-
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***
Legal Options for Selling my AR-15s in MA
- Thread starter GRC
- Start date
Boghog1
NES Member
This right here is the problem.
pastera
NES Member
This
The truth of it is why would anyone with any experience buy a complete AR in Mass with the big fear driven markups.
They truly are Lego set guns
Stripped lowers are pretty cheap
Building out the lower can be done with minimal, low cost tooling.
Plenty of built to order uppers for decent prices. The basic tools to build an upper are not all that expensive (probably free to borrow given the generosity here).
Pinning a stock can be done with a hand drill with a little care
The only thing a person is likely to need to outsource is pinning the muzzle device.
EMTDAD
NES Member
the text of the Federal AWB (as incorporated by MGL) pertaining to rifles is:
``(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;
now... I'm sure there are NES'ers who can provide the legal/historical path from items (i) and (iv) above to pin/weld stock. If I recall correctly there's some ATF garbage, but I don't know the history. Maybe there's case law out there, or some other ruling by an alphabet agency that determines compliance.
I can only assume that the welded muzzle device removes the "threaded barrel" BS. As far as the stock, there are ways to keep it from telescoping without the pin, just as there are ways to remove the pistol grip item (see California "featureless" builds). Maybe there's something in some case law somewhere that states that it must be "permanently" modified?
if someone can provide a short writeup on WHY pin/weld are necessary to meet the letter of the AWB, that would be helpful. TIA
``(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;
now... I'm sure there are NES'ers who can provide the legal/historical path from items (i) and (iv) above to pin/weld stock. If I recall correctly there's some ATF garbage, but I don't know the history. Maybe there's case law out there, or some other ruling by an alphabet agency that determines compliance.
I can only assume that the welded muzzle device removes the "threaded barrel" BS. As far as the stock, there are ways to keep it from telescoping without the pin, just as there are ways to remove the pistol grip item (see California "featureless" builds). Maybe there's something in some case law somewhere that states that it must be "permanently" modified?
if someone can provide a short writeup on WHY pin/weld are necessary to meet the letter of the AWB, that would be helpful. TIA
Going to roll back to the origonal statement here: if #2 were true you'd know about it. People would bitch like hell, comm2 and goal would be all over it. Pre and post healey guns change hands in this state every day.
To my knowledge no ltc holder has been prosecuted under the healey decree. Which also states any AR purchased after 94 was done illegally, so there isn't a huge difference in pre and post decree guns.
allen-1
NES Member
Often barrel is less than 16”; pinned and welded brake extends it to 16 which makes it NOT a SBR
chris_1001
NES Member
Did you ask Ted at northeast trading in Attleboro? Heard he knows a lot on the subject..They're not. I called Bass pro and my local PD and they both said Im not allowed to have one
Listen a**h*** I’m only going to tell you one more time.
North Attleboro and Attleboro are NOT the same.
The rat is in North Attleboro. He’s just about out of business so be on the lookout for him to do some anti-gun hit piece in the coming months.
We are almost as classy as you folks two exits up 495 in North Attleboro, just not as wealthy ok.
chris_1001
NES Member
Frigging how many Attleboro’s do we need??
Is it so bad that the town needs to be that divided?? I think I drove through west Attleboro the other day… is that the “Glock ok” part?!?!
He was trying to sell out at least 5 years ago. Hope he goes bankrupt in… N. Attleboro (did I get it right this time?)
Last edited:
Frigging how many Attleboro’s do we need??
Is it so bad that the town needs to be that divided?? I think I drove through west Attleboro the other day… is that the “Glock ok” part?!?!
He was trying to sell out at least 5 years ago. Hope he goes bankrupt in… N. Attleboro (did I get it relight this time?)
Don't get the locals started on "boro" vs "borough."
It's a weird little corner of the world.
True dat bro.
North Attleborough kept the ugh and Attleboro dropped it (legally you can spell North Attleboro either way)
Then we can talk about south Attleboro that doesn’t even exist. Might as well be Pawtucket.
Last edited:
chris_1001
NES Member
I know one guy here might call it “Attlel Brah”
EddieZoom
NES Member
...because "like" and "use" are temporary conditions. Wait long enough and you will look at them fondly as the one "I never should have gotten rid of" ;-)
I've sold about twenty-five guns.
Only two of them are sales I've regretted later. So? I just bought replacements.
The other 23 guns? I'm glad I no longer have them. They served their purpose for me and now they're on to better homes.
Mass-diver
NES Member
So true
KMM696
NES Member
Once upon a time when that language was federal law rather than MGL, the ATF Technical Branch would respond by letter to specific technical questions on whether a given method or item was acceptable for staying legal under US firearms code, or how a given item was classified under USC. Quite a few of these letters were made public by the entities that asked the question. If you search for something like 'ATF Technical Branch letters', you'll find examples. When the federal ban sunsetted, the DPRofMA incorporated the USC language, but did not specifically incorporate the previous decisions of the ATF tech branch as how to execute the MGLs. MA does not have an equivalent to the ATFs tech branch, and isn't making those sort of determinations - at least not in public. It is assumed that the ATF AWB determinations are still valid, and there's no MA case law that I'm aware of to contradict those determinations. That, I think, brings us up to where we are today. As an example of a related ATF tech branch letter that does mention ATF acceptable methods for permanently attaching a muzzle device:
I took a quick look, but didn't find any on stock pinning - I'm sure they're out there somewhere.
The ATF tech branch will still answer specific questions, but not AWB questions any more. No longer their problem. They have not always been consistent in their responses, either - see 'pistol braces'.
EMTDAD
NES Member
exactly the type of answer I was looking for.. TY..Once upon a time when that language was federal law rather than MGL, the ATF Technical Branch would respond by letter to specific technical questions on whether a given method or item was acceptable for staying legal under US firearms code, or how a given item was classified under USC. Quite a few of these letters were made public by the entities that asked the question. If you search for something like 'ATF Technical Branch letters', you'll find examples. When the federal ban sunsetted, the DPRofMA incorporated the USC language, but did not specifically incorporate the previous decisions of the ATF tech branch as how to execute the MGLs. MA does not have an equivalent to the ATFs tech branch, and isn't making those sort of determinations - at least not in public. It is assumed that the ATF AWB determinations are still valid, and there's no MA case law that I'm aware of to contradict those determinations. That, I think, brings us up to where we are today. As an example of a related ATF tech branch letter that does mention ATF acceptable methods for permanently attaching a muzzle device:
I took a quick look, but didn't find any on stock pinning - I'm sure they're out there somewhere.
The ATF tech branch will still answer specific questions, but not AWB questions any more. No longer their problem. They have not always been consistent in their responses, either - see 'pistol braces'.
now if you already have a 16" barrel???
Mesatchornug
NES Member
There are similar letters that described how to permanently affix a muzzle device that isn't a "flash hider" and describe the same methods as acceptable. I'm sure if you search the web for a bit, one will turn up.exactly the type of answer I was looking for.. TY..
now if you already have a 16" barrel???
Mass-diver
NES Member
The Healy stuff has really muddled the waters with her claiming “Ma compliance” doesn’t exist and that all these post-Fed ban ARs are AWs even with pinned stocks etc.
But also said they would not persecute anyone for pre 2016. So, I’m not really sure of the point of making 95-2016 stuff Ma complaint since the (former) AG said they were AWs regardless?
But also said they would not persecute anyone for pre 2016. So, I’m not really sure of the point of making 95-2016 stuff Ma complaint since the (former) AG said they were AWs regardless?
Because there are people who have been charged and convicted/CWOF for violating the actual written MGL AWB.
I think Neil has posted some cases with guys getting in trouble for non pinned stocks but a pinned break and they were still charged.
Hopefully in a couple years the dust settles and the ma law is ruled unconstitutional.
Mass-diver
NES Member
I can’t recall what the timing of that case was with regard to Healy’s fake edict and/or whether the gun was post ‘16
Similar threads
