, credit card transaction history, etc) to look for any sort of evidence that would help their case. I would not want to be the test case for this.


Scenario 2: same as above, except you claim you possessed the 80% lower BEFORE the enforcement notice but COMPLETED it after, as allowed by lord Maura.
I don't think this would be legal because again, what you possessed prior to working on it was just some metal, not a lower.


Scenario 3: Not really a scenario, just wondering how registration would effect the scenarios above.
The law requires you to file an eFA10 within a certain number of days after completing the firearm. Before you ask, I wouldn't even dream of making the claim in court that you kept finished lowers and uppers separated and never attached one to the other so it was never a finished firearm.


There is enough ambiguity in our laws to make strong arguments about all sorts of gray areas. That being said, how much money do you have to pay lawyers while you get dragged through the courts for several years? Do you really want to be a test case for any of this? If you have a high risk tolerance and can afford good legal representation, knock yourself out. Otherwise, just buy someone's used gun in the classifieds and FA10 it.
 

shootermcgavin1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
98
Likes
90
Location
Quincy
Has anyone attached their upper to a previously bought lower (before 7/20/18) and registered it post-healey? I imagine you’d get a knock on the door...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
4
Likes
1
Location
Western MA
There is enough ambiguity in our laws to make strong arguments about all sorts of gray areas. That being said, how much money do you have to pay lawyers while you get dragged through the courts for several years? Do you really want to be a test case for any of this? If you have a high risk tolerance and can afford good legal representation, knock yourself out. Otherwise, just buy someone's used gun in the classifieds and FA10 it.

I think mr Kalash hits the nail on the head here, that if one has the time and money to afford a lawyer and fight this kind of case, then they can afford a pre ban rifle or two and the whole point is moot. While these scenarios are interesting food for thought, reality is much more straightforward.
 

SgtHal75

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Messages
1,429
Likes
1,340
Location
Hidden rebel base
I think mr Kalash hits the nail on the head here, that if one has the time and money to afford a lawyer and fight this kind of case, then they can afford a pre ban rifle or two and the whole point is moot. While these scenarios are interesting food for thought, reality is much more straightforward.
Right, Buy that’s why we have that NFA of 1934, they knew no one could afford The tax stamp. This is no different. How come a 249 SAW wasn’t one of her enumerated weapons???? Because they cost about 8k.
 

joe1231913

Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
371
Likes
246
Location
MASS
Heres something Ive been wondering about. (I am not SUGGESTING or encouraging this, merely asking about the legal ramifications of the scenario)

So from what ive heard if you posessed an 80% lower before the enforcement notice, it was legal to complete (and register?) it after the notice similiair to how it works with stripped lowers.

Scenario: an unmarked 80% lower, completed and kept in the home, perhaps even post-healey (Hi Maura!) for personal use only (not pinned 10 round). Some fanatical anti-2A LEO shows up and books you for posession of an AW or a "copycat weapon" post Healeys decree. You claim it was completed before the decree. Therefore the burden of proof would be on THEM to prove it was completed after the Healey notice wouldnt it?

Scenario 2: same as above, except you claim you possessed the 80% lower BEFORE the enforcement notice but COMPLETED it after, as allowed by lord Maura.

Scenario 3: Not really a scenario, just wondering how registration would effect the scenarios above.

The burden of proof would be fairly easy, since you have to report a firearm within 7 days...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
10
Likes
1
There are a few shops that have sent letters into the AGs office about "mag locked" AR's, they have been producing them, selling them, and registering them since a few months after the new BS from Maura. According to lawyers the shops used, putting a "mag lock" on the lower makes it not fall under the AWB. And the Firearms Records Dept hasn't been saying no to the rifles being registered as a mag locked rifle.
 

MuzzleDiscipline

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
449
Likes
538
Location
Spindle City
There are a few shops that have sent letters into the AGs office about "mag locked" AR's, they have been producing them, selling them, and registering them since a few months after the new BS from Maura. According to lawyers the shops used, putting a "mag lock" on the lower makes it not fall under the AWB. And the Firearms Records Dept hasn't been saying no to the rifles being registered as a mag locked rifle.
Which shops would those be?
 

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
18,448
Likes
12,104
Location
Back from Motherland
I'm just curious about having an ATF agent in the family, do they eat babies and strangle puppies and recite the Constitution backwards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPR

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,927
Likes
2,880
Location
NH
Heres something Ive been wondering about. (I am not SUGGESTING or encouraging this, merely asking about the legal ramifications of the scenario)

So from what ive heard if you posessed an 80% lower before the enforcement notice, it was legal to complete (and register?) it after the notice similiair to how it works with stripped lowers.

Scenario: an unmarked 80% lower, completed and kept in the home, perhaps even post-healey (Hi Maura!) for personal use only (not pinned 10 round). Some fanatical anti-2A LEO shows up and books you for posession of an AW or a "copycat weapon" post Healeys decree. You claim it was completed before the decree. Therefore the burden of proof would be on THEM to prove it was completed after the Healey notice wouldnt it?
7/20 is not codified anywhere in the law. I think they'd have to go the "post 94" route and see if the courts will accept Maura's definition that the completed lower violates the original MA AWB as written (not "re-interpreted"). In this scenario, the 7/20 date within the notice is completely irrelevant and it would be ruling on whether or not Healey's interpretation/definition is correct with regard to the law. The ruling would be focused on that, and not "post 7/20". Reminder: if you purchased an AR/AK etc. after 1994, Healey says you committed a felony unless it is pre-ban (1994). In her interpretation all post 94 AKs and ARs are legally assault weapons. It's not "legal before the enforcement notice" as you claim above. It was illegal then, and is illegal now, it's only Healey's largesse and love of her subjects that has stopped her from seeking prosecution now.

Scenario 2: same as above, except you claim you possessed the 80% lower BEFORE the enforcement notice but COMPLETED it after, as allowed by lord Maura.
Same as above. The cops can't point to 7/20 since it doesn't exist in MGL. They'd have to argue you violated the AWB as written. You could then claim the interpretation that was applied to the Federal ban which was the de facto reality in MA until 7/20. The state would have to argue that the enforcement notice standard of what constitutes an AWB is the one that has been in effect since the MA AWB was passed.

Scenario 3: Not really a scenario, just wondering how registration would effect the scenarios above.
Registration would prove when it was made into a firearm. If you never register, you are violating that law (fine for first offense). A prosecutor can determine the date based on the manufacturer (if they didn't exist in 1994) or obtain payment records, etc. In this case, I think registration simply proves you had it post 1994, thus subjecting you to Healey's edict.

For those that cling to 7/20, remember her words: "at this time" - tomorrow morning she can do another press conference and if you have a post 1994 AR/AK, she can decide that she wants to have prosecutors pursue charges.
 

Crotchrocket

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
193
Likes
19
Location
Holyoke
I think it’s not allowed in MA. But I honestly don’t know. I want an AR but didn’t get my license til ‘17. Just accepted the fact that I’m SOL unless I wanna fork over $1500. I suppose you could just build the rifle and keep it hush hush. It’s not like her edict is legal (not sure if the Boys will accept that reasoning if they find it though)
We need a case to challenge in court. The more people that ignore her random edict the better chance we have of a prosecution and a day in court.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
5
Likes
2
I see people claim, here and elsewhere, that you have to register a self-manufactured firearm within 7 days of completion. But I cannot find any statute to back that up. The Feds don't require registration of mfg firearms. Why would we consider mfg to a "transaction" under state law?

Consider the Public Safety Notice on 3D printed weapons. Notice that "failure to register the weapon" is not listed as one of the potential crimes
https://www.mass.gov/media/1894406/download
 

mlaboss

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,148
Likes
1,787
I see people claim, here and elsewhere, that you have to register a self-manufactured firearm within 7 days of completion. But I cannot find any statute to back that up. The Feds don't require registration of mfg firearms. Why would we consider mfg to a "transaction" under state law?

Consider the Public Safety Notice on 3D printed weapons. Notice that "failure to register the weapon" is not listed as one of the potential crimes
https://www.mass.gov/media/1894406/download
MGL Chapter 140 section 128B

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section128B

Any resident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm, rifle or shotgun or machine gun from any source within or without the commonwealth, other than from a licensee under section one hundred and twenty-two or a person authorized to sell firearms under section one hundred and twenty-eight A

[...]

shall within seven days after receiving such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, report, in writing, to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services the name and address of the seller or donor and the buyer or donee, together with a complete description of the firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, including the caliber, make and serial number.
They key is the word "obtains" in the statute. It has been generally interpreted to mean that any self-made gun, whether made from scratch or built from an existing receiver, has to be registered within 7 days of making it as that is the date which you "obtained" it.

Of course, one could argue that you didn't "obtain" it since you made it yourself, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in front of a judge arguing that.
 

bgoum

NES Member
Rating - 100%
46   0   0
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
1,065
Likes
536
Location
Salem, NH
MGL Chapter 140 section 128B

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section128B



They key is the word "obtains" in the statute. It has been generally interpreted to mean that any self-made gun, whether made from scratch or built from an existing receiver, has to be registered within 7 days of making it as that is the date which you "obtained" it.

Of course, one could argue that you didn't "obtain" it since you made it yourself, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in front of a judge arguing that.

IIRC... I think Len-2A talked about the states view on this in another thread - the state will ask did you have the AR-15 before you built it? if not, then you "obtained" it by building it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
4
Likes
1
Location
Western MA
MGL Chapter 140 section 128B

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section128B



They key is the word "obtains" in the statute. It has been generally interpreted to mean that any self-made gun, whether made from scratch or built from an existing receiver, has to be registered within 7 days of making it as that is the date which you "obtained" it.

Of course, one could argue that you didn't "obtain" it since you made it yourself, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in front of a judge arguing that.
Have you ever heard someone say Ford “obtains” cars, colt “obtains” rifles, or a baker “obtains” cakes?

Obviously I’m not a lawyer but it’s food for thought. Shame we sit here trying to decipher all this when we all know it makes no sense in the first place and that's the way they want it.
 

pupchow

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
3,162
Likes
657
"shall within seven days after receiving such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, report, in writing, to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services the name and address of the seller or donor"

I'm drawing a blank.
 

lambchop

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
158
Likes
46
I’m not a lawyer but just for shiets and giggles...when you read the law it states you don’t need to register a firearm unless you obtain it from a non license LTC/FID holder or non dealer.

Let’s break it down...

Any resident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm, rifle or shotgun or machine gun from any source within or without the commonwealth, other than from a licensee under section one hundred and twenty-two or a person authorized to sell firearms under section one hundred and twenty-eight A...

This states any Mass resident who purchases/obtains (buy it, was given to you, manufactured it, stole it) from any one except a licensee (LTC/FID holder) or a FFL

...and receives such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, within the commonwealth shall within seven days after receiving such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, report, in writing, to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services the name and address of the seller or donor and the buyer or donee, together with a complete description of the firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, including the caliber, make and serial number.

Then the section that states you must report it.

So the law clearly states you must report it if you purchase or obtain a firearm from anyone except from a licensee or dealer. Obviously they don’t probably don’t mean this but the way it’s written and worded, that’s what it states.

Correct me if I’m reading the law incorrectly.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
4
Likes
1
Location
Western MA
I’m not a lawyer but just for shiets and giggles...when you read the law it states you don’t need to register a firearm unless you obtain it from a non license LTC/FID holder or non dealer.

Let’s break it down...
That’s kinda funny. So theoretically one could argue after building their 80% into a functioning firearm that they “obtained” it from themselves, a valid LTC holder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

KMM696

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
3,280
Likes
597
Location
Western PRofMA
I’m not a lawyer but just for shiets and giggles...when you read the law it states you don’t need to register a firearm unless you obtain it from a non license LTC/FID holder or non dealer.

Let’s break it down...

Any resident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm, rifle or shotgun or machine gun from any source within or without the commonwealth, other than from a licensee under section one hundred and twenty-two or a person authorized to sell firearms under section one hundred and twenty-eight A...

This states any Mass resident who purchases/obtains (buy it, was given to you, manufactured it, stole it) from any one except a licensee (LTC/FID holder) or a FFL

...and receives such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, within the commonwealth shall within seven days after receiving such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, report, in writing, to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services the name and address of the seller or donor and the buyer or donee, together with a complete description of the firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, including the caliber, make and serial number.

Then the section that states you must report it.

So the law clearly states you must report it if you purchase or obtain a firearm from anyone except from a licensee or dealer. Obviously they don’t probably don’t mean this but the way it’s written and worded, that’s what it states.

Correct me if I’m reading the law incorrectly.

Confusing mess, isn't it? I'll admit I laughed when I read "So the law clearly states..." I do disagree with your premise here.

A license under C140 S122 is a MA gun dealers license, not an LTC/FID holder. LTCs and FIDs are issued under C140 S131. It's a confusing mess, but to start figuring out what's going on with the laws you should read all of C140, S121 through S131Q. Don't skip reading the definitions - MA does some weird stuff there where you'd think it was obvious. As an example, by MA law definition firearms are pistols, and rifles and shotguns are not firearms.

I would also advise reading everything that Len-2A Training has written in the MA Law forum, especially threads he started. Len has been following this stuff for years. If you want the easier way to understand all this, I can highly recommend Len's course on MA gun owner law - if you have specific questions, bring them.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,846
Likes
2,983
Don't skip reading the definitions - MA does some weird stuff there where you'd think it was obvious. As an example, by MA law definition firearms are pistols, and rifles and shotguns are not firearms.
Those definitions of "firearm"/"(non-)firearm" apply in many Mass laws,
but I have the stinking suspicion that they're not universally
applicable in all statutes and regulations (and case law and yadda³...).

I can't point to a counterexample offhand,
but I'd never make a serious decision that depended upon that
without an explicit check.
 

KMM696

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
3,280
Likes
597
Location
Western PRofMA
Those definitions of "firearm"/"(non-)firearm" apply in many Mass laws,
but I have the stinking suspicion that they're not universally
applicable in all statutes and regulations (and case law and yadda³...).

I can't point to a counterexample offhand,
but I'd never make a serious decision that depended upon that
without an explicit check.
Oh, agreed. The fire CMRs, (which are now written by reasonable people living in states that aren't Massachusetts) don't necessarily match MA definitions. We did catch a little bit of a break that Section 121 flat out tells us where the definitions apply, only in C140 S121-131q, inclusive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

lambchop

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
158
Likes
46
Confusing mess, isn't it? I'll admit I laughed when I read "So the law clearly states..." I do disagree with your premise here.

A license under C140 S122 is a MA gun dealers license, not an LTC/FID holder. LTCs and FIDs are issued under C140 S131. It's a confusing mess, but to start figuring out what's going on with the laws you should read all of C140, S121 through S131Q. Don't skip reading the definitions - MA does some weird stuff there where you'd think it was obvious. As an example, by MA law definition firearms are pistols, and rifles and shotguns are not firearms.

I would also advise reading everything that Len-2A Training has written in the MA Law forum, especially threads he started. Len has been following this stuff for years. If you want the easier way to understand all this, I can highly recommend Len's course on MA gun owner law - if you have specific questions, bring them.
Thanks for the clarification
 
Top Bottom