I don't mean to offend but you wrote, "It doesn't say exempt unless you add something. It just says exempt."
The first sentence has been shown to be wrong. The second has been shown to be wrong. The "w/o folding stock" contradicts both of those statements. It literally does say it's not exempt if you add something, and does say its not "just exempt."
The fact that it enumerates only one feature that presumably ends its exemption status does not change either of those things. You said it doesn't mention any features (it does), and that it "just says exempt" (it doesn't).
And I didn't say anything about the Mini-30 because the OP posted .223/5.56. It's all irrelevant because he's already said he doesn't want a Mini.
"You said it doesn't mention any features" I can't seem to find where I said this. But you are correct in that it mentions a folding stock, nothing else. And the way it's written should make it exempt from the commonly referred to "feature test".
You need to look into the history of the law and the inclusion of the mini-14 as exempt. At the time the list was created the mini-14 was available either with a folding stock or without from the factory (aftermarket add-ons weren't nearly as common as they are today), by contrast the mini-30 was only available without. While it was pretty well known that the idea was exempt as purchased from the factory, hence the w/o folding stock, the law as passed failed to spell this out. I actually expected someone to point out this "intent" v. "letter" of the law, but its been overlooked for so long we are left with just the letter of the law, as poorly written.
So as written the mini-14 is exempt from all provisions of the AWB except if it has a folding stock. A single feature. Everything not specifically excepted from the exemption should be GtG. That means large cap mag (although there are laws on just the mag), flash hider, bayonet lug, and/or pistol grip, all GtG.
Now the MGL define Assault Weapon with this caveat "
however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action" And we've established that this includes the mini-14 as long as it does not have a folding stock. And yes, all those other features were available from the factory. Thus we are left with the conclusion that a mini-14 (without a folding stock) is classified no different that a bolt action, which is not an AW.
And I bolded "however" because it's placement is critical. It follows the section of the law that deals with copies and duplicated, and the included original Fed AWB which dealt with features, so what follows "however" is exempt from what precedes "however". So any firearm defined as not an AW in this section is exempt from the preceding copies/features BS. The fact that they reintroduced an exclusion of the mini-14 with the folding stock, but none of the other features, makes it clear that the intent was ONLY this limited exclusion from the exempt status.
Now there are probably 3 lawyers on NES that I would be interested in discussing this with, but ultimately I don't think there will be a legal conclusion until there is a test case. And while I feel pretty good about my position, I am not a Judge or a Cop, and I've moved out of PRMA so I can buy pretty much whatever I damn well please. Got my eye on an MCX 6.75" in 300Blk with suppressor and folding stock sometime this summer, now if I could just figure out how to add a bayonet lug
Hi Maura