EasyD's logical is flawed. He says since rifle is not defined in that section you must use MA definition of rifle. A SBR is not a rifle, poof. It does not work that way. If it pulled in federal law by saying the text of federal law appears HERE in our definition, then we would fall back on MA rifle definition. Instead it says AW is as defined in this section of federal law which means you have to take the full context and relevant definitions in federal law around the section in question.
If we accept EasyD's logic, then lets talk pistols and the AWB. No one reasonably thinks all pistols are exempt from the AWB because the referenced law does not define pistol. MA does not define pistol so we cannot fall back on the MA definition. This would mean that pistols are exempt from the AWB. Hmm. that does not hold water.
So how did we decide to apply the semiautomatic pistol section of federal law to "firearms" as defined by MA (usually pistols). Since a SBR is a "firearm" and identical to any pistol under MA law, would not the semiautomatic pistol definition of the federal AWB not apply to SBRs?
The logic of EasyD is not self consistent. There are 3 choices that are logically self consistent
- SBRs are exempt. Pistols ("firearms under MA law") are exempt
- "Firearms" (pistols) are subject to federal semiauto pistol definition so therefore so are SBRs
- SBRs are subject to rifle definition and "firearms" when they are pistols are subject to pistol definition
So if you go with (1) you have to go with all of (1). So build out your AR and AK pistols because clearly they are exempt by the same logic.
Yes, this is probably the most cogent explanation of the whole thing if you put it in that light.
Still I will gladly place a wager that this will never be tested in a court of law. There is sort of a 5 circle venn diagram with a very small space in the middle that has to be satisfied in order
for this to even happen, and it rarely is.
Unfortunately the way our shitty laws are written, this interpretation is likely "correct" even if not the original intent. Similar to the fact that an SBR is not a rifle but a "firearm" which fell out of the AG desire to shutdown sale of Shockwaves. They read the law and actually correctly parsed what it said. You can carry a loaded SBR under your direct control, or a shockwave. They are "firearms" just like all handguns.
On the topic of machine guns. I will go pull out the relevant references if needed but a) it is illegal to possess one w/o a license and b) there is no carve out for under the direct supervision of someone who is allowed to possess. General possession of a firearm, shotgun or rifle has a carve out for when you are under the supervision of a LTC/FID holder as appropriate. Machine guns no such luck. So the moment you take possession you have committed a felony with a life sentence.
It sucks, but that is how the law is constructed.
I get the argument, but much like Guida's interpetation of the competition exemption (and strictly speaking his interpretation is 110% correct, the MA competition exemption is basically worthless because of the way the law is written) that plane has yet to fly in reality. Basically after westfield "they" found this problem in the law and ran their mouth about it, but never actually prosecuted anyone for it, but all the gun clubs shit their pants and stopped non GC holders from shooting MGs, etc. I guess you could say both are a well vetted on paper but legally untested in court" type of "red area" in the law.
Yes, this state is fuhked and otherwise sucks. The laws were written by untrained monkeys. The fact that the definition of barrel length includes the cylinder in a revolver and that an SBR is the same as a handgun ("firearm") and that receivers/frames are unregulated and... The people who wrote these laws thought they were smart but were stupid.
The fixed mag pistol arrest shows they will arrest and attempt to prosecute on any pretense. Fortunately the judge was having none of it in that case, but I would not expect logic to always prevail.
We've all seen far worse than that. There have been goody two shoes pweeban mag whatever guys with fudd guns prosecuted for stupid shit in this
state. After a point caring becomes pointless, because if they want to screw you, they will just invent something. (think MTBS guy, others prosecuted on
flimsy crap, etc. ) I don't trust the state WRT guns even if I only had a 5 shot J-frame to my name, if the state wanted me badly enough they would come up with
some way to screw me, you or anyone else. (Hell they did that to Linda Hamilton when her crime was only showing a truck driver a revolver that tried to push her off the
road. ) The other day @swatgig
even posted that he was aware of a case of a guy who got bagged on "failure to register" that if I remember correctly, should have been
exempt by statute of limitations, but the court decided that somehow, that didn't matter. With courts that kangaroo like, laws start to lack meaning and real structure, if the
state can just do whatever it wants. I think after a point everyone has to establish their own risk tolerance desires, etc.
The arguments made around SBRs being exempt might work in a free state w/o a gun bias but no chance here. I say might because I believe as written there is not a lot of wiggle room to support your/EasyD's position and even in a free state you would be screwed should this be the law of the land.
Well, free states don't have AWBs, so that makes the point somewhat moot.