MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ

[drgrant]

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/

Have fun with that.... we had a thread about this several years ago.... nothing definitive came out about it in the end, though.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/15954-Thumbhole-stock-on-AR15-to-gain-flashhider

Course even if the thumbhole is/was legal, there really aren't any vendors making them for AR15s anymore, for obvious reasons.

-Mike

 

[warwickben]

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.

That sks is pre ban,
Do as you want with it bro.



"with a pistol grip which would negate it's pre-ban status"

I think you might be hung up on the need to be in a "aw" before the ban went into effect.

Some say only way it's a true pre ban is if it was setup like a "aw" before the ban went into effect. But if you think about it there's no way to prove or disprove this. I'm sure some guys took photos of there 10/22's and ar's that where newish right before the ban started .

 

[Mach]

I have a dumb question.

Is it legal to build an AR pistol if I disable the mag release button so that the mag release must be disassembled to get the mag out, thereby bypassing the qualifier of "semi-auto and the ability to accept a detachable magazine"? make the magazine fixed?

 

[MetalgodZ]

Have fun with that.... we had a thread about this several years ago.... nothing definitive came out about it in the end, though.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/15954-Thumbhole-stock-on-AR15-to-gain-flashhider

Course even if the thumbhole is/was legal, there really aren't any vendors making them for AR15s anymore, for obvious reasons.

-Mike

Is that link the thread you're talking about in which nothing definitive came out? I wouldn't expect a thumbhole to be legal, but none of the stuff I posted is a thumbhole or allows you to get a pistol-like grip on the stock.

I could bypass the whole thing and just go with a pin and weld if I could find low-profile two-piece gas blocks. Or if I could find a .750" brake that wasn't loud as hell.

Or if I could just move to NH.

 

[drgrant]

Is that link the thread you're talking about in which nothing definitive came out? I wouldn't expect a thumbhole to be legal, but none of the stuff I posted is a thumbhole or allows you to get a pistol-like grip on the stock.

I could bypass the whole thing and just go with a pin and weld if I could find low-profile two-piece gas blocks. Or if I could find a .750" brake that wasn't loud as hell.

Or if I could just move to NH.

Sorry for not being more clear, my train of thought went off the rails. Yeah, all that crap would be legal, but let's face it, it all pretty much sucks, even compared to a thumbhole. That's what I meant to say, more or less. Most of it was designed for California.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

I have a dumb question.

Is it legal to build an AR pistol if I disable the mag release button so that the mag release must be disassembled to get the mag out, thereby bypassing the qualifier of "semi-auto and the ability to accept a detachable magazine"? make the magazine fixed?

You could probably do that if you really wanted to, but I am unsure of what standard would be applied to define a detachable magazine. In CA its obviously "requires a tool to remove" but this isn't CA. You'd have to find out what the old fed standard was, more or less... but even then there are no legal guarantees. My guess is some ruse like the "bullet button" would not have passed federal muster.

-Mike

 

[MetalgodZ]

Sorry for not being more clear, my train of thought went off the rails. Yeah, all that crap would be legal, but let's face it, it all pretty much sucks, even compared to a thumbhole. That's what I meant to say, more or less. Most of it was designed for California.

-Mike

Thanks for confirming what I was hoping.

Sucky grip? Yeah. At least the rubber one looks semi-comfortable. I consider it a small price to pay to run the muzzle device I want, be able to do maintenance without throwing my barrel away or borking the muzzle threads, and and be able to go to a pistol grip with a simple flat blade screwdriver when I finally escape this hellhole.

Absolute worst case, I run it until I've got the gun tuned and then pin the muzzle device and throw a pistol grip on it.

 

[Helix]

That sks is pre ban,
Do as you want with it bro.



"with a pistol grip which would negate it's pre-ban status"

I think you might be hung up on the need to be in a "aw" before the ban went into effect.

Some say only way it's a true pre ban is if it was setup like a "aw" before the ban went into effect. But if you think about it there's no way to prove or disprove this. I'm sure some guys took photos of there 10/22's and ar's that where newish right before the ban started .

It's a legal/illegal gray area. Yes it would be tough to prove that it wasn't in that set-up prior to 94'. However an anti-gun prosecutor hell bent on making an example out of someone could find a way.

 

[warwickben]

It's a legal/illegal gray area. Yes it would be tough to prove that it wasn't in that set-up prior to 94'. However an anti-gun prosecutor hell bent on making an example out of someone could find a way.

If your dealing with the awb bull shit your busted on some thing else and already in more trouble.

If your worried about going to the range and some one calling the cops or a cop being there and seeing it . you need to move .

 

[Neuro]

does anyone know what the state definition of 'detachable magazine' is?

 

[jasons]

does anyone know what the state definition of 'detachable magazine' is?

There isn't one defined in any of the laws or regulations that I've seen.

 

[drgrant]

It's a legal/illegal gray area. Yes it would be tough to prove that it wasn't in that set-up prior to 94'. However an anti-gun prosecutor hell bent on making an example out of someone could find a way.

An AWB case on an SKS? Sure, right after hell freezes over.

The only way an SKS could become a problem for someone in this state is if they had an FID and they put one of those POS duckbill mags on it, then someone could easily get hit with two felonies... LCAFD w/o a license and Large Cap Firearm without a license. These aren't AWB issues, of course.

-Mike

 

[warwickben]

An AWB case on an SKS? Sure, right after hell freezes over.

The only way an SKS could become a problem for someone in this state is if they had an FID and they put one of those POS duckbill mags on it, then someone could easily get hit with two felonies... LCAFD w/o a license and Large Cap Firearm without a license. These aren't AWB issues, of course.

-Mike

Mike what sks used ak mags. I forget what model it was .

 

[zombiehunter92]

I know this is probably somewhere in this thread. But i just was getting so confused about MA law. I found a verifiable preban Bushmaster xm15 on gunbroker. It has a pistol grip and flash hider. Which would make it in AW configuration. But how the hell can I prove the flash hider was on it before 1994? The seller stated it was put on to extend the length of the barrel. So if this can be proven that it was added AFTER 1994, then it is not legal to own in MA? UGHH MASS LAWS SUCK. please someone clear this up for me.

 

[OfficerObie59]

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

Not to rehash this debate, but no one is able to point out how a 7 round shotgun tube is not a HCFD just because the gun it attaches to is not semi-auto. I know and I'm grad that's how the law is interpreted, but it doesn't read that way.

 

[jasons]

Not to rehash this debate, but no one is able to point out how a 7 round shotgun tube is not a HCFD just because the gun it attaches to is not semi-auto. I know and I'm grad that's how the law is interpreted, but it doesn't read that way.

The only answer I've ever heard on that is "Because Glidden says so." Apparently that's enough for most.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Not to rehash this debate, but no one is able to point out how a 7 round shotgun tube is not a HCFD just because the gun it attaches to is not semi-auto. I know and I'm grad that's how the law is interpreted, but it doesn't read that way.

EOPS made that "determination". It is one of the questions I asked Glidden in his LE seminar a couple of years ago, so at least 200 chiefs/LOs heard it as well. I give the full explanation rationalizing this in my MA Gun Law seminars . . . along with the "black letter of the law" wording of the MGL.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The only answer I've ever heard on that is "Because Glidden says so." Apparently that's enough for most.

An unstated "POSSIBLE" reason for this rationalization may be the mini-shells available. That would make ALL tube-fed shotguns into HCFDs and felonies.

My Rem 1100 Skeet gun is (IIRC) a 3 rd tube, but with mini-shells it would hold 6 mini-shells and thus be a legal issue with the "black letter of the law" interpretation.

Don't know for sure what motivated this interpretation, but it is what it is . . . a grey area that likely nobody in MA will ever suffer from.

 

[lupis42]

An unstated "POSSIBLE" reason for this rationalization may be the mini-shells available. That would make ALL tube-fed shotguns into HCFDs and felonies.

My Rem 1100 Skeet gun is (IIRC) a 3 rd tube, but with mini-shells it would hold 6 mini-shells and thus be a legal issue with the "black letter of the law" interpretation.

Don't know for sure what motivated this interpretation, but it is what it is . . . a grey area that likely nobody in MA will ever suffer from.

Even without the mini-shells, a tube that holds 5 rounds of 3.5" shells holds 6 rounds of 2.75" shells. Someone at EOPS may have decided that they didn't want to try to defend that particular hill in a court, especially a federal court.

 

[EC1]

An unstated "POSSIBLE" reason for this rationalization may be the mini-shells available. That would make ALL tube-fed shotguns into HCFDs and felonies.

My Rem 1100 Skeet gun is (IIRC) a 3 rd tube, but with mini-shells it would hold 6 mini-shells and thus be a legal issue with the "black letter of the law" interpretation.

Don't know for sure what motivated this interpretation, but it is what it is . . . a grey area that likely nobody in MA will ever suffer from.

I haven't tried any mini shells, would they even cycle in a semi chambered for 3" shells?

 

[drgrant]

An unstated "POSSIBLE" reason for this rationalization may be the mini-shells available. That would make ALL tube-fed shotguns into HCFDs and felonies.

My Rem 1100 Skeet gun is (IIRC) a 3 rd tube, but with mini-shells it would hold 6 mini-shells and thus be a legal issue with the "black letter of the law" interpretation.

Don't know for sure what motivated this interpretation, but it is what it is . . . a grey area that likely nobody in MA will ever suffer from.

Even if they weren't available, it still stands that shotgun capacity in a tube is subjective. Another huge problem in the law is that it ignores the fact that a shotgun that can take 3.5" shells might have a "different" capacity than one that only takes 2.75" shells. IIRC there are also some other oddball shotshells floating around that are shorter than 2.75, as well. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where someone can easily exceed the capacity of the gun depending on what shells are in use.

The shotgun tube capacity debate is just the most retarded debate in the series. Right after this is the "What happens if I load up a .40 cal 10 round mag with 9mm and it works" debate. Then after that we have the "What if I have a 10 round .50 Beowulf mag , can I still get prosecuted for having a 30 round AR mag?" problem/debate.

I wouldn't even say it's "grey" Len. That's giving it too much credit. More like "grey, with a thick accumultion of dust and mold on it that will never be removed" . Someone a long time ago told me this was a "sleeping dog being allowed to lie" I'm like, no... BS... it's a dead dog, and nobody wants to get into the business of trying to reanimate its carcass, lest a whole grain silo full of worms will erupt forth in the process.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't tried any mini shells, would they even cycle in a semi chambered for 3" shells?

I don't know if an auto will cycle them well at all. Apparently even some pumps have problems with them.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

I know this is probably somewhere in this thread. But i just was getting so confused about MA law. I found a verifiable preban Bushmaster xm15 on gunbroker. It has a pistol grip and flash hider. Which would make it in AW configuration. But how the hell can I prove the flash hider was on it before 1994? The seller stated it was put on to extend the length of the barrel. So if this can be proven that it was added AFTER 1994, then it is not legal to own in MA? UGHH MASS LAWS SUCK. please someone clear this up for me.

You can't "prove" anything. Best you can hope to do is get the serial number and check with the factory to see when it was made. IIIRC as far as Bushmaster is concerned, all rifles "born" before the cutoff are preban AWs.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

Mike what sks used ak mags. I forget what model it was .

Norinco Type 97 uses them, IIRC. Nice guns, too. The duckbills are crap compared to that setup.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

I haven't tried any mini shells, would they even cycle in a semi chambered for 3" shells?

IFF they went after someone, I doubt that the DA would care if they cycle or if you had to manually cycle the gun. I just don't see it happening.

I wouldn't even say it's "grey" Len. That's giving it too much credit. More like "grey, with a thick accumultion of dust and mold on it that will never be removed" . Someone a long time ago told me this was a "sleeping dog being allowed to lie" I'm like, no... BS... it's a dead dog, and nobody wants to get into the business of trying to reanimate its carcass, lest a whole grain silo full of worms will erupt forth in the process.

-Mike

Please tell that to your fellow Mod jasons . . . he loves to rip me apart on this topic, insisting that they are all illegal. He's been doing that since Day 1! I do tell my students both sides of this issue and that I wouldn't worry about it . . . I'm with you on this being a non-issue with 99.9999999999999999999999999% certainty.

 

[jasons]

Please tell that to your fellow Mod jasons . . . he loves to rip me apart on this topic, insisting that they are all illegal. He's been doing that since Day 1! I do tell my students both sides of this issue and that I wouldn't worry about it . . . I'm with you on this being a non-issue with 99.9999999999999999999999999% certainty.

Rip you apart? That's a bit over-stated I think, I just point out what the law actually says. Granted I don't exactly elevate Glidden to the status of full deity like many seem to. I think he's a muppet.

The whole debate (if you can even call it that - it's hardly debatable) just goes to show that even "experts" like Glidden don't understand what the laws actually say. Of course it's a non-issue for practical purposes. That fact is both obvious and not the point.

The shotgun tube capacity debate is just the most retarded debate in the series.

It's the law that's retarded, not the discussion. If we didn't have retarded laws like that one (and many others) we wouldn't need this thread. Since we do, the alternative to discussion would be to just accept the "facts," stuff our heads a bit deeper into the sand, and keep on living in blissful ignorance. That's not really my thing.

 

[drgrant]

It's the law that's retarded, not the discussion. If we didn't have retarded laws like that one (and many others) we wouldn't need this thread. Since we do, the alternative to discussion would be to just accept the "facts," stuff our heads a bit deeper into the sand, and keep on living in blissful ignorance. That's not really my thing.

True enough, but absent any case law on the issue (which will never happen) we're just spinning wheels like that truck in the burnout video where they burn the rim off truck. About the only thing that could fully bury this is if there was some kind of memo that EOPS or whoever sent out to DAs/ADAs about why the law is unenforceable and more or less a nullity. I have a feeling that this same discussion has probably occurred between someone like Jason Guida (or even Glidden) and the DAs at one point or another in the past, but it's probably not "on the record", but I would bet that it's pretty much "institutional knowledge". The other thing that sticks out in my mind is that prosecutors don't even use this as a "bologna sticking to a wall charge" like they do on the exceedingly rare AWB prosecution attempts. (eg, they stack the charge on but it quickly gets discarded if the defense has any sort of real representation). When GSG was around here more often he did a lot of law research on AWB stuff (and theres another thread here with his musings in it) and out of all the stuff he excavated, I don't think any of the cases involved a shotgun. Although not AWB related, it would be interesting to see if any charges have been levied of "LCAFD without a license" involving a tube fed shotgun. If they never even did that, that would further add to the idea of the "institutional nostrum" within the MA criminal court system not even regarding the tube as an LCAFD.

Another random musing.... I wonder if MTBS guy had a tube fed shotgun in his possession. Due to the overzealous nature of his prosecution, where they stacked up a pile of BS charges, it would be interesting to see whether or not such a shotgun was in the inventory of all the guns they seized from him. From what I remember most of the stuff was "FID land" guns.

-Mike

 

[OfficerObie59]

I think a compelling interpretation of what provisions in the MA AWB mean can be hashed out by what the Feds allowed from 1994-2004. Could you buy extended tube shotguns then? If so, that strikes me as the strongest argument possible absent black letter law to the contrary.

 

[retslag1]

please ignore this. Thought I wasn't able to post new threads, but turns out I was wrong! I put my questions here.

 

[Darksideblues42]

So here goes my "dumb question"

A Korean colleague of mine (now a US citizen) has several Semi-Auto Daewoo Industries K2 rifles. 1 has a collapsing stock, one a folding stock, and one a fixed thumbhole stock. All have bayonet lugs.

All of these were made in 92 or 93.

He lives in another state and would like to sell me one. If we go to an FFL in his state, they complete the transfer, is there any reason I cannot take one of the non-fixed stock rifles home with me? My initial reading is that I should be Ok given what I can see based on the age of them plus the FFL transfer.

A second opinion would be really helpful here though, just because we can never be too careful.

 

[soam]

So here goes my "dumb question"

A Korean colleague of mine (now a US citizen) has several Semi-Auto Daewoo Industries K2 rifles. 1 has a collapsing stock, one a folding stock, and one a fixed thumbhole stock. All have bayonet lugs.

All of these were made in 92 or 93.

He lives in another state and would like to sell me one. If we go to an FFL in his state, they complete the transfer, is there any reason I cannot take one of the non-fixed stock rifles home with me? My initial reading is that I should be Ok given what I can see based on the age of them plus the FFL transfer.

A second opinion would be really helpful here though, just because we can never be too careful.

Yes. You will need to do an eFA10 registration within 7 days of bringing it into MA.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Perfectly legal with a LTC. However expect many/most non-MA shops will refuse the transfer for fear that they are illegal in MA (they aren't). So triple check with the non-MA dealer before venturing that route.

 

[Woda]

Does he need to use an FFL at all?

I thought he could just fill out the FA10 and go on his way...