Fixed Magazine AR law compliance

[EBroughal480]

I currently own a bought/assembled fixed mag “other”. I built it utilizing mostly BCM parts, but decided on a DSI fixed mag stripped lower. This was before the flood gates opened on standard lowers purchased as others. Although I like the rifle the lower just doesnt feel as solid as the rest of the rifle, but I have purchased a few stripped “others” for future builds. With a myriad of options on the market, mostly for California compliance, what kind of options are on the table for CT? I have the Cross Armory compliance kit in mind, but others exist such as the AR mag lock, Hogue freedomfighter, Patriot pin, etc They all say they meet the law requirements/language of multiple states with AWBs including CT, but specifically mention they are not approved by the respective DOJs. Does anybody have any insight into the laws in regard to these products? I understand this can all be avoided, but with a pending decision on pistol braces by the ATF Im trying to stay on the “right” side of the law.

 

[dcmdon]

I would not count on one of these add on mag mounting systems with the quick pull pins to keep me legal.

The CT DESPP has refused to answer questions on these since 2013. So the only real answer is that nobody knows what the answer will be until someone is arrested and prosecuted. Do you want to be the test case.

I'd stick with 2 approaches.

1) Other - buy/build an "other". If the ATF decides against them, then just SBR it. It will be a SBR per fed law and an Other per CT law. Whats another $200 in the great scheme of things if the ATF changes its mind yet again.

2) Build with a true FIXED mag lower. This is a lower that does not support a mag release button and cant' be easily converted to use one.
JC Arms is owned by a great guy who is actually a local cop in MA. His lowers are 100% legal.

 

[drgrant]

2) Build with a true FIXED mag lower. This is a lower that does not support a mag release button and cant' be easily converted to use one.
JC Arms is owned by a great guy who is actually a local cop in MA. His lowers are 100% legal.

As far as I could tell the JC arms lowers are actually convertible. On the other hand, If I had to own a gun that would require a completely blocked lower II wouldn't even bother building it up to begin with. For those reading I certainly am not indicting the product as he actually underwrote the legal defense of a guy that got busted with an AR pistol built off his product, and the dude ended up winning.

 

[MAJoe]

As far as I could tell the JC arms lowers are actually convertible. On the other hand, If I had to own a gun that would require a completely blocked lower II wouldn't even bother building it up to begin with. For those reading I certainly am not indicting the product as he actually underwrote the legal defense of a guy that got busted with an AR pistol built off his product, and the dude ended up winning.

Is there anything even available that satisfies the "not readily convertible" language?

OP, agreed with the above in that I wouldn't trust any of the CA devices. CA has very specific language which these devices address. I wouldn't rely on them for legal compliance outside of CA. Think similar to how the "others" are treated in CT. They work because of the definitions in CT law, and to my knowledge, in no other ban state would they work.

 

[EBroughal480]

I definitely do not want to be a test case, not with a young family depending on me. I am not at all versed on the particular language specifying a “fixed magazine” here in CT. As far as the Possible pending pistol brace decision... If braces are outlawed completely by the ATF, and not grandfathered in such as with bump stocks, how would you federally be able to SBR it? How could it be legal as a CT “other” with a federally outlawed, but massively state compliant feature? Seems the federal/state laws would conflict. I have been to the JC Arms shop, he makes a great product, but as with almost everyone else Im always looking for better options. Owning such a fixed mag lower is not all its cracked up to be. They operate just as expected, but the mean arms speed loaders can be a hassle. Lets not talk about double feeds either as they can be a troubling situation to clear, but beggars cant be choosers. I had registered AWs in CT as I was born and raised here, but moved to MA for 5 years. I was not allowed to keep them when I moved back to the peoples republic of CT.

 

[dcmdon]

Is there anything even available that satisfies the "not readily convertible" language?

OP, agreed with the above in that I wouldn't trust any of the CA devices. CA has very specific language which these devices address. I wouldn't rely on them for legal compliance outside of CA. Think similar to how the "others" are treated in CT. They work because of the definitions in CT law, and to my knowledge, in no other ban state would they work.

The JC Arms is NOT readily convertible. I am 110% sure of this.

 

[EddieCoyle]

There was a recent court case in MA involving a JC Arms lower. The ruling was that it was NOT an "assault weapon". I don't know how you'd fare in CT though.

I know the rifles that I build are not "readily convertible". You'd need a milling machine and a handful of replacement parts. If that's readily convertible, then anything is readily convertible to anything else.

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

Correct me if necessary but my understanding of the case involving JC Arms was a dismissal in a district court. If that is correct it isn't much of a decision and would be a weak defense as a precedent in a different district. I am not a lawyer.
I also have owned JC Arms and it appeared to me to be convertible with $10 worth of parts and a hand drill. Given how Mass courts have little problem bending the English language who knows what would be considered not "readily convertible"? The DSI on the other hand would require time on a milling machine.

 

[kowal]

@joe1231913 - Joe, any comments direct from the manufacturer of the JC Arms lower?

 

[EBroughal480]

I understand how the world works and the vague legalese of how laws are written. Is CT law written saying “not readily convertible”? Being an electrician by trade and borrowing my interpretation from the NEC’s definition of readily accessible, needing tools including a drill and replacement parts would mean not readily convertible.

The NEC’s definition of readily accessible states: “capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to actions such as to use tools, to climb over or remove obstacles, or to resort to portable ladders and so forth.”

Mean arms has their MA Lock which replaces the magazine eject button and spring with an assembly. As you torque the bolt down the head shears off leaving the magazine permanently fixed. This is essentially the exact method JC Arms uses, except you can buy the part for $20 and do it at home.

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

JC Arms also installs a screw or pin under the bolt release and may do other things I didn't detect. As far as legal determination of word meanings realize that while Ma law clearly state a firearm by definition must be capable of discharging a projectile they convicted someone for a handgun which had a missing or broken firing pin. The decision stated the replacement of that part was trivial and didn't exempt the device from being a firearm.

 

[joe1231913]

My name is Joe, and I own/operate JC Arms. I wanted to make a few comments and address some of the concerns. It was a district court case, not an SJ case. So while there isnt case law, there is what we call persuasive authority as a result of my case. it should also be noted case law is decided because of interpretations that favor both sides of the argument. The fact that there was no logical argument for the prosecution to use for an appeal says alot. I funded the defense of my customer who was charged, and I submitted testimony on behalf of my product. The judge felt very strongly that the way I manufacture my firearms fall well within the general laws. Because of my case there has been several other departments (2 that I have personally spoken to) who have elected NOT to charge someone when a JC Arms pistol was recovered as a result of a restraining order and domestic issue.

I am also a career police officer and former federal officer, and would not risk my career by selling something that I wasn't positive of. My attorney had met with the AG’s office prior to me manufacturing these items.

Feel free to tag me here and ask questions if need be.

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

From the horse's mouth and the best information to be had

 

[Shawnyc]

And that is why I went with a JC Arms for my pistol build.

 

[MAJoe]

My name is Joe, and I own/operate JC Arms. I wanted to make a few comments and address some of the concerns. It was a district court case, not an SJ case. So while there isnt case law, there is what we call persuasive authority as a result of my case. it should also be noted case law is decided because of interpretations that favor both sides of the argument. The fact that there was no logical argument for the prosecution to use for an appeal says alot. I funded the defense of my customer who was charged, and I submitted testimony on behalf of my product. The judge felt very strongly that the way I manufacture my firearms fall well within the general laws. Because of my case there has been several other departments (2 that I have personally spoken to) who have elected NOT to charge someone when a JC Arms pistol was recovered as a result of a restraining order and domestic issue.

I am also a career police officer and former federal officer, and would not risk my career by selling something that I wasn't positive of. My attorney had met with the AG’s office prior to me manufacturing these items.

Feel free to tag me here and ask questions if need be.

Thank you. Greatly appreciate you 1. Weighing in on this thread and 2. Strongly supporting the shooting community and your customers.

Ditto what Shawnyc said. I'll have one of these in my safe soon too.

 

[dcmdon]

There was a recent court case in MA involving a JC Arms lower. The ruling was that it was NOT an "assault weapon". I don't know how you'd fare in CT though.

I know the rifles that I build are not "readily convertible". You'd need a milling machine and a handful of replacement parts. If that's readily convertible, then anything is readily convertible to anything else.

He would fare just fine. Both the CT law and MA law predicate a rifle or pistol being an assault weapon on 2 factors.
1) Semiautomatic
2) detachable magazine.

It must have BOTH of those features before any of the other factors even apply.

The JC Arms lower isn't some "nod and a wink" fixed mag lower. Its absolutely truly fixed.

 

[roneytwinturbo]

hi all, i have been looking at mass.gov and something still pops to mind when i am looking into building one of these scary weapons. Attached, you can see i highlighted that it clearly says “a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of”. It looks to me like you can build one that accepts a mag as long as you have a fixed stock or better yet, adjustable pistol brace (to eliminate the “folding or telescoping stock”).

so I believe you would need to have three variables to be considered a assault weapon, a semiautomatic rifle that has
1) detachable mag
2) pistol grip
3) ???

emphasize on the quote above “ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of”

 

[dcmdon]

Yes. But your point is still valid. The only difference is that MA allows one evil feature. (on a rifle its folding/collapsing stock, threaded bbl, pistol grip, bayonet lug, threaded bbl, flash hider) and CT allows zero before a rifle is considered to be an AW.

Remember, a rifle needs to be semi-auto AND fed by a detachable mag before any of the other stuff even applies.

A rifle with a fixed mag CAN NOT be an AW (In CT or MA) regardless of any other features. So a fixed mag rifle can have every other evil feature you can imagine. Including being semi-auto.

Similarly. A firearm that isn't semi auto Can Not be an AW. It can have any other combination of features you want.

 

[EBroughal480]

dcmdon, I understand you have moved out of state, but are still considered the foremost CT law expert on these forums And I appreciate your words of wisdom. Are “Others” allowed to have threaded barrels? I did a search and could not come up with anything definitive. Just for clarification I am referring to a traditionally built other and not a fixed mag other as in the thread title.

 

[JAD]

Yes. But your point is still valid. The only difference is that MA allows one evil feature. (on a rifle its folding/collapsing stock, threaded bbl, pistol grip, bayonet lug, threaded bbl, flash hider) and CT allows zero before a rifle is considered to be an AW.

Remember, a rifle needs to be semi-auto AND fed by a detachable mag before any of the other stuff even applies.

A rifle with a fixed mag CAN NOT be an AW (In CT or MA) regardless of any other features. So a fixed mag rifle can have every other evil feature you can imagine. Including being semi-auto.

Similarly. A firearm that isn't semi auto Can Not be an AW. It can have any other combination of features you want.

(Color added for emphasis)

Incorrect.

A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine would be an assault weapon under two circumstances:

1) If it had a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds

2) If it had an overall length less than 30 inches.

 

[dcmdon]

Can you please provide citations. Based on these I don't see that as the case.

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121

malegislature.gov

Text - H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

Text for H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

www.congress.gov

 

[JAD]

Can you please provide citations. Based on these I don't see that as the case.

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121

malegislature.gov

Text - H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

Text for H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

www.congress.gov

I'm perplexed as to why people in this thread continuously link the former federal AWB from 1994 when discussing either CT or MA laws, instead of posting relevant excerpts from state laws.

I was referring to Connecticut, which has been subject to stricter (and different) definition of assault weapons since 2013.

See 53-202a(E)(i)and(ii). Unlike the features in (E)(I)through(E)(V), they are not subject to the prerequisite requirement that the semi-automatic firearm have a detachable magazine. Per PA13-220, the former feature list (as effective on 1JAN2013) is applicable to any semi-automatic features that are not banned by the definitions adopted by the legislature in PA 13-3 (53-202a(E)(ix))

(E) Any semiautomatic firearm regardless of whether such firearm is listed in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of this subdivision, and regardless of the date such firearm was produced, that meets the following criteria:

(i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
(I) A folding or telescoping stock;
(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
(III) A forward pistol grip;
(IV) A flash suppressor;  or
(V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher;  or
(ii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the ability to accept more than ten rounds;  or
(iii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than thirty inches;  or

(ix) Any semiautomatic firearm that meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013; or

 

[dcmdon]

I brainfarted and thought we were discussing MA law.

In that case referencing fed law is very relevant since the MA law doesn't give complete definitions of AWs. Rather it references the federal law.

But that doesn't change the fact that, I can't find any citations to support your claims re CT law. Which is what we are actually talking about. Could you please provide citations to support your below statements. .

But my question

(Color added for emphasis)

Incorrect.

A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine would be an assault weapon under two circumstances:

1) If it had a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds

2) If it had an overall length less than 30 inches.

 

[JAD]

I brainfarted and thought we were discussing MA law.

In that case referencing fed law is very relevant since the MA law doesn't give complete definitions of AWs. Rather it references the federal law.

But that doesn't change the fact that, I can't find any citations to support your claims re CT law. Which is what we are actually talking about. Could you please provide citations to support your below statements. .

But my question

Look at the post above the one I quoted for quotes from CT statutes.

53-202a(E)(i) defines any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds as an assault weapon.

53-202a(E)(ii) defines any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with an overall length under 30 inches as an assault weapon. Note that this subdivision does not differentiate against either detachable or fixed magazine rifles and thus would apply to both.

 

[dcmdon]

Thank you. I learned something.

This is interesting in that the CGS § 53a-3 (18) also define any firearm with a barrel length of less than 12" as a "pistol or revolver".

 

[dcmdon]

I'm going off in another direction, but both MA and CT law define a firearm as "something from which a shot may be discharged"

MA has interpreted that to mean that a stripped receiver or frame. (whatever is the "firearm" per fed law) is in fact NOT a firearm until it is built into something capable of "discharging a shot". This has the curious effect of removing the requirment to complete any state paperwork when you are doing a secondary transfer of a frame or receiver.

CT has not gone down that path.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

MA has interpreted that to mean that a stripped receiver or frame. (whatever is the "firearm" per fed law) is in fact NOT a firearm until it is built into something capable of "discharging a shot".

"... or capable with minor repair or adjustment....", so one cannot just remove the firing pin from a 1911 or AR and sell it as an unregulated item at the state level.

 

[dcmdon]

Which is why I said "stripped".

I think we are clear that a fully stripped receiver or frame is not considered to be a firearm in MA.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Which is why I said "stripped".

I think we are clear that a fully stripped receiver or frame is not considered to be a firearm in MA.

Absolutely true. I didn't want someone to think that making a firearm non-operational was sufficient to make it a non-gun in MA. I realize you already knew this detail, but the wording could be taken to imply otherwise.

Also, the MA AG has declared that a stripped lower is a "substantially similar gun" to an AR15. Although just an ex-rectus opinion of hers, most dealers act as if it has the force of law. It would be an interesting case to try, with a charge of having a "substantially similar" weapon, but clear MA precedent that the substantially similar item is not a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

And to be strictly technical, only a handgun is a firearm in MA unless possessed on school property in which case other types of guns transubstantiate into firearms. Naturally, a MA "Firearms ID Card" does not allow one to buy or posses a "firearm" (using the official MGL definition) in MA. But then, we park on driveways and drive on parkways.

 

[dcmdon]

I have an email from Michaela Dunne of the FRB telling me that a stripped receiver is not a firearm or rifle. I'm good with that.