Penalty for having an operable collapsible stock on a post ban weapon

[dannyk45]

Today I was trying to explain to someone that because of the AWB I could not have a collapsible stock that wasn't pinned or otherwise could not be adjusted on a post ban gun. The person I was talking to was an avid hunter and replied well who's going to know. I told him I knew it was a serious penalty wasn't sure. So after all my mumbling my question is what is the penalty for breaking the law. I tried to use the search function with no results. TIA

 

[jdubois]

C. 140 § 131M

It's an arrestable felony. $1000 - $10,000 or 1 - 10 years imprisonment for first offense, $5000 - $15,000 or 5 - 15 years imprisonment for subsequent offenses

 

[Scrivener]

C. 140 § 131M

It's an arrestable felony. $1000 - $10,000 or 1 - 10 years imprisonment for first offense, $5000 - $15,000 or 5 - 15 years imprisonment for subsequent offenses

Which is why the "avid hunter" will say you:

1. Don't need it;

2. Should not have it; and

3. The pols were right to ban it.

 

[Radio]

Which is why the "avid hunter" will say you:

1. Don't need it;

2. Should not have it; and

3. The pols were right to ban it.

= F U D D !

 

[doobie]

I have a slightly more important question... how many people have been prosecuted for this?

 

[jdubois]

I have a slightly more important question... how many people have been prosecuted for this?

This guy might have been indicted for it. The article is too muddled to be sure. Anybody know more accurate details as to whether he really was charged under 131M or simply under 129C? Either way, his use of the 'but it was a lifetime FID' defense isn't going to take him very far...

 

[amb]

I'm also curious if there's any guidance on just how "fixed" a stock needs to be. Does something readily adjustable with hand tools qualify?

Also note that Mass. law basically just incorporates the old federal language, which refers to "a folding or telescoping stock", but that the new versions of the AWB that have been floated for the last few years include a much more inclusive definition: "The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm", which (along with a bunch of other rather expansive definitions) would likely be a rude surprise for Mr. Fudd.

I've been contemplating the legality of putting a target stock (with adjustable length of pull) on a post-ban AR-15. Seems to me that as long as it's not telescoping or folding it's OK under the current rules, but if anyone sees things different I'd be very interested to hear about it.

 

[center442]

I'm also curious if there's any guidance on just how "fixed" a stock needs to be. Does something readily adjustable with hand tools qualify?

Also note that Mass. law basically just incorporates the old federal language, which refers to "a folding or telescoping stock", but that the new versions of the AWB that have been floated for the last few years include a much more inclusive definition: "The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm", which (along with a bunch of other rather expansive definitions) would likely be a rude surprise for Mr. Fudd.

I've been contemplating the legality of putting a target stock (with adjustable length of pull) on a post-ban AR-15. Seems to me that as long as it's not telescoping or folding it's OK under the current rules, but if anyone sees things different I'd be very interested to hear about it.

I believe an adjustable stock is okay. I recall some conversation on the forum to the effect that adjustable was not the same as collapsible.

I would verify the info and not rely on my interpretation/memory.

 

[dannyk45]

Which is why the "avid hunter" will say you:

1. Don't need it;

2. Should not have it; and

3. The pols were right to ban it.

He just thought it was ridiculous that you couldn't have it. His argument was more like "what's the big deal?"

 

[jdubois]

"what's the big deal?"

They're made out of eviluminum, that's what!

I actually saw for the first time today a gun grabber organization making the correct statement that full auto weapons were actually inaccurate, hard to control, and a poor way to shoot people... but they were using that fact to say, "see, therefore semi-auto 'assault weapons' are actually worse than autos!!! and need to be banned because they're designed as bullet sprayers!"

 

[vellnueve]

I have a slightly more important question... how many people have been prosecuted for this?

It's always been my view that you don't do something illegal just because you know you'll never get caught.

 

[LoginName]

This guy might have been indicted for it. The article is too muddled to be sure. Anybody know more accurate details as to whether he really was charged under 131M or simply under 129C? Either way, his use of the 'but it was a lifetime FID' defense isn't going to take him very far...

I'm not going to copy and paste it all, but it sounds like he's being pegged as a troublemaker.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but it appears to me that Manso has a pretty good defense for having the charges dismissed.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/i...so-arraigned-on-12-firearms-related-c?blog=53

There's more info here... including the police report...

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2008/10/04/the-manso-paper-trail?blog=177

 

[jdubois]

I'm not going to copy and paste it all, but it sounds like he's being pegged as a troublemaker.

<shrug> That's all up to the courts, I suppose. The charges of having the guns without the proper license and without being properly stored seem to be uncontested (or at least poorly contested) by Manso. Like you, my not being a lawyer, I don't know how far any police impropriety would have to go before he could have the charges dismissed because of it.

That's all tangent to my question though. But the police report does answer my question. Thanks for finding that! Since it was a pre-ban AR15, he wouldn't be charged under C. 140 § 131M for possessing an assault weapon. He'd be charged under C. 269 § 10(m) for possessing a large capacity weapon, which it appears is exactly what he was charged with.

This scenario, though, is exactly the kind of scenario that one could get charged with an AWB violation. The cops are poking into your business for some other reason, and they find it and start asking questions. The fact that the gun was pre-ban was the only detail stopping it this time.

 

[Pete85]

C. 140 § 131M

It's an arrestable felony. $1000 - $10,000 or 1 - 10 years imprisonment for first offense, $5000 - $15,000 or 5 - 15 years imprisonment for subsequent offenses

Isn't it redundant to include subsequent offenses in the law since the first offense is a felony and disqualifies you from (legally) owning a gun ever again?

 

[jdubois]

Isn't it redundant to include subsequent offenses in the law since the first offense is a felony and disqualifies you from (legally) owning a gun ever again?

You could certainly still be charged with a subsequent offense of 131M if you're caught again with an 'assault weapon' even if you don't any longer have a state license (and are Federally disqualified from possessing it). You'd just get hit with a bunch of other charges as well.

 

[LoginName]

This scenario, though, is exactly the kind of scenario that one could get charged with an AWB violation. The cops are poking into your business for some other reason, and they find it and start asking questions. The fact that the gun was pre-ban was the only detail stopping it this time.

If anything, it should serve as an example to those that say "who's going to find out"? or "how would anyone know"?

 

[Scrivener]

Isn't it redundant to include subsequent offenses in the law since the first offense is a felony and disqualifies you from (legally) owning a gun ever again?

NO.

What makes you think the criminals have their guns legally?

 

[RG617]

I was just randomly reading this and came across something interesting in the linked article...

"According to Truro Police Chief John Thomas, Manso's pre-1998 FID did not cover the assault weapon, called "high caliber weapons".

I don't know which is more amusing, the COP being an ignoramus about the pre-98 FID's purchasing capability (I bought a Type 2 AK with an FID from FS in the early to mid 90's with no problem), or the fact that his name is British slang for a dick.