Correct me if I'm wrong but the "assault weapon ban" prohibited AR/AK's from being sold w/flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and folding stocks. Correct? So what is the loophole Healey is citing that would prevent dealers from selling Ma. approved AR's?
-
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-15 Loophole?
- Thread starter rwl1955
- Start date
chrbla2000
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Messages
- 899
- Likes
- 1,411
Oh boy...
Mr. Brownstone
NES Member
I wish I had been under the same rock as you for the last six days.
The five feature test is only one way to determine if a rifle is an assault weapon now. The word copies has been newly interpreted to mean that if the same parts can fit into the receiver of a Colt AR-15(or other named AW in the statute), then even if there is only one evil feature, the rifle is an assault weapon and always has been.
The five feature test is only one way to determine if a rifle is an assault weapon now. The word copies has been newly interpreted to mean that if the same parts can fit into the receiver of a Colt AR-15(or other named AW in the statute), then even if there is only one evil feature, the rifle is an assault weapon and always has been.
It's not a loophole.
The AWB names the Colt AR-15 and all copies/duplicates. Removing the "evil features" like a bayonet lug (as we have legally done in the past) does not make it any less of an AR-15 by her definition.
The AWB names the Colt AR-15 and all copies/duplicates. Removing the "evil features" like a bayonet lug (as we have legally done in the past) does not make it any less of an AR-15 by her definition.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,516
- Likes
- 33,530
The law bans ARs that are "similar" to specifically banned ARs as applied under the 94-04 ban (flash hiders, bayonet lugs, collapsable stocks, etc.)
The AG claims that "similar to" is "similar to guns not covered by the 94-04 ban".
******
Ok smart ass I was on vacation last week and didn't find out about this until yesterday. So what are the 5 feature tests besides what I've mentioned above?
“Assault weapon” is defined 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 [emphasis added], of any caliber, known as:
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 [emphasis added], of any caliber, known as:
mibro
NES Member
It's not a loophole. The word "loophole" Is Frau Healey's cynical characterization of a wholesale and unjustified ex post facto reinterpretation of a law that was clearly understood by everybody.
"Loophole" is just the moonbat-friendly label attached to this Unconstitutional ****ery.
"Loophole" is just the moonbat-friendly label attached to this Unconstitutional ****ery.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
It's worse than that actually. If it's ~similar~ to a gun on the named list then it's an assault weapon under this interpretation. What does similar mean?
"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."
So it's similar if it's similar. Clear enough?
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
So, based on that reasoning, because the M&P 15-22 is "similar" in design and function to a regular AR15, I guess those are considered evil assault rifles now too?
Mr. Brownstone
NES Member
I wasn't kidding. I really wish I was where you were all week and didn't know. My anxiety level, as with most on this forum, has been through the roof since Tuesday.
I have known for a long time that the system is rigged, but have held out hope that maybe there was some semblance of order left. It's gone. I have zero hope for this state, and very little left for the country.
So, yes I want under that rock.
mav
NES Member
I have to imagine that a 10/22 without the "evil assault weapon" features is clear. Also, rifles like a Tavor without a flash suppressor should be legal, if you can find a dealer who would transfer it to you. Pushing the envelope of this law would be piston-operated AR's with no more than two of the "evil assault weapon" features enumerated in the AWB law. Again, you can't just drop in a bolt from a direct-impingement rifle, so it shouldn't pass the "similarity test". The problem I see is no dealer will transfer anything semi-auto to you in this state given the recent AG move, so while theoretically some of these rifles should pass, the reality is you won't find them available for sale in this state.
amm5061
NES Member
MFS and some others appears to be no longer selling 10/22s. I know they had them in stock on Wednesday, and as of Saturday they were no longer listed on the website. I also have heard some anecdotal evidence from others on this forum being denied sales of 10/22s.
My single barrel break action 12 gauge has a floating firing pin, just like an SKS.
ASSAULT WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They're black and she hates blacks.
So... If whatever Ma had for restrictions to ar15 Pinning flash whatevers...etc. If this new law just said , those things don't make a AR15 any less of a assault rifle... does that mean... If you already have a AR15 , you can now undo those things because it really didn't make it any less of a assault rifle..
Before 7/20/2016, This was banned:
Before 7/20/2016, This was not:
Because the operating/firing system is shared, thus the two are now considered "similar" and it's up for speculation, but one would deduce all 10/22's are now banned.
I never bought a AR15Before 7/20/2016, This was banned:
Before 7/20/2016, This was not:
Because the operating/firing system is shared, thus the two are now considered "similar" and it's up for speculation, but one would deduce all 10/22's are now banned.
because I would just get the 10/22.. but I guess I can't now. The 10/22 isn't even scary looking.
Similar threads
