I need some specifics about the MA AWB

[Smash05]

Exellent summary.

One thing that I've read here (but now cannot find) and heard elsewhere (from someone who I can no longer speak with) was either a court case or rulemaking or some other sort of legal clarification done at the federal level. The federal ban was passed with a "copy" clause, and essentially there was some debate as to what a "copy" was. The answer that was provided was that the firearm was not a "copy" if even one piece was changed. But I'll be damned if I'm able to find the documentation.

There's a case filed I think by Olympic Arms. Cite is escaping me, but look it up. Talks about the duplicate issue

 

[Smash05]

Had my meeting. As usual there was some good discussion. He confirmed what others have said, that the Legislature is more than reluctant to take up an issue when there is a pending court case. Contrary to what some have said, he is interested in possible mechanical differences that could be used to identify what is or isn't an AW. Before you all over react, lets look at the situation a little deeper.

For the sake or discussion lets focus on the AR-15. Working from my poor memory and some 2nd and 3rd hand information, there are some design differences between the original "Colt AR-15" as it existed in 1994 and the current AR platform. And that the original "Colt AR-15" could be converted to full-auto (M16) by simply installing the M-16 parts (no machining or drilling required). And that it was this ease of conversion that got the "Colt AR-15" on the list of AWs. Assuming this is correct, is there anyone out there that has, or can find, any gov documents (i.e. Congressional discussion, ATF, FBI, etc.) that back up this as the reason it was specifically named?

This would also apply to the other specifically named firearms, but my focus for now is the "Colt AR-15"

What I'm trying to establish is that the specifically named guns were put on the list because, at that time (1994), they were either; only manufactured as full-auto/select-fire, or that they could be converted to full-auto/select-fire using parts manufactured for a different firearm without the need to alter any of the parts by machining or drilling.

It doesn't matter what may or may not be possible today, all that matters is what the situation was in 1994. And being able to show that it was something other than being "scary black" that got them on the list.

I don't believe this is true. Colt et al made those changes much earlier. Plus those changes don't quite apply to other banned types, such as AK style receivers, or FAL style receivers, etc.

 

[bigblue]

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.

Colt even changed the pins, BCG, and trigger shelf to make it more difficult to "convert the AR15 to full auto". Modern AR's may resemble it on the outside but there are significant changes that have been made to the internals.

 

[42!]

Colt even changed the pins, BCG, and trigger shelf to make it more difficult to "convert the AR15 to full auto". Modern AR's may resemble it on the outside but there are significant changes that have been made to the internals.

I found info on all this but I'm still looking for specifics on when the changes were made. But the AR is only one of many and I'd have to show that converting all of them requires machining. I'll probably reach out to Colt. I also have to research a good sampling of other manufactures of the AR platform.

Even if it had no bearing on the original Fed AWB, it would give me something that shows a distinction between what is and isn't an AW which could be applied to bring the situation back to where it was. Ya, a long-shot. But I need a hobby.

Does anyone know where I can find archives of documents and discussion from the original Fed AW ban?

 

[bigblue]

I thought Rob posted something earlier, there is an archive of ATF guidance from the Fed AWB.

 

[Varmint]

yup, just wait until she reinterprets abortion laws or the next AG start reinterpreting RICO and unions. If AG can do it and no one can do anything about it, well, it's just a matter of time before that swings against Ds ... that should scare that D shitless.

Yes! The U.S. Legal system follows the letter of the law, unlike the British legal system. It's why you have criminals getting off on technicalities here. What the AG did is equivalent to an AG saying "the arresting officer intended to read you your rights, even though he didn't." A conservative AG could scare the crap out of liberals by taking Healy's approach to the law.

 

[mikelawtown]

 

[Varmint]

View attachment 189669

So if you buy someone's pre-July 20 AR, you should register it, or does it mean it had to be registered by the seller before 7/20?

 

[mikelawtown]

So if you buy someone's pre-July 20 AR, you should register it, or does it mean it had to be registered by the seller before 7/20?

The question to them TODAY was that can you Privately sell your AR if you owned before the 20th via EFA-10.Some already have been selling as we know but this was just an email that was sent today from a poster on a Gun Page on FB.