MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

[crazymjb]

Ive seen LE marked mags that predate the AWB. I think they were for a usp.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jasons]

These would be clearly Felonies to possess!

The law disagrees:

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

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.

As long as it was "lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994" (as the date stamp would indicate) it's legal. The LEO/GOVT stamping is irrelevant. (With that said, I've never seen such a thing. All of the LEO/GOVT stamped mags I've ever seen were made AFTER September 13, 1994.)

Ive seen LE marked mags that predate the AWB. I think they were for a usp.

Well, there you go. I learn something new every day.


(Just make sure the date stamps are legit.)

 

[Len-2A Training]

jasons, many mfrs put 9.13.94 (along with the Mil/LEO only) on their mags to indicate they were made AFTER the Fed Ban, so the marking doesn't designate DOB in these cases but date of the law. You can believe as you like, but i know it as fact.

 

[jasons]

jasons, many mfrs put 9.13.94 (along with the Mil/LEO only) on their mags to indicate they were made AFTER the Fed Ban, so the marking doesn't designate DOB in these cases but date of the law. You can believe as you like, but i know it as fact.

Why wouldn't they stamp them 9/14/94 to indicate they were made DURING the ban instead of the day before it started? Or just use the actual date?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Why wouldn't they stamp them 9/14/94 to indicate they were made DURING the ban instead of the day before it started? Or just use the actual date?

That's a good question that I can not answer. Everyone said that the ban took effect on 9/13/1994 . . . however they seemed to misunderstand the part that said anything made on 9/13/1994 or earlier was grandfathered!

Glock in particular used the 9.13.1994 wording all thru the ban. From my phone conversations with Glock-USA's Chief Legal Counsel and their chief technician, it seems to me that Glock-Austria didn't have the best grasp on the US law and found it an annoyance, probably didn't ask pertinent questions of Glock-USA's legal team either . . . I know that they refused to supply "when did you make modifications" information to Glock-USA when asked by them.

 

[Big Daddy]

Thanks for all the good info guys. My question: Would a FNH SLP tactical w/pistol grip, 6+1 capacity, 18" barrel be legal in MA?

 

[soam]

Thanks for all the good info guys. My question: Would a FNH SLP tactical w/pistol grip, 6+1 capacity, 18" barrel be legal in MA?

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.'.

The shotgun you describe is semiautomatic, and has (ii) and (iii), which means it is an Assault Weapon as defined in MA law.

 

[jasons]

Thanks for all the good info guys. My question: Would a FNH SLP tactical w/pistol grip, 6+1 capacity, 18" barrel be legal in MA?

I would say no just because of the "large capacity" magazine. The pistol grip is another problem on an auto loading shotgun, so it's double plus ungood.

I'm on my phone so providing cites is impractical. I'll try to add them later.

Edit: I see MLAboss provided the AWB cite above. There's another separate large capacity magazine law as well.

 

[soam]

I would say no just because of the "large capacity" magazine. The pistol grip is another problem on an auto loading shotgun, so it's double plus ungood.

I'm on my phone so providing cites is impractical. I'll try to add them later.

Edit: I see MLAboss provided the AWB cite above. There's another separate large capacity magazine law as well.

Yup, the large cap magazine definition is the following (emphasis added):

“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.

Note that fixed magazines are specifically included in the definition, and that only fixed tubular devices for .22 ammo are excepted. This means that, under a strict reading of the law (at least as I understand it), any fixed tube magazine for a shotgun that holds more than 5 shotgun shells is a LCFD, so even if the shotgun isn't an AW, the tube mag alone violates the LCFD part of the law. And, since the LCFD applies to the magazine and not the gun itself, it applies even if it's a pump shotgun.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yup, the large cap magazine definition is the following (emphasis added):



Note that fixed magazines are specifically included in the definition, and that only fixed tubular devices for .22 ammo are excepted. This means that, under a strict reading of the law (at least as I understand it), any fixed tube magazine for a shotgun that holds more than 5 shotgun shells is a LCFD, so even if the shotgun isn't an AW, the tube mag alone violates the LCFD part of the law. And, since the LCFD applies to the magazine and not the gun itself, it applies even if it's a pump shotgun.

And if that were the case, since "mini-shells" now exist, any 3 shell tube will readily hold 6 mini-shells probably making EVERY tube-fed shotgun a LCFD and illegal (if not pre-ban), right?

[I will not argue that per black letter of the law, this would be true. And if GOAL was doing its job, this is another small thing that they should have had addressed legislatively years ago . . . since obviously GCAB and EOPS created and accepted, respectively, a lesser interpretation of this law.]

 

[Almostelmo]

Why are shotguns only allowed 5 rounds but rifles and pistols are 10? I'm assuming they just based it on what configuration was most common and made the 5 round limit to keep people from modifying things?

 

[soam]

And if that were the case, since "mini-shells" now exist, any 3 shell tube will readily hold 6 mini-shells probably making EVERY tube-fed shotgun a LCFD and illegal (if not pre-ban), right?

[I will not argue that per black letter of the law, this would be true. And if GOAL was doing its job, this is another small thing that they should have had addressed legislatively years ago . . . since obviously GCAB and EOPS created and accepted, respectively, a lesser interpretation of this law.]

Well, considering that pump shotguns that hold more than 5 regular-sized shells are routinely sold by dealers in this state, and that none that I'm aware of have been shut down for selling items that violate the AWB, I'm inclined to believe that tube-fed pump shotguns are effectively exempt from the magazine capacity restrictions even if they are technically in violation according to the letter of the law.

I agree that it would be nice if stuff like this would be cleared up legislatively, but I'm not holding my breath. At the same time, I'm not overly concerned that a bunch of people with 8+1 round pump shotguns will suddenly wind up in prison.

 

[Almostelmo]

Pumps are exempt from AWB. The question was about semi autos.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Pumps are exempt from AWB. The question was about semi autos.

See my response above. If the tube were legally a LCFD (let's say on a Rem. 1100), the existence of mini-shells would make the standard Rem. 1100 illegal in MA (unless mfd on/before 9/13/1994).

 

[soam]

Pumps are exempt from AWB. The question was about semi autos.

Pump shotguns aren't covered by the AWB, but the magazines that feed them are (at least, by the letter of the law they are). The LCFD definition does not distinguish between types of guns, only capacity of magazines. So, even though the shotgun may not itself be an Assault Weapon, the magazine that feeds it is a LCFD if it holds more than 5 shells.

 

[Almostelmo]

See my response above. If the tube were legally a LCFD (let's say on a Rem. 1100), the existence of mini-shells would make the standard Rem. 1100 illegal in MA (unless mfd on/before 9/13/1994).

Gotcha, I was replying to mlaboss (i should have quoted) but now I see I kind of misunderstood what he was saying.

 

[Almostelmo]

Pump shotguns aren't covered by the AWB, but the magazines that feed them are (at least, by the letter of the law they are). The LCFD definition does not distinguish between types of guns, only capacity of magazines. So, even though the shotgun may not itself be an Assault Weapon, the magazine that feeds it is a LCFD if it holds more than 5 shells.

But in both the definition of "assault weapon" and "large capacity weapon" pumps are called out specifically.

I get what you're saying though, how can if be a LCFD on one gun but the exact same design is not on another.

Edit: I see what you mean now, the LCFD definition is doesn't call out pumps, but "assault weapon" and "large capacity weapon" does call it out. This stuff makes my head spin...

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; 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; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

 

[Len-2A Training]

A prime example of LCFDs (or not) on a shotgun . . . the Kel-Tec KSG, which is sold by the absolutely most conservative gun shop in MA.

IIRC it has 2 7-rd tubes! I honestly don't recall if it is semi-auto, but I do suspect that it is.

 

[45collector]

A prime example of LCFDs (or not) on a shotgun . . . the Kel-Tec KSG, which is sold by the absolutely most conservative gun shop in MA.

IIRC it has 2 7-rd tubes! I honestly don't recall if it is semi-auto, but I do suspect that it is.

No those are pump. They are fun as shit too.

 

[crazymjb]

So if I have a .50 beowulf upper I can buy pmags that hold 10 rounds of .50, right? What about jamming 12 rounds of 9mm into a .40 mag?

Just stirring the pot.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[30Mauser]

No those are pump. They are fun as shit too.

This. Kicks like a mule!

 

[voidoid]

A couple of questions regarding pistols...I've been drooling over a potential PPS-43c build. My understanding is that if I construct the PPS as a pistol by building it on a new receiver flat (NOT welding the original receiver), it would violate MA AWB because it has a pistol grip, mag outside the grip, barrel shroud, and weighs more than 2x the 50oz limit. Plus, it's a semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (MGL definition of "firearm" includes a barrel shorter than 16", and the PPS-43 was originally a SBR configuration).

However, if I built it as a fixed-stock carbine (16" bbl), I would be fine, assuming I fed it with pre-ban mags, correct? The pistol grip would be the only evil feature.

If I was to do a PPS-43c pistol build and welded the original receiver using a receiver repair section (this part is not a receiver itself per BATFE), would the firearm count as preban? In other words, can you re-build a pre-ban firearm that has been de-milled (cut receiver) and have it count as pre-ban under MA law?

 

[Helix]

What constitutes a bayonet mount? I have an old surplus rifle with a bayonet that needs to be installed/uninstalled with tools. It doesn't just slip over the barrel and lock into place. From my understanding of the law, if one of the "evil" features has to be installed/uninstalled with tools, and I remove that part, it doesn't count as one of the features. Am I wrong?

 

[drgrant]

What constitutes a bayonet mount? I have an old surplus rifle with a bayonet that needs to be installed/uninstalled with tools. It doesn't just slip over the barrel and lock into place. From my understanding of the law, if one of the "evil" features has to be installed/uninstalled with tools, and I remove that part, it doesn't count as one of the features. Am I wrong?

The real question is... is there a bayonet lug on the rifle or not? If it's not a thing to specifically attach a bayonet to, it doesn't count as an evil feature.

Also, when you say "Old Surplus Rifle" what are we talking here? SKS? There aren't too many guns that are really old that actually get anywhere near triggering the AWB. (Not to mention, if they were AWs, they'd be preban anyways if they were in the "evil" config before the cutoff. )

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

A couple of questions regarding pistols...I've been drooling over a potential PPS-43c build. My understanding is that if I construct the PPS as a pistol by building it on a new receiver flat (NOT welding the original receiver), it would violate MA AWB because it has a pistol grip, mag outside the grip, barrel shroud, and weighs more than 2x the 50oz limit. Plus, it's a semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (MGL definition of "firearm" includes a barrel shorter than 16", and the PPS-43 was originally a SBR configuration).

The weight limit for pistols is the usual problem.

However, if I built it as a fixed-stock carbine (16" bbl), I would be fine, assuming I fed it with pre-ban mags, correct? The pistol grip would be the only evil feature.

Yes.

If I was to do a PPS-43c pistol build and welded the original receiver using a receiver repair section (this part is not a receiver itself per BATFE), would the firearm count as preban? In other words, can you re-build a pre-ban firearm that has been de-milled (cut receiver) and have it count as pre-ban under MA law?

No, if you're rebuilding a weld-up it's a "new" gun as far as the law's concerned.

That said.... it'd be pretty "fun" for someone to try to prove when you made your contraption, depending on how you do it... but I'll leave that as an exercise for you to explore.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

So if I have a .50 beowulf upper I can buy pmags that hold 10 rounds of .50, right? What about jamming 12 rounds of 9mm into a .40 mag?

Just stirring the pot.

Mike

Those two things are the fun piles of shit that nobody really has an answer to. Strictly speaking I would make a WAG that if the mag is found with more than 10 rounds of (whatever) in it, you might have a problem. It's hard to know how the courts etc would act in these weirdball circumstances because there is little to no case law on the issue.

-Mike

 

[Helix]

The real question is... is there a bayonet lug on the rifle or not? If it's not a thing to specifically attach a bayonet to, it doesn't count as an evil feature.

Also, when you say "Old Surplus Rifle" what are we talking here? SKS? There aren't too many guns that are really old that actually get anywhere near triggering the AWB. (Not to mention, if they were AWs, they'd be preban anyways if they were in the "evil" config before the cutoff. )

-Mike

It's an SKS that has been modified to accept detachable magazines. I wanted to swap out the stock for one with a pistol grip which would negate it's pre-ban status and put me in AW territory. I have to eliminate the bayonet mount or the flash suppressor first to keep it legal.

 

[sampsta]

So im looking at purchasing my first AR soon...was trying to read some of the verbage and getting lost....if I don't have a muzzle flash suppressor and a 30 round mag...am I allowed to have a collapseable stock?

 

[sampsta]

disregard went fishing thru more theads...got that answered..so If I pick up a "pre ban" 20 or 30 rd mag that is accabtable to use in my post ban AR right?

 

[soam]

disregard went fishing thru more theads...got that answered..so If I pick up a "pre ban" 20 or 30 rd mag that is accabtable to use in my post ban AR right?

Correct.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Since this seems to be the most active current MA AWB thread...

I'm contemplating the tradeoff in comfort vs the utility of being able to spin off a muzzle device or use a FH. It seems to me from my readings of the laws that removing the pistol grip would allow that.

Is that a safe interpretation?

If so, which would this be sufficiently non-pistol-grippy?
http://www.riflegrip.com/#
http://www.thordsencustoms.com/frs-15-stock.htm (note: http://www.thordsencustoms.com/feature-restricted-states.htm)
http://ar15spur.com/