AR-10 in Boston?

[michaelpelosillc]

As a final follow-up:

Suffolk DA’s office got back to me (I wasn’t expecting them to, but I am pleasantly surprised). I’ll probably post this over on the Boston AWB thread as well. This was in regard to their interpretation “substantially identical” language of the Boston AWB:

“Thank you for contacting our office. We do not issue permits for firearms or establish ownership rules or regulations. We do prosecute firearm offenses. I am not immediately aware of any prosecutions regarding a properly permitted individual in possession of a weapon banned by Boston’s bylaw. However, I’m told that, hypothetically, a person could be arrested if authorities discovered and determined a weapon to be “substantially similar” to the weapons you mentioned. The burden would then be on the Commonwealth to convince a jury that the weapon is indeed “substantially similar.” So, the jury would be the ultimate litmus test. I would encourage you to contact the City of Boston licensing authority.”

Interesting stuff.

This is basically how it goes in the state. If you screw up and have what appears to be an assault weapon, you’ll get charged. Right or wrong. But their are really no outright prosecutions because an AW is an after the fact charge until they go house to house looking for anyone that ever registered a long gun in a caliber greater than 22LR

 

[Bigfudge16]

This is pretty much what everyone with experience in MA expected. The laws are intentionally muddy. Reason being is that they may not be able to outright pass the laws that they want, but if they intentionally make them muddy then they can rely on the police to make arrests based on ignorance. Next step is the accused pleas it out and the state collects, or they choose to go to trial and face a judge and jury that are most likely anti 2a as well. Even if you manage convince them and win your case you will pay out the nose in time, money, and stress. Best case scenario, the accusation alone is punishment for exercising your rights.

This is why its important to balance your priorities when choosing where to call home.

 

[jpm]

@crescentcap when you're referring to "substantially identical”, you seem to be focused on the parts aspect. But is that what the bylaw actually means? The AR-10 is "substantially identical” to the AR-15 in its look (albeit slightly larger in spots), feel and function/operation. Not only are many of the internal parts interchangable but so are the stock components. I think a jury of ordinary folks would find them to be "substantially identical” if it went that far, so I'd be careful!

 

[michaelpelosillc]

This is pretty much what everyone with experience in MA expected. The laws are intentionally muddy. Reason being is that they may not be able to outright pass the laws that they want, but if they intentionally make them muddy then they can rely on the police to make arrests based on ignorance. Next step is the accused pleas it out and the state collects, or they choose to go to trial and face a judge and jury that are most likely anti 2a as well. Even if you manage convince them and win your case you will pay out the nose in time, money, and stress. Best case scenario, the accusation alone is punishment for exercising your rights.

This is why its important to balance your priorities when choosing where to call home.

This is all true. But I also think that when the AWB was passed you have then, like you have now, a lot of politicians who know nothing about firearms simply getting talking points from anti-gun groups and running with it. The dearth of knowledge when it comes to judges, politicians, and other "leaders" who make the rules on these topics continues to be astounding to me. The only other time I've seen ignorance used as an asset to help the state at these levels is with sanctioned torture programs.

 

[TayNinh_66]

@crescentcap when you're referring to "substantially identical”, you seem to be focused on the parts aspect. But is that what the bylaw actually means? The AR-10 is "substantially identical” to the AR-15 in its look (albeit slightly larger in spots), feel and function/operation. Not only are many of the internal parts interchangable but so are the stock components. I think a jury of ordinary folks would find them to be "substantially identical” if it went that far, so I'd be careful!

I would be more than careful. I would not want to be the subject of a jury deciding what is 'substantially identical.' Note that assault weapon can also be defined as "any other semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding ten rounds;" So if it has the capacity, as an AR-10 does, then it's an assault weapon even if you have a five round magazine inserted.

It could also fall under "any semi-automatic firearm which is a modification of a rifle or shotgun described in this subsection; that is, having the same make, caliber, and action design but a shorter barrel or no rear stock." If an AR-15 is a modification of an AR-10 then a jury might decide an AR-10 is a modification of an AR-15. Not sure I would want to spend the $30K in legal fees for the jury to answer that question either. You get a jury of your peers, not a jury of NRA members.

"I know it when I see it"