So is does this apply to any semi auto rife that's mag fed? Can you still get a Mini 14?
-
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***
Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers
- Thread starter CAR
- Start date
- Status
allen-1
NES Member
Georgia's got a booming economy and great gun laws. Kinda sucks for snowmobiling though...
Stryker
NES Member
I think that is completely unclear at the moment and I am guessing we won't see any clarifying message around it.
And may not be resolved until someone is specifically prosecuted...
IDK, I would like to think that I can use the upper that is being delivered tomorrow and the Form 1 I am waiting for on a SBR build (for which I have all the parts) - everything is purchased just not assembled.
I suppose I can file and FA10 tonight for the upper matched to one of my stripped lowers...
Globe:
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.
That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both.
In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so.
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.
That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both.
In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so.
[video=youtube_share;V9AbeALNVkk]http://youtu.be/V9AbeALNVkk[/video]
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
We will only remain unprosecuted as long as we remain in her good graces, that is some dictatorship crap right there
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Varmint
NES Member
I guess it depends on whether the eFA-10 will allow you to transfer an illegal weapon.
Even if it's not allowed, you could still transfer privately without eFA-10, but that'd be a bit risky I imagine.
We must focus on the written guidance not the press conference...if you own an AR you are exempt from any criminal status, you can transfer, de-neuter, enjoy what you own...it is clearly stated. I am not saying this doesn't suck, it sucks! But we must focus on the factual suck and not run around crazy talking about instantly being felons...we must understand what we are fighting against and use her words against her...as far as the stuff you own now, you have just been given carte blanch that you no longer need concern yourself with the configuration of your AssaultWeapon.
RockIt
Banned
Why in the world would you do something that stupid?
Wrong. It is now illegal to sell them.
Jconnor93
NES Member
From what I've read face to face is fine.
Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
OMG, "AR-15 type ammunition" So the remington 223 is now know as AR-15 ammo?
RandomBS
NES Member
Except it clearly states that the AG can alter the directive at any time she feels it. So when she finally feels its safe to go after people who already owned them, she will.
I guarantee you Republican-Lite Baker is going to back this measure.
Nothing she says can come to fruition, it's insanity. She clearly has no idea what laws are already on the books and clearly doesn't realize that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
It doesn't matter. The second it can fire a shot, the state can charge you with a felony for possession.
Varmint
NES Member
Even if you can do the eFA-10 tomorrow, they might at some point in the future change it so you can't transfer or register a semiauto.
Point is they can and will do anything they want at any time, legal or not, constitutional or not.
mibro
NES Member
This is very clever and likely has been planned for months or years by Bacon Hill lawyers.
The prior and accepted interpretation of the 1994 AWB was that "copies" of named rifles (e.g. Colt AR-15) meant rifles that included copies of specific design features of those rifles. Maura Healey's clever reinterpretation of the existing 1994 AWB extends the idea of "copies" beyond specific features to method of operation or functionality.
As I read the language of the 1994 AWB that someone posted earlier, this is in fact not a completely unreasonable interpretation of the law, despite it never having been interpreted that way before.
If she succeeds with this reinterpretation then any post-1994 semi-automatic rifle or lower receiver will become illegal to own or possess in Massachusetts despite her current assertions to the contrary.
This is serious sh!t going down in the Cradle of Liberty - ha!
The prior and accepted interpretation of the 1994 AWB was that "copies" of named rifles (e.g. Colt AR-15) meant rifles that included copies of specific design features of those rifles. Maura Healey's clever reinterpretation of the existing 1994 AWB extends the idea of "copies" beyond specific features to method of operation or functionality.
As I read the language of the 1994 AWB that someone posted earlier, this is in fact not a completely unreasonable interpretation of the law, despite it never having been interpreted that way before.
If she succeeds with this reinterpretation then any post-1994 semi-automatic rifle or lower receiver will become illegal to own or possess in Massachusetts despite her current assertions to the contrary.
This is serious sh!t going down in the Cradle of Liberty - ha!
Last edited:
F
Finalygotabeltfed
Arguing over where the deck chairs should be, when you should be gridlocking the city of Boston. Best done on a Friday, mid day into the evening commute/exodus.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are Mini-14s still gtg?
That guidance was sent to FFL dealers, not peons.
Prime rate dictatorship, rule of whim, not law, what else is new?
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,320
- Likes
- 33,254
Yeah. That's gonna hold up in court. LOL
"No, your honor. I have firm footing that they are illegal. But I don't want to prosecute these people. I'm calling it the 'My gal-pal Hillary' Defense."
Really surprised that GOAL hasn't even sent a "hey, we are working on this" email as yet. If it wasn't for Carl, I'd not even know about it.
Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?
If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. But, as a matter of her discretion as a prosecutor, the Attorney General will not enforce the assault weapons ban against those who possess or transfer a copy or duplicate of a listed Assault weapon, if the weapon was obtained prior to July 20, 2016, when she issued the guidance.
Does this mean no more pinned stocks? Next time I burn out a barrel, for the replacement I can screw down a flash hider and skip the pin and weld?
On the scary side, if you ever get pulled over and don't have a receipt proving date of acquisition, hello felony charges.
Yes, I'm pissed off about the 2A issue. What's really f-ing scary is the proliferation of B Hussein-style executive order directives. Worst period EVER in American history for stomping on freedom and abusing power via such means, not to mention abusing 3-letter agencies as henchmen. This is a lot like the horrendous abuse of power via over-interpretation of the Lacey Act. "Hey, the law was already there- we are just clarifying what it means and ensuring it will finally be enforced to protect the people."
If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. But, as a matter of her discretion as a prosecutor, the Attorney General will not enforce the assault weapons ban against those who possess or transfer a copy or duplicate of a listed Assault weapon, if the weapon was obtained prior to July 20, 2016, when she issued the guidance.
Does this mean no more pinned stocks? Next time I burn out a barrel, for the replacement I can screw down a flash hider and skip the pin and weld?
On the scary side, if you ever get pulled over and don't have a receipt proving date of acquisition, hello felony charges.
Yes, I'm pissed off about the 2A issue. What's really f-ing scary is the proliferation of B Hussein-style executive order directives. Worst period EVER in American history for stomping on freedom and abusing power via such means, not to mention abusing 3-letter agencies as henchmen. This is a lot like the horrendous abuse of power via over-interpretation of the Lacey Act. "Hey, the law was already there- we are just clarifying what it means and ensuring it will finally be enforced to protect the people."
Jesus, maybe give the poor bastard a couple hours.
mibro
NES Member
There is nothing insane about it at all. It is diabolically clever and very likely is the result of hundreds or thousands of hours of legal review.
Great quote lifted from the comments on thefirearmblog, paraphrased:
So, an assault weapon is defined as a firearm that is particularly dangerous by virtue of a set of specific features. Now, you are saying that those features don't matter. Um...
So, an assault weapon is defined as a firearm that is particularly dangerous by virtue of a set of specific features. Now, you are saying that those features don't matter. Um...
- Status
Similar threads
