AR-15 Loophole?

[bigblue]

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.

What about this?

 

[jasons]

Oh,even if you already own one, it is now illegal to own?

That is the AGO's position. Her office has graciously offered not to prosecute individuals who had them prior to 7/20 "at this time."

And then there's this: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/attorney_general_maura_healey_15.html

Attorney General Maura Healey has "not yet" cited anyone as part of a stepped up enforcement of the state's assault weapons ban, targeting "copycat" firearms, she said on Monday.

Not yet....

 

[browncoat]

If you want to buy an AR in MA, right now the best you can do is this: https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...troy-223-national-sporting-pump-action-rifle/


And even then you might not be able to find a shop that would be willing to bring it in.

 

[Duxprep]

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.

Um nope.. I believe the Tavor's action is built around a long stoke piston - which could be "similar enough" to an AK47 to be considered a duplicate - see the problem with these tests? The argument could be made that with the language as is that every single semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon

 

[soapgirl]

What about this?

These are way easier to get and recent events prove they can be even more deadly.

 

[Radtekk]

As I explained to my daughter... Ducks walk funny and swim in the water. So if a duck was illegal (pre-ban) then so are polar BEARS (new ban). Why? Because penguins walk funny and swim in the water. So they are illegal. Penguins live at the cold South POLE. Polar bears live at the North POLE. Since they both live at "POLES" they clearly share common characteristics, like metabolism and fat layers. Therefore they are functionally similar. Therefore a polar bear is like a duck.

My daughter said: "That's stupid."

I rest my case.

 

[426wedge]

If you want to buy an AR in MA, right now the best you can do is this: https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...troy-223-national-sporting-pump-action-rifle/


And even then you might not be able to find a shop that would be willing to bring it in.

Already got one 2 days ago in .308. It was for spite...

 

[jasons]

If you want to buy an AR in MA, right now the best you can do is this: https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...troy-223-national-sporting-pump-action-rifle/


And even then you might not be able to find a shop that would be willing to bring it in.

Shh, Maura might find out.

 

[crazymjb]

As I explained to my daughter... Ducks walk funny and swim in the water. So if a duck was illegal (pre-ban) then so are polar BEARS (new ban). Why? Because penguins walk funny and swim in the water. So they are illegal. Penguins live at the cold South POLE. Polar bears live at the North POLE. Since they both live at "POLES" they clearly share common characteristics, like metabolism and fat layers. Therefore they are functionally similar. Therefore a polar bear is like a duck.

My daughter said: "That's stupid."

I rest my case.

A polar bear is not like a duck. Its a copy or duplicate of a duck. Jeez dont you know anything.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[mav]

Um nope.. I believe the Tavor's action is built around a long stoke piston - which could be "similar enough" to an AK47 to be considered a duplicate - see the problem with these tests? The argument could be made that with the language as is that every single semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon

Not an attorney, so my interpretation means squat, but the similarity test is that key parts of the operating system have to be drop-in. The 10/22 was never specifically called out as a banned weapon. There are kits that can turn one into something that looks like an "assault weapon", but in it's stock form, it is not one. As for the Tavor, while it's piston design may have been based on the AK, it's parts are not interchangeable, so in my mind, unless it is explicitly called out in law or the law is modified to include any semi-automatic rifle, I don't see how the ban will work on anything other than Colt/Armalite AR-15 clones and AK clones (and any other semi-auto specifically called out in the AWB) in specific calibers with certain features.

Who wants to volunteer to be the first test case?

 

[bigblue]

Where did you read this "drop in" test? What I read states "functionally similar". Tavor has a rotating bolt nearly identical to an M4 and a piston based off the AK47 design. This the problem with this test: Nearly every modern firearm traces its roots to something on that list.

MP5? Delayed roller-lock is also on the G3.

 

[Mach]

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".

actually the words in the law are "copies or duplicates", and by any legal or english language definition she is on crack if she thinks a copy or duplicate does not have to be exactly the same.

Try submitting a copy or duplicate document in a court of law that is not exactly the same in every way.

In a state with a court that has half a brain, it would be a slam dung to get her definitions thrown out, but we are in MA

 

[jasons]

Not an attorney, so my interpretation means squat, but the similarity test is that key parts of the operating system have to be drop-in.

That's incorrect. The "similarity test" is distinct from the "interchangeability test." If it fails EITHER test, it's an assault weapon under this guidance.

1. 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.

2. 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.”​

 

[jdubois]

Not an attorney, so my interpretation means squat, but the similarity test is that key parts of the operating system have to be drop-in.

That's the 'interchangeability test' not the 'similarity test'. It only has to fail one of the two to be "evil".

 

[mac1911]

Ok so where these test actually written into the law in 1998?
Also I ask why some changes in the 2014 laws don't go into affect until a future date?

How can we refocus everyone on her disregard for procedure....

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

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.

I know that I went looking for a rifle which is explicitly exempt from the AW ban (appears by name in the Appendix A of USC 18 section 921(a)(30)) and was told "out of stock" then they clarified it to "well, I am looking at them right now, but we don't know if we can sell them".

This was from two different shops.

Right now I don't think you could buy a T-shirt with a picture of a semi-auto rifle on it.

 

[mousegunfan]

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.

So milspec is a copy, but commercial is not because they don't fit the colt. Am I on to something here.

 

[Snora]

So milspec is a copy, but commercial is not because they don't fit the colt. Am I on to something here.

I'm guessing the fact that it has scary features still makes it an assault weapon. Also "similar operating system" was thrown around, maybe that would apply to. No one will know until this goes to the courts for clarification.

 

[bill o]

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 even worse than that. She's saying if any part can fit onto a Colt AR-15 then it's an "assault weapon," even if there are no evil features.

 

[mousegunfan]

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.

Crazy! No way a 10/22 is a copy of anything, it's a 22lr, not 5.56. Sometimes were our own worse enemy. They must have the opinion all semi auto's are banned.

 

[bill o]

I'm guessing the fact that it has scary features still makes it an assault weapon. Also "similar operating system" was thrown around, maybe that would apply to. No one will know until this goes to the courts for clarification.

Evil features isn't really even a thing anymore. It's anything that's gas operated, direct impingement, or blowback action, among others. It's such a broad statement she made that it's impossible to apply, by design.

 

[bill o]

Crazy! No way a 10/22 is a copy of anything, it's a 22lr, not 5.56. Sometimes were our own worse enemy. They must have the opinion all semi auto's are banned.

The 10/22 uses a blowback action just like the banned-by-name Intratec DC9. See how eff'd up the AG is?

 

[mousegunfan]

Evil features isn't really even a thing anymore. It's anything that's gas operated, direct impingement, or blowback action, among others. It's such a broad statement she made that it's impossible to apply, by design.

Where does this leave the mini 14,30?

 

[hminsky]

Also where does it leave the Ruger SR556 piston operated rifle, the SIG 556(R) piston rifle, the KelTec SU16 piston rifle. All have
different system operation with an AR15. All were developed after the fed AWB. The "operating system and firing mechanism" differ because the operating system is not direct impingement, it is gas piston.

 

[mikelawtown]

Kel-Tec SUB2K= $$$$$$

 

[RImike]

Crazy! No way a 10/22 is a copy of anything, it's a 22lr, not 5.56. Sometimes were our own worse enemy. They must have the opinion all semi auto's are banned.

and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons

It's not, but some 10/22's are banned, because all 10/22's share interchangeable parts one would reason they all are banned now.

 

[nhpoke]

Caliber is irrelevant. No one knows if any semiautomatic arms are allowed. Basically there's blowback and gas operated. Both are represented by banned weapons.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

It's not, but some 10/22's are banned, because all 10/22's share interchangeable parts one would reason they all are banned now.

Why are we giving her more than she already took?

July 19th, this was all well understood.

A gun was an assault weapon if it was a) one of the named guns on the list or b) it failed the feature test.

So, if the gun isn't one of the named guns in the list, or a copy or duplicate of one of the named guns, move to the feature test.

Is a Ruger 10/22 one of the named guns? No.
Is the Ruger 10/22 a copy or duplicate of one of the named guns? No.
Does the Ruger 10/22 you have in front of you fail the feature test? If not, it isn't an assault weapon. If yes, it is.

After July 20th, presumably we have the new "interchangeability test"...

Is a Ruger 10/22 one of the named guns? No.
Is the Ruger 10/22 a copy or duplicate of one of the named guns? No.
Do any of the parts of the Ruger 10/22 fit any of the named guns? No.
Does the Ruger 10/22 you have in front of you fail the feature test? If not, it isn't an assault weapon. If yes, it is.

It is bad enough that this "interchangeability" test was fabricated out of thin air but now we are stretching it to cover things that it doesn't even come close to covering.

I think we are being our own worst enemy here trying to twist an already twisted interpretation into more than it is. I think this was the goal. Make things just vague enough to make us all afraid to buy or sell or own anything that might possibly be construed in some way to be in violation of this guidance. It worked. Now no one is willing to sell a semi-automatic rifle in this state without a permission slip.

She is taking advantage of the fact that we are law-abiding citizens and will attempt to continue to be law-abiding citizens.

Heck, no one will even sell a rifle that is explicitly excluded from being an assault weapon by name in the statute.

Not that it matters at the moment, but the Ruger 10/22 autoloading carbine (without folding stock) is one of the exceptions.

 

[spt_1955]

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?

THe loophole is "MA approved AR's". Maura say that as AG she is the approver and she dos not approve of any of them. Right now the Governor says that she has the authority and 75% of the legislature (non republicans) are doing nothing so we are screwed for the forseeable future.

 

[Duxprep]

Looking more at Healey's letter she specifically states that the list of excluded firearms from the 94 ban are excluded from the copies and dupes test. I'm now of the belief that the 10/22 is good to go

This section

3*A weapon is not a Copy or Duplicate under this Guidance if it meets one or more of the exceptions ((i)-(vii)) contained in the statutory definition of Assault weapon in Section 121.

Section (i) says it's not an assault weapon if it is 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;

This appendix is a huge list if named firearms