-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Delete
- Thread starter crypto
- Start date
The problem is you'd have to get a PISTOL lower transferred into
MA, which may be next to impossible. According to BATFE regs, you
cannot use a rifle lower to build a pistol.
If you can't get an FFL to import an AR pistol lower, you could probably
fabricate one out of an 80% blank if you're that industrious. (BATFE
exempts people building stuff from scratch as long as you never sell
the gun to anyone else, and as long as the builder is not a prohibited
person).
Regardless of what route you choose, when the gun is done it will
have to be registered on an FA-10 here in MA. You would need
an LTC-A to posess it, as well. (I believe an AR pistol would easily
meet the definition of a large capacity handgun).
Aside from that, however, you are right. It'd have to be a postie
style setup. The biggest downer is the fact that I don't think "ban restricted"
AR pistols can have a barrel shroud or handguard up front around
the barrel. At least that's the way it was during the fed AWB.... if you
take a look, note the difference between Bushmasters "ban" pistols and
the ones they started selling after the ban. You'll note that the neutered
ones didn't really have a handguard; you had to hold onto the magwell
in front.
ex: http://www.gunblast.com/Bushmaster-Pistol.htm
vs: (look on bushmasters site at the new ones... youll note they have
shrouds and the like over the barrels).
-Mike
MA, which may be next to impossible. According to BATFE regs, you
cannot use a rifle lower to build a pistol.
If you can't get an FFL to import an AR pistol lower, you could probably
fabricate one out of an 80% blank if you're that industrious. (BATFE
exempts people building stuff from scratch as long as you never sell
the gun to anyone else, and as long as the builder is not a prohibited
person).
Regardless of what route you choose, when the gun is done it will
have to be registered on an FA-10 here in MA. You would need
an LTC-A to posess it, as well. (I believe an AR pistol would easily
meet the definition of a large capacity handgun).
Aside from that, however, you are right. It'd have to be a postie
style setup. The biggest downer is the fact that I don't think "ban restricted"
AR pistols can have a barrel shroud or handguard up front around
the barrel. At least that's the way it was during the fed AWB.... if you
take a look, note the difference between Bushmasters "ban" pistols and
the ones they started selling after the ban. You'll note that the neutered
ones didn't really have a handguard; you had to hold onto the magwell
in front.
ex: http://www.gunblast.com/Bushmaster-Pistol.htm
vs: (look on bushmasters site at the new ones... youll note they have
shrouds and the like over the barrels).
-Mike
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,579
- Likes
- 33,663
The key thing is that the received has never been assembled into a rifle - it does not pick up the pistol or rifle attribute under federal law until assembled into one of these two configurations.
Where it gets interesting is the state forms. Although dealers may legally transfer an AR lower without a LTC, FID or FA-10 very very few will do this as (a) the state "encourages" that FA10's be filed, and (b) the state will not put a written declaration in place confirming that stripped lowers are not, in fact, firearms or rifles.
Now, for the tricky part. Assuming you buy an AR lower on an FA10, it gets to the questions I cannot answer:
- Are you required to file an updated FA10 with the state?
- Will the existance of an FA10 for an AR "rifle" be uses as evidence the AR was once in rifle configuration?
- And the biggie: Although the item is being bought as a stripped lower, the dealer filing an FA10 will not be able to call it a handgun on the FA10 due to its absence from the EOPS certified as lab tested list. The 4473 will be filled out to match the FA10. While you might be able to write "stripped lower" on item #27 on the 4473, item #16 contains a checkbox for Type of firearm(s) being transferred: handgun, rifle or both. So... if you buy a stripped AR lower from a MA dealer in a one gun transaction you WILL be signing a federal form stating that you have a RIFLE, and would then be relying on the fact that the lower was never a rifle to substantiate the legality of this action.
I certainly wouldn't do this myself unless I could get a letter from the BATFE stating that it is permissible to build a handgun on a stripped lower that has never been assembled into a rifle, but which has been 4473'd with the rifle designation on the form.
Last edited:
When purchasing a stripped lower, there's no desigantion or nomenclature assigned to it... it's neither a rifle or pistol (at least according to fedral law).
However, if it had ever been assembled as a rifle, it cannot be converted into a pistol. The ATFs position has always been "once a rifle, always a rifle.
According to MA, a stripped reciver or frame isn't even a firearm.
The stumbling block is the MA AWB; part of the defintion which is...
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
According to that, only one banned feature is allowed.
Since it'a an AR-15 pistol you're asking about, the "Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip" is the allowable feature that is a given.
Some of the other features have to left off (barrel shroud, threaded barrel).
Staying under the 50oz weight is harder. During the federal ban, builders were
shaving off as much metal as they could, cutting ligthening slots/holes in the lowers, using lightweight parts, etc).
I don't know how much a Bushmaster Carbon-15 lower weighs, but, it's possible that could be a solution to the weight problem.
But... not all is lost just yet because part of the definition reads...
"Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the..."
During the ban, builders took advantage of those two words by permemently attaching the magazine to the reciever. The downside of that is the pistol has to be loaded from the top. You have to push-out the take-down pin, pivot the upper and load the magazine like it was a bolt action. The adavantage is now you can keep or add any of the other features named in the ban.
However, if it had ever been assembled as a rifle, it cannot be converted into a pistol. The ATFs position has always been "once a rifle, always a rifle.
According to MA, a stripped reciver or frame isn't even a firearm.
The stumbling block is the MA AWB; part of the defintion which is...
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
According to that, only one banned feature is allowed.
Since it'a an AR-15 pistol you're asking about, the "Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip" is the allowable feature that is a given.
Some of the other features have to left off (barrel shroud, threaded barrel).
Staying under the 50oz weight is harder. During the federal ban, builders were
shaving off as much metal as they could, cutting ligthening slots/holes in the lowers, using lightweight parts, etc).
I don't know how much a Bushmaster Carbon-15 lower weighs, but, it's possible that could be a solution to the weight problem.
But... not all is lost just yet because part of the definition reads...
"Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the..."
During the ban, builders took advantage of those two words by permemently attaching the magazine to the reciever. The downside of that is the pistol has to be loaded from the top. You have to push-out the take-down pin, pivot the upper and load the magazine like it was a bolt action. The adavantage is now you can keep or add any of the other features named in the ban.
I have a Professional Ordanace Carbon 15 pistol and it weights 3lbs unloaded (48oz). I have seen pics of the olympic ones during the ban and they had lots of metal cut from them. Here is a link to one that was made during the ban.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/OLY-OA-98.html. I think that it would be hard to stay under the weight.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/OLY-OA-98.html. I think that it would be hard to stay under the weight.
Uhh, then what about that little checkbox on the 4473 form? After
that's checked, then whatever is checked is whatever it is supposed
to be. I thought the feds considered the frame to be the firearm.
There is no checkbox for "stripped lower".
And according to BATFE regs, a Title I rifle can never become a
pistol. You can supposedly go the other way, though. (presumably
because the BG checks and so on are more stringent for a handgun
than a rifle).
IMO that just sounds too simple. There has to be a reason why numerous
companies create PISTOL marked AR-15 lowers. Otherwise, why bother
going through all the extra tooling expense/setup and so forth to do
so, if the dealer can just change the type upon transferring it. I would
think that "PISTOL" lowers in that sense would be totally unecessary if
some dumb federal law/opinion didn't require it.
Edit: Now looking into this more closely, it's not abundantly clear that any
"PISTOL" markings are required.... however, I still think "rug sweeping" the lower
through the FFL as a "rifle" would be violating federal law.
-Mike
Last edited:
Here's a few cites...
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter7.txt
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter78.txt
(Note: the last one refers to manufacturing an AOW, but if vertical foregrip were omitted, it would become a handgun/assault weapon. Point is, the ATF ackowledges that building another firearm (handgun), from a stripped rifle reciever is ok as long as it was never configured as a complete rifle).
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter7.txt
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter78.txt
(Note: the last one refers to manufacturing an AOW, but if vertical foregrip were omitted, it would become a handgun/assault weapon. Point is, the ATF ackowledges that building another firearm (handgun), from a stripped rifle reciever is ok as long as it was never configured as a complete rifle).
Then I stand corrected. The 2nd cite however, seems to be pretty
worthless as it's about as clear as mud and doesn't really explicitly say
that the device in question would become a handgun if it weren't for the
VFG.
-Mike
worthless as it's about as clear as mud and doesn't really explicitly say
that the device in question would become a handgun if it weren't for the
VFG.
-Mike
is it legal to buy a preban ar pistol out of state and have it shipped here?
No, not (a pistol) unless it's on the EOPS list and made prior to 10/21/98 (MGL, 9/13/94 for AWB).
The question is buying a "frame" which according to MGL is NOT A GUN, therefore NOT a pistol either.
The question is buying a "frame" which according to MGL is NOT A GUN, therefore NOT a pistol either.
lens...by "frame" do you mean preban pistol lower????
is it like other preban lowers? if assembled before the ban as a pistol it could be shipped here? if not could just a preban pistol lower be shipped here?
is it like other preban lowers? if assembled before the ban as a pistol it could be shipped here? if not could just a preban pistol lower be shipped here?
"frame" = just the serialized receiver. [regardless if a pistol or rifle]
Fed definition of a "pre-ban" was a gun that had once been build (or kitted) in "AW" configuration prior to 9/13/94. I don't think that MA has a clear definition, like the Feds used, but a safe bet is to treat it the same way you would have under the Fed ban. [Disclaimer - IANAL]
Fed definition of a "pre-ban" was a gun that had once been build (or kitted) in "AW" configuration prior to 9/13/94. I don't think that MA has a clear definition, like the Feds used, but a safe bet is to treat it the same way you would have under the Fed ban. [Disclaimer - IANAL]
I posted the second letter just to reemphasize the ATFs position that it's acceptable to build another category of firearm from a rifle receiver (and) as long as it had never been assembled as a complete rifle... once a rifle... always a rifle.
The ATF also has the same opinion WRT to full-auto firearms (once a machine gun... always a machine gun).
Oddly enough though, it's fine and dandy to use a pistol frame or receiver from a completed firearm to build a rifle/longarm.
I'm guessing that's the reason why manufacturers produced the "pistol" marked lowers you mentioned in your previous post. By doing so a person can swap-out parts at any time to build a rifle on the receiver and back to a pistol
again at their choosing. Marking and selling the lowers as "pistols", gives the builder some reassurance and protection from the ATF if the legality of their build is ever questioned.
Fooped
Resident HK Guru
So, it seems to be the Mass AWB that's really the wrench in the works here... Without it, we wouldn't have to worry about the weight or shroud issues, or the list prohibiting us from buying new factory-made ones.
Drat.
Drat.
IMO the best deal in MA if one REALLY wants an "AR pistol" is to take
a preban rifle/lower and then register it (federally) as an SBR, and throw
a folding stock on it. Then you get something thats dimensionally similar
to an AR pistol, but then you can legally use the stock on it as well, if you
like. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass, but the end product is a whole lot
"cooler" than an AR pistol is.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
-Mike
Would something like the California bullet button allow one to circumvent this restriction, since it would be a fixed magazine semi-automatic pistol? Or would the magazine need to be welded to the lower?
can anyone site a ordinance for this? Mass does not define what a 'detachable magazine' is. And according to ATF, the bullet button, makes the magazine no longer 'detachable'.
Last edited:
slap shot
NES Member
So, what's the latest opinion on ar pistols in mass? I'm thinking of machining an 80% lower into one since I don't have to worry about efa10 a homemade. If anyone had built one recently I'd really like to discuss offline. Thanks.
Legally you DO have to register it when built, but what you actually do is up to you.
Irza
NES Member
The problems with AR pistols in general in this state always rear their ugly head. You'll be machining the lower and upper down to basically a skeleton to make weight. I believe it's less than 3lbs or something ridiculous like that. Also the hand shroud needs to be removed unless it was a proprietary upper that was built for an AR pistol from the get go. (I'm sure I'll receive some heat for that one but that is how it was explained to me). It becomes too cumbersome to try to adhere to every little detail.
Orrrrr
You buy a preban OA93 pistol.
Orrrrr
You buy a preban OA93 pistol.
Or, letter of the law legal, build an AR pistol with a bullet button or ARMagLock
Mass has never defined what makes a magazine 'detachable' so it's up to your interpolation (and the arresting officer, and da, and prodecuter, and judge, etc)... that said, I belive it is letter of law legal...
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
The Bullet Button worked in California because a Code of California Regulations section explicitly excluded magazines that required a tool to remove from being within the purview of a detachable magazine. The California Assembly has since fixed that problem- though the creators of the Bullet Button have already announced a new solution which works, again, because of the specific wording used in California law.
