AK rifles compliance according to MA AWB

pavlin

NES Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
152
Likes
44
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
After discussing this matter with another member here the following was brought to my attention and got me puzzled:

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal 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, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models);

I know Healy's interpretation has as much weight as used TP but this is the actual language of the law, isn't it? Don't remember seeing it before. "All models" part confuses me.
So are Saigas, WASR, Century (BFT47), all AKs built on Nodak, Childers, Recreator etc receivers basically they are not Aks but Nodak (NOD), Childers (CG1) and Recreator (seventy4) model firearms all fall in this (all models) category?

Can you please elaborate?
 
After discussing this matter with another member here the following was brought to my attention and got me puzzled:

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal 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, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models);

I know Healy's interpretation has as much weight as used TP but this is the actual language of the law, isn't it? Don't remember seeing it before. "All models" part confuses me.
So are Saigas, WASR, Century (BFT47), all AKs built on Nodak, Childers, Recreator etc receivers basically they are not Aks but Nodak (NOD), Childers (CG1) and Recreator (seventy4) model firearms all fall in this (all models) category?

Can you please elaborate?

"All models" means "anything constructed, by anyone, that copies or duplicates any AK." Meaning, not just copies of the Russian versions.

IANAL.
 
Last edited:
"All models" means "anything constructed, by anyone, that copies or duplicates an AK."

IANAL.
Yeah I understand the literal meaning of the words. Let me rephrase what I meant. Is the (all models) part a recent years addition/amendment? Because I don't remember seeing it before or anyone referring to it.

If it's recent then basically it means all AKs even the ones with pinned muzzle brakes and folding stocks are considered AW and thus illegal in MA. Am I understanding it correctly?

If it's not recent and this language existed in MA AWB interpretation since day 1 then it means nobody really gave a sht all this time and as long as brakes were pinned AKs were flying left and right. And if nobody gave a sht until now why would people refer to this now?
 
Yeah I understand the literal meaning of the words. Let me rephrase what I meant. Is the (all models) part a recent years addition/amendment? Because I don't remember seeing it before or anyone referring to it.

If it's recent then basically it means all AKs even the ones with pinned muzzle brakes and folding stocks are considered AW and thus illegal in MA. Am I understanding it correctly?

If it's not recent and this language existed in MA AWB interpretation since day 1 then it means nobody really gave a sht all this time and as long as brakes were pinned AKs were flying left and right. And if nobody gave a sht until now why would people refer to this now?

I edited. I don't think I was being clear.

They're telling you that any manufacturer who makes a copy or duplicate of any AK is no bueno.

And yes. As long as stocks were fixed and brakes were pinned, nobody did GAF. AKs were flying left and right. That is why Maura ran her ad in the paper that one time.
 
Ron Glidden is training officers that "once an AW, always an AW" and modifications to bring an AW into compliance (swapping out a collapsing stock, pinning a muzzle break, etc.) do not make in an "un-assault" weapon - despite the fact that this too is inconsistent with the definition cited by the OP. (Unless I missed an ATF ruling or notice to the contrary)
 
I know Healy's interpretation has as much weight as used TP but this is the actual language of the law, isn't it? Don't remember seeing it before. "All models" part confuses me.
It has had a HUGE weight on the decisions of the gatekeepers of product (FFLs w/state dealer's license), who have almost universally decided to follow the safe path (legal fee wise) an obey her directive.

The absurd part is claiming a stripped lower is a "similar firearm" when it is not even a firearms under state law (only federal)
 
Ron Glidden is training officers that "once an AW, always an AW" and modifications to bring an AW into compliance (swapping out a collapsing stock, pinning a muzzle break, etc.) do not make in an "un-assault" weapon - despite the fact that this too is inconsistent with the definition cited by the OP. (Unless I missed an ATF ruling or notice to the contrary)
One thing to add to add to this is, based on what I’ve seen, that compliance work can’t be done by the FFL prior to sale. If manufacturers ship as such, it’s fine. If the shipping FFL does the work, it could be okay. If you’re an 07 FFL you could tear apart the whole thing, request a marking variance, and resell as a new product to a customer or transfer to another FFL. In other words: there are ways around this aside from it being not law.

The concerning aspect would be, in the case of lowers, a police chief asking to cross reference with 4473s, which are property of the ATF. Sure, you have to comply with state laws but a city officer asking to access your 4473s doesn’t sound like something any FFL should feel comfortable with and will probably get mixed responses from the ATF.

Surrendering a Form 4473 is usually done in accordance with a criminal investigation and the ATF is usually part of that process. Will get interesting to see what IOIs say about all of this.

Also, if inspecting officers enforce this, you’ll see the first lawsuits filed as harm can be substantiated. The training modules I’ve seen show how little the state still understands about firearms.
 
Back
Top Bottom