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

[cotesdurhone]

Hey all, kind of an interesting situation.

Years ago, I built an AR15 from a lower receiver I had, in Mass. It was in compliance with all laws, totally good to go. This was before the Maura Healy "reinterpretation" BS. I then moved to Ohio for a couple of years and brought said rifle. Then, I moved back to Mass, however I took the gun up to Vermont to live with some family, since I was living with a relative in Mass and I didn't have what I thought was a responsible way to store it. It's still in VT.

I now own a house, and I am wondering if I can bring that rifle back down into Mass. It is fully compliant with '94 AWB. It is NOT a pre-ban, however. I'd like to have the gun, I miss shooting AR15's and its a really well built rifle. However I'm not familiar with the current thought of AR15's in Mass other than they must be compliant with the AWB.

Any thoughts? I despise the ridiculous infringements, but I want to follow the law.

 

[Rick O'Shea]

I think your over thinking it..

 

[Horrible]

If you believe Mora's "re-interpretation" BS, then possession of an AR post Sept 1994 is illegal. If not, then as long as your rifle is MA AWB compliant (2 evil features and no more), which states it has been in shouldn't make a difference.

IANAL, therefore any information in this post should not be construed as legal advice, merely an opinion of the poster.

 

[apander]

Call it a Nike gun and Just Do It, nobody will know or care ! Don't Ask or Don't Tell !

 

[Mesatchornug]

If you believe Mora's "re-interpretation" BS, then possession of an AR post Sept 1994 is illegal. If not, then as long as your rifle is MA AWB compliant (ONE evil feature and no more), which states it has been in shouldn't make a difference.

IANAL, therefore any information in this post should not be construed as legal advice, merely an opinion of the poster.

One correction. (Two or more of the following...)

 

[pastera]

If you had in Mass then it's registered to you. Mass doesn't remove anything so unless you have paperwork showing you transferred it to an FFL Mass believes it's in your possession.
So bring it home and be done with it.

 

[Varmint]

I think your over thinking it..

/thread

 

[cotesdurhone]

Thanks everyone. I think I have my answer.

 

[MGnoob]

Delete this post and then just do it

 

[Tallahassee]

You worried about the pre healy BS?

As long as you don't forget to bring your balls back with you, you should be all set.

 

[TOM1960]

If you had in Mass then it's registered to you. Mass doesn't remove anything so unless you have paperwork showing you transferred it to an FFL Mass believes it's in your possession.
So bring it home and be done with it.

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.

 

[sschevy]

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.

He stated all the details very clearly in his post



I’m going with the purchased in mass , documented in mass, bring it home crowd

 

[IPSC_DRL]

See Maura? The propaganda/BS is working. The sheeps is scarred!

 

[Tartakovsky]

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.

 

[MGnoob]

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”
I definitely feel comfortable taking that check the bank and cashing it ….

Also for your information what you think counts as a grenade launcher in the assault weapons ban isn’t the kind of grenade launcher you think it is…

 

[DarthRevan]

Just whack Maura with a wet sausage and assert dominance.

f***ing do it.

 

[LLF]

Just whack Maura with a wet sausage and assert dominance.

f***ing do it.

I think she'd prefer to be whacked with a wet tuna fish

 

[BTSDOG]

 

[DarthRevan]

I think she'd prefer to be whacked with a wet tuna fish

That’s why it’s a sausage.

 

[Bigfudge16]

I think she'd prefer to be whacked with a wet tuna fish

Ah the infamous Furry Tuna

 

[babygorilla]

The See You Next Tuesday did not create a new law, nor even upheld it. It was just a news conference about her opinion of the law. Interpret the law YOUR way, not hers. But there are so many pussy gun owners and shops in this state it might as well have been a new law.......

 

[Asaltweapon]

OP IS GOING TO JAIL.

 

[E.Stoner]

What rifle? The end.

 

[AHM]

All of the bad legal advice in this thread
perfectly dovetails with OP's poor judgment in:

1. Not bringing all of his guns(*) into Massachusetts on Moving Day (even if he has to then temporarily store them in Vermont for a few years on Moving Night once he has become a resident of the state again),
2. Admitting this in an Intarweb forum so that he can't retroactively "remember" that he moved in with all the guns as a safe-harbor,
   • -and-
3. Asking for free Mass legal advice in the General Discussions forum instead of the Massachusetts Laws subforum.

(*) There's some edge case about high-capacity blah-blah not being covered by the "Just moved into the PRM? Now youse can't eFA-10 the best guns, because as an unlicensed prole, you can't file eFA-10's" safe-harbor. But I suspect that NES existed for many years before any Mass legal expert started trotting out that edge case. Furthermore, as usual odds are good that no one has ever been jacked up by getting caught noping past the edge case. Oops, see below.

On the other hand,
despite their relatively low post-count
OP probably is an actual operating operator -
so I'm not gonna post " Marsha".

Welcome back, @cotesdurhone.

 

[Cuz]

If you had in Mass then it's registered to you. Mass doesn't remove anything so unless you have paperwork showing you transferred it to an FFL Mass believes it's in your possession.
So bring it home and be done with it.

Sounds like the only evidence that it left the state is this post…

 

[Mesatchornug]

(*) There's some edge case about high-capacity blah-blah not being covered by the "Just moved into the PRM? Now youse can't eFA-10 the best guns, because as an unlicensed prole, you can't file eFA-10's" safe-harbor. But I suspect that NES existed for many years before any Mass legal expert started trotting out that edge case. Furthermore, as usual odds are good that no one has ever been jacked up by getting caught noping past the edge case.

@Rob Boudrie or @Len-2A Training will correct me, but I'm pretty sure that edge case was come to through someone landing on the wrong side of a court decision...

 

[DarthRevan]

All of the bad legal advice in this thread
perfectly dovetails with OP's poor judgment in:

1. Not bringing all of his guns(*) into Massachusetts on Moving Day (even if he has to then temporarily store them in Vermont for a few years on Moving Night once he has become a resident of the state again),
2. Admittingthis in an Intarweb forum so that he can't retroactively "remember" that he moved in with all the guns as a safe-harbor,
   • -and-
3. Asking for free Mass legal advice in the General Discussions forum instead of the Massachusetts Laws subforum.

(*) There's some edge case about high-capacity blah-blah not being covered by the "Just moved into the PRM? Now youse can't eFA-10 the best guns, because as an unlicensed prole, you can't file eFA-10's" safe-harbor. But I suspect that NES existed for many years before any Mass legal expert started trotting out that edge case. Furthermore, as usual odds are good that no one has ever been jacked up by getting caught noping past the edge case.

On the other hand,
despite their relatively low post-count
OP probably is an actual operating operator -
so I'm not gonna post " Marsha".

Welcome back, @cotesdurhone.

There comes a point where an unjust “law” must be ignored.

Caveat emptor

 

[Rob Boudrie]

@Rob Boudrie or @Len-2A Training will correct me, but I'm pretty sure that edge case was come to through someone landing on the wrong side of a court decision...

Commonwealth v. Cornelius

 

[Mesatchornug]

Commonwealth v. Cornelius

Thank you.

@AHM, it looks to be Dec. 2010.
Link for posterity: Commonwealth v. Cornelius, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 413 | Casetext Search + Citator

Relevant quote from the abstract:

however, satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in § 129C( j) does not provide a defense to a charge of violating G.L. c. 269, § 10(m), which prohibits the possession of a large capacity weapon without a license [419-420].

Now, the open question becomes: does an expired LTC provide such a defense for someone moving back after 2014?

 

[AHM]

@AHM, it looks to be Dec. 2010.
Link for posterity: Commonwealth v. Cornelius, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 413 | Casetext Search + Citator

(Wonder whether the NES Gun Lawyers could do better than Cornelius's counsel,
notwithstanding the case law).

Now, the open question becomes: does an expired LTC provide such a defense for someone moving back after 2014?

Good point.