MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

[Mesatchornug]

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.

Just saw this. Thanks for the kind words, and sorry for the delayed reply.

I've only the energy for one "hive of scum and villainy" right now, so NES gets my clicks (I hope y'all feel honored). If you want to cross-post it there, have at.

I can add a text-only decision-tree as well, if you think it's helpful.

 

[MAJoe]

I'm with you.

Still tracking.

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!

Again, agreed.

Whoops! Good call, updated my post.

You think that’s preban??

 

[Mesatchornug]

You think that’s preban??

barely...like, by the skin of its teeth.

 

[ColdComfort]

Shotguns:
(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.'.

How the AWB applies to Magazines (eg, so called "Large Capacity Feeding Devices" under MGL):

The federal ban stipulated a ban on "Large Capacity Feeding Devices", and this is the MGL version:

“Large capacity feeding device”, (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.

What this means in english is that within the borders of MA, you cannot legally own/possess a magazine that meets the description above (unless the magazine was made on or before 9/13/94). You're probably wondering what an attached tubular device is"- think feeding tube on a tube fed .22 LR rifle like a Marlin or some of the old Winchesters. This carve out was stuck in the law to keep the fudds from getting upset when it got passed.

[...]

Exemptions: (This is important!)

The MA AWB does not apply in the following scenarios:

-The device in question is possessed by an MA FFL or a LEO (for use in performance of their duties)

I'm new to MA's gun laws and have a question about banned shotguns:

I cannot own any post-94 semiauto SG (D) with 5+1 capacity (iii) that can accept a magazine tube extension (iv)?

That's crazy!

How do people deal with this? Bugger the threads so it can't accept an extension?

edit: I guess the answer is get a FFL...

 

[Mesatchornug]

I'm new to MA's gun laws and have a question about banned shotguns:

I cannot own any post-94 semiauto SG (D) with 5+1 capacity (iii) that can accept a magazine tube extension (iv)?

That's crazy!

How do people deal with this? Bugger the threads so it can't accept an extension?

edit: I guess the answer is get a FFL...

mag extensions aren't "detachable magazines." Installing one, however, creates "a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds."

 

[DarthRevan]

I'm new to MA's gun laws and have a question about banned shotguns:

I cannot own any post-94 semiauto SG (D) with 5+1 capacity (iii) that can accept a magazine tube extension (iv)?

That's crazy!

How do people deal with this? Bugger the threads so it can't accept an extension?

edit: I guess the answer is get a FFL...

You can have a semi shotgun with extended tube as long as it does not have a pistol grip.
To tip for services rendered, go green.

 

[Mesatchornug]

You can have a semi shotgun with extended tube as long as it does not have a pistol grip.
To tip for services rendered, go green.

It does risk "large capacity feeding device" territory, but that's a slightly different question.

 

[DarthRevan]

It does risk "large capacity feeding device" territory, but that's a slightly different question.

Tube mags =/= Detachable large capacity feeding device.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Tube mags =/= Detachable large capacity feeding device.

Correct.

It needn't be detachable to be large capacity.

 

[ColdComfort]

Thanks guys, seems like it’s slightly less dumb than I interpreted.

Pleasant surprise.

But, is there a real concern that a non-pistol grip semiauto SG with an extended tube could be illegal per the MA AWB because it’s construed as a "Large Capacity Feeding Devices”?

I see the disagreement between posters above me, just looking for a common sense reading based on experience.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Thanks guys, seems like it’s slightly less dumb than I interpreted.

Pleasant surprise.

But, is there a real concern that a non-pistol grip semiauto SG with an extended tube could be illegal per the MA AWB because it’s construed as a "Large Capacity Feeding Devices”?

I see the disagreement between posters above me, just looking for a common sense reading based on experience.

Tube fed shotguns are fuzzy because different size cartridges affect magazine size even without buying accessories. I don't know of any cases, but an 8rd tube holds more than 5. Meanwhile, there are exceedingly risk-averse dealers who sell them. Eventually, it's a question of your tolerance for risk...

 

[ColdComfort]

Tube fed shotguns are fuzzy because different size cartridges affect magazine size even without buying accessories. I don't know of any cases, but an 8rd tube holds more than 5. Meanwhile, there are exceedingly risk-averse dealers who sell them. Eventually, it's a question of your tolerance for risk...

Thanks, that's good enough for me.

 

[milktree]

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

View attachment 705321

There's one nerdy distinction missing:

Nothing manufactured before Sep. 13, 1994 can be an "Assault Weapon", no matter what its features. There's no such thing as a "pre-ban assault weapon", because the definition of "assault weapon" includes "after Sep. 13, 1994"

 

[Mesatchornug]

There's one nerdy distinction missing:

Nothing manufactured before Sep. 13, 1994 can be an "Assault Weapon", no matter what its features. There's no such thing as a "pre-ban assault weapon", because the definition of "assault weapon" includes "after Sep. 13, 1994"

honest question (yes they'd have to prove it) isn't is manufactured and in non-compliant configuration before [...]94? E.g., take an unmolested SKS today, put it in a new stock with a pistol grip, and (reversibly) convert it to use replaceable magazines; is that still ok?

 

[milktree]

honest question (yes they'd have to prove it) isn't is manufactured and in non-compliant configuration before [...]94?

I think you're right, but I can't cite why I think that. Probably someone I respect posted it here.

E.g., take an unmolested SKS today, put it in a new stock with a pistol grip, and (reversibly) convert it to use replaceable magazines; is that still ok?

No? Maybe not? If one believes that it has to have been in "AW configuration" on 9/13/94 to be exempt, then I'd guess that adding the evil features makes it an "assault weapon" and therefore banned.

Looking at the actual text of the '94 Federal law I can't see where something has to have been in that configuration on 9/13/94. But it's law, so there's probably some stuff I'm supposed to know about how laws work that supports the "must have been in..." assertion.

Interestingly, there's another (redundant?) exemption for anything made before 10/1/93:

‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of thefirearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such fire-arms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

I think I might be wrong about the definitions, I can't now find the bit that defines AW's as "only those made after 9/13/94", so maybe "pre-ban assault weapon" is a thing.

Edit: found it:

provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include:

(i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

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

malegislature.gov

 

[Mesatchornug]

I think you're right, but I can't cite why I think that. Probably someone I respect posted it here.

That's almost exactly my thinking. I feel like I remember someone saying there was guidance - during the ban, perhaps? - that said that it had to have been so-configured previously. But I can't say where I got that from.

 

[Len-2A Training]

That's almost exactly my thinking. I feel like I remember someone saying there was guidance - during the ban, perhaps? - that said that it had to have been so-configured previously. But I can't say where I got that from.

There were Tech Division letters answering these questions. All we have to go on is the old federal stuff. MA AG & FRB have no technical experts.

Yes the burden of proof falls to government per MGL, however the DAs will prosecute on BS charges, drag it out for 12-18 months to get you to plea out to PP status and bleed you in legal fees.

 

[Mesatchornug]

There were Tech Division letters answering these questions. All we have to go on is the old federal stuff. MA AG & FRB have no technical experts.

Yes the burden of proof falls to government per MGL, however the DAs will prosecute on BS charges, drag it out for 12-18 months to get you to plea out to PP status and bleed you in legal fees.

Thank you.

 

[Coyote33]

Sounds disheartening.

So, no relief here or on the horizon from the whole Bruen thing?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thank you.

IIRC, it was Dave Bardwell who maintained those docs back 1998. It was hosted on a college computer and the account no longer exists.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Sounds disheartening.

So, no relief here or on the horizon from the whole Bruen thing?

Not directly, no.

Most likely, it'll come after we hear from CA and/or MD.

 

[42!]

honest question (yes they'd have to prove it) isn't is manufactured and in non-compliant configuration before [...]94? E.g., take an unmolested SKS today, put it in a new stock with a pistol grip, and (reversibly) convert it to use replaceable magazines; is that still ok?

might want to check when the stock and conversion were made, the wern't as common pre 94 since you could just get an AR.
I have a pre-ban SKS Norinco, that was manufactured to take AK47 mags, I don't think they were ever originally made to take those duckbill BS mags.

 

[Mesatchornug]

might want to check when the stock and conversion were made, the wern't as common pre 94 since you could just get an AR.
I have a pre-ban SKS Norinco, that was manufactured to take AK47 mags, I don't think they were ever originally made to take those duckbill BS mags.

I'm fortunate here in that none of the comm-bloc stuff really tickles me, but it seemed like a handy example to consider.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

I'm fortunate here in that none of the comm-bloc stuff really tickles me, but it seemed like a handy example to consider.

Never been a burning desire of mine, but I will buy an AK pattern rifle to celebrate when the AWB falls.

 

[Coyote33]

Never been a burning desire of mine, but I will buy an AK pattern rifle to celebrate when the AWB falls.

I wouldn't mind owning a Valmet. My uncle used to work for them. I have a Valmet hat.

 

[drgrant]

Sounds disheartening.

So, no relief here or on the horizon from the whole Bruen thing?

View: https://youtu.be/Pt9Bmc7hnuc

 

[crescentcap]

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.

Any chance you’d be willing to elaborate on this? It seems like the ACE is good to go (I’m moving to MA), but I’d love to hear more on where/who/what you’ve seen on the ACE

 

[boltonguy]

If I happened to have a "MA-compliant" AR that I wanted to sell, would an FFL do a transfer from me to another MA resident based on the state of things right now?
If I had one I might be thinking about selling but been out of the game for so long that I'm not comfortable doing F2F on an eFA10
Would like to have the FFL do the transfer (buyer pays) to take me out of any liability.
If that doesnt make sense please LMK. Thx!

 

[MaroonedinMA]

EFA-10 is completely legit. No need to worry. But, if you really want to go through an FFL, pick up the phone and call them and ask. It’s not to hard to find one who understands the law.

 

[inerlogic]

If I happened to have a "MA-compliant" AR that I wanted to sell, would an FFL do a transfer from me to another MA resident based on the state of things right now?
If I had one I might be thinking about selling but been out of the game for so long that I'm not comfortable doing F2F on an eFA10
Would like to have the FFL do the transfer (buyer pays) to take me out of any liability.
If that doesnt make sense please LMK. Thx!

if you're that worried, bring it to a "buy back" and get your $50 stop n shop gift card.