AR-15 Purchase (legal) question

Medellin said:
So recently a friend told me about a place that can get you what you want legally so I took the time and payed them a visit to inquire about an AR-15. They offered to sell me an upper and lower where I them “assemble” it (push the pins together) myself and later register (they do it). The upper has the compliance work done along with the pinned stock on the lower. They also had pre-ban magazines to sell so I had the chance to walk out with a brand new AR-15.

In the end, the rifle is basically an exact copy of the rifle visible on the manufacturers website but with the compliance work done. I am confused because of all the topics of people buying pre-ban lowers or pre-ban rifles which I assume they plan to either be in full compliance or add accessories that the rifle above wouldn’t never be capable of having (flash hider, collapsable stock etc)?

Not looking to start a legal/not legal battle but if this is acceptable, why are some dealers only offering fixed magazines or pre-ban stuff?

MODS, if this topic has been beaten to death, please delete it.
Click to expand...
Bam! Actual pre-ban rifles, for accessible prices, shipped to any FFL that knows what he's doing.

pre-ban hbar For Sale – Buy pre-ban hbar at GunBroker.com

Buy pre-ban hbar online at GunBroker.com, the world's largest gun auction site. GunBroker.com has pre-ban hbar for sale from thousands of trusted sellers.
www.gunbroker.com
 
nstassel said:
Cases I have personally worked on and currently working on. It's real, you don't need to fact check me.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to be malicious or pull a gotcha but I see no reason why I cannot fact check you. You made a proclamation, so I was just asking for some background info. I was truly interested in hearing some evidence since it has been 8 years and you would think charges against people using Healey's Edict would be publicized.

I am curious to know if Healey's Edict charges actually stuck or were they just used merely used as scare tactic (meaning no actual meat to the threats) to bring a plea deal for a lesser charge and a win? Were Healey's Edict charges one of those lumped on ones onto a more serious crime/charge that DA's always love to do and, by the end of the case, they are dropped?

Also, how would your ordinary LEO be able to differentiate between a pre and post Healey to enable them to threaten charges? To me, that sounds like something a prosecuting attorney would do after the fact while researching what else they can lump on to the original charge/s.
 
Last edited:
jct61765 said:
I can't be too much of a simp. A loser like you is stalking me on NES 🤣 🤣 [banana]. You still don't get sarcasm I guess😆😆. You're kind of dumb too then. You come here to bash marriage because you weren't man enough to keep yours together😆😆. Now your stalking me on different threads. I love it🤣. Your jealous🤣[banana].
Click to expand...
😂😂 it’s sad that you cant help yourself bruh.
 
You think if I tweet at a MA politician that I "can't believe fully metal jacketed ammunition is legal", they'll start working on banning it?
 
Da_lucche said:
Hi fellow firearm enthusiast! You did have a chance to walk out with a brand new and legal AR15 and you should have taken the chance.

The fixed magazine and "pre-ban" stuff you are bringing up deals with Maura Healey's July 2016 edict she made in order to try and make a splash to get into Clinton's administration. As MA's top law enforcement officer, she has NO ability to redefine or change current standing law - only enforce it. Her edict stating that all lowers pre July 2016 were subject to violation due to her redefinition of the current MA AWB is plainly a scare tactic towards MA FFLs; to scare them into not selling "post" July 2016 lowers in Mass with threat of pulling their licenses.

It is all bullshit and Healey knows it. There has been no one charged under her 2016 edict and if she really wanted to, she could easily compile all the EFA10 submissions from 2016 until present and find all the "post" Healey lower submissions to make a name of them. She never will because it will open her edict up to scrutiny and possibly open up all the other unconstitutional gun laws in MA on the books to be opened up to scrutiny as well.

The only "pre-ban" that makes a difference in the state (if you give a shit about complying) are pre 94 lowers and mags which can have all
Click to expand...
Da_lucche said:
Hi fellow firearm enthusiast! You did have a chance to walk out with a brand new and legal AR15 and you should have taken the chance.

The fixed magazine and "pre-ban" stuff you are bringing up deals with Maura Healey's July 2016 edict she made in order to try and make a splash to get into Clinton's administration. As MA's top law enforcement officer, she has NO ability to redefine or change current standing law - only enforce it. Her edict stating that all lowers pre July 2016 were subject to violation due to her redefinition of the current MA AWB is plainly a scare tactic towards MA FFLs; to scare them into not selling "post" July 2016 lowers in Mass with threat of pulling their licenses.

It is all bullshit and Healey knows it. There has been no one charged under her 2016 edict and if she really wanted to, she could easily compile all the EFA10 submissions from 2016 until present and find all the "post" Healey lower submissions to make a name of them. She never will because it will open her edict up to scrutiny and possibly open up all the other unconstitutional gun laws in MA on the books to be opened up to scrutiny as well.

The only "pre-ban" that makes a difference in the state (if you give a shit about complying) are pre 94 lowers and mags which can have all the evil killy features.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the informative reply. I do plan on going back 😉.
 
Da_lucche said:
I wasn't trying to be malicious or pull a gotcha but I see no reason why I cannot fact check you. You made a proclamation, so I was just asking for some background info. I was truly interested in hearing some evidence since it has been 8 years and you would think charges against people using Healey's Edict would be publicized.

I am curious to know if Healey's Edict charges actually stuck or were they just used merely used as scare tactic (meaning no actual meat to the threats) to bring a plea deal for a lesser charges and a win? Were Healey's Edict charges one of those lumped on ones onto a more serious crime/charge that DA's always love to do and, by the end of the case, they are dropped?

Also, how would your ordinary LEO be able to differentiate between a pre and post Healey to enable them to threaten charges? To me, that sounds like something a state prosecuting attorney would do after the fact while research whatelse they can lump on to the original charge/s.
Click to expand...

Here is the page of the most recent example of the edict being cited as law by police in my practice. Is this real enough?

This guy spent 8 days in jail before I was hired and got him out. Cops will arrest you with glee if they have the chance and the DA will wet their pants with excitement to hold you in jail. This prosecutor was unaware that anyone with an LTC can not be charged with unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device, nor did the lawyer his family originally hired, nor did the judge who held him and none of them bothered to read the statute.
 

Attachments

  • Scan AR.pdf
    592.8 KB · Views: 145
Last edited:
nstassel said:
Here is the page of the most recent example of the edict being cited as law by police in my practice. Is this real enough?

This guy spent 8 days in jail before I was hired and got him out. Cops will arrest you with glee if they have the chance and the DA will wet their pants with excitement to hold you in jail. This prosecutor was unaware that anyone with an LTC can not be charged with unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device nor did the lawyer his family originally hired nor did the judge who held him and none of them bothered to read the statute.
Click to expand...
Almost certain I knew the reporting officer. Shame.
 
nstassel said:
Here is the page of the most recent example of the edict being cited as law by police in my practice. Is this real enough?

This guy spent 8 days in jail before I was hired and got him out. Cops will arrest you with glee if they have the chance and the DA will wet their pants with excitement to hold you in jail. This prosecutor was unaware that anyone with an LTC can not be charged with unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device nor did the lawyer his family originally hired nor did the judge who held him and none of them bothered to read the statute.
Click to expand...
Interesting. From what I read, and if the police incident report is accurate, both rifles in your client's possession violated the actual MA AWB (both having a collapsible stock, flash hider and bayo lug and neither being a pre 94 lower). I am going to assume that the MA AWB charges are definitely going to stick in court; my question is did the "Healey Notice" violation charge stick and was he charged with that in court as well or was that dropped? It is not the first time that police have cited erroneous and unsuitable charges on someone for it to be dropped in court.
 
Last edited:
Da_lucche said:
Interesting. From what I read, and if the police incident report is accurate, both rifles in your client's possession violated the actual MA AWB (both having a collapsible stock, flash hider and bayo lug and neither being a pre 94 lower). I am going to assume that the MA AWB charges are definitely going to stick in court; my question is did the "Healey Notice" violation charge stick and was he charged with that in court as well or was that dropped?
Click to expand...
It's still going and will be for awhile. The point is police think the edict is valid and try to destroy lives with it.
 
nstassel said:
It's still going and will be for awhile. The point is police think the edict is valid and try to destroy lives with it.
Click to expand...
You make a valid point - regardless of the charge being erroneous or not - it does seem like there are cops out there taking Healey's notice seriously and could possibly put someone in a bad spot for awhile even if in the end it is dropped. I guess it comes down to the individual town/city departments and the individual cop. Proceed with caution I guess!
 
I love how we have a totally off topic conversation within a conversation [laugh]
ddc58480-beef-499a-b4b7-7eb910d51834_text.gif
 
nstassel said:
a
Click to expand...
Da_lucche said:
Interesting. From what I read, and if the police incident report is accurate, both rifles in your client's possession violated the actual MA AWB (both having a collapsible stock, flash hider and bayo lug and neither being a pre 94 lower). I am going to assume that the MA AWB charges are definitely going to stick in court; my question is did the "Healey Notice" violation charge stick and was he charged with that in court as well or was that dropped? It is not the first time that police have cited erroneous and unsuitable charges on someone for it to be dropped in court.
Click to expand...
unless I am reading it wrong. The "rifles" were just parts that could be used to "complete the build" Part 15.
 
beaches said:
Can y'all argue somewhere else? It's making it harder to laugh at weirdo MA gun stuff like stripper clips through the ejection port and breech loading an AR.
Click to expand...
It's getting to the point where it is just more effective to take the round in your hand and throw it at your intended target.
 
The PoPo will use whatever they can to destroy your life if it suits their agenda.

So, the moral of the story is, better have a good attorneys phone number, someone like Neil, and better have that number on a piece of paper on the fridge and saved to your wife's phone so someone else can call if you can't.

Also, we don't know, and I wouldn't expect Neil to tell us, why this guy got arrested. That probably determines what they will throw at someone. I doubt someone will get arrested for shooting an AR at the range (assuming there is nothing stupid going on).

Like I always say, plenty of people FA10 lowers, including dealers, yet no one is getting arrested.

Also, notice how every time they arrest someone with a gun they charge them with a huge list of junk:
ammo with no license
mags with no license
high capacity mags
handgun possession with no proper license
rifle possession with no proper license
operating a vehicle while carrying a handgun operating a vehicle while in possession of a magazine
operating a vehicle while in possession of ammo ...

Add the AG interpretation to that list.

I am surprised they don't charge them per round of ammo.
 
Broc said:
The PoPo will use whatever they can to destroy your life if it suits their agenda.

So, the moral of the story is, better have a good attorneys phone number, someone like Neil, and better have that number on a piece of paper on the fridge and saved to your wife's phone so someone else can call if you can't.

Also, we don't know, and I wouldn't expect Neil to tell us, why this guy got arrested. That probably determines what they will throw at someone. I doubt someone will get arrested for shooting an AR at the range (assuming there is nothing stupid going on).

Like I always say, plenty of people FA10 lowers, including dealers, yet no one is getting arrested.

Also, notice how every time they arrest someone with a gun they charge them with a huge list of junk:
ammo with no license
mags with no license
high capacity mags
handgun possession with no proper license
rifle possession with no proper license
operating a vehicle while carrying a handgun operating a vehicle while in possession of a magazine
operating a vehicle while in possession of ammo ...

Add the AG interpretation to that list.

I am surprised they don't charge them per round of ammo.
Click to expand...
Yas queen!

Seriously tho ... Great post
 

Similar threads

Question on mailing AR lower
Replies
9
Views
269
LuvDog
LuvDog
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
93
Reptile
Reptile
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
542
Broc
Broc
Show me your latest purchase
Replies
11
Views
466
AmeriKHAN
A
LTC renewal question
Replies
4
Views
166
Sam P
S
Back
Top Bottom