Boston "Assault Weapons Ban" ... n00b content


For someone that might still be confused, is there an answer here?

I have a friend (Boston resident) that recently purchased a kel tec sub2k - he bought it at a well known FFL, is he allowed to possess it within the city of Boston? Or should he leave it somewhere else?

Reading the bylaw did not provide much clarity so hoping someone here knows better.
 
It's heart-warming, to see that this thread has been going on for 10+ years - with some questions still seemingly unanswered... ;)
One question I still have - and I've seen it brought up in the thread, but haven't seen it answered - about these 2 lines:

Section 1. (1)(i) Any other shotgun with a fixed magazine ... capacity exceeding six rounds [is an "Assault Weapon"]
and
Section 1. (2)(e) ["Assault Weapon" shall not include] a rifle or shotgun which operates by slide action;

- so, which one wins? Is a 20" barrel Mossberg Maverick 88 an "assault weapon"? - On the one hand, 8 shells in the tube, on the other hand - pump/slide action?

Simply curious here....
 
According to the City of Boston's firearms portal "If you live in Boston, or own a business in the City, the Boston Police commissioner is your local licensing authority." Send Commissoner Evans a certified letter with a self-addressed stamped return envelope and ask for clarification of the policy in his official capacity as the licensing authority.
 
Including the accomplices in the national guard armory heist which had select fire M4A1s and armored car robbing relatives of crooked BPD officers with piles of AKs.
 
Sorry to dig up an old thread but this is fascinating.

From my read a Mintueman Armory with a pined mag seems like a good Boston rifle.
Sig 556 is a great suggestion, noted!
M1 seems like a great piece of history to own as well.
On shotgun, seems like a pump gets around capacity limits and can be very fast if that’s your goal.

One question: In a fire, EMT, police-presence scenario, who the hell is gonna volunteer to open their safe/cabinet to show the officer all their scary black rifles???
I suppose the concern is in a case, in the car en route to the range and you get pulled over?
(sorry have not searched yet about traffic stops and police verifying proper transport)
 
Have a friend who was an ADA. They considered the Boston AWB unenforceable. They might use it to hold someone while they looked for other charges, but never prosecuted anyone because then case law would further weaken it.

I fallow the law, myself.
 
Can someone please re-link the City of Boston By-law? I've been trying to find it on the GOAL page as well and am unable. In practice, is the current MA-AWB currently the same as what was previously the AWB? Based on a paste from the by-law on page 2-3 of this thread, they appear to be the same.

I'd like to purchase a pre-healy AR with a piston upper (BRN180) from someone, but believe I am SOL as long as I continue to reside in Boston.

Edit: nevermind, found them:

City: https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/embed/a/assault-weapon-boston-act.pdf
State: https://www.mass.gov/doc/enforcement-notice/download
 
Last edited:
Hopping on this old thread, but curious to know what the opinion is on Sig MCX's ( i.e. the Virtus Patrol)? Been eyeing it at a store not too far from me, however, my zip code is still within Boston City Limits. Not named in the text, and has pinned stock and welded muzzle.

**And yes, I know I can move to where this is much easier - let's just take those responses off the table now because it's not in my timeline right now!**
 
That’s fair…I was on the path of a bull pup but looking at the MCX, the internals are uniquely different from an AR. Figured it’s worth an ask if it’s kosher!
 
Unlikely, but they will use "Glocks not approved for sale" to cast you in a negative light and make your attorney spend time refuting that distraction.

lol so a prosecutor is going to explain cmr940 and how the accused defrauded himself? [rofl]

doubt
 
That’s fair…I was on the path of a bull pup but looking at the MCX, the internals are uniquely different from an AR. Figured it’s worth an ask if it’s kosher!
The bold part? That doesn't matter. It's not real. Further, even if there were any legal basis, it would apply only to what a dealer can sell you - not to what you can own.

AWs are defined either by name (e.g., Colt AR-15) or features (i.e., fewer than two of the following...). That's all that matters.

edit -
This refers to the "Enforcement Notice." Said letter had even less effect on the Boston AWB. The AG has no authority WRT the city's law, the full text of which is here:

Follow the law and your conscience, not arbitrarily updated FAQs.
 
Last edited:
lol so a prosecutor is going to explain cmr940 and how the accused defrauded himself? [rofl]

doubt
No, but work in "not approved for sale" in any public or pre-trial discussion .... just like how the anti's tried (and failed) to make an issue out of the fact that Dicken was violating a mall rule by carrying. I'm not talking about charging someone for having a post-Healy Glock; just using it against them in subtle ways. That being said, I carry a Glock.

A competent court would prohibit any mentioning of it as it is prejudicial and irrelevant.
 
Seems to me like here’s the gist of the matter:

1. You can probably work around the letter of the law in Boston and justify it to *yourself*. AR-10s, BRN-180s, AK-74s, etc. are all “fine” by the letter of the law. I emailed GOAL about this and they agreed, with a caveat: being protected by the letter of the law is probably not sufficient to avoid prosecution by Massachusetts LE.

2. I saw an interesting argument represented elsewhere, and figured I’d duplicate it here. The rule of lentity “is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant, or to construe the statute against the state.” Arguably, since the Boston AWB contradicts itself on 1) the SKS (by exempting fixed-magazine rifles from the ban and banning the SKS) and 2) 6+ capacity pump action shotguns (by exempting “slide action” firearms but banning 6+ capacity shotguns by name), an individual who wanted to litigate either of these points would PROBABLY achieve a favorable verdict.

3) Because no one has been prosecuted under the Boston AWB (to the best knowledge of everyone on this forum, and elsewhere that I’ve read) there’s no case law or precedent to fall back on. By my view, that might be intentional - if they were to ever prosecute someone under the Boston AWB and lose, they’re almost certainly aware that everyone who chooses to abide by the Boston AWB as constituted would quickly pivot their collection to the clearer understanding of the Bylaw.

4) Because there’s no case law on the ambiguously -written Bylaw, and because no one has ever been charged, your risk tolerance is up to YOU. Some people will own AR-15s and feel comfortable, some will own AR-10s or AK-74s, and others still will only own M1 platform rifles, or others which are specifically not enumerated or “substantially identical” to enumerated platforms. The chances that you’re ever prosecuted for owning anything are astronomically low, but not zero. Risk-tolerate accordingly.

IANAL, and I don’t live in Boston yet, but I am going to law school in Boston starting this fall. My risk tolerance is pretty low, since my future bar passage and the rest of my career are contingent on not having criminal charges on my record. Now, that’s not to say that I won’t volunteer/fund a case as a plaintiff at the end of my law school tenure against the Boston AWB. In a post-Bruen world, that shit reeks.

Until then, PTR-91/HK G3 clones, M14/M1As, and Tavors are the name of the game for me.
 
As an interesting note, and a crosspost from another thread:

Suffolk DA’s office got back to me (I wasn’t expecting them to, but I am pleasantly surprised). This was in regard to their interpretation of the “substantially identical” language of the Boston AWB:

“Thank you for contacting our office. We do not issue permits for firearms or establish ownership rules or regulations. We do prosecute firearm offenses. I am not immediately aware of any prosecutions regarding a properly permitted individual in possession of a weapon banned by Boston’s bylaw. However, I’m told that, hypothetically, a person could be arrested if authorities discovered and determined a weapon to be “substantially similar” to the weapons you mentioned. The burden would then be on the Commonwealth to convince a jury that the weapon is indeed “substantially similar.” So, the jury would be the ultimate litmus test. I would encourage you to contact the City of Boston licensing authority.”

I also emailed Boston PD on the same question, and they refused to comment and told me to ask an attorney.

By my view, these emails in conjunction definitively say what you all have been preaching for years: “Make your best guess, we will charge you with what we want, but we’ve never charged someone with violating the Boston AWB. Good luck!”
 
The reality is that the police can arrest you if they want to. They can easily find something that you did that will provide grounds for an arrest. They really don't care if it holds up in court, as it's not going to cost them anything to jam you up.

The real answer is to avoid attracting the attention and the animosity of the police, so they don't jam you up.
 
The reality is that the police can arrest you if they want to. They can easily find something that you did that will provide grounds for an arrest. They really don't care if it holds up in court, as it's not going to cost them anything to jam you up.

The real answer is to avoid attracting the attention and the animosity of the police, so they don't jam you up.
This - the process is the punishment.
 
Back
Top Bottom