-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
MA Assault Weapons Ban "AWB" FAQ
- Thread starter drgrant
- Start date
If you are asking me then it seems that is possible. I may have the Muzzle Break permanently attached. Time will tell. But in the case of the adjustable stock. I would like to keep that adjustable in the event my wife or my oldest daughter wants to go with me. That way it can be set for what is comfortable for them as I am much taller and it would be unlikely they could adjust properly with it set for me.
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
Depending what stock you get .
Some are easy to lock in place with out pinning .
They uses a detent and a spring for them lock normaly . You swap the spring out for a longer detent .
Normally there's a roll pin you can push out .
On one of the magpul stocks I have you can change the position with a punch in 5-10 mins .
inerlogic
NES Member
Find a pre-ban lower and put whatever you want on it.
Varmint
NES Member
guys, sorry if this has been answered, but suppose you own a complete AR. If you buy a 8" complete upper, and your only lower is the one in that complete rifle, is that constructive intent in the eyes of the Feds and/or Massachusetts? I'm assuming yes, but hoping to hear otherwise.
slugworth
NES Member
Well your AR Lower is registered as a full length barrel AR right? So if you put the 8" upper on it it's now an SBR right?
I think you need another Lower that's registered as an SBR for that upper..
Im sure more informed peeps will chime in tho...
I can't see how, to be honest. Otherwise anyone that has a picatinny railed pistol and a VFG laying around could be ruled to be planning on putting in on their pistol and making it illegally configured.
In MA, an upper technically isn't a firearm anyway.
MA nobody knows. (good luck finding much case law on constructive possession, lost cause)
Feds, possibly. But this really isn't an AWB question and probably better served by posting a thread in the NFA subforum about it, because this is really an NFA issue.
-Mike
Varmint
NES Member
After doing some reading it sounds like a no-no in Mass because:
Outside MA (or CA etc) I can own a pistol upper if I also own a pistol lower - then you can explain ownership of the upper. But in mass you wouldn't want to make that argument cause AR pistols are illegal, and if you have a rifle lower, the Feds can get you on constructive possession of an unregistered SBR.
I need to read up on getting a tax stamp.
Note that you can have a lower with a pistol buffer, and a 16 inch upper, and build what MA will consider a rifle but the feds consider a pistol. This will allow you to, in the future, assemble the lower as a pistol with a shorter barrel in another state.
AR pistols are not illegal in MA. You're reading too much into things that aren't there. Not to mention there is no such thing as a pistol lower anymore, although the fed circle jerk about something starting life as a pustol vs rifle still applies.
Varmint
NES Member
I meant a lower without a stock, cause if it has a stock, then you're open to constructive possession of an unregistered SBR.
This is first I've heard that AR pistols are legal - everyone seems to say the opposite here.
- - - Updated - - -
But if you own a stock, a lower, and a short barreled upper, you're in Federal law violation without a SBR tax stamp. So it seems.
Building an AR pistol is possible but it is hard to come in under 50 oz.it's easier if you use a 22lr set up so you can ditch some weight. In my post I was referring to building a firearm with a barrel 16" long or longer to avoid problems with the nfa and the MA awb. No short barrel involved. Remember,the federal definition of a pistol does not depend on barrel length so you can build a long barreled pistol that MA would consider a rifle
Varmint
NES Member
Thanks, yeah, that makes sense but not sure I see the benefit of a pistol build with 16" barrel.
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
Believe the idea is ,
when in a free state like nh You can toss a sub 16" barrel on it and be legal as a pistol.
You could also argue retaining possession of the sub 16" upper in mass . Since with out it mounted it's not violating the awb, and you have a legal pistol lower so federally it be a hard sell to push you intend to make a undocumented sbr.
Q- Ok lets say Im in possesion of a pre94 kbi import SA85M ak. that was converted prior to the ban many years ago. and its now in SBR format. Can I move to Mass with it .....without removing evil features? this is a pre 94 not pre 89. its is 922r compliant currently
The MA AWB requires an AW configuration prior to 8 Sep 94 to be grandfathered.
Since yours was and SBRs are legal in MA, I would say yes it is perfectly legal to bring to MA.
Just realize you must get a permit just to posses and it must be a LTC A.
There is a grace period. I think it is 60 days but not sure.
Any mag greater than 10 rounds must be pre the same date.
Since yours was and SBRs are legal in MA, I would say yes it is perfectly legal to bring to MA.
Just realize you must get a permit just to posses and it must be a LTC A.
There is a grace period. I think it is 60 days but not sure.
Any mag greater than 10 rounds must be pre the same date.
thank you but there is no way to prove it was in side folder configuration. also if someone converted a post 89 imported ak prior to 94 ...wouldnt it have been an illegal conversion ? I really want to make sure Im 100 percent legal prior to our move
The magic date is 9/13/1994 (not the 8th). It must have been in AW configuration on/before that date to be a legit pre-ban, it isn't just a DOB of the frame issue.
It would be a legal conversion between 1989 and 14 Sep 94 ( Thanks Len) as long as 922R was complied with by having the corrdct number of US parts.
However that only applies to the person that converted it. It would not be illegal to possess a 922r non-compliant rifle, it is only a fed crime to convert it to an import ban configuration if it does not have the right number of US parts. Not illegal to posses a non 922r compliant rifle only illegal to convert it. In other words the person that did he work comitted a crime the rifle itself is legal.
That is the way I understand 922r .
Example. you buy an SKS without a bayonet because it could not be imported with it on. You then put a bayonet on it. You commit a fed crime if you dont replace the correct number of foreign parts with US parts.
If you buy that rifle and somebody else put the bayonet on it, before you bought it, there is no issue for you or the rifle
However that only applies to the person that converted it. It would not be illegal to possess a 922r non-compliant rifle, it is only a fed crime to convert it to an import ban configuration if it does not have the right number of US parts. Not illegal to posses a non 922r compliant rifle only illegal to convert it. In other words the person that did he work comitted a crime the rifle itself is legal.
That is the way I understand 922r .
Example. you buy an SKS without a bayonet because it could not be imported with it on. You then put a bayonet on it. You commit a fed crime if you dont replace the correct number of foreign parts with US parts.
If you buy that rifle and somebody else put the bayonet on it, before you bought it, there is no issue for you or the rifle
So, forgive me if this has been hashed out before...
Someone at my club today adamantly asserted that you cannot (legally) attach a pre-ban magazine to a post ban AR-15. I say nay nay... however his assertion was that because the attorney general wrote some letter, a person could be prosecuted for simply having a large capacity pre-ban magazine in your house and not having a pre-ban AR to accompany that magazine, just having a post ban AR.
Is there any legal precedent, or basis for this assertion, or for that matter case law? (Yes, I read the FAQ, however, who is the source for the FAQ? or is there an official determination?)
Any Lawyers, cops, judges etc out there to opine?
Someone at my club today adamantly asserted that you cannot (legally) attach a pre-ban magazine to a post ban AR-15. I say nay nay... however his assertion was that because the attorney general wrote some letter, a person could be prosecuted for simply having a large capacity pre-ban magazine in your house and not having a pre-ban AR to accompany that magazine, just having a post ban AR.
Is there any legal precedent, or basis for this assertion, or for that matter case law? (Yes, I read the FAQ, however, who is the source for the FAQ? or is there an official determination?)
Any Lawyers, cops, judges etc out there to opine?
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,441
- Likes
- 17,632
Saber,
When confronted with this sort of thing, I say, "Cite, please?" If they can't provide a relevant citation to law, then they're talking out of their hat. Or somewhere.
Not a lawyer, judge, or cop. But, neither was your interlocutor. Or even versed in the laws.
Not sure how new you are to the shooting game (see that you're new to the forum), but you will find many instances of this sort of thing.
Everyone (ok, except for me
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
) has a smart phone. While they try to find it, keep shooting. If they can't prove it, tell them, politely, to STFU.
Welcome to NES.
Oh, yeah....it's not unlawful. The Mag and the Gun are two separate entities.
Saber, the guy is full of shit.
Find and read the memo from the AG, pretty sure it is posted here (or perhaps on GOAL.org) somewhere. All it does is reiterate the law for dealers and doesn't create or interpret new law.
My post-ban AR-15 has never seen the 10 rd mags that came with it in 1998, they are still in the sealed wrappers.
Find and read the memo from the AG, pretty sure it is posted here (or perhaps on GOAL.org) somewhere. All it does is reiterate the law for dealers and doesn't create or interpret new law.
My post-ban AR-15 has never seen the 10 rd mags that came with it in 1998, they are still in the sealed wrappers.
Saber,
When confronted with this sort of thing, I say, "Cite, please?" If they can't provide a relevant citation to law, then they're talking out of their hat. Or somewhere.
Not a lawyer, judge, or cop. But, neither was your interlocutor. Or even versed in the laws.
Not sure how new you are to the shooting game (see that you're new to the forum), but you will find many instances of this sort of thing.
Everyone (ok, except for me
If they can't prove it, tell them, politely, to STFU.
Welcome to NES.
Oh, yeah....it's not unlawful. The Mag and the Gun are two separate entities.
That's basically what I tried to do today, pulled out my phone, googled "MA AWB FAQ" and came right here, I was hoping to find some sort of "official" answer (MA.gov, etc) if anyone has such a source...
Trust me, I take everything I hear at the range with a grain of salt, I'm neither new to shooting or new to the internet... I went to college, I know how to cite sources... in an arcane format called APA...
The issue in this case is that you will not be able to find a specific citation for a law that says "You may put pre-ban mags in a post-ban gun." There is no law that says you can't, so you can.
Here's a link to the specific section of the AWB text regarding mags:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c1034izfPY:e650830:
Note that there's nothing in there about the gun you put the mag in.
And I whole-heartedly agree, my friend's assertion was that the attorney general made some determination yadda yadda, his citation was that his friend got 2 years following a domestic violence charge for having pre ban mags, but no pre ban gun, just post ban. There's nothing in the law that says an FFL cant sell new Glocks, but apparently an attorney general decree 'Trumps' all...
I don't buy it for a second...
