MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

[one-eyed Jack]

Are there currently any law suites pending regarding the ban? If not what was the reason the law was upheld? Seems Oregon is filing suite to not become Massachusetts so I'm wondering what they're facing.

Will we be done in another 23 pages? Jack.

 

[MAJoe]

So, a collapsing stock is OK, as long as only 1 other item? I thought collapsible stocks were not allowed no matter what else.

They’re a feature counted the same as all the others (pistol grip, threaded barrel, etc.).

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Are there currently any law suites pending regarding the ban? If not what was the reason the law was upheld? Seems Oregon is filing suite to not become Massachusetts so I'm wondering what they're facing.

Lawsuit against MA AWB

New lawsuit filed today in US district court against the Massachusetts AWB. National Association for Gun Rights v. Healey. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.247928/gov.uscourts.mad.247928.1.0.pdf

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[JCrowley01]

Sorry if this sounds dense, but I am trying to make sure I understand the MA AWB: You can't have an AR platform with a collapsable stock, flash suppressor or bayonet mount because it already has the pistol grip and you are only allowed one of those features. Is that correct?

Apologize if i missed this above at some point. Are you allowed to have a detachable magazine for an AR 15 if it is post ban?

 

[DW357]

Apologize if i missed this above at some point. Are you allowed to have a detachable magazine for an AR 15 if it is post ban?

Only time the magazine needs to be fixed is if you're building an AR pistol.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Only time the magazine needs to be fixed is if you're building an AR pistol.

or if your very particular use case finds folding/telescoping stocks and threaded muzzles more valuable than interchangeable magazines.

 

[DW357]

or if your very particular use case finds folding/telescoping stocks and threaded muzzles more valuable than interchangeable magazines.

I considered including that but figured most sane people would prefer detachable mags lol

 

[45Badger]

I’m a NH resident. If I want to sell a pre-94 ban Colt AR15 to a MA resident, are there any MA laws that prohibit the transaction? The transfer would have to go through a MA based FFL.

thanks!

 

[Joeldiaz]

I’m a NH resident. If I want to sell a pre-94 ban Colt AR15 to a MA resident, are there any MA laws that prohibit the transaction? The transfer would have to go through a MA based FFL.

thanks!

You should be fine to conduct the transfer. You also don’t need to go through a MA based FFL. All interstate acquisitions of long guns (rifles & shotguns) can go through an FFL in any state, provided that the long gun is legal to own in the buyer’s state of residence. All other firearms (handguns, frames, receivers, etc.) have to go through an FFL in the buyer’s home state.

 

[MAJoe]

I’m a NH resident. If I want to sell a pre-94 ban Colt AR15 to a MA resident, are there any MA laws that prohibit the transaction? The transfer would have to go through a MA based FFL.

thanks!

Just make sure the buyer has a valid LTC-A. While technically not your problem once the FFL has it, I wouldn’t want to deal with the headache of the buyer realizing they actually can’t buy it.

What Joeldiaz said above regarding the transfer is fine. If you don’t want to ship it, I’d prefer the non-MA FFL option unless you also have a Mass LTC. You need that LTC to possess the rifle in MA. Just make sure the NH FFL you pick understands the rile is a pre-94 ban and they’re fine transferring to a MA resident.

 

[42!]

Just make sure the buyer has a valid LTC-A. While technically not your problem once the FFL has it, I wouldn’t want to deal with the headache of the buyer realizing they actually can’t buy it.

What Joeldiaz said above regarding the transfer is fine. If you don’t want to ship it, I’d prefer the non-MA FFL option unless you also have a Mass LTC. You need that LTC to possess the rifle in MA. Just make sure the NH FFL you pick understands the rile is a pre-94 ban and they’re fine transferring to a MA resident.

You can also do the transfer at a MA FFL as long as the buyer carries it into MA to the dealer (so the NH seller never has physical possession of it in MA). I've done it this way when selling a handgun to a MA resident. It helps if you know the buyer well enough to just hand him the gun and meet him at the MA dealer.

 

[MAJoe]

You can also do the transfer at a MA FFL as long as the buyer carries it into MA to the dealer (so the NH seller never has physical possession of it in MA). I've done it this way when selling a handgun to a MA resident. It helps if you know the buyer well enough to just hand him the gun and meet him at the MA dealer.

Yes, good point!

 

[puška m70]

What's the word on the Galil ACE? MA OK if feature compliant?

IIRC there was some discussion about another Israeli gun branded IMI vs IWI being an 'enumerated weapon' and the other not, but I'm not 100% sure

 

[DW357]

What's the word on the Galil ACE? MA OK if feature compliant?

I believe so. I’d love a Galil Ace SBR in x39

 

[puška m70]

I believe so. I’d love a Galil Ace SBR in x39

I'm not in the market for one right now, but I've recently taken an interest in Israeli guns. The ACE is really just a modernized Israeli take on the AKM. And the Tavor seems good due to the long stroke piston and 3 lug bolt when comapring it to the AR for dirty environment use/reliability. I just don't know how I feel about the mostly plastic body.

Until recently I was clueless about them before watching a YT disassembly vid - I'm like HEY what that's an AK, seems like they're pretty cool guns.

 

[Varmint]

What's the word on the Galil ACE? MA OK if feature compliant?

IIRC there was some discussion about another Israeli gun branded IMI vs IWI being an 'enumerated weapon' and the other not, but I'm not 100% sure

I’ve seen them for sale in Mass, at places that won’t sell an AR. High cool factor but not sure it’s worth the money.

 

[Joeldiaz]

What's the word on the Galil ACE? MA OK if feature compliant?

IIRC there was some discussion about another Israeli gun branded IMI vs IWI being an 'enumerated weapon' and the other not, but I'm not 100% sure

The AWB enumerates the IMI Galil, not the IWI Galil Ace. If made compliant with the AWB features you should be fine.

 

[puška m70]

@andrewCZ @Joeldiaz @Varmint thanks for the info

 

[Coyote33]

They’re a feature counted the same as all the others (pistol grip, threaded barrel, etc.).

Only time the magazine needs to be fixed is if you're building an AR pistol.

or if your very particular use case finds folding/telescoping stocks and threaded muzzles more valuable than interchangeable magazines.

I considered including that but figured most sane people would prefer detachable mags lol

So, magazines don't matter except on a AR pistol. If no threaded barrel, and no bayonet lug, then an adjustable stock is OK with pistol grip and detachable magazines? For some reason, I thought ALL adjustable stocks were forbidden. Why would the 3rd quoted one above matter, except if on an AR pistol?

 

[Mesatchornug]

So, magazines don't matter except on a AR pistol. If no threaded barrel, and no bayonet lug, then an adjustable stock is OK with pistol grip and detachable magazines? For some reason, I thought ALL adjustable stocks were forbidden. Why would the 3rd quoted one above matter, except if on an AR pistol?

Not at all

The text of the AWB defines an "assault rifle" as a semi-auto rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and having 2+ evil features. If you use a fixed mag, for whatever reason, it's exempted. Similarly, employing a manual action exempts it.

So, if it were more important to a person, for their very particular use, to have an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, and a bayonet lug, they could do this if they (for example) permanently installed a 10-round mag.

 

[puška m70]

Lotta grey area with the whole fixed mag concept. Unlike CA DOJ, which publishes standards, how does anybody know what is an acceptable means of fixing a mag.

 

[DW357]

Lotta grey area with the whole fixed mag concept. Unlike CA DOJ, which publishes standards, how does anybody know what is an acceptable means of fixing a mag.

I believe the lower needs to be manufactured and sold as a fixed mag lower from the dealer/manufacturer in order to be compliant but can’t confirm. Who knows. I don’t GAF as fixed mag lowers are lame AF

 

[Mesatchornug]

I believe the lower needs to be manufactured and sold as a fixed mag lower from the dealer/manufacturer in order to be compliant but can’t confirm. Who knows. I don’t GAF as fixed mag lowers are lame AF

I don't know if a legal definition, just extra-legal "guidance" for lack of a better term.

For example, in the case of a PMF, there's no manufacturer. Does this mean a firearm built from an 80% cannot possibly have a fixed magazine? Moreover, a finished lower, in the eyes of the Commonwealth, is not currently a firearm. When it gets assembled by an end user - who is the manufacturer?

 

[Joeldiaz]

Lotta grey area with the whole fixed mag concept. Unlike CA DOJ, which publishes standards, how does anybody know what is an acceptable means of fixing a mag.

There’s no MGL or case law regarding converting semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines to fixed mag. We have no way of definitively saying what method of fixing a mag is legal. To my knowledge there is only one lower that has had any kind of legal test in MA, the JC Arms fixed mag lower. That lower is “originally manufactured” as a fixed magazine lower.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I was inspired. I made a thing.

As ever, this is not legal advice. Not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not YOUR lawyer. I'm just some rando with PowerPoint and a web browser. (edited for clarity and brevity, yadda yadda)

sources:

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121

malegislature.gov

Text - H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

Text for H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

www.congress.gov

https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr4296/BILLS-103hr4296pcs.pdf

 

[puška m70]

I was inspired. I made a thing.

As ever, this is not legal advice. Not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not YOUR lawyer. I'm just some rando with PowerPoint and a web browser. (edited for clarity and brevity, yadda yadda)

sources:

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121

malegislature.gov

Text - H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

Text for H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

www.congress.gov

https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr4296/BILLS-103hr4296pcs.pdf

That's really useful for a lot of people. Consider reaching out to MAGuns reddit moderators who may be able to pin this. There is a "weekly legal questions" thread where many questions could be answered by your post.

 

[Coyote33]

Nice. Thanks.

So the answer to the questions is that you get 1 feature along with detachable magazines.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Nice. Thanks.

So the answer to the questions is that you get 1 feature along with detachable magazines.

For semiautomatic pistols and rifles, yes.

 

[MAJoe]

Nice. Thanks.

So the answer to the questions is that you get 1 feature along with detachable magazines.

The reason it matters more for pistols, especially with AR pistols, is the first pistol feature “an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside the pistol grip”.

A detachable magazine on a pistol means it qualifies to be tested. On a AR pistol it then becomes one of the banned features. Add a pistol grip and it’s an assault weapon. The handguard is also a barrel shroud and it’s more than likely over 50oz. In other words, you can’t reasonably make an AR pistol compliant without fixing the mag in place.

On a rifle, the feature tests are different and the magazine doesn’t count against you as a feature. It only counts to qualify the weapon to be tested for the 2 features.

 

[Mesatchornug]

The reason it matters more for pistols, especially with AR pistols, is the first pistol feature “an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside the pistol grip”.

A detachable magazine on a pistol means it qualifies to be tested.

I'm with you.

On a AR pistol it then becomes one of the banned features.

Still tracking.

Add a pistol grip and it’s an assault weapon.

I'm afraid I don't follow. A pistol grip isn't an enumerated feature for a pistol.

If the only feature were a magazine outside the pistol grip (e.g., a Luger Mauser with detachable mags) you'd probably be OK.

Found one!

The handguard is also a barrel shroud and it’s more than likely over 50oz. In other words, you can’t reasonably make an AR pistol compliant without fixing the mag in place.

Again, agreed.

On a rifle, the feature tests are different and the magazine doesn’t count against you as a feature. It only counts to qualify the weapon to be tested for the 2 features.