Boston "Assault Weapons Ban" ... n00b content

[THUNDERCHIEF]

....for the majority of the non-gun-owning country, gun rights are black hole that they really don't understand, or aren't emotionally invested in, so they take whatever the pols feed them even if its a lie, because they don't know any better.
-Mike

+1. And I think that most politicians fall into that lot themselves. So, they feel that if they vote anti-gun or create an anti gun law they are doing a good thing. Or even worse, they just know that most voters will think that they are doing a good thing.

 

[Fsorrent]

I always thought that an Assault weapon was an object used as a weapon in order to cause an assault. The fact that the sheep and poli's threw in the term "assault" to describe something, already adds a stigma to it.

assault: . A violent onset or attack with physical means, as blows,
weapons, etc.; an onslaught; the rush or charge of an
attacking force; onset; as, to make assault upon a man, a
house, or a town.

weapon: A weapon is a tool employed to injure, defeat, or destroy an adversary.[1][2] Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon .

en.wikipedia.com/weapons
wordassault.com/assault (i know lol.)

 

[Nickle]

The term Assault Rifle or Assault Weapon comes from the German term Sturngewehr, which was the MP 44, a select fire rifle, chambered for a medium power cartridge.

So, a real AK is an Assault Rifle, as is the M16 series and the M4 series.

The M14, FAL, AR, SKS, AKS (semiauto AK), Dragunov and a whole bunch of others aren't.

 

[drgrant]

Nickle, I -slightly- disagree with that....

"Assault Rifle" = Legitimate term used to describe a kind of rifle.

"Assault Weapon" = Bogus BS term made up by anti gunners, to incite fear among people that don't know any better. It's purposefully generic, redundant, vague and ambiguous. A rock could be an "assault weapon".

I've never seen "Assault Weapon" used in any other way other than by media and anti gun types/ politicians.

I've never heard of anyone in the gun industry of any respectable background call their product an "assault weapon". I'm also relatively sure that it isn't a widely used term in the military, or at least not in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'll consider myself corrected if I see like a field manual or something that refers to say, an M16 or an M14, as an "assault weapon".

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I think it is useful to clearly delineate the difference, at least in terms of
legitimacy.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

+1. And I think that most politicians fall into that lot themselves. So, they feel that if they vote anti-gun or create an anti gun law they are doing a good thing. Or even worse, they just know that most voters will think that they are doing a good thing.

I think there are a lot of politicos who simply don't care about gun rights; so how they "act" in regards to the issues depends on the political costs/gains. In most moonbat strongholds, say someplace like Boston, an anti gun politico will always be able to get away with pushing anti ideas, because they know it won't cost them much or anything at the polls, and they can use it as a cheap way to fake some gullible voters into believing that they are "tough on crime" . They could do something that would actually make sense, like push for reforms in sentencing of repeat violent offenders and the like, but that actually would involve them having to do work, and take real political risks....


-Mike

 

[Nickle]

Well, I SHOULD have made the disclaimer that I was referring to reality, not the hi-jacked term the fear mongering anti-gunners are using.

The definition of anything a Liberals says is whatever he wants it to be. Truth is nothing to them, just their agenda. And, when somebody figures out their real agenda for the first time, they don't like it. Big surprise.

 

[billj]

My relative has recently moved into Boston, unfortunately. It was a job necessity. He owns what may be considered an "assault weapon" although it is located in Vermont and has not been brought across the border. If he filed an FA-10 on this weapon upon attempting to bring it into MA, would he be in serious trouble? A police visit? Or could he have it stored elsewhere in MA and not have it violate the silly Boston AWB? What are his options? Would the local( Boston) police know that he owned this rifle based on the 4473 that was filed upon purchase (in Vt)? Thank you.

 

[dwarven1]

My relative has recently moved into Boston, unfortunately. It was a job necessity. He owns what may be considered an "assault weapon" although it is located in Vermont and has not been brought across the border. If he filed an FA-10 on this weapon upon attempting to bring it into MA, would he be in serious trouble? A police visit? Or could he have it stored elsewhere in MA and not have it violate the silly Boston AWB? What are his options? Would the local( Boston) police know that he owned this rifle based on the 4473 that was filed upon purchase (in Vt)? Thank you.

Bill, the text of the ban is here on the board somewhere. Basically, he has two things that he has to worry about: the state ban and the Boston ban. I don't think I've ever heard of the Boston ban being actually USED against someone, but I still wouldn't push my luck.

Now, if he moved into state with the gun, he doesn't have to file an FA-10 on it, so no one will know what he's got - unless he gets arrested with it or for some reason it comes to the attention of the police (fire in his house, break-in, paramedic call with cops in attendance, etc).

As for keeping it in VT... since it's not in MA, it's no f'king business of the Bsoton PD OR the Staties what he has. Ownership isn't illegal, it's possession in MA that's illegal.

 

[billj]

Thank you for your reply, dwarven. As much as it would be nice to keep it in Vermont, he was only a resident there for a few years, and doesn't have many connections in the area. If he didn't file an FA-10, and brought it in, what would be the consequences? It is a MA legal weapon as well, so why couldn't it be kept in say Quincy? Its looking more and more like he'll have to sell a damn fine weapon. Does MA know from the feds if you were a MA resident and purchased a rifle such as this out of state?

 

[vellnueve]

Specifics on what kind of rifle it is would be helpful.

Some firearms that fall under the classic definition under the AWB do not fall under the Boston ban, and vice versa.

 

[billj]

Ok. It is a Rock River Arms CAR 4. Definitely banned in Boston by my interpretation of reading their AWB. Correct features for MA compliance, however.

 

[vellnueve]

In that case, he certainly may not bring it into Boston. He may, however, bring it into MA and leave it with a friend. It must be registered on an FA-10. Boston PD will not know about it as FA-10s go straight to CHSB and are just scanned in, unless they ever have a reason to check the records. Nor does it matter if they know or not as the Boston ban only applies to Boston residents while in the city of Boston pertaining to possession in the city of Boston.

 

[cflshooter]

Sig 556

Contacted GOAL to see what their opinion was. Apparently the "board" was never appointed, so there is no additional roster, just the specific types that were banned.

Seems to me that the AR-70, plus the Sig line, would thus be legal since they don't meet any of the first set of conditions (as long as their definition of "fixed" is what I think it is.)

Vellnueve:
I am a Boston resident and I considering buying a MA compliant Sig 556.
Do you have any further thoughts or info since your 2006 post (see above) if the Sig 556 would violate the Boston ban? I see the 556 referred to in many places as using or being similar to the AR platform, and it does accept AR mags. Do you think it would it be considered a AR-15 copy and thus violate the Boston ban?

 

[vellnueve]

The SA80 accepts AR mags too. As does the K2, K1A1, AR-180, Tavor, and many others.

It is not named in the ban, nor is any Sig model. Other than the SW500, FN57, and Barrett .50, no additions have been made since the ban was enacted.

No, it is not an AR copy. It is a development of the Sig 550 series adapted to accept AR accessories such as stocks, magazines, and rail accessories, but the rifle itself is entirely different from an AR.

 

[cflshooter]

Thanks, that is my view as well. A closer question may be the AR-10, DPMS LR-308...do you think the same analysis holds??

 

[vellnueve]

AR-10 I would say falls under the ban, but a strong argument could be made for it not being so.

However, remember that in Boston you are limited to ten round mags, pre-ban or not.

 

[cflshooter]

Vellnueve:
Thanks for your opinion. I've done a little reading on the development of the AR-15 and AR-10 and it seems clear to me that they are considered different rifles, and the AR-15 was derived from the AR-10 not the other way around. I assume you already knew this and this info comprises at least part of the strong arguments you refer to above that the Boston ban on AR-15 would not also cover an AR-10. The AR-10 existed before the AR-15 and it seems to me that Boston had the opportunity to name the AR-10 on the list of banned rifles, but did not. Boston also had the opportunity to update the list of banned rifles and they have done so, but they did not list the AR-10. So I just don't see how a LR-308 (an AR-10 copy) would be covered by the ban. If it is true that there are no cases of the Boston ban being enforced then obviously there are no test cases on this specific question which would provide guidance. Thanks for the reminder on the 10rd mag rule. That is the worst part of the ban IMO especially for my HK91...bought 10x 10rd mags - about $350 instead of 5x preban 20rd mags - about $25.

 

[jdubois]

So I just don't see how a LR-308 (an AR-10 copy) would be covered by the ban.

The LR-308 is based off the new version of the AR-10, which is based off the AR-15A2. It would very likely to be ruled to be "substantially identical" to an AR-15, and so fall under the ban.

 

[cflshooter]

ok, so the development timeline goes something like as follows: original AR-10 -> original AR-15 -> AR-15A2 -> new AR-10 -> LR-308, correct. Then the logic would be that anything downstream of the original AR-15 would be covered by the Boston ban, correct?

So would an original AR-10 not be covered by the ban but a new AR-10 would be covered, even though "AR-10" of any vintage is not listed? I admit to being completely confused by that outcome.

Vellnueve, could you weigh in with the details of the "strong argument" that you referred to regarding the AR-10 not falling under the ban (even though you said it would be covered by the ban). Were you referring to the current AR-10 or the original AR-10, or both?

I am out of my depth regarding history of the development of the AR-15 and AR-10 rifles and there is no case law I am aware to provide guidance on the Boston ban so I looking for any informed views on this question. I still waiting for a bolt for my LR-308 (it is backordered) so I don't know if it would even be considered a rifle under the Boston ban - I have read that it would not be for purposes of MA registration. I will store my LR-308 (when complete) outside of city limits with a LTC-holder if need be but would like to avoid that headache if I not legally required to do so...

 

[jdubois]

there is no case law I am aware to provide guidance on the Boston ban so I looking for any informed views on this question.

I believe the first part of your statement rules out the second . All you can go by is "if it quacks like a duck" and your LR-308 does.

I still waiting for a bolt for my LR-308 (it is backordered) so I don't know if it would even be considered a rifle under the Boston ban - I have read that it would not be for purposes of MA registration.

I can't tell you for the Boston ban, but for Ch. 140, your LR-308 would be considered a rifle even without a bolt, per Commonwealth v. Prevost (1998). The state ruled that the gun in question in that case was a firearm because "a slight repair, replacement, or adjustment could make this weapon effective as a firearm". I suspect Boston would follow suit.

 

[cflshooter]

I believe the first part of your statement rules out the second . All you can go by is "if it quacks like a duck" and your LR-308 does.

Agreed - in the absence of a test case there is no clear answer.... I wonder hypothetically what the reaction would be to a statewide ban only on AR-10 (not AR-15)....how many people would take the view that their AR-15 is not substantially identical to an AR-10 and thus not covered by this hypothetical ban.

I can't tell you for the Boston ban, but for Ch. 140, your LR-308 would be considered a rifle even without a bolt, per Commonwealth v. Prevost (1998). The state ruled that the gun in question in that case was a firearm because "a slight repair, replacement, or adjustment could make this weapon effective as a firearm". I suspect Boston would follow suit.


I was referring to the standard for FA-10 registration. From reading the many FA-10 threads it seems clear that one does not need to register a firearm in MA until it is capable of going "bang", which is when it becomes a firearm. This, however, may be the wrong standard for the Boston ban...

 

[jdubois]

I was referring to the standard for FA-10 registration. From reading the many FA-10 threads it seems clear that one does not need to register a firearm in MA until it is capable of going "bang", which is when it becomes a firearm. This, however, may be the wrong standard for the Boston ban...

Yeah, I know you were referring to the FA-10 standard. It takes it's definition from Ch 140. The discussions about filling out an FA-10 usually are in regards to whether an upper and lower are mated together, not whether you have a BCG or not. I would fill out an FA-10 for a BCG-less rifle, personally.

 

[vellnueve]

In Boston, just having the parts would seem to constitute a Boston-defined "Assault Weapon."

You should be aware that although the AR-15 was developed from the AR-10, the original AR-10 was a different rifle and some major changes were made between the AR-10 and AR-15, whilst today's AR-10 clones are nothing more than scaled-up AR-15s. I do agree with jdubois that an LR-308 would be likely to be considered substantially identical to an AR-15 and thus encompassed by the Boston Ban.

With an original AR-10 (which would likely be select-fire anyway), you would have a stronger argument.

This is why I chose an M1A while living in Boston.

 

[leonoe]

Vellnueve:
I am a Boston resident and I considering buying a MA compliant Sig 556.
Do you have any further thoughts or info since your 2006 post (see above) if the Sig 556 would violate the Boston ban? I see the 556 referred to in many places as using or being similar to the AR platform, and it does accept AR mags. Do you think it would it be considered a AR-15 copy and thus violate the Boston ban?

CFL, did you ever end up buying the Sig 556 or concluding whether it would violate the Boston ban? I'm curious because its a potential future purchase...

 

[vellnueve]

It will not fall under the ban IMO. The Sig 556 is a derivative of the 550 series, not an AR-15 derivative. However, you will be limited to ten round mags.

 

[leonoe]

Does anyone know of any instance where this Boston 'law' was ever enforced on an individual? I spoke to GOAL and they did not know of any...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've spoken with Chief Ron Glidden on this and he's spoken with Boston's City Counsel (lawyer, not the City Council) . . . they know of no cases either.

It only applies to those that live under the thumb of Mumbles, not to folks visiting, driving thru, in the city on business/pleasure.

 

[leonoe]

I've spoken with Chief Ron Glidden on this and he's spoken with Boston's City Counsel (lawyer, not the City Council) . . . they know of no cases either.

It only applies to those that live under the thumb of Mumbles, not to folks visiting, driving thru, in the city on business/pleasure.

Lucky me, I live under the thumb of Mumbles so wanted to know if any Boston residents have ever been 'convicted' of breaking this 'law'... I know that there are Boston residents that own SA rifles including AR-15's and store them in Boston. I did call BPD - LEO I spoke to didn't even realize that this ordinance existed.

 

[vellnueve]

LenS nailed it. No cases that I know of. I abided by it while living in Boston.

 

[garandman]

I spoke with a buddy who is an ADA and he says while they might use it to hold someone while other charges are brought, they consider it "unenforceable."

I'm still trying to get an official ruling as to whether an M1 Carbine is banned in Boston. Two police officers have said "no, it's OK" but I'd like to see it in writing. Until then I keep mine out of town.