I have a decent amount experience with NFA stuff, how about you?
-
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 Pistol?
- Thread starter dspigs0705
- Start date
Keep puffing your chest out and beating it with your fists. Maybe you do know more about NFA than I do. But this isn’t an NFA issue, it’s an MGL / MA case law issue.I very clearly specified the pistol/rifle definition factor and how a gun with a barrel under 16” is just a “firearm” in MA and not a rifle.
However, there has been a case where someone was prosecuted, convicted, and lost the appeal for having an “assault weapon” even though the barrel on his rifle was 12ish inches. It doesn’t have to be an LTC holder for an existing case to prove you wrong. It doesn’t even need to be a registered SBR, because that’s a federal matter and not directly related to the MA 16” firearm definition. The guy wasn’t an LTC holder, only an FID holder, but that only means he got an additional charge of possessing a large-capacity firearm without a license. It doesn’t change the AWB conviction. It’s precedent now in MA. So, no, I am not the one misinformed.
And sure, a law abiding LTC holder who’s not an idiot is much less likely to get jammed up by this. But it’s not an absolute in this current period of ERPOs.
Link because you apparently don’t like to do your own research:
City official: Don't change Islington Street speed limit
PORTSMOUTH — The city’s parking and transportation engineer is recommending the speed limit on Islington Street remain at 30 miles per hour. Eric Eby made the recommendation though a speed study sh…
www.telegram.com
Last edited:
Why would you think I’m puffing my chest and beating it with my hands? Is it because I gave you a pretty simple and somewhat logical rebuttal to your heresay when it comes to the NFA and MA law? Dude, insecure much???? Also, I’m not doing any extra searching around for possible AWB cases because you think you heard of one, has nothing to do with laziness. But, I did read the article, did you??? The least of that guys problems was an AWB violation. Hopefully you don’t transport like does, deal with 5-O like he does and hopefully your properly licensed. Have a good evening and remember not to get into groups of more than ten. Shalom
I very clearly specified the pistol/rifle definition factor and how a gun with a barrel under 16” is just a “firearm” in MA and not a rifle.
However, there has been a case where someone was prosecuted, convicted, and lost the appeal for having an “assault weapon” even though the barrel on his rifle was 12ish inches. It doesn’t have to be an LTC holder for an existing case to prove you wrong. It doesn’t even need to be a registered SBR, because that’s a federal matter and not directly related to the MA 16” firearm definition. The guy wasn’t an LTC holder, only an FID holder, but that only means he got an additional charge of possessing a large-capacity firearm without a license. It doesn’t change the AWB conviction. It’s precedent now in MA. So, no, I am not the one misinformed.
And sure, a law abiding LTC holder who’s not an idiot is much less likely to get jammed up by this. But it’s not an absolute in this current period of ERPOs.
Link because you apparently don’t like to do your own research:
City official: Don't change Islington Street speed limit
PORTSMOUTH — The city’s parking and transportation engineer is recommending the speed limit on Islington Street remain at 30 miles per hour. Eric Eby made the recommendation though a speed study sh…www.telegram.com
1. I said you were puffing your chest because you just started boasting about your NFA knowledge and trying to compare it to mine.
2. My claims are absolutely no hearsay. There is actual case law.
3. Do you know what you proved when you refused to do extra searching? You proved that you failed to properly research a topic the first time, before offering legal advice that could get someone 10 years in prison.
4. No, the least of the guys problems are not an AWB violation. The illegal transport is a max of 5 years. AWB violation is up to 10 years. The large capacity firearm on an FID is also up to 10 years, but no, the AWB violation is not the least of his worries. It was one of his primary worries.
I'll say it one last time. It doesn't matter what else he did. That does not change the fact that he was charged with an AWB violation for his AR-15 that had a barrel less than 16". That does not change the fact that he was convicted for the same offense. That does not change that he tried to appeal and that failed. It is now case law that having a rifle with a barrel under 16" does not protect you from the provisions of the AWB. It does not matter what else this guy did. Those are separate charges.
This isn't some grey area law where we're all just speculating because it's never been tried in court. This one has been tried in court.
If you are caught with a post-ban SBR and have assault weapon features, you very easily could be charged. And if you think that you're immune because you're not a jabrony like this guy was? Think again. If you want to risk it? More power to you. But don't go recommending that course of action as an absolute without highlighting precedent that could get a forum member 10 years in prison.
I wasnt boasting about anything. I think your just another overly sensitive person on here. May I suggest Twitter for You. A few things....
1. Just because someone states an opinion or personal experience doesn’t mean they are giving people legal advice. If you or anybody takes it that way then I wouldn’t worry about gun laws, you’ve got bigger problems.
2. Yes, MA guns laws are least of his problems because they will probably go away because he is facing FEDERAL GUN CHARGES...not state prison, Federal pound me in the ass prison plus 10k in fines.
3. Show me the case law sir! Nowhere in his court proceeedings or his appeal do you see the words 16 inches, SBR or the both of those terms used together to break MA law and AWB. You sir, Are spreading false information. IANAL but if you are please PM me your law firm so I can make sure I never retain your services, lol!!
Feel free to counter this, no need for me to go any further with you on this. Have a good night and stop being so damn sensitive and defensive
amm5061
NES Member
No to both questions. The only precedent we have is the JC Arms case. So in theory, that's good to go until a court decides otherwise "'cuz gunz!"
Otherwise, affix at your own risk. Which is essentially the state of firearms laws in this state: nobody definitively knows what's legal for sure and everyone's a potential felon.
I very clearly specified the pistol/rifle definition factor and how a gun with a barrel under 16” is just a “firearm” in MA and not a rifle.
However, there has been a case where someone was prosecuted, convicted, and lost the appeal for having an “assault weapon” even though the barrel on his rifle was 12ish inches. It doesn’t have to be an LTC holder for an existing case to prove you wrong. It doesn’t even need to be a registered SBR, because that’s a federal matter and not directly related to the MA 16” firearm definition. The guy wasn’t an LTC holder, only an FID holder, but that only means he got an additional charge of possessing a large-capacity firearm without a license. It doesn’t change the AWB conviction. It’s precedent now in MA. So, no, I am not the one misinformed.
And sure, a law abiding LTC holder who’s not an idiot is much less likely to get jammed up by this. But it’s not an absolute in this current period of ERPOs.
Link because you apparently don’t like to do your own research:
City official: Don't change Islington Street speed limit
PORTSMOUTH — The city’s parking and transportation engineer is recommending the speed limit on Islington Street remain at 30 miles per hour. Eric Eby made the recommendation though a speed study sh…www.telegram.com
What was posted was a news article not a case law.
This was all I was able to find for a charge. "Sergei J. Dyer, 24, of 36 Hamilton St., Apt. 3, Worcester, charged with possessing ammunition without FID card, $2,500 cash bail, continued to June 28." From here; Courthouse Records
It does not need to be produced by an FFL. Despite Maura's decree, there is nothing even remotely ambiguous in MGL about stripped lowers not being firearms and therefore not subject to the AWB. If you can get an FFL to transfer you one, then you can build up a fixed mag lower yourself. It'd be entirely legal for it to be transferred and for you to build it into a fixed mag lower. The letter of the law is very clear on that. If you can't get an FFL to transfer you one, you can make one from an 80%.
Now, there isn't really a definition of a fixed mag lower. It's a little vague. At a minimum though, you shouldn't be able to remove the magazine while the gun is operational, even if it requires a tool. I'm in the camp that as long as it requires disassembly of the firearm, the magazine should be removable as well for repairs etc (e.g. MagLatch). In that case, the magazine cannot be removed while it is a functioning firearm, but you'd be able to revert it back to normal operations when in a free state. It's a risk, given this State's willingness to prosecute regardless of MGL, but I'm willing to accept that risk.
However, some take a stricter approach and want to use mag catch buttons that require destruction to remove after they've been installed. That method is a bit extreme, but plays it very safe.
Then the FFLs that make their own in this state use set screws forward of the trigger, that goes through the mag well and into the magazine. At least, some of them do that. It's removeable, but more work than the MagLatch, as the factory available method requires removal of the tirgger assembly before removing the magazine
MGL Definition:
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
Last edited:
That was a separate, more recent, charge. I was going off a thread about his case and a post by someone who was monitoring it as it happened. However, it appears that his original case isn't accessible in court records, at least publicly on the MA case lookup website. His appeal is view-able though. But, it seems from the appeal that he may have only been convicted on one charge, and not on the AWB charge. Don't know if the state dropped it, or if he just wasn't found guilty on it. The poster who was watching the trial didn't mention that.
Yeah I couldn't look it up either. Knowing this state dropped chargers and plea deals all around!!!
Sounded like the kid was a POS. "you know what it is" and he had it loaded on top of that. What an idiot.
I have both post and pre 94 ban SBRed lowers and personally, I haven't spent anytime worrying about the nuances or gray areas regarding the AWB regarding uppers and evil features.
If someone is that worried about features, pay the current premium for a pre 94 lower and NFA so at least you have a pre 94 to work off of. Then from there, if they are feeling confident, they can NFA post 94 lowers and swap to your hearts content.
I very clearly specified the pistol/rifle definition factor and how a gun with a barrel under 16” is just a “firearm” in MA and not a rifle.
However, there has been a case where someone was prosecuted, convicted, and lost the appeal for having an “assault weapon” even though the barrel on his rifle was 12ish inches. It doesn’t have to be an LTC holder for an existing case to prove you wrong. It doesn’t even need to be a registered SBR, because that’s a federal matter and not directly related to the MA 16” firearm definition. The guy wasn’t an LTC holder, only an FID holder, but that only means he got an additional charge of possessing a large-capacity firearm without a license. It doesn’t change the AWB conviction. It’s precedent now in MA. So, no, I am not the one misinformed.
And sure, a law abiding LTC holder who’s not an idiot is much less likely to get jammed up by this. But it’s not an absolute in this current period of ERPOs.
Link because you apparently don’t like to do your own research:
City official: Don't change Islington Street speed limit
PORTSMOUTH — The city’s parking and transportation engineer is recommending the speed limit on Islington Street remain at 30 miles per hour. Eric Eby made the recommendation though a speed study sh…www.telegram.com
The one thing that is evident from that story is that the AR was an unregistered NFA firearm. So he was carrying a Title 1 AR15, which doesn't fall under any "firearm" gray zone. Title 1 rifles in Mass have case law to back up rulings regarding to the AWB.
So in this instance, we still don't have any case law example of someone legally possessing an post 94 ban Title 2 lower and whether or not they would be charged at all because of the under 16 "firearm" gray area.
Last edited:
The problem with most AWB cases is the charges get dumped before they go to trial/decision/closure, this leaves an awful small sample set to play with. A lot of the details get left out
too, like there's no legal documentation of "Defense attorney called prosecutor out on bullshit before trial, so DA's office drops the one charge, but kept others" etc.
The only real "precedent" (and I use this loosely here) I'm even aware of in MA is the recent cased with the pinned lower where the cops tried to say "Wah assault weapon" and the defense used healey's bullshit edict/AW definitions as a piece of evidence in the possessors defense. I use the term "precedent" loosely because its not likely binding in any real way, but probably could be referenced as an example somehow.
-Mike
And that case was thrown right out by the judge as soon as they tried to evoke the AWB.
Title 1 vs 2 shouldn’t make any difference in a MA court. That’s a federal matter and the MGL, as far as I know, makes no mention of it. MGL only specifies that a rifle has a 16” or longer barrel. And that suspect’s barrel was less than 16”, making it a firearm according to definitions in MGL.
Of course, MGL directly cites USC for the definition of an assault weapon, so theoretically, that would include the federal definition of a rifle. But NFA legalities like Title 1 vs Title 2 don’t have bearing on those definitions either. The USC has definitions for both rifles and SBRs, but even an illegal SBR is still both a rifle and an SBR according to USC.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Dude, the website has a private "conversation" feature, you might want to consider deleting that post and sending him a message.
P.S.> First post, way to make an entrance, welcome.
chris_1001
NES Member
What is the current best “reversible” fixed mag kit for a standard AR lower? I want something that can be reversed for free state fun. I’ve seen the ones you have to destroy to get them to work with a regular mag. But swear I saw a few that you could use that you can disassemble and have it work with a regular mag without destroying anything.
There are Cali bullet button kits like the FNGR and others...you've got the Maglock as well.
I just use the Mean Arms Mag lock.
Similar threads
