MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

[jasons]

where does it clarify that

The actual law "clarifies" that.....

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131M

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.​

 

[MAJoe]

Do you have a link about them looking into transfers? And I assume there has been hundreds, anything actually happen yet?

Thanks

https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-gun-dealers?p=5169100&viewfull=1#post5169100



Regarding anything happening "yet", I wouldn't expect it to. They need the right case and set of circumstances to pounce. Once they have that, they will. They don't want to screw this up and lose because they picked the wrong person or set of circumstances to prosecute. This is a game of chess.

To put it bluntly, it's like banging a hooker and then doing a HIV test one day after. Just because nothing has happened yet, doesn't mean we're all good to go.

 

[JNewell]

Excuse the top-post...

Ya know, you keep citing the statutory law, as if it matters. Events of the late 1770s and early 1780s notwithstanding, we are living in a government of men (and women), not a government of laws.

The actual law "clarifies" that.....

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131M

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.​

 

[jasons]

Excuse the top-post...

Ya know, you keep citing the statutory law, as if it matters. Events of the late 1770s and early 1780s notwithstanding, we are living in a government of men (and women), not a government of laws.

Well, this is the "MA Laws" sub forum. We don't have an "AG's Opinion" sub forum for a reason.

Your point is valid though - we're living in strange times. I guess we can either get used to it or we can try to hold onto whatever rule of law is left.

 

[JNewell]

. . . . .

 

[Garand1952]

I tell everyone - "We are officially living in a banana republic!"

 

[Helgiman]

What about a post 94 AR transfer to a family member?

 

[Len-2A Training]

What about a post 94 AR transfer to a family member?

No different than a transfer to a perfect stranger.

The eFA-10 system doesn't ask for birth certificates or family trees, so they have no idea who is related to who, nor do they care.

 

[member 58617]

I somehow got it in my head that a vertical grip on the front of a rifle in addition to a pistol grip would fall under the ban, but I can't see how under the AWB as written unless it somehow counts as a second pistol grip. Can someone smarter than I am please confirm either way??

 

[jasons]

I somehow got it in my head that a vertical grip on the front of a rifle in addition to a pistol grip would fall under the ban, but I can't see how under the AWB as written unless it somehow counts as a second pistol grip. Can someone smarter than I am please confirm either way??

I've never heard that and I don't see how the AWB could be reasonably interpreted that way. (These days "reasonable" is pretty relative though.)

There is an ATF interpretation that says that adding a forward grip to a pistol makes the resulting gun an NFA item but that's a whole different thing and only applies to pistols from what I understand. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

 

[member 58617]

I've never heard that and I don't see how the AWB could be reasonably interpreted that way. (These days "reasonable" is pretty relative though.)

There is an ATF interpretation that says that adding a forward grip to a pistol makes the resulting gun an NFA item but that's a whole different thing and only applies to pistols from what I understand. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

Thanks, I appreciate it!

I guess it's possible I heard that and misunderstood it. It'd certainly explain how I got something like that in my head.

 

[jasons]

Thanks, I appreciate it!

I guess it's possible I heard that and misunderstood it. It'd certainly explain how I got something like that in my head.

Here's the ATF letter about making a pistol into an AOW: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/o...er-adding-vertical-fore-grip-handgun/download

 

[soam]

Thanks, I appreciate it!

I guess it's possible I heard that and misunderstood it. It'd certainly explain how I got something like that in my head.

You may have gotten confused by some other state's version of the AWB. For instance, the NY SAFE Act includes any sort of "second handgrip" in its list of evil features.

 

[Montani76]

Since the newest assault ban over the summer banning all ar15 style semi auto rifles from coming into one's possesion period. How are people selling them on these classifieds and how are dealers selling .22 lr semi auto ar15's?

 

[soam]

Since the newest assault ban over the summer banning all ar15 style semi auto rifles from coming into one's possesion period. How are people selling them on these classifieds and how are dealers selling .22 lr semi auto ar15's?

1) The question of whether private sales of ARs possess prior to 7/20 is "permitted" under the AG's guidance is an open one. Some people are saying it's fine, some are saying it's not. The ones who think it's fine are the ones you see selling them.

2) The guidance explicitly exempts .17 and .22 caliber rimfire rifles (see the "Questions and Answers" section). Note that this exemption has no basis in the actual law, but most .22 caliber AR-style rifles would probably not meet the expanded definition of "copy or duplicate" anyways.

 

[JNewell]

Since the newest assault ban over the summer banning all ar15 style semi auto rifles from coming into one's possesion period.

Without meaning to take anything away from the multiple serious legal errors embodied in the AG's "notice," your language quoted above far overstates what she claims to have done.

 

[babygorilla]

Without meaning to take anything away from the multiple serious legal errors embodied in the AG's "notice," your language quoted above far overstates what she claims to have done.

Yes, and Maybe No. Or do I mean No and Maybe yes? The problem is it is too easily interpreted since IT ISN'T ACTUALLY LAW. It's just a threat, and a pretty empty one at that, as has been seen by the lack of prosecution. But that threat was enough to prevent FFL's from selling or transferring so called EBR's, due to their POTENTIAL loss of livelihood from prosecution. And, according to her statement, they ARE illegal, but she isn't going to "pursue" them "at this time". Additionally, she states that they can be legally transferred, but not bought?

Confusion abounds, and that is why she needs to be evicted from her office, ASAP. She is eroding Civil RIGHTS, misusing state funds, and pursuing dead ends she has no hope of winning, since unawares to her she is a very small fish in a VERY large lake.

 

[rupanrx]

I have a question about assembling a receiver that was transferred to me in late February 2016. A friend told me to not assemble it because of Healey's edict. It is a nodak spud ak74 receiver. The parts kit came in the mail before I picked up the receiver from the ffl in feb. "M.G.L Ch.140 §128B to register any firearm,handgun, rifle, or Shotgun assembled out of any Lower/Frame/Receiver within 7 days of its completion." *Will filling out an fa10 to let them know it is completed be considered an illegal transfer? I have all the parts just sitting in a box and it's depressing.
Thank you,
Rupan

 

[Len-2A Training]

Nobody knows for sure.

 

[JGreen]

I have a question about assembling a receiver that was transferred to me in late February 2016. A friend told me to not assemble it because of Healey's edict. It is a nodak spud ak74 receiver. The parts kit came in the mail before I picked up the receiver from the ffl in feb. "M.G.L Ch.140 §128B to register any firearm,handgun, rifle, or Shotgun assembled out of any Lower/Frame/Receiver within 7 days of its completion." *Will filling out an fa10 to let them know it is completed be considered an illegal transfer? I have all the parts just sitting in a box and it's depressing.
Thank you,
Rupan

Request your Rep and Senator (State) each make a formal written inquiry to the AGO asking on behalf of a constituent.

 

[Both_Barrels_Blazing]

Hey all,

Theoretically, if someone moved into the state late 2015/early 2016 and either forgot to EFA-10 an AR lower receiver to themselves or were simply unfamiliar the registration process, but wanted to build a rifle now, would they be able to do EFA-10 and build out a new rifle? Say this was part part of their personal property upon moving into the Massachusetts (with sales slips to back this up). Would they be able to proceed at this juncture or would they essentially be left with glorified paper weights and would need to sell them out of state? I think this is an interesting angle that could affect new resident that were unfamiliar with the "registration process." From what was also available on any legit legal forum, lower receivers were not required to be registered upon moving into the state unless they were to transferred via FTF transaction OR within 7 days of being build into a compliant rifle. Per the FAQ page, it would appear that these weapons would be exempted, but I am no lawyer and have no magic crystal ball.

Q: May I return a weapon covered by the Enforcement Notice after July 20, 2016 if it was transferred to me for storage or repairs before that date?

• Yes. If the owner purchased the weapon prior to July 20, 2016 and you have proof that you received the weapon solely for storage or repairs, you may return it provided that you register the transfer. You should keep evidence of the circumstances of the transfer.

 

[Len-2A Training]

BBB,

Nobody knows for certain. The AG has two different interpretations out there in her various missives . . . in one case she says "registered" (in MA) and the other (IIRC) refers to possessed. Big difference between the two wrt your question.

 

[Both_Barrels_Blazing]

Interesting. So which would apply? And again, are these basically paperweights or possible rifle builds? Seems like, for as big a football fans as they lawmakers and enforcement agents claim to be, they enjoy moving the goal posts while the field goal try is in the air...

 

[ThemBones]

Can you swap the charging handle and bolt carrier group on a purchased Ruger AR556 bought prior to 7/20/2016 now/today? Sorry, can't find in other threads.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The issue of a "move in" gun not being "registered" is the fact that there is no requirement to eFA10 a gun that you possess when moving into the DPRM.

 

[kalash]

Theoretically, if someone moved into the state late 2015/early 2016 and either forgot to EFA-10 an AR lower receiver to themselves or were simply unfamiliar the registration process, but wanted to build a rifle now, would they be able to do EFA-10 and build out a new rifle?

There is no requirement to EFA10 a lower, as it is not considered a firearm under MA law.

 

[CrackPot]

And if you build an AR from a lower one could argue that you should not efa-10 upon completion. The resulting gun is "illegal" per the AG. She chooses not to prosecute. Therefore I will assert my 5th amendment rights and not notify the government of my possession of an "illegal" weapon.

 

[Both_Barrels_Blazing]

thanks for the feedback, so essentially the way things work is what you got is basically what you got unless you move our of state. if i wanted to buy a theoretical friend's theoretical AR or AK, that is not permitted living in Mass. And if i wanted to dispose of anything pre July 20 2016, I'd have to do so out of state as even FTF transfers have been shut down at this point. Yeesh, I hope her protection detail is as scantly armed nowadays and have limited options like the rest of the pleebs... oh wait that is right, as their credo and modus operandi goes, "guns for me and not for thee"

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Hey all,

Theoretically, if someone moved into the state late 2015/early 2016 and either forgot to EFA-10 an AR lower receiver to themselves or were simply unfamiliar the registration process, but wanted to build a rifle now, would they be able to do EFA-10 and build out a new rifle? Say this was part part of their personal property upon moving into the Massachusetts (with sales slips to back this up). Would they be able to proceed at this juncture or would they essentially be left with glorified paper weights and would need to sell them out of state? I think this is an interesting angle that could affect new resident that were unfamiliar with the "registration process." From what was also available on any legit legal forum, lower receivers were not required to be registered upon moving into the state unless they were to transferred via FTF transaction OR within 7 days of being build into a compliant rifle. Per the FAQ page, it would appear that these weapons would be exempted, but I am no lawyer and have no magic crystal ball.

Q: May I return a weapon covered by the Enforcement Notice after July 20, 2016 if it was transferred to me for storage or repairs before that date?

• Yes. If the owner purchased the weapon prior to July 20, 2016 and you have proof that you received the weapon solely for storage or repairs, you may return it provided that you register the transfer. You should keep evidence of the circumstances of the transfer.

I don't see how what you quoted pertains to your situation.....

 

[Both_Barrels_Blazing]

it was a separate question