Is my Ruger 10-22 Mass legal?

[Harleynut]

This is an old Ruger I bought in 1989 for my kid and has sat in the safe for years. I was inspired by Nutnfancy's build for a run and gun and several friends may try that. Cheap fun with the 22's.
I added the Tapco stock and was given the BSA red dot with flash light and laser. The high cap mag was purchased with the gun back in 1989. I may add a vertical grip if I can find one cheap. This is not a serious shooter just something to blast away with friends.
I am a NH resident with a Mass LTC A unrestricted. I hoped to be able to take it to Mass to shoot there on occasion. My thoughts were people seem to be building up AR-15's with preban lowers all the time and add features that are not allowed in a post ban configuration. Wouldn't this fall into the same category?
I was told from someone that it would only be legal if it had a collapsible stock to start with. Is this true or are they reading more into it than is needed.
Any info will be appreciated.

 

[vicpinto]

No.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

No.

Why not?

 

[Beansie_Time]

Why not?

because the gun laws in MA are the suck.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

It's a pre-ban rifle with a pre-ban magazine. He has a LTC-A, so I ask again, why not?

 

[Len-2A Training]

You were told correctly. It takes more than DOB to make something a legit "pre-ban" (can do anything you like with it wrt "evil features"). The gun would have had to have been built up (or kitted) in AWB configuration of some sort in order to get the legal cache of "pre-ban" (can do anything you want with it). So, only if it had a bayonet lug, flash hider or collapsible/folding stock pre-9/13/1998 would this rifle be legally allowed in MA with a collapsible stock now.

Enjoy it in NH and don't cross "Checkpoint Charlie" with it!

 

[Mike-Mike]

By rights it would have to have been in AWB configuration PRIOR TO the ban to be legal. There will be an argument in about 20 minutes about if it had to be in AWB configuration ON THE DAY it was banned.

 

[LoginName]

It's a pre-ban rifle with a pre-ban magazine. He has a LTC-A, so I ask again, why not?

Because technically, even though the rifle is pre-ban, it had to be assembled in a pre-ban configuration prior to 09/13/94.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

I stand corrected.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

The important question is, if push ever comes to shove and an owner of a similar firearm faces charges of violating Massachusetts' AWB, where does the burden of proof lie? Is it encumbant upon the Commonwealth to demonstrate that the firearm was not in an appropriate configuration when the AWB took effect? Or is it the responsibilty of the gun owner to demonstrate that it was in pre-ban configuration when the AWB took place? I would argue that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant, but you never know what a court will decide.

 

[LoginName]

The important question is, if push ever comes to shove and an owner of a similar firearm faces charges of violating Massachusetts' AWB, where does the burden of proof lie? Is it encumbant upon the Commonwealth to demonstrate that the firearm was not in an appropriate configuration when the AWB took effect? Or is it the responsibilty of the gun owner to demonstrate that it was in pre-ban configuration when the AWB took place? I would argue that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant, but you never know what a court will decide.

That's my take on it as well.

With regard to the stock in the OPs pic, it would be easy to prove the guns legal status if the prosecutor could show when that particular stock was manufactured (and just by looking at the pic, I'm betting its a later model collapsible stock) .

However... all a defendant would have to claim is that it's replacing the pre-ban stock he had on the rifle prior to 10/13/94.

It's a tricky legal issue I wouldn't want to get caught up in.

 

[glocky]

Mass courts = guilty till proven innocent

 

[Coyote33]

I really doubt it would cause any trouble unless you were doing something else wrong and they wanted to pile on extra charges. If it were me, I would still be hesitant to take the chance bringing it to Mass though.

 

[drgrant]

You had plausible deniability about the preban status of the gun (and what its configuration was) until you posted about it on the internet. Way to go.

No, it's not legal in MA, according to what you have said/shown. The mag itself however, is fine, as if you bought it in 89 it's most certainly preban. The gun fails the test because ostensibly you've converted it recently, not before 9/13/94. (Guns had to have been in ban config on that date to be exempt, and you just admitted it wasn't. )

-Mike

 

[Sprocket]

Put the OEM lumber on it if you bring it down

 

[THUNDERCHIEF]

Rimfire firarms are included in the AWB?

 

[dhuze]

Possessing it to go to and from a bonafied range isn't against the law. Not according to the BATFE at least. Ownership in the commonwealth of Massachusetts it may be. I don't know how a 10/22 becomes an "assault rifle". Here is my definition of an "assault rifle" [ A term that never existed until the Clinton administration made it up so they could stop pass an "assault weapons ban" based on A 'scary' looking firearm.]

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

You had plausible deniability about the preban status of the gun (and what its configuration was) until you posted about it on the internet. Way to go.

No, it's not legal in MA, according to what you have said/shown. The mag itself however, is fine, as if you bought it in 89 it's most certainly preban. The gun fails the test because ostensibly you've converted it recently, not before 9/13/94. (Guns had to have been in ban config on that date to be exempt, and you just admitted it wasn't. )

-Mike

Mike, how do they know when you converted it?

 

[Dave @ Villen Tactical]

Can someone PM me a link to the actual ban, I am going in circles trying to find it.

Dave

 

[drgrant]

Possessing it to go to and from a bonafied range isn't against the law. Not according to the BATFE at least.

What do you mean? There are no federal exemptions involved here that override state law, closest is 926A/FOPA, which only covers safe passage, (eg, transiting an anti state) not "bringing it to a range" or any of that crud.

Mike, how do they know when you converted it?

They usually have no way of knowing. Posting about it on the internet, though, with pictures, doesn't help with that.

-Mike

 

[Mike-Mike]

Rimfire firarms are included in the AWB?

Yes they are. The only exception is for fixed tubular mags.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mike, how do they know when you converted it?

They usually have no way of knowing. Posting about it on the internet, though, with pictures, doesn't help with that.

-Mike

Mike is right, but to further answer 2A1's question . . .

- I'm not aware that Ruger ever made a 10/22 with a bayonet lug, flash hider or collapsible stock (I believe that they may have made some with folding stocks).

- Almost every 10/22 that left the factory from the time that the 10/22 was first sold, went with a fixed stock (the percentage with folding stocks was probably very small).

- Therefore most 10/22s in "assault weapon" configuration would have been done with aftermarket parts. I KNOW that some LEOs take a look at the parts and determine that they are relatively new parts (part or mfr didn't exist pre-1994) and then ASSUME that it was an illegal conversion post-9/13/1994. You and I know that someone may have had one pre-ban config and later changed it to another legal config with new parts . . . but you could still get prosecuted (possibility is there) and have to prove your way out of it (translated into major $$ spent). Not really a pleasant thought.

 

[Scrivener]

Possessing it to go to and from a bonafied [sic] range isn't against the law. Not according to the BATFE at least.

BATFE has nothing to do with it, the Federal ban having expired over half a decade ago.

Further, your "to and from a bonafied [sic] range" exception exists only in your mind.

Ownership in the commonwealth of Massachusetts it may be. I don't know how a 10/22 becomes an "assault rifle".

Then don't attempt to answer the question.

Here is my definition of an "assault rifle" [ A term that never existed until the Clinton administration made it up so they could stop pass an "assault weapons ban" based on A 'scary' looking firearm.]

A definition as irrelevant as it is unsolicited.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Man I am glad I took my schooling and bowed out of this argument before Scriv showed up. SLAP.

 

[Kevlar]

Rimfire firarms are included in the AWB?

Yes. The AWB does not differentiate between centerfire and rimfire.

Can someone PM me a link to the actual ban, I am going in circles trying to find it.

Here is the (partial) text of the AWB. (full text can be found HERE)

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

>snip<

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

 

[Coyote33]

Mike is right, but to further answer 2A1's question . . .

- ... some LEOs take a look ... and determine... and then ASSUME that it was an illegal conversion .... ... you could still get prosecuted (possibility is there)....

And what kind of number of this type of "prosecution" is there in MA right now? I really doubt there has even been one, if any. Once again, it is a discretionary application of the law, similar to so many other instances. I really doubt this would be a "primary offense" in most any town outside of maybe Boston, Worcester, Springfield and a few other cities.

 

[dhuze]

What do you mean? There are no federal exemptions involved here that override state law, closest is 926A/FOPA, which only covers safe passage, (eg, transiting an anti state) not "bringing it to a range" or any of that crud.........................

-Mike

BATFE has nothing to do with it, the Federal ban having expired over half a decade ago.

Further, your "to and from a bonafied [sic] range" exception exists only in your mind.



Then don't attempt to answer the question.



A definition as irrelevant as it is unsolicited.

From the 28th edition of the Massachusetts State laws.


129C. Firearm Identification Card;
Restrictions on Possession, Transfer of
Firearms; Reports; Persons and Uses
Exempted from Provisions of Section;
Purchases by Certain Exempt Persons
..................The provisions of this section shall not apply
to the following exempted persons and uses:


(g) Possession of rifles and shotguns and ammunition
therefor by residents or nonresidents
while on a firing or shooting range;
(h) Possession of rifles and shotguns and ammunition
therefor by nonresidents traveling in or
through the commonwealth, providing that any
rifles or shotguns are unloaded and enclosed in
a case;
(i) Possession of rifles and shotguns by nonresidents
while at a firearm showing or display
organized by a regularly existing gun collectors'
club or association;

I guess my imagination got out of control.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

This is going to be fun.

 

[matt1956]

this is mass... likly the burdon rests on the accused

 

[Scrivener]

From the 28th edition of the Massachusetts State laws.


129C. Firearm Identification Card;
Restrictions on Possession, Transfer of
Firearms; Reports; Persons and Uses
Exempted from Provisions of Section;
Purchases by Certain Exempt Persons
..................The provisions of this section shall not apply
to the following exempted persons and uses:


(g) Possession of rifles and shotguns and ammunition
therefor by residents or nonresidents
while on a firing or shooting range; NOT to and from range

(h) Possession of rifles and shotguns and ammunition
therefor by nonresidents traveling in or
through the commonwealth, providing that any
rifles or shotguns are unloaded and enclosed in
a case;
Transit - NOT stopping

(i) Possession of rifles and shotguns by nonresidents
while at a firearm showing or display
organized by a regularly existing gun collectors'
club or association; NOT applicable

I guess my imagination got out of control.

More like a lack of reading comprehension.