Hi all, I am an FID holder and I was curious about the legality of the AR Maglocks used to comply with gun laws in similar 2A-hostile states like CA and NY. Obviously since there hasn't been case law about it in Massachusetts, it's impossible to know for sure, but I was more curious to understand how risky using one with my FID would be.
For those who aren't familiar, an AR Maglock is a magazine release button that only works when the lower and upper receiver of an AR are separated. The reason this is useful for complying with CA/NY type laws is because typically 2A-hostile states let you have ARs with all the banned features if your rifle has a fixed magazine.
You might wonder how a rifle can still be considered to have a fixed magazine if you can remove the magazine. The trick they use is basically when the rifle is in a semi-automatic state, the maglock does not allow you to release the magazine. When you separate the lower and upper receiver, although the magazine IS detachable, that is no longer a semi-automatic rifle because while the rifle is in that magazine detachable state, it is impossible to shoot it.
I am by no means a lawyer, but I am capable of understanding legalese to an extent which is why I'd like to try and share portions of state law that could make Maglocks illegal. As many of you are aware, you are not allowed to have a "large capacity weapon" with an FID. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140 Section 121, a large capacity weapon and feeding device is defined as:
For an AR Maglock, the relevant portions of the definitions is "that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device" and "a ... detachable magazine ... capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition".
The reason I believe there is good argument to make for why it's legal is because as an FID holder is because for a weapon to be considered large capacity, it needs to be BOTH semiautomatic and capable of accepting a detachable magazine. When an AR Maglock rifle is semiautomatic, it is not capable of accepting or detaching the magazine. When I separate the lower and upper receivers, although the magazine is detachable, I believe that the same arguments used in CA/NY apply where it is no longer a large capacity rifle since it is no longer semiautomatic.
One counter-argument to this point I thought of was that AR Maglock rifles are still capable of accepting a magazine greater than 10 rounds by separating the receivers, detaching the 10 round magazine, and inserting a 30 round magazine. The problem I see with this argument is that as an FID holder, I could get an AR with a normal non-permanent fixed magazine such as a lower receiver modified with this shear bolt magazine lock. With a non-permanent fixed magazine rifle, just as you can with an AR Maglock, you could simply remove the bolt and insert a 30-round magazine. The only notable difference between the two is that with a non-permanent fixed magazine, you typically need a readily available tool like a hex key to remove it, whereas with an AR Maglock you don't, however, I haven't seen MA law that cares about that distinction. If these non-permanent fixed magazine rifles are legal under my FID, why shouldn't an AR Maglock rifle be too? Aren't AR Maglock rifles also fixed magazine and simply a new variant?
Also, even for those with LTCs, I wonder if AR Maglock rifles could be a good alternative for complying with Massachusetts' Assault Weapons Ban since fixed magazine rifles can't be considered an Assault Weapon. Could you own an AR Maglock rifle with 30 round magazines and prohibited features under an unrestricted LTC?
As I said at the start of the thread, I know there is no definitive answer since there hasn't been a ruling in MA supporting either side. I would simply like to get an idea of what risk I'm taking by owning one of these rifles. For example, one controversial debate I've seen on this forum is the legality of rifles for FID holders that accept detachable magazines but whose manufacturer never made a magazine larger than 10 rounds. Would you say an AR Maglock fixed magazine rifle is more or less risky than owning a rifle whose manufacturer has never made a magazine greater than 10 rounds?
For those who aren't familiar, an AR Maglock is a magazine release button that only works when the lower and upper receiver of an AR are separated. The reason this is useful for complying with CA/NY type laws is because typically 2A-hostile states let you have ARs with all the banned features if your rifle has a fixed magazine.
You might wonder how a rifle can still be considered to have a fixed magazine if you can remove the magazine. The trick they use is basically when the rifle is in a semi-automatic state, the maglock does not allow you to release the magazine. When you separate the lower and upper receiver, although the magazine IS detachable, that is no longer a semi-automatic rifle because while the rifle is in that magazine detachable state, it is impossible to shoot it.
I am by no means a lawyer, but I am capable of understanding legalese to an extent which is why I'd like to try and share portions of state law that could make Maglocks illegal. As many of you are aware, you are not allowed to have a "large capacity weapon" with an FID. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140 Section 121, a large capacity weapon and feeding device is defined as:
''Large capacity weapon'', any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon.
''Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.
For an AR Maglock, the relevant portions of the definitions is "that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device" and "a ... detachable magazine ... capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition".
The reason I believe there is good argument to make for why it's legal is because as an FID holder is because for a weapon to be considered large capacity, it needs to be BOTH semiautomatic and capable of accepting a detachable magazine. When an AR Maglock rifle is semiautomatic, it is not capable of accepting or detaching the magazine. When I separate the lower and upper receivers, although the magazine is detachable, I believe that the same arguments used in CA/NY apply where it is no longer a large capacity rifle since it is no longer semiautomatic.
One counter-argument to this point I thought of was that AR Maglock rifles are still capable of accepting a magazine greater than 10 rounds by separating the receivers, detaching the 10 round magazine, and inserting a 30 round magazine. The problem I see with this argument is that as an FID holder, I could get an AR with a normal non-permanent fixed magazine such as a lower receiver modified with this shear bolt magazine lock. With a non-permanent fixed magazine rifle, just as you can with an AR Maglock, you could simply remove the bolt and insert a 30-round magazine. The only notable difference between the two is that with a non-permanent fixed magazine, you typically need a readily available tool like a hex key to remove it, whereas with an AR Maglock you don't, however, I haven't seen MA law that cares about that distinction. If these non-permanent fixed magazine rifles are legal under my FID, why shouldn't an AR Maglock rifle be too? Aren't AR Maglock rifles also fixed magazine and simply a new variant?
Also, even for those with LTCs, I wonder if AR Maglock rifles could be a good alternative for complying with Massachusetts' Assault Weapons Ban since fixed magazine rifles can't be considered an Assault Weapon. Could you own an AR Maglock rifle with 30 round magazines and prohibited features under an unrestricted LTC?
As I said at the start of the thread, I know there is no definitive answer since there hasn't been a ruling in MA supporting either side. I would simply like to get an idea of what risk I'm taking by owning one of these rifles. For example, one controversial debate I've seen on this forum is the legality of rifles for FID holders that accept detachable magazines but whose manufacturer never made a magazine larger than 10 rounds. Would you say an AR Maglock fixed magazine rifle is more or less risky than owning a rifle whose manufacturer has never made a magazine greater than 10 rounds?