AWB & the S&W 15-22

[kderby]

This post is specifically about the 15-22 rifle.

Based on the update AG website FAQ here "Any .22 caliber rifle" is not an assault weapon;
-- If I understand this correctly, this removes the association of the S&W M&P 15-22 as being an assault weapon.

and based on the AG website posting here, where they define the characteristics of an AW [as referencing the Fed definition, under 18 U.S.C. section 921(a) (30)].

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but before I send a clarification request to the AG's office...

Is anyone familiar with this in the context of the 15-22 now being able to be equipped with accessories such as a folding stock? The "any" wording is, in my view, absolute and should (and yes, I realize that "should" is not a word that should be used in a legal context) negate it from being an AW, as the phrase "any .22 caliber rifle" would mean that even if a .22 cal rifle were equipped with all of the naughty add-ons that would make any other device an AW, because the device at its core is a .22 cal rifle the "any" phrasing would remove it from the AW list.

Thoughts?

 

[BriMac]

Don't kick a hornets nest

 

[Len-2A Training]

This post is specifically about the 15-22 rifle.

Based on the update AG website FAQ here "Any .22 caliber rifle" is not an assault weapon;
-- If I understand this correctly, this removes the association of the S&W M&P 15-22 as being an assault weapon.

and based on the AG website posting here, where they define the characteristics of an AW [as referencing the Fed definition, under 18 U.S.C. section 921(a) (30)].

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but before I send a clarification request to the AG's office...

Is anyone familiar with this in the context of the 15-22 now being able to be equipped with accessories such as a folding stock? The "any" wording is, in my view, absolute and should (and yes, I realize that "should" is not a word that should be used in a legal context) negate it from being an AW, as the phrase "any .22 caliber rifle" would mean that even if a .22 cal rifle were equipped with all of the naughty add-ons that would make any other device an AW, because the device at its core is a .22 cal rifle the "any" phrasing would remove it from the AW list.

Thoughts?

Personally I would NOT advise poking the bear. With the stroke of a pen, the whole "exempt" status could be changed due to queries about pushing the envelope.

Letting sleeping dogs lie would be the best, wisest course of action.

 

[TLB]

Can't see the point of doing that. I would follow the real laws if you care too and ignore her BS edict. I would not try to interpret and follow her diarrhea, except to the extent it makes an LGS willing to sell you something others may not. 15-22 can be found for sale (because they were legal before and the current FAQ say they still are).

 

[TLB]

Personally I would NOT advise poking the bear. With the stroke of a pen, the whole "exempt" status could be changed due to queries about pushing the envelope.

Letting sleeping dogs lie would be the best, wisest course of action.

And this. I think asking her minions to clarify anything is useless and not helpful.

 

[Asaltweapon]

Don't kick a hornets nest

This
If you find a shop willing to sell it then buy it.
Calling her office asking questions is not in anybody's best interests IMHO right now.

 

[Dennis in MA]

We are all just waiting for someone to volunteer to be a test case. It will come down to that. Until someone proves harm or gets prosecuted, we can't get the courts involved and nothing will happen.

Trying to decipher her blather is not worth bothering over. She should have banned shoulder things that go up for crying out loud.

 

[GM-GUY]

Clarification is not the point - the murkier it is made, the less that are sold. Trying to clarify beyond that is a fools errand - unless it's in MAGL you are chasing a shadow.

 

[92G]

Don't kick a hornets nest

^THIS X10

 

[kderby]

And this. I think asking her minions to clarify anything is useless and not helpful.

I don't disagree, but...

Is it that the 15-22 is no longer an AW, based on the AG site update...or that the 15-22 is still an AW (and the AG's own site is incorrect). If a folding (I really meant to say "collapsible") stock is used, but the device is classified as not being an AW, where does that stand in the eyes of the AG?

Interesting question, isn't it?

 

[bill o]

Follow the actual law, not some bizarre, frivolous, novel misinterpretation.

 

[Paul455]

I have seen them for sale on this site at some shops.

Just go buy one.

 

[kderby]

I have seen them for sale on this site at some shops. Just go buy one.

My post wasn't about buying one; it's about being able to put the previously-defined-as-AW parts on it.

 

[92G]

My post wasn't about buying one; it's about being able to put the previously-defined-as-AW parts on it.

Everything in this thread still applies to this newer, worser, question.

 

[Rick1987]

I don't disagree, but...

Is it that the 15-22 is no longer an AW, based on the AG site update...or that the 15-22 is still an AW (and the AG's own site is incorrect). If a folding (I really meant to say "collapsible") stock is used, but the device is classified as not being an AW, where does that stand in the eyes of the AG?

Interesting question, isn't it?

What does the written law state?

A semi automatic with detachable magazine.
2 features.
15-22 has a pistol grip, and you want to add a collapsible stock. That is 2 feature's.

I dont see any exemption for 22lr.

So go ahead and if your taken down. The AG reserves the right to alter what she said. The MA AWB is pretty clear to me.

 

[bill o]

My post wasn't about buying one; it's about being able to put the previously-defined-as-AW parts on it.

No, it clearly violates the AWB. Do you think the AG will protect you when the local DA charges you?

 

[kderby]

I dont see any exemption for 22lr.

The AG website was updated here to indicate that "Any .22 caliber rifle" was not an assault weapon.

Do you think the AG will protect you when the local DA charges you?

Not in a million years.

 

[Rick1987]

The AG website was updated here to indicate that "Any .22 caliber rifle" was not an assault weapon.



Not in a million years.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/assault-weapons-enforcement-notice.pdf
The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance.

 

[Rick1987]

semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;



That is the written law.

 

[JJ4]

The law as it is written is the law.

The AG cannot make anything illegal in the law suddenly legal by FAQ.
The AG cannot make anything legal in the law suddenly illegal by FAQ/Guidance.

This whole thing is simply the OPINION of the chief prosecutor in the state. She is wrong. Do not give her OPINION any more weight than it deserves. People are complying for now out of fear, uncertainty, and doubt - since even though she is wrong she can make your life hell through unjust prosecution.

 

[Rick1987]

You should throw some high capacity 22lr magazines on it also. Since 22s are exempt the mags are good to go also. Right?

I think a whole lot of people are being baited

 

[W.E.C]

M.G.L. ch. 140 §§ 121-131P, need to be redone for clarity, and simplicity. They are way too convoluted and are open to mean anything the reader wants to insert incorrectly.

exp : I talked to one of my reps about the dropping of the B ltc, as he understood the language was to allow open carry, and not concealed, and he wanted to discourage open carry only.

there are more, but I won't bring them up as they are to our advantage ,and we don't need any more " "enforcement q&a " law making not from the ma general court.

 

[kderby]

You should throw some high capacity 22lr magazines on it also. Since 22s are exempt the mags are good to go also. Right?

Interestingly enough, that is part of my general question.

If you're referring to me baiting anyone, the answer is no. I have legitimate questions and conflicting "answers" from my own state's AG office. I do understand the guidance given above, that the "written law should be followed"; that's good advice...but it STILL conflicts with the guidance.

The idea that a folding/collapsible stock would allow more than one device in a case, and larger mags would allow longer sessions at the range are the reasons I'm asking.

 

[iofneedle]

The law as it is written is the law.

The AG cannot make anything illegal in the law suddenly legal by FAQ.
The AG cannot make anything legal in the law suddenly illegal by FAQ/Guidance.

This whole thing is simply the OPINION of the chief prosecutor in the state. She is wrong. Do not give her OPINION any more weight than it deserves. People are complying for now out of fear, uncertainty, and doubt - since even though she is wrong she can make your life hell through unjust prosecution.

Yes Yes Yes

 

[bill o]

Interestingly enough, that is part of my general question.

If you're referring to me baiting anyone, the answer is no. I have legitimate questions and conflicting "answers" from my own state's AG office. I do understand the guidance given above, that the "written law should be followed"; that's good advice...but it STILL conflicts with the guidance.

The idea that a folding/collapsible stock would allow more than one device in a case, and larger mags would allow longer sessions at the range are the reasons I'm asking.

Do not try to understand the AG's guidance. Just ignore it to be safe.

 

[W.E.C]

Interestingly enough, that is part of my general question.

and larger mags would allow longer sessions at the range are the reasons I'm asking.

Good luck with that one.

 

[larueminati]

the murkier it is made, the less that are sold.

This. They did just reiterate recently the initial AWB that was signed on in Mass after the sunset was intended to not be too specific, they wanted it to be merky so it leaves alot open to interpenetration. It has a broader effect.

 

[Snora]

I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand the gun laws and would certainly defer to an educated individual if this was my ass on the line. With that said, this is the thought process I would expect from the state if prosecuting someone:

AG said since it's a .22 it isn't a clone of a Colt AR-15. That doesn't mean that it *CAN'T* be an assault weapon, just that the caliber itself makes it different enough to not be a clone of a named, banned gun. We then move on to the features of what cannot be on a semi auto rifle with detachable magazines:

"This establishes that in Massachusetts weapons with the following characteristics are also within the definition of Assault weapon:218 U.S.C. section 921(a) (30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994:
B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

1. a folding or telescoping stock;
2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
3. a bayonet mount;
4. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
5. a grenade launcher;"

Maybe the language of the .22 exemption could be argued, maybe the evil features list doesn't apply? I don't know!

 

[kderby]

GREAT reply. Thank you.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand the gun laws and would certainly defer to an educated individual if this was my ass on the line. With that said, this is the thought process I would expect from the state if prosecuting someone:

AG said since it's a .22 it isn't a clone of a Colt AR-15. That doesn't mean that it *CAN'T* be an assault weapon, just that the caliber itself makes it different enough to not be a clone of a named, banned gun. We then move on to the features of what cannot be on a semi auto rifle with detachable magazines:

"This establishes that in Massachusetts weapons with the following characteristics are also within the definition of Assault weapon:218 U.S.C. section 921(a) (30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994:
B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

1. a folding or telescoping stock;
2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
3. a bayonet mount;
4. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
5. a grenade launcher;"

Maybe the language of the .22 exemption could be argued, maybe the evil features list doesn't apply? I don't know!

 

[Glockster30]

As others already stated, asking the AG's office for clarification is a fool's errand, even if they did respond, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, what she/they tell you today could change at any time depending on what time of the month it is.