I need some specifics about the MA AWB

42!

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
12,294
Likes
13,290
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 0
I've got a meeting tomorrow with my Rep and will be discussing a number of issues, mostly local stuff, but I will be bringing up Healey's actions and the AWB.

When I meet with someone like this I like to be very sure of my facts, verifiable facts. So last night I'm reading through all of the firearms sections of MGL C140, making notes and getting together my examples. But I could use a little help putting together specific examples of how the current AR variant MSR is not a "copy or duplicate" of the "Colt AR-15".

Obviously the name is different, and I believe there are differences in the internal components. I thought I heard there was a change in the receiver as well. but I'm not familiar enough with the original "Colt AR-15" and what has changed to point out specifics.

The other named firearms defined as assault weapons appear to be selective fire, so the differences are obvious.

I'm hoping for some helpful examples from NES. But for those that just want to rant and be unhelpful. You are certainly within you rights to do so, but how about we keep it constructive and polite until tomorrow. I've got enough BS in my life right now without having to deal with more BS from people who have given up and just want to rant.
 
AFAIK there were cases during the 94-04 AWB that essentially addressed this question. there were also ATF guidances/statesments issued on it. personally i would try to stick to the precedence and focus less on the actually details of the rifle. while you and I are rifle nerds, the average fool out there is clueless so legal precedence is probably the strongest argument.
 
The problem with what Healey did isn't with strict interpretation of the statute, it's that she's going against literally a generation of established law and legal understanding from the US congress, the MA legislature, several previous AGs, every other AG in the country and the ATF.

That "new interpretation" against all precedent since the very beginning of the AWB in '94, turns 10s of thousands of MA residents into felons. The fact that she's choosing not to enforce the guidance (whatever the hell that means) on some of us doesn't make it OK, because by her words, we're still felons, (even if she doesn't prosecute)

That kind of arbitrary enforcement of serious mallum prohibitum laws is what makes a totalitarian state.


Then there's the problem of the US Constitution: Article 1, sections 9 and 10 both say, "no ex-post facto laws". What's she's done is a direct violation of that, because we're all felons *now* for doing something that wasn't a crime when we did it. (buy, posses, sell, etc)

I'd stress the non 2a parts of The Constitution, and that she's going against *SO MUCH* established law and precedent.

It's probably also worth noting that the number of crimes committed with rifles is *staggeringly* low, and the ones committed with "assault weapons" is even lower than that. There's no harm to fix here, it's entirely a political stunt.
 
Squib308 said:
AFAIK there were cases during the 94-04 AWB that essentially addressed this question. there were also ATF guidances/statesments issued on it. personally i would try to stick to the precedence and focus less on the actually details of the rifle. while you and I are rifle nerds, the average fool out there is clueless so legal precedence is probably the strongest argument.
Click to expand...
.
Agreed, I need LINKS, help please. I'm searching but having trouble finding.
 
Squib308 said:
AFAIK there were cases during the 94-04 AWB that essentially addressed this question. there were also ATF guidances/statesments issued on it. personally i would try to stick to the precedence and focus less on the actually details of the rifle. while you and I are rifle nerds, the average fool out there is clueless so legal precedence is probably the strongest argument.
Click to expand...

I'd strongly agree with that. It's much easier to argue legal, accepted presendce than fine points of operation and rifle design.

In terms of links, i got nothing, but I don't think that you need to go and dig up obscure rulings. You may be more successful just keeping it simple and links to widely available public info, i.e. the AWB language has been on the books for over two decades and no one so far has "reinterpreted" on a whim.
 
You might also want to mention that ma facilitated making us felons by approving the fa10's. If the rifles are illegal, why didn't they reject the forms?
 
All great comments and you have to just believe me that I've got it covered with regard to the AG going outside her authority and how it was nothing more than a political stunt. I'm just looking for that one more detail that will help. I'm talking to a gun owner, even if he is a Dem, and he isn't stupid. Any point I can make that is not a matter of someones opinion or interpretation will help.
 
If the guy is the gun owner that changes things a bit. How about a mention that the list of copycat weapons is not an exhaustive one ... I don't know if I should provide examples for Mora here.

In terms of copycatting, I don't think that you can make that case, every firearms copycats all the best features from other firearms. There is a evolutionary progression of designs. AR15 was never a military issue weapon, so all the descendants should not be mixed together with designs that started as military contracts ... that probably makes no sense, I'm talking out loud.
 
Important notes:

-There is a specific features test (flash hider, grenade launcher, pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc) in the legislation (Federal '94, MA adopted '98)

-The ATF issued guidance on the federal law counter to her notice, the former AGs of MA followed the adopted federal now MA law and allowed these rifles

-The "guidance/enforcement notice" features test was considered by the legislature for the 98 bill, and FAILED TO PASS - instead adopted the '94 Federal features test

-The "logic" question: My Crown Victoria has the same motor as an F150, is it a pickup truck or a copy of a pickup truck? My explorer has the same motor/trans

-General executive powers abuses, failure to fulfill legal FOIA obligations, felons-in-waiting, etc

-These are the most popular modern sporting rifles in the country
 
one-eyed Jack said:
Take a copy of the Mass FA laws. Jack.
Click to expand...

I have 30 pages of the MA laws with comments. I edited out the changes that don't go into affect until 2021 and the sections that aren't really relevant (i.e. stuff on OC spray and tasers etc.), I've even rehearsed my arguments. I'm all about being as prepared as possible.
 
Boris said:
If the guy is the gun owner that changes things a bit. How about a mention that the list of copycat weapons is not an exhaustive one ... I don't know if I should provide examples for Mora here.

In terms of copycatting, I don't think that you can make that case, every firearms copycats all the best features from other firearms. There is a evolutionary progression of designs. AR15 was never a military issue weapon, so all the descendants should not be mixed together with designs that started as military contracts ... that probably makes no sense, I'm talking out loud.
Click to expand...

Focus. I'm addressing only the specifically named "Colt AR-15", feel free to PM me.
 
Frizzle Fry said:
Important notes:

-There is a specific features test (flash hider, grenade launcher, pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc) in the legislation (Federal '94, MA adopted '98)

-The ATF issued guidance on the federal law counter to her notice, the former AGs of MA followed the adopted federal now MA law and allowed these rifles

-The "guidance/enforcement notice" features test was considered by the legislature for the 98 bill, and FAILED TO PASS - instead adopted the '94 Federal features test

-The "logic" question: My Crown Victoria has the same motor as an F150, is it a pickup truck or a copy of a pickup truck? My explorer has the same motor/trans

-General executive powers abuses, failure to fulfill legal FOIA obligations, felons-in-waiting, etc

-These are the most popular modern sporting rifles in the country
Click to expand...

I've got this covered. I'm dealing with the specifically named "Colt AR-15", feature test does not apply. Only the "copies or duplicates" can be applied. The other named guns all appear to be selective fire so the difference is obvious.
 
I believe the features test does apply.

Once you start removing features from a rifle that is a "copy or duplicate" of a Colt AR-15, that rifles ceases to be a "copy or duplicate" of a Colt AR-15. Maybe focus on the plain English definitions of the words "copy" & "duplicate". The AG has re-defined these words to mean "similar" and that is not what those words mean.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
42! said:
I've got a meeting tomorrow with my Rep and will be discussing a number of issues, mostly local stuff, but I will be bringing up Healey's actions and the AWB.

When I meet with someone like this I like to be very sure of my facts, verifiable facts. So last night I'm reading through all of the firearms sections of MGL C140, making notes and getting together my examples. But I could use a little help putting together specific examples of how the current AR variant MSR is not a "copy or duplicate" of the "Colt AR-15".

Obviously the name is different, and I believe there are differences in the internal components. I thought I heard there was a change in the receiver as well. but I'm not familiar enough with the original "Colt AR-15" and what has changed to point out specifics.

The other named firearms defined as assault weapons appear to be selective fire, so the differences are obvious.

I'm hoping for some helpful examples from NES. But for those that just want to rant and be unhelpful. You are certainly within you rights to do so, but how about we keep it constructive and polite until tomorrow. I've got enough BS in my life right now without having to deal with more BS from people who have given up and just want to rant.
Click to expand...


1.) settled guidance from the ATF (thousands of employees) for 10 years federally and too much longer here
2.) overnight felonies for 400k MA citizens will really put a fu(king dent in the state economy for her di(kfu(kery
3.) she changed her guidance a few times, which tells me she's not sure what she's doing, and definitely counter to above referenced ATF guidance
 
Rod_Tel said:
I believe the features test does apply.

Once you start removing features from a rifle that is a "copy or duplicate" of a Colt AR-15, that rifles ceases to be a "copy or duplicate" of a Colt AR-15. Maybe focus on the plain English definitions of the words "copy" & "duplicate". The AG has re-defined these words to mean "similar" and that is not what those words mean.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be a bit of a devil's advocate here.[devil]

The feature test doesn't apply to the named firearms;
"shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M?10, M?11, M?11/9 and M?12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC?9, TEC?DC9 and TEC?22;"

And I haven't been able to confirm that the "Colt AR-15" was only available from Colt with a bayonet leg, flash suppressor, and/or a collapsible stock. If it was availble from Colt at the time of the original ban without these then it would have failed the feature test, but it was still specifically included.

For comparison. The Mini-14 was available with a folding stock prior to the ban and after the ban was enacted. So those manufactured after the ban was enacted, but configured at the factory in a configuration that existed prior to the ban, would fail the feature test, BUT because they are specifically exempted it doesn't matter that it fails the feature test.

Simply put, the feature test isn't the only way to be banned or exempted.

end [devil]

Believe me, the AG's add "similarity" test, which is not in the law, is a major issue that I will be bringing up. It is clearly an expansion on the law.

Some possible examples of what I'm looking for would be verifiable information that the "Colt AR-15" always came with a bayonet lug, or always came with a flash suppressor from the manufacturer (I don't care what a dealer might do to it). Or maybe there has been a change in the upper or lower receiver since the "Colt AR-15", or some design change in the internal parts. Particularly changes in the design that made exchanging parts impossible. I thought I heard something about changes in the receiver pins, or in the machining of the lower. That's enough to fail a plain reading of copy or duplicate. But it has to be verifiable information.
 
just looking more into it, AR15 came after M16, but ...

"The term "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which they use to denote only the semi-automatic rifle versions available for civilian and law enforcement sales."

The trademark does not specify the scope of what product would do, but one can make an argument that two product lines were separated and Colt AR-15 was never a select fire weapon, never. That name was created and reserved to mark semi-auto rifles and to differentiate from m16 "assault weapon" line. Consequently AR-15 was never an AWB in the first place, never took part in any military or LE conflicts or sales.
 
hv55maxx said:
1.) settled guidance from the ATF (thousands of employees) for 10 years federally and too much longer here
2.) overnight felonies for 400k MA citizens will really put a fu(king dent in the state economy for her di(kfu(kery
3.) she changed her guidance a few times, which tells me she's not sure what she's doing, and definitely counter to above referenced ATF guidance
Click to expand...

1) I'm still searching for .gov documents to back this up. I know it's true and you know it's true but I need .gov documentation.
2) I agree, but it's not relevant to the argument. This is an effect of her action, not proof that the action was incorrect.
3) Yup, I've counted 8 significant changes. I've only got proof of 5 because the change tracking wasn't enabled till after the first few. My thanks to the person who set this up.
 
Boris said:
just looking more into it, AR15 came after M16, but ...

"The term "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which they use to denote only the semi-automatic rifle versions available for civilian and law enforcement sales."

The trademark does not specify the scope of what product would do, but one can make an argument that two product lines were separated and Colt AR-15 was never a select fire weapon, never. That name was created and reserved to mark semi-auto rifles and to differentiate from m16 "assault weapon" line. Consequently AR-15 was never an AWB in the first place, never took part in any military or LE conflicts or sales.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately "Colt AR-15" is specifically named in the AWB. I can argue that the name changed or that they are not made by Colt and hence it is not a copy or duplicate, but I'd like to have more.
 
here is the list of the "rainbow" rifle models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colt_AR-15_variants

AR-15 was never a model sold as a military rifle (also do not confuse ArmaLite AR-15 ... the original to birth M16 to Colt AR-15), and it did indeed come with a bayo lug on early civilian models, I belive some of them were pre 94' ban.



yes, I understand that Colt AR-15 should not have been AWB in the first place, but then you run into "argument" ... the "similarity test" - "if it's substantially similar" ... that could mean anything, actually it means if you got less money than the other side, you loose. I don't think that you can make a case here.
 
Last edited:
Boris said:
here is the list of the "rainbow" rifle models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colt_AR-15_variants

AR-15 was never a model sold as a military rifle (also do not confuse ArmaLite AR-15 ... the original to birth M16 to Colt AR-15), and it did indeed come with a bayo lug on early civilian models, I belive some of them were pre 94' ban.



yes, I understand that Colt AR-15 should not have been AWB in the first place, but then you run into "argument" ... the "similarity test" - "if it's substantially similar" ... that could mean anything, actually it means if you got less money than the other side, you loose. I don't think that you can make a case here.
Click to expand...

Well I would have preferred a Colt document but if this is all I have. It does show it as having a bayonet lug, I was hoping for more, like changes in the receiver.

Nothing matters other than the "Colt AR-15" that is what is specified in the law. The M16, the ArmaLite, any others, are not specifically listed in the law. The comparison is every non-exempted firearm compared to the "Colt AR-15" as it existed prior to the original federal AWB.

There is no "similarity" test in the law. The focus is the law.
 
Have you tried calling colt? They may have the documents you're looking for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Here is another angle, if you can't argue forward, go backwards, try to proove that an officially non-AW is substantially similar to an AW, to prove that "substantially different" can never be achieved.

Also, AG never provided a guidance to what this "substantial different" test is, i.e. there is no standard for proof and hence nothing can be positivelly proven. To add to that, AG office has no resources to answer firearms design question, not even Boston's ATF. Their tech branch is in W Virginia. This spells out to technology based rule made without actually involving tech savvy professionals.
 
Perhaps bringing up barrel twist rate and how many MSRs use a rate different from the military version. Some differ significantly enough that they would not do well with the "Colt AR-15" cartridge? Sorry but I'm Grasping here.
 
Len-2A Training said:
Do a Google search on Bardwell and ATF. He created a site with tons of BATFE letters during the Federal Ban..

Good luck.
Click to expand...

THIS. ATF (Federal agency responsible for enforcing '94-'04 Federal Ban that the MA was basically copied from) interpreted this law the same way dealers and all Pols (including Maura's predessors) did over the past 22+ years.

How is it that Maura is saying that they are all wrong? What is the basis? How can one person, in a single instant, turnover 22+ years of precedence as understood by literally hundred of millions of people?!

If this stands, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic or even any semblance of a democracy for that matter!!

Best of luck!
 
Colt stopped selling the "Colt AR-15" just before the '94 AWB, and started selling the "Colt AR-15 Sportster" and "Colt AR-15 HBAR" and some other variations that were different in more than name, specifically because the "Colt AR-15" was banned, but other Colt AR-15 style rifles weren't.

I might have the specific names of the models wrong, but the gist is the same.
 
Not to put too fine of a point on it but Finger F'ing the mechanical details of the rifles is completely secondary to the fact that she does not have the authority to unilaterally create new laws, period.
When you " Reinterpret " an law to mean something it has never ment before, you are creating a new law.
Not to mention the constitutional violation of Ex Post Facto.
This is a very dangerous road they are allowing her to go down just to screw over gun owners.
The assumption that guns would be where she'd stop if she gets away with it is foolish and very risky.
 

Similar threads

Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
14
Views
548
houdini
houdini
VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
179
Reptile
Reptile
This guy has some strong opinions about guns
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Admin
Admin
We need 200 people like this in congress. NH residents, you need this woman in congress.
Replies
12
Views
376
Qwikdraw45
Qwikdraw45
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
656
groundscrapers
G
Back
Top Bottom