Can I bring a Mass compliant AR15 back into the state? Odd situation

[cotesdurhone]

Depends where he purchased it. If he bought it out of state, it may be MA compliant but no record of purchase in MA. He should bring it to his home, lock it in his safe and not worry about it.

Let me further complicate this (or actually, simplify it): I didn't buy this gun in Mass, I bought a lower receiver in a free state, and then built the AR before I moved to Mass. So I never "registered" it, as the law as I understood it then does not require that.

I specifically bought and made this gun before I moved here all those years ago to comply with the law AND not have to "register". But then I moved, and then moved back, hence the complication.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Let me further complicate this (or actually, simplify it): I didn't buy this gun in Mass, I bought a lower receiver in a free state, and then built the AR before I moved to Mass. So I never "registered" it, as the law as I understood it then does not require that.

I specifically bought and made this gun before I moved here all those years ago to comply with the law AND not have to "register". But then I moved, and then moved back, hence the complication.

IANAL but never gave credence to the AG's screed. Therefore in your situation, moving back with it . . . I wouldn't think twice about it. But that is just me . . . I try to abide by the law, but I don't watch news conferences and don't receive 1st class Mail screeds from the AG!

 

[cotesdurhone]

IANAL but never gave credence to the AG's screed. Therefore in your situation, moving back with it . . . I wouldn't think twice about it. But that is just me . . . I try to abide by the law, but I don't watch news conferences and don't receive 1st class Mail screeds from the AG!

Thanks, I feel the same way. I try to abide by the law, even if I disagree, but they sure don't make it easy. I suspect thats the point!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Expired LTCs remain a civil, not criminal, offense unless you (a) become ineligible to have an LTC; (b) Have had the LTC revoked for any reason other than failure to file change of address or (c) have been denied an LTC or LTC renewal (which is why PDs are trained to keep a record of all denials). Moving out of and back into MA has nothing to do with it - it fact moving out does not automagically expire your LTC despite the claims of many people who are universally unable to cite a law or court decision backing up that position.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be "Is possession of a high cap mag or gun prosecutable for someone with an expired LTC-B?" (My guess would be yes, but it would disappear into CWOF/plea deal land so we will never really know)

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thanks, I feel the same way. I try to abide by the law, even if I disagree, but they sure don't make it easy. I suspect thats the point!

A late member of NES (attorney) compiled all the MA gun laws into a book prior to the 2014 law additions/changes and it was 200 pgs long without any editorializing. My expertise is MA gun law, but I'll readily admit that it is complicated and in a few places there are contradictions, plus areas where interpretations don't follow the written law, etc.

IANAL but do not believe that a press conference, a letter, and an ever-changing FAQ make laws.

 

[enbloc]

My only advice is: Be careful transporting the rifle in a dufflebag through Boston. Supposedly they know when they look "heavy"...

 

[Len-2A Training]

Expired LTCs remain a civil, not criminal, offense

The way that law is written is interesting. It ORDERS the officers to confiscate said expired LTC and return it to the original issuing authority. So when you go to court, you couldn't prove that you had an expired LTC. I'm sure that the LTC would have "disappeared" and not be able to be entered as evidence. It seems to me to be intentional and as a minimum, prevent you from a second bite of that apple . . . if you don't plead out to the first bite.

 

[FPrice]

When did you EFA10 it? If you have documented proof that you owned it in MA before Healey, I’d feel comfortable leaning on that. Anything you owned in MA and FA10’ed is on record in MIRCS. Healey said she would not go after anyone who owned these post94 rifles owned/possessed before 7/16 so long as they are devoid of folding/collapsing stocks, no bayonet lug, no grenade/rocket launcher attachments, and no flash hider/threaded barrel that can readily accept a flash hider/flash suppressor. IANAL.

I don't think the OP has stated if it had been "registered" via FA-10 or whatever.

He said he built it and that it was complaint, not that it was in the system.

Unless I missed that.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I don't think the OP has stated if it had been "registered" via FA-10 or whatever.

He said he built it and that it was complaint, not that it was in the system.

Unless I missed that.

A later post makes it sound like he took careful steps to have lawfully avoided recording the rifle.

 

[FPrice]

A later post makes it sound like he took careful steps to have lawfully avoided recording the rifle.

Thanks. I did miss that.

 

[cotesdurhone]

I don't think the OP has stated if it had been "registered" via FA-10 or whatever.

He said he built it and that it was complaint, not that it was in the system.

Unless I missed that.

A later post makes it sound like he took careful steps to have lawfully avoided recording the rifle.

This is correct. When I initially moved to Mass, I followed the law as it was written in regards to registration.

 

[FPrice]

This is correct. When I initially moved to Mass, I followed the law as it was written in regards to registration.

.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The way that law is written is interesting. It ORDERS the officers to confiscate said expired LTC and return it to the original issuing authority. So when you go to court, you couldn't prove that you had an expired LTC. I'm sure that the LTC would have "disappeared" and not be able to be entered as evidence. It seems to me to be intentional and as a minimum, prevent you from a second bite of that apple . . . if you don't plead out to the first bite.

One could always get a copy notarized as a "true and correct copy". Plus, it is doubtful the FRB would be willing to engage in a conspiracy to purge the historical records that are almost certainly kept in their database.

Ok, the LTC is forwarded to the issuing authority. Can the IA revoke or suspend an expired license? If not, they authority cannot void the protection unless the applicant applies for a renewal.

 

[Mesatchornug]

In other words, you did not register it. Since you brought it in with you.

But you then removed it from the state when you moved.

Now you want to bring it back under the same conditions as when you you previously lived here. But the law, IIRC, does not allow someone to bring such rifles in at this time.

I normally defer to @Len-2A Training as to interpretations of the laws. But I would hate to be the test case for this myself.

Cite?

 

[Len-2A Training]

.

Cite?

There is NO written law making them illegal.

There hasn't been a known test case and my non-lawyer take is that there never will be as they would lose in court due to the BATFE experts that could blow up the AG BS in a heartbeat. All those Tech Branch letters stating that mods that met the Clinton Ban were acceptable would blow any case out of the water, assuming the defendant had a competent firearms attorney.

 

[Randy Lahey]

Why would anyone move back here?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is NO written law making them illegal.

There hasn't been a known test case and my non-lawyer take is that there never will be as they would lose in court due to the BATFE experts that could blow up the AG BS in a heartbeat. All those Tech Branch letters stating that mods that met the Clinton Ban were acceptable would blow any case out of the water, assuming the defendant had a competent firearms attorney.

... and an honest judge.

 

[AHM]

... and an honest judge.

Now you're talkin'...

 

[Tartakovsky]

There is NO written law making them illegal.

There hasn't been a known test case and my non-lawyer take is that there never will be as they would lose in court due to the BATFE experts that could blow up the AG BS in a heartbeat. All those Tech Branch letters stating that mods that met the Clinton Ban were acceptable would blow any case out of the water, assuming the defendant had a competent firearms attorney.

Hi Len,

Could you (or anyone with access) share “all those branch letters“ stating that modifications that removed characteristic features lawfully rendered the weapons non-assault weapons and as such federally AWB-compliant/legal?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Hi Len,

Could you (or anyone with access) share “all those branch letters“ stating that modifications that removed characteristic features lawfully rendered the weapons non-assault weapons and as such federally AWB-compliant/legal?

Sorry, no. I didn't save them. Someone named Bardwell had a server full of them.I think that it might be out there on another server somewhere.

 

[Broc]

When did you EFA10 it? If you have documented proof that you owned it in MA before Healey, I’d feel comfortable leaning on that. Anything you owned in MA and FA10’ed is on record in MIRCS. Healey said she would not go after anyone who owned these post94 rifles owned/possessed before 7/16 so long as they are devoid of folding/collapsing stocks, no bayonet lug, no grenade/rocket launcher attachments, and no flash hider/threaded barrel that can readily accept a flash hider/flash suppressor. IANAL.

"Healey said"