AR-15 Purchase

[jdubois]

i understand what your saying, but in that case, how would any new AR's be sold in mass?

I agree with you there, Phil. If taken as conservatively as possible, all AR's would be considered assault weapons regardless of features and there would be no such thing as a "post-ban" or "MA compliant" gun.

But like I said, the fact that Colt is called out directly has always scared me a bit with regard to new Colt sales. That and I almost never see actual Colt's for sale in MA dealers.

 

[vellnueve]

It's legal because they're Colt Sportsters, not AR-15s. Colt AR-15s have evil features like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. These don't. Additionally, I don't think the wording means that models of those firearms that would otherwise not be AWs would count.

Didn't the federal AWB have the same kind of name list?

 

[richc]

If you interpretation is correct, and it is easy to see your POV, would it be illegal to sell this item, possess it, or both?

 

[vellnueve]

If these were in fact illegal rifles (and I don't believe they are), they would be illegal to possess. Because they do not have the evil features nor the AR-15 designation, I do not believe they are illegal.

 

[jdubois]

It's legal because they're Colt Sportsters, not AR-15s

Hmm. My Colt Sporter II says "AR15" on it in big engraved letters.

I don't think the wording means that models of those firearms that would otherwise not be AWs would count.

Go look at the wording of 18 USC 921 (a) (30) (which is included as part of the definition in C140 S121). The wording is much more clear there. Category (A) is any of the specifically mentioned guns. Category (B) is the 'evil features' rifles. They're two distinct categories which do not reference each other. So any of those models would definitely still be AWs even without the 'evil features' (though, off hand, I believe all the listed guns do qualify under category (B) as well, as produced when the ban was enacted).

 

[vellnueve]

Isn't the Sporter II a preban?

From what I've seen, postban Colts do not have the AR-15 designation on the receiver.

 

[jdubois]

Isn't the Sporter II a preban?

Yes.

From what I've seen, postban Colts do not have the AR-15 designation on the receiver.

Could well be. I don't have much first hand experience with postban Colts. And that, along with a bunch of changed features, may be exactly all that's needed to solve the problem. This is another situation where I wish we had a fair AG's office who was willing to make determinations on these matters and be done with it.

 

[vellnueve]

Ah... pipe dreams

 

[mac1911]

Four seasons sells tons of guns.....I do believe they are on top of what they can and cant sell here in mass. Best gun shop in massachusetts. I buy all my new guns there. Except for my AR15 from stag. I found a FFL just down the street, who is familur with FourSeasons. He came very close to fourseasons price. Time to go out to 4 seasons was against me. I oredered halloween got it in2 weeks now its 20+ weeks for most orders. Fourseasons has pushed many manufactures to submit there handguns for the AG wacky handgun testing.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Four seasons sells tons of guns.....I do believe they are on top of what they can and cant sell here in mass. Best gun shop in massachusetts. I buy all my new guns there. Except for my AR15 from stag. I found a FFL just down the street, who is familur with FourSeasons. He came very close to fourseasons price. Time to go out to 4 seasons was against me. I oredered halloween got it in2 weeks now its 20+ weeks for most orders. Fourseasons has pushed many manufactures to submit there handguns for the AG wacky handgun testing.

This Four Seasons place you speak of. Where is it? And are you sure they sell "tons of guns?"

I mean, hey, that's a lot of guns.

 

[jdubois]

Four seasons sells tons of guns.....I do believe they are on top of what they can and cant sell here in mass.

Nobody here is trying to discredit Four Seasons. They are definitely one of the best gun shops in MA. But even good FFLs get it wrong sometimes. Four Seasons, for example, insist on filing FA-10's for stripped AR lower receivers, which is wrong.

 

[vellnueve]

FS is a good store with pretty good prices on many products and very good CS, but I do have three issues with them (bear with me, this is gun law related)

1) They tend to be sensationalist with their advertising, especially with preban mags. They overprice some of them (the M14 and AR mags especially) and then contend that they are the "last known batch in existence"

2) They tend to be cautious to the point of absurdity with gun laws. LTC for a 10/22. FA-10s for stripped lower receivers. I'm sure that they have some LTC-B eligible handguns marked as large capacity as well.

3) They never have reloadable 62 grain 5.56!

Great store, but they do tend to be overcautious with their interpretations of the law. That's why I'm pretty sure that these ARs are MA legal.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'm just questioning the ability of Four Seasons to sell new Colt ARs in Massachusetts, because Colts are specifically named in the law as being 'assault weapons' no matter what kind of configuration they come in.

Huh? Please show me where Colt is specifically mentioned in this law?

Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment


Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.

I haven't looked, but if EOPS writes a more restrictive (CT-style, banning by name brand) Regulation based on this law, their regulation "should not" pass legal muster!

Colt has decided to abandon the civilian market wrt ARs, but that was a corporate decision, not a decision based on law.

 

[jdubois]

Huh? Please show me where Colt is specifically mentioned in this law?

See C140 S121.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The only question I have about that is the wording, "or copies or duplicates of the weapons" In other words, a simple name change wouldn't do it. Is an M4 sufficiently different than an AR15 so as not to be a copy of it?

i understand what your saying, but in that case, how would any new AR's be sold in mass?

OK, I see what you mean . . . however as is pointed out above, NO AR-lookalike would be legal if this were interpreted as strictly as you state.

We all call our Bushmasters, DPMS, etc. "AR15s" (because functionally that is what they are), yet the mfr designation is most often something else. However, there is no denying that they are "copies or duplicates of the weapons". Ditto wrt AKs.

From a practical viewpoint, I've never heard of anyone contending that anything but "evil features" counted as illegal in MA wrt the AWB.

 

[Len-2A Training]

S. 121 is definitions. S. 131M is the actual MA AWB.

I think that is why nobody cared about what the gun is called or lookalikes, even during the Fed Ban . . . it's not in the operative "ban" part of MGLs.

In fact Ron's notes in the 9th Edition wrt S. 121 was that the listed/defined were automatically "large cap" guns . . . not that they were banned if made post 9/13/1994.

 

[jdubois]

We all call our Bushmasters, DPMS, etc. "AR15s" (because functionally that is what they are), yet the mfr designation is most often something else. However, there is no denying that they are "copies or duplicates of the weapons". Ditto wrt AKs.

Yes, and when Vellnueve said the new Colts don't say AR15 on them, I was willing to say he probably had the final piece of the puzzle.

 

[colt_fan]

Was by Blue Northern this morning and they were supposed to have 2 Colt Targets in this week. So there are other shops out there that carry Colts, I believe they were coming from a MA wholesaler as well.

Interesting thread... are you aware of any dealers in addition to Fours Seasons that have sold the Colt Sportster Match HBAR in Massachusetts? Is Four Seasons alone in this and blazing new territory? Or is that normal practice for Mass firearms dealers?

Thanks,

Rich

 

[jdubois]

S. 121 is definitions. S. 131M is the actual MA AWB.

I think that is why nobody cared about what the gun is called or lookalikes, even during the Fed Ban . . . it's not in the operative "ban" part of MGLs.

Huh? That's not making any sense. If you don't use the definition of "Assault Weapon" from 121, then 131M is completely meaningless because nowhere else is "Assault Weapon" defined. Besides, the very first sentence of 121 is "As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Have the following meanings" This makes the definition of "assault weapon" in 121 the definition of "assault weapon" used in 131M without question.

 

[jdubois]

Was by Blue Northern this morning and they were supposed to have 2 Colt Targets in this week. So there are other shops out there that carry Colts, I believe they were coming from a MA wholesaler as well.

Well, that would definitely put the whole thing to bed.

 

[abomb60]

C140 S121:

"“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning 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, of any caliber, known as:
(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta AR70 (SC70);
(iv) Colt AR15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC;
(vi) SWD M10, M11, M1 1/9 and M12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC9, TECDC9 and TEC22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;"

Notice where it says "or copies or duplicates". Any AR variant is covered by the law not just ones made by Colt.

Stop muddying the conversation with disinformation.

 

[vellnueve]

But they're not copies or duplicates because post-ban ARs do not have the flash hider or bayonet lug. Although we know them as AR-15s, the legal definition of an AR-15 or copy does not encompass post-ban rifles since they're not true copies.

Similarly, the federal ban named certain rifle models including the Colt AR-15 (and copies/duplicates) but after the ban came into effect, we still saw Colt selling postban ARs for a time (until they got out of mainstream commercial sales).

Basically, I think everyone is fretting over nothing. If it's not named a Colt AR-15, does not have evil features, OR was made before 9/13/1994, it's fine to own. Furthermore, these Colt Sportster models are legal to own because they 1) do not have evil features as post-ban rifles and 2) are not called "Colt AR-15s" on the receiver.

 

[abomb60]

But they're not copies or duplicates because post-ban ARs do not have the flash hider or bayonet lug. Although we know them as AR-15s, the legal definition of an AR-15 or copy does not encompass post-ban rifles as they are not copies.

While I see your point and do agree that they aren't 100% copies I think the law was trying to ban certain evil weapons and their clones that also have certain evil features. For example there are certainly pre-ban AR-15's that have never had flash suppressors or bayonet lugs.

It's clear to me (IMHO) that the AWB was written to ban certain features on certain models of long guns and pistols not the particular firearm itself. Unfortunately this can be talked about until we're all blue in the face but the law is vague (probably intentionally so) and there is not enough (if any) AWB-related case law for anyone here (lawyer, LEO or otherwise) to do anything other than speculate.

Go to the store and buy your brand-new Colt. Just make sure there is no bayonet lug or flash suppressor and i'm sure you'll be just fine.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Huh? That's not making any sense. If you don't use the definition of "Assault Weapon" from 121, then 131M is completely meaningless because nowhere else is "Assault Weapon" defined. Besides, the very first sentence of 121 is "As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Have the following meanings" This makes the definition of "assault weapon" in 121 the definition of "assault weapon" used in 131M without question.

Obviously nobody cares about the lookalikes or the jails would be overflowing with all the ARs and AKs sold out there.

The only concerns I hear from LEOs in the firearms licensing game is about "features".

YMMV

[I'm not disputing the words you are reading/writing, just the application of them wrt what is "banned" or not . . . or at least how things are interpreted. I've sat thru enough lectures by Ron Glidden (I arranged 4 or 5 of them) that I can still hear the words as he speaks them.]

 

[vellnueve]

While I see your point and do agree that they aren't 100% copies I think the law was trying to ban certain evil weapons and their clones that also have certain evil features. For example there are certainly pre-ban AR-15's that have never had flash suppressors or bayonet lugs.
.

Yes, and those actually are not "assault weapons" and, if they were not in AW form on or before 9/13/1994, cannot be assembled into preban configuration in MA.

The summary of this thread is that if it's postban and does not have evil features, you're fine.

Again, the Federal AWB specifically named the model, yet BATFE never had a problem with post-ban rifles (and we know how anal they can get). I think that's a factor of Colt simply not putting the model "AR-15" on the side of post-ban rifles, and other manufacturers making rifles that didn't have the evil features like the preban "Colt AR-15s".

Again, in summary:

Colt AR-15 - a preban series of rifles made by Colt, with evil features. Copies/duplicates are only copies/duplicates if they have those same evil featuers.

 

[abomb60]

Yes, and those actually are not "assault weapons" and, if they were not in AW form on or before 9/13/1994, cannot be assembled into preban configuration in MA.

100% Correct

The summary of this thread is that if it's postban and does not have evil features or read "Colt AR-15" on the side, you're fine.

I completely disagree and actually this is the first time i've heard someone make your arguement.

It has to be one of the weapons listed in the AWB, a copy or duplicate of a listed weapon (meaning anything in the entire AR-15/M-16 family), and have a number of certain features. If it doesn't have those features it doesn't qualify under the AWB and therefore is legal to buy, own, sell or trade in the Commonwealth. And like I said before, until there is case law everyone here can have their own opinion and we'll all be wrong.

 

[vellnueve]

You're completely disagreeing with my statement that a postban rifle that does not have evil features is fine in MA?

I do think that having a postban Colt marked "AR-15" would be a gray area, but I'm pretty definitive on the first point. I also think Colt stopped designating their civilian market rifles "AR-15" after the ban for that very reason.

 

[abomb60]

You're completely disagreeing with my statement that a postban rifle that does not have evil features is fine in MA?

Absolutely. A Colt AR-15 that is made post AWB and has only 1 evil feature (usually always a pistol grip) is completely legal to own. Nothing I have ever read, researched or debated has led me to believe otherwise.

I'm not trying to be difficult with you but this is a perfect example of how 2 people can read the same law and get completely different opinions. I'm simply stating my opinion here and I don't think this will be laid to rest until there is case law. Now none of us really want that right ?

 

[vellnueve]

My statement had two parts.

1) Any postban "AR variant" without more than 1 evil features is fine in MA.


2) Concerning COLT AR-15s - The Colt thing is a little more gray IMO. If you have a postban rifle that is marked "Colt AR-15" then I think the wording includes that rifle even if it doesn't have evil features. However, I don't think any civilian postban Colts have that marking, and instead all say "Colt Sporter" or "Colt Match Target" etc. I think that's why they removed the AR-15 designation from their postban models.

 

[abomb60]

My statement had two parts.

1) Any postban "AR variant" without more than 1 evil features is fine in MA.

2) Concerning COLT AR-15s - The Colt thing is a little more gray IMO. If you have a postban rifle that is marked "Colt AR-15" then I think the wording includes that rifle even if it doesn't have evil features. However, I don't think any civilian postban Colts have that marking, and instead all say "Colt Sporter" or "Colt Match Target" etc. I think that's why they removed the AR-15 designation from their postban models.

Yeah i'm not sure that post-ban's did specifically say "AR-15" or not but I think someone in this thread mentioned that theres did. Regardless I doubt that you would be charged with possession of an assault weapon if you had a post-94 AR-15 without more than 1 evil feature (I also doubt that it's actually illegal). Anyway I need to be up early so i'm going to bed now