• 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.

AR-10's in MA

Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
3,175
Likes
601
Location
North of MA
Feedback: 21 / 0 / 0
Hi All,
Apologies if this has been answered before but I am trying to figure out if AR-10s are legal to transfer into MA. They are not on the enumerated weapons list and this particular rifle has a fixed stock and permanently pinned muzzle brake. There is also no parts commonality with an AR-15 or any other enumerated weapon. Sounds to me like it's good to go unless it is verboten because it has a trigger and goes bang.
 
what I know are the same for parts
Buttstock assemblies
Triggers and trigger springs
Bolt catch roll pin (Armalite Style only)
Hammers and hammer springs
Pistol grips (a spacer may be needed for certain models)
Receiver extension (Buffer Tube)
Disconnector and disconnector spring
Buffer detent
Magazine release buttons and springs
Safety selectors

Now go by the Führer Healey wayGuidance:

A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun.3

Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.
Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon. Such operating components may include, but are not limited to: 1) the trigger assembly; 2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group; 3) the charging handle; 4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or 5) the magazine port.
If a weapon meets one of the above tests, it is a Copy or Duplicate (and therefore a prohibited Assault weapon), even if it is marketed as “state compliant” or “Massachusetts compliant.”

The fact that a weapon is or has been marketed by the manufacturer on the basis that it is the same as or substantially similar to one or more Enumerated Weapons will be relevant to identifying whether the weapon is a Copy or Duplicate (and therefore a prohibited Assault weapon) under the applicable test(s).
Under Section 121, the Features Test in the former 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) remains an independent basis for qualification as an Assault weapon.

If a weapon, as manufactured or originally assembled, is a Copy or Duplicate under one or both of the applicable tests, it remains a prohibited Assault weapon even if it is altered by the seller. Therefore, a Copy or Duplicate will be treated as an Assault weapon even if it is altered, for example, by pinning the folding or telescoping stock in a fixed position, by removing the pistol grip, by removing a bayonet mount or flash suppressor, or by preventing the weapon from accepting a detachable magazine.

Purely cosmetic similarities to an Enumerated Weapon, such as finish, appearance, or shape of the stock, or appearance or shape of the rail, will not be treated as relevant to a determination of whether a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate.


The way this thing is worded just being a Direct Gas Impingement system is enough for her to call it a banned weapon. I would think if the AR10 was a safe bet for dealers it would have been on the shelves by now in droves.
 
Not all of the parts you mention are the same but I get your point.

1) the trigger assembly - this is AR-10 specific
2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group - this is AR-10 specific
3) the charging handle - this is AR-10 specific
4) the extractor or extractor assembly - not sure on this one
5) the magazine port - this is AR-10 specific

The "include, but are not limited to" language is infuriating and so legally vague, I cannot believe she had the stones to include it.

If it were piston-driven or had an adjustable gas-block where the set screw was loc-tited so it would effectively work as a bolt-action, would that be okay?
 
one can apply reason and logic ad nauseum to solicit all sorts of opinions, but the only opinion that really matters is the FFL doing the transfer. my guess is that most FFLs would not be willing to transfer an AR-10, but then again I'm not an FFL so my opinion is worth what you paid for it!
 
one can apply reason and logic ad nauseum to solicit all sorts of opinions, but the only opinion that really matters is the FFL doing the transfer. my guess is that most FFLs would not be willing to transfer an AR-10, but then again I'm not an FFL so my opinion is worth what you paid for it!

Agree - transfer is a 'process'. If you follow the process, and it concludes successfully at the eFA-10 level, you should be fine. My question would be if the eFA-10 doesn't go-through, what recourse buyer and seller would have.
 
If it were piston-driven or had an adjustable gas-block where the set screw was loc-tited so it would effectively work as a bolt-action, would that be okay?

I believe our AG has decided that you can't modify an AW to make it compliant. It either is or isn't when it's manufactured. IANAL
 
Agree - transfer is a 'process'. If you follow the process, and it concludes successfully at the eFA-10 level, you should be fine. My question would be if the eFA-10 doesn't go-through, what recourse buyer and seller would have.

Sorry but there isn't real intelligence built into the MIRCS system for eFA-10s. The ONLY reason something won't "go thru" would be if a person's LTC wasn't valid (or an error in entering the buyer/seller info), period.

It does not parse thru descriptions. You could probably list a Howitzer under "other" and it would go thru.
 
Not all of the parts you mention are the same but I get your point.

1) the trigger assembly - this is AR-10 specific
2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group - this is AR-10 specific
3) the charging handle - this is AR-10 specific
4) the extractor or extractor assembly - not sure on this one
5) the magazine port - this is AR-10 specific

The "include, but are not limited to" language is infuriating and so legally vague, I cannot believe she had the stones to include it.

If it were piston-driven or had an adjustable gas-block where the set screw was loc-tited so it would effectively work as a bolt-action, would that be okay?

well she wrote her little guidance as "similar" in design so IF she argued the case against you it would be argued as a copy just bigger...[rolleyes][rolleyes]

its all BS we have no idea what will work against or for us in a court room..... which is why the dealers "caved in" for now.
 
Hi All,
Apologies if this has been answered before but I am trying to figure out if AR-10s are legal to transfer into MA. They are not on the enumerated weapons list and this particular rifle has a fixed stock and permanently pinned muzzle brake. There is also no parts commonality with an AR-15 or any other enumerated weapon. Sounds to me like it's good to go unless it is verboten because it has a trigger and goes bang.

The only actual answer to this is the IF. IF an FFL in MA will transfer it to you, then it can. I suspect, sadly, that most, if not all will not.

My guess is that of you wanted one that was MA legal, you could contact Morgan at Minuteman and he would build you one of his abortifcact MA legal AR platform rifles in that caliber.
 
well she wrote her little guidance as "similar" in design so IF she argued the case against you it would be argued as a copy just bigger...[rolleyes][rolleyes]

The similar in design line is bullshit- she even "exempts" firearms that are "similar" in design at will. As an example- M1's and the AK
 
AR10s are not all the same and the DA doesn't have the technical knowledge to answer all the questions you could ask.

No one knows.. including the DA. Furthermore a total of zero people are going to be charged in relation to that decree unless they are already up shits creek with a host of other charges.

If you can find someone to do a xfer then I say carry on.
 
The similar in design line is bullshit- she even "exempts" firearms that are "similar" in design at will. As an example- M1's and the AK

Wait a minute, did you say that AKs are OK???



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The most hilarious part of all this is that I built the rifle in MA in 2010 and filed an FA-10.
Guess I just need to move back, get my resident license, then sell it.
 
I'll throw this out just for fun.
Doesn't the AR-10 predate the AR-15? So the 15 could be a copy of the 10 but the 10 can't be a "copy" of the 15.
 
I'll throw this out just for fun.
Doesn't the AR-10 predate the AR-15? So the 15 could be a copy of the 10 but the 10 can't be a "copy" of the 15.

Excellent point. The AR10 does predate the AR15, so it is the copy/duplicate. Now all we need to do is convince FFLs of that fact. [hmmm]
 
Does not "MA legal" M&P 15-22 share as many common parts with AR-15 as AR-10 does? Common sense would suggest that since DA declared M&P 15-22 legal, any non-5.56/.223 caliber would be legal as well.
 
Does not "MA legal" M&P 15-22 share as many common parts with AR-15 as AR-10 does? Common sense would suggest that since DA declared M&P 15-22 legal, any non-5.56/.223 caliber would be legal as well.

yeah, but.... mp-22 is rimfire. They're typically treated quite differently than centerfire.

And as pointed out elsewhere, "common sense" and laws really don't intersect in Massachusetts, (or Connecticut, New York, California, New Jersey or Maryland for that matter).
 
Didn't the AG for a week or two state that all .223 rifles were legal, til they fixed their mistake and said .22 rimfire?

Don't try to apply logic to this nonsense - if you find it in a store, buy it. don't overthink it.
 
Didn't the AG for a week or two state that all .223 rifles were legal, til they fixed their mistake and said .22 rimfire?

Don't try to apply logic to this nonsense - if you find it in a store, buy it. don't overthink it.

They updated the MuhLawrs-by-FAQ page to state that 22cal was OK, then backpedaled and changed it to explicitly state 22 Rimfire.
 
British were armed with semi-auto FAL's when they fought for Falklands.

Ironically, they beat the Argis who were armed with select fire FAL's.

select fire or full auto vs semi auto vs burst..... does not increase effective use of the weapon....one just unloads its pay load faster
 
Back
Top Bottom