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.
No threaded barrel but I think theres a pistol grip. Definitely know its marked for 5.56 just because its run a lot of 5.56 without blowing out the barrel but I think .223 will be less hard on the extractor.
That is an evil preban rifle that you can def milk for enough money to buy a useful rifle.
Not exempt from MGL definition of AW.The rules for mini-14s are different than other, so called, AWs. It's on the exempt list.
ETA: OP that's a good looking mini, if you give up on it, well I'm sure you could find an interested party or two.
I'll have to re-read but didn't the MA AWB incorporate the provisions of the, now sunsetted, Fed AWB, which would include it's Appendix A list of exempted firearms?Not exempt from MGL definition of AW.
I'll have to re-read but didn't the MA AWB incorporate the provisions of the, now sunsetted, Fed AWB, which would include it's Appendix A list of exempted firearms?
It actually allows copies and duplicates of the exempted firearms as they were built. So if you have a new mini-14 in a configuration that was available at that time, or if you convert it to that configuration, it is a copy/duplicate of an exempted firearm, therefore it is also exempt. And they were available with folding stocks, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs. My only question is, would those items have to be exactly what was available, or would any folding stock be ok. Until Healy suggested the idea that "similarity" was the standard it would have been hard to say a non-Ruger folding stock was OK. But with Healey's BS it could be argued that similarity works both ways.In my understanding, the list of exempted firearms prevents firearms on that list from being summarily banned. So no lawyer can claim that a mini-14 or an M1A is a copy or duplicate of a banned firearm, and is therefore banned. But being on the exempt list does not exempt those rifles from also being subject to the features test. Thus you can readily buy a mini-14 or an M1A in Massachusetts, but you cannot legally add a pistol grip and folding stock to either one unless it is a true pre-ban receiver.
Not technically correct. This only applies if the firearm was in preban configuration prior to the ban. You cannot take a Mini-14 that was always in a fixed stock with no threaded muzzle, etc. and then "do whatever you want." One could argue this would be hard to prove in court (i.e., unless you had one previous owner willing to state he bought it in like 1985 and kept it stock until 2010), but nevertheless, that's the ATF's opinion regarding "really preban."
So, the first question is was the rifle ever in true "preban" configuration (i.e., folding stock, pistol grip, etc.). If so, then yes, do whatever you want short of making it an SBR or other federal no-nos.
Unless someone talks their way into trouble or there is one previous owner who "gets spooked" if the ATF comes knocking and sells out the buyer, yes, pretty much unenforceable. Plenty of people screw themselves or others by trying to be "cooperative."True, but unenforceable so nobody cares. ATF doesn't care anymore either.
Pardon if the following has been beaten to death someplace else, but...True, but unenforceable so nobody cares. ATF doesn't care anymore either.
Pardon if the following has been beaten to death someplace else, but...
Q1: Are there gun configurations which are otherwise legal to buy from an out-of-state FFL,
but which violate some Marsha AW rule?
If so, then...
Q2: Has ATF expressed an opinion about such putative Marshabanned firearms
being illegal to sell to a Mass. resident because they're illegal to possess in the PRM?
(Or legal to sell, because they don't regard the Marshaban as having the force of law).
Thanks for the sanity check.Yes.Q1: Are there gun configurations which are otherwise legal to buy from an out-of-state FFL,
but which violate some Marsha AW rule?
Sure, sure; but note the political angle:Yes, it must be legal for you to possess in your state of residence.Q2: Has ATF expressed an opinion about such putative Marshabanned firearms
being illegal to sell to a Mass. resident because they're illegal to possess in the PRM?
(Or legal to sell, because they don't regard the Marshaban as having the force of law).
Thanks for the sanity check.
Sure, sure; but note the political angle:
The ATF could endorse the Marshaban,
by threatening (or actually) prosecuting interstate transfers which violate it;
or dis the Marshaban by announcing (or just declining) to prosecute.
(One would have to be a special kind of naive to actually violate it,
and trust ATF not to retroactively prosecute after a change in the climate...)
(I haven't been haunting all the Marsha threads, so much thanks for the Current Events recap - very much on point).IIRC the feds have already sucked for this, or at least remotes are being threatened by them to not sell, say a brand new (even ban compliant) AR to an MA resident.... based off the AG's bullshit. But it's the same deal as marshaban- lots of empty threats....
You've given me several smiles though out this thread. And yeah, edmorseiii, for me it wasn't 4,000$ into a Mk14EBR clone it was $1800$ into building up a UMP clone from a USC. But at least my UMP clone holds tight groups at reasonable distances for .45 unlike the mini mentioned in post.Staaaaaaaaap. Why is it every time I I'm in my rack after drinking I see this thread?
Just do what's right and tell this kid to sell his shit to some ma retard and buy a real rifle.
The feds don't prosecute for violations of state laws, it doesn't work that way.Thanks for the sanity check.
Sure, sure; but note the political angle:
The ATF could endorse the Marshaban,
by threatening (or actually) prosecuting interstate transfers which violate it;
or dis the Marshaban by announcing (or just declining) to prosecute.
(One would have to be a special kind of naive to actually violate it,
and trust ATF not to retroactively prosecute after a change in the climate...)
The feds don't prosecute for violations of state laws, it doesn't work that way.
18 U.S. Code § 922. Unlawful acts
...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any ... licensed dealer, ... to sell or deliver—
...
(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;
So are you saying this is a Federal criminal law which ATF refuses to enforce?
Where did you get that idea. If you violate 18 US Code ss922, the Feds can prosecute you under the Fed law.18 U.S. Code § 922. Unlawful acts
...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any ... licensed dealer, ... to sell or deliver—
...
(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;
So are you saying this is a Federal criminal law which ATF refuses to enforce?
The feds don't prosecute for violations of state laws, it doesn't work that way.
If you ever lodge in Greater Dayton (not Xenia) for the Hamvention,It's very existence likely violates some other kind of legal concept, although the feds have gotten away with similar bullshit before but not that I can think of domestically.
in the example of the mini 14, i would imagine whoever was prosecuting would go to ruger with a court order to find out what configuration the rifle left the factory in.
Not true, per above. ATF has ruled on this.
Edward M. Owen, Jr., former Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the BATFE,
"The fact that the receiver may have been manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is immaterial to classification of a weapon as a semiautomatic assault weapon."
Not technically correct. This only applies if the firearm was in preban configuration prior to the ban. You cannot take a Mini-14 that was always in a fixed stock with no threaded muzzle, etc. and then "do whatever you want." One could argue this would be hard to prove in court (i.e., unless you had one previous owner willing to state he bought it in like 1985 and kept it stock until 2010), but nevertheless, that's the ATF's opinion regarding "really preban."
So, the first question is was the rifle ever in true "preban" configuration (i.e., folding stock, pistol grip, etc.). If so, then yes, do whatever you want short of making it an SBR or other federal no-nos.
Proving it in court is of course a different matter, but people should be aware that the date of manufacture alone isn't sufficient to permit you to make any desired changes to the rifle.
Unless someone talks their way into trouble or there is one previous owner who "gets spooked" if the ATF comes knocking and sells out the buyer, yes, pretty much unenforceable. Plenty of people screw themselves or others by trying to be "cooperative."
Like some other technicalities (like some of the exemptions for non-residents in MA that, under scrutiny, don't actually apply but are pretty much never enforced, etc.), I figured the OP and others should be aware of this nuance.
I am going to send the rifle in for sure. All of a sudden I have a problem with my Glock EDC that is going to take priority over this unfortunately. I will keep you guys updated on the status of the mini in the next couple months, shouldn’t be any later than October.