Post-ban lower / evil upper

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,656
Likes
19,918
Feedback: 121 / 0 / 0
I've done some searching and have found that uppers with "evil features" are legal because they are considered a "part". Now, putting said evil upper onto a post-ban lower would be illegal, I understand.

What if I'm at a range? Can I combine my post-ban lower and evil upper just to shoot at the range?



p.s.- By "evil upper" and "evil features", I am talking about flash hider, bayonet mount.
 
No. you could be prosecuted for just having the two parts in possession, not assembled, at the range.
 
What if I'm at a range? Can I combine my post-ban lower and evil upper just to shoot at the range?



p.s.- By "evil upper" and "evil features", I am talking about flash hider, bayonet mount.

Not in MA. Legally you can't even do this at your house, in your bedroom and under your covers with a flash light, just to see how it looks.
 
Can you show me where in MA law it states that?

It doesn't say that in the law, but he's working off the doctrine of "constructive possession". The thing is, I know of no case law in MA to back up that assertion.

For example, in fed/BATFE realm if someone has a short barreled AR upper and no registered SBR lower to mate it to, but one or more non-registered, non-NFA lowers
around, the assumption is that BATFE would consider someone owning an SBR in that circumstance via constructive possession.

Constructive possession rarely appears directly in a law, but is often used by a prosecution to make it look as though the person charged, while not having said "prohibited device" etc, was not more than a few simple steps away from having it. The feds use it a lot. Problem is that it's a generic concept- eg, obviously the authorities can't say that everyone with a gasoline can is an arsonist, on the other side of the coin, either.

I think whether someone could actually get charged for constructive possession or not under MA law is a matter of to what degree some jackoff prosecutor would
go to persue the issue; and chances are if it became an issue the person defending the charges likely has bigger issues to deal with anyways.

One interesting thing that could make constructive possession fail in MA is how a "firearm" is defined. There's that whole "readily capable of discharging a shot"
thing, whereas on the other hand in fed realm a firearm can be a piece of metal.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
So in short as far as possessing these two unassembled items go, there is no law against it nor has anyone ever been prosecuted for it?

ETA; Would this mean that even possessing a unattached bayonet lug without a pre-pan could make a prosecution case?
 
Last edited:
One interesting thing that could make constructive possession fail in MA is how a "firearm" is defined.

Personally, I would be terrified of a constructive possession prosecution, as I think it would be very easy to convince a jury here in moonbat central that the 'evil gunman' was trying to 'skirt the law' by 'keeping the weapon disassembled'.
 
Personally, I would be terrified of a constructive possession prosecution, as I think it would be very easy to convince a jury here in moonbat central that the 'evil gunman' was trying to 'skirt the law' by 'keeping the weapon disassembled'.

Better yet, the mere suggestion that the prosecutor would try and place in the head of a jury would be catastrophic.

"The evidence will show that the defendant possessed an illegal and dangerous assault weapon, which included illegally possessed parts, and at other times he purposefully and intentionally disassembled the illegal and dangerous assault weapon in an attempt to cirumvent the law and possess the illegal, dangerous assault weapon."

Even if the evidence won't or can't show that, if the prosecutor was allowed to make this statement, the defendant is pretty much f&^ked in this state. Maybe he wins on appeal, but who wants to go through that?
 
So in short as far as possessing these two unassembled items go, there is no law against it nor has anyone ever been prosecuted for it?

In MA I've never heard of any prosecution on an AW charge, let alone one on "constructive posession of an AW". Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, though. On the federal level I think BATFE has used "constructive posession" a few times. They argue things like "this guy with all the parts to put together a silencer is in effect, going to make an illegal silencer and should be charged with that crime".

ETA; Would this mean that even possessing a unattached bayonet lug without a pre-pan could make a prosecution case?

That one might be a stretch, depending on the gun, etc. For example if you had a ban-neutered AR-15 but you also had a sight tower around in a junk drawer that still had a
bayo lug on it, it'd be pretty difficult for them to say that you clearly intended to put that sight tower on your neutered rifle, due to the amount of work involved.

Part of the criteria for constructive possession to stick is the plausibility of that the person could easily violate the law by slapping a couple of parts together, and that they had
intended to do so from the outset. Part of that plausibility is the relationship between the "parts". A situation involving a couple of parts that could be quickly slapped
together is more likely to result in a conviction. One that involves a lot of work being done is far less likely because it's not as convenient- and thus the prosecutions horse and
pony show about you "intending to violate the law" becomes less plausible in that context.


-Mike
 
Personally, I would be terrified of a constructive possession prosecution, as I think it would be very easy to convince a jury here in moonbat central that the 'evil gunman' was trying to 'skirt the law' by 'keeping the weapon disassembled'.

I never said it would be "fun" I just suggested that a good defense lawyer could introduce a lot of doubt into the equation.

Part of the problem is in MA seeing these kinds of cases is patently rare; because normally the DAs seem to go for the easy stuff, like "posession of XYZ without a license" etc. The overwhelming majority of all "gun crime" prosecutions in MA are against unlicensed persons and the charges applied are usually specific to that scenario.

Defending against any gun charge in MA is probably about as fun as getting teeth pulled without novacaine and it costs orders of magnitude more.


-Mike
 
prosecutor was allowed to make this statement, the defendant is pretty much f&^ked in this state. Maybe he wins on appeal, but who wants to go through that?

I guess it could be said that one shouldn't own anything controversial (guns included) since I can invent a lot of similar bloviation on the part of a prosecutor, even involving something which IS perfectly legal. There is nothing to stop a DA from trying to nifong you, even if the "device" in question is 110% legal. If one fears that kind of prosecution then they should just sell everything they own- it's "safer" that way. [thinking] Or better yet move out of this political dump of a state and not have to "fear" that possibility at all. [laugh]


-Mike
 
Part of the problem is in MA seeing these kinds of cases is patently rare; because normally the DAs seem to go for the easy stuff, like "posession of XYZ without a license" etc. The overwhelming majority of all "gun crime" prosecutions in MA are against unlicensed persons and the charges applied are usually specific to that scenario.

Yes, this was my thought process also; None of these things are being tested in court because... surprise, suprise, your every day, law abiding, gun owners who might be committing these petty crimes aren't getting noticed. The folks who do get noticed are committing more 'juicy' crimes, so the DAs ignore these petty ones.
 
So what is going to happen to me when my NES lower comes in? I already have an AR with a pre-ban lower an "evil" upper. Couldn't someone assume that I was going to mount the said upper on the post-ban lower even though that is not the case?
 
So what is going to happen to me when my NES lower comes in? I already have an AR with a pre-ban lower an "evil" upper. Couldn't someone assume that I was going to mount the said upper on the post-ban lower even though that is not the case?

I'm in the same situation, but that would be an almost laughable stretch to try to show that your intention was to disassemble your completely legal weapon and assemble an identical (in the eyes of the law) weapon that was illegal.
 
Short story, assembling it is a definite no-no unless it's an LEO doing it.

And short story, owning both halves without a preban lower somewhere is a bad idea.
 
I've done some searching and have found that uppers with "evil features" are legal because they are considered a "part". Now, putting said evil upper onto a post-ban lower would be illegal, I understand.

What if I'm at a range? Can I combine my post-ban lower and evil upper just to shoot at the range?

Just where, precisely, in your ostensible "searching" did you find a "range exception?" [rolleyes]
 
So what is going to happen to me when my NES lower comes in? I already have an AR with a pre-ban lower an "evil" upper. Couldn't someone assume that I was going to mount the said upper on the post-ban lower even though that is not the case?

What will happen? Immediately after you bring it home, a SWAT team will do a no-knock raid on your house to arrest you. And then the prosecutor will try to Nifong you. [rolleyes]

Mount a post-ban upper on it. I've got a pre-ban AR and two post-ban ARs. I don't mix the uppers and I don't loose sleep over it. YMMV.
 
Short story, assembling it is a definite no-no unless it's an LEO doing it.

How does that work? Is that because we are assumed to be above the law, or is it actually legal? Another question...can LEOs buy new hi-cap magazines themselves and keep them with their own collection of arms?
 
How does that work? Is that because we are assumed to be above the law, or is it actually legal?

It's legal "for purposes of law enforcement".

MichaelJ said:
Another question...can LEOs buy new hi-cap magazines themselves and keep them with their own collection of arms?

No, the exclusion is "for purposes of law enforcement".
 
LEOs can possess (and thus can assemble) postban AWs for use in their job.

I've heard this numerous places but it's my understanding that a LEO can possess a post-ban assault weapon or post-86 machine gun only if it's issued by their department.

Is there any MGL that specifically addressess this?
 
Dunno, but fact remains that only they can possess them at any time. And maybe dealers selling to LEOs.

EDIT: Ok so I found the MGL finally. It's the same law that allows LEO's to have possession of post-ban high capacity magazines. The MGL is http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131m.htm. However due to the wording of "shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement" I'd be uneasy about having a non-department issued or authorized post-ban SAW.
 
Last edited:
When I say at any time, I mean that they're the only ones that can have them, for any reason. (in this case, LE purposes)
 
When I say at any time, I mean that they're the only ones that can have them, for any reason. (in this case, LE purposes)

I understand what you're saying and I agree with your statement (and finally found the MGL to back you up) but my concern is with the "for purposes of law enforcement" part of the MGL. I know many a LEO that has high-capacity post-ban mags that don't go into their duty sidearm but does that disqualify them as not for purposes of law enforcement? I guess technically any firearm in possession of a LEO at any time on or off-duty could be for purposes of law enforcement.
 
I know many a LEO that has high-capacity post-ban mags that don't go into their duty sidearm but does that disqualify them as not for purposes of law enforcement? I guess technically any firearm in possession of a LEO at any time on or off-duty could be for purposes of law enforcement.

Typically, a LEO cannot purchase any post-ban large capacity feeding devices without a note from the chief on department letterhead certifying that they are for law enforcement purposes. If a LEO obtains mags for his/her personal firearm in this manor and wants to later sell their firearm, they can often trade the large capacity mags with a dealer for non-large capacity ones.
 
I understand what you're saying and I agree with your statement (and finally found the MGL to back you up) but my concern is with the "for purposes of law enforcement" part of the MGL. I know many a LEO that has high-capacity post-ban mags that don't go into their duty sidearm but does that disqualify them as not for purposes of law enforcement? I guess technically any firearm in possession of a LEO at any time on or off-duty could be for purposes of law enforcement.

That's pretty much the gist of it. So let's say the LEO has a take home cruiser. No problem if he has a patrol rifle in the back, even if off duty.
 
Back
Top Bottom