-
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***
Pre-ban
- Thread starter pmb44
- Start date
Not unless it had been built up as a full gun (or kit) in pre-ban config prior to that 9/13/94 date. "Pre-ban" doesn't mean that the frame was built by that date, but that a so-called "SAW" existed prior to the magic date.
Most folks don't understand this and think (and sell their stuff) based solely on the fact that a lower was mfd before that date. During the Fed Ban, BATFE clarified this with a ruling, however MA has no technical expertise to address these questions, so they don't . . . except in court.
Most folks don't understand this and think (and sell their stuff) based solely on the fact that a lower was mfd before that date. During the Fed Ban, BATFE clarified this with a ruling, however MA has no technical expertise to address these questions, so they don't . . . except in court.
its not an AR style gun so i dont think the assembeled part applies. Its a mini-14, so can I buy a regular full stock preban version in another state and bring it back to MA and put a folding stock on it? or did it need to have a folding stock already on it?
It needs to have been considered an assault weapon from before the ban in order for you to put the stock on it. IIRC, the Mini-14 is not an assault weapon except for the preban models that had the flashhider and bayo lug.
No. There are preban versions that had flashhiders and bayonet lugs on them. Those would be the only ones you could put the stock on because they were already considered pre-ban AWs. If you were to put them on any other Mini 14 it would be a violation of the law as it would entail two evil features (folding stock and pistol grip)
NOT only did a gun have to be MFD prior to 9/13/94 to be "pre-ban", BUT it HAD TO BE BUILT AS A (so-called) ASSAULT WEAPON!
So if it didn't have the minimum number of AW features on/before 9/13/94, it can NEVER (in MA) be built into a so-called AW later, regardless of the DOB of the gun.
HTH explain it a bit better.
So if it didn't have the minimum number of AW features on/before 9/13/94, it can NEVER (in MA) be built into a so-called AW later, regardless of the DOB of the gun.
HTH explain it a bit better.
You still aren't getting it. It has to have been in a pre-ban configuration (which means any two of pistol grip, folding stock, flash hider, bayonet lug etc) at the time of the ban. It doesn't necessarily have to have had a folding stock, as there were plenty of Mini-14s with flash hider and bayo lug, which would legally accept a folding stock.
Think of it as "assault weapon is evil". Any assault weapon (again a rifle with 2 of the above features or more) that was in that config before 9/13/1994 is legal to make "more evil." But you cannot make a "not evil at the ban" rifle into an evil rifle.
Think of it as "assault weapon is evil". Any assault weapon (again a rifle with 2 of the above features or more) that was in that config before 9/13/1994 is legal to make "more evil." But you cannot make a "not evil at the ban" rifle into an evil rifle.
In the months leading up to the ban, almost every manufacturer was churning out lowers as fast as they could, assembling them in to "assault weapon" configurations (frequently using a small number of sets of evil parts for all the receivers so "blessed", since they didn't have to stay that way to be certified pre-ban) A lot of owners were doing the same thing; borrowing a set of evil parts from a friend and making sure their gun was good to go. It's up to the state to prove that that never happened to your particular gun. Even a Massachusetts court would be hard pressed to buy that argument, without somebody showing up on the federal forms as the original purchaser testifying they he or she owned the gun from the time it was manufactured until after the ban took effect, it never left his or her possession during that time, and never once was it configured as an AW. Without that there isn't even a prima-facie case If the manufacture date shows pre-ban, I wouldn't worry about it.
Ken
Ken
Since I have a jaundiced view of "justice" and the MA court system, I personally believe that many PDs and DAs would put the onus on the gun owner to PROVE that IT WAS built that way pre-ban. I could easily see a judge buying this approach and perhaps if you can spend $50K or more on a good defense you might beat the rap, otherwise . . .
Each person has to ask him/herself if the risk is worth having a bayonet lug or a folding stock on a gun??
Each person has to ask him/herself if the risk is worth having a bayonet lug or a folding stock on a gun??
The other problem with this issue, is to my knowledge (which is
limited) there hasn't been any prosecutions directly related to some
violation of the MA AWB. This makes it very hard to determine
what/IF the DA/prosecutor/etc would actually try to do.
My gut feeling is that the DA would not try to employ something that
obscure... and that they would try to nail you with something else,
instead, probably the thing someone is being tried on to begin
with. (An AWB charge is the type of thing that exists as a
tack on... it needs a ritz cracker underneath to ride upon, eg,
something like a safe storage violation, a self defense related incident,
etc.... )
I find the "AWB obscurities" avenue especially improbable if the state
has the burden of proof in terms of convicting you. If they don't, then
you're probably going to go to jail anyways, cause they could just make
up something else and not have to back it up with facts either.
-Mike
limited) there hasn't been any prosecutions directly related to some
violation of the MA AWB. This makes it very hard to determine
what/IF the DA/prosecutor/etc would actually try to do.
My gut feeling is that the DA would not try to employ something that
obscure... and that they would try to nail you with something else,
instead, probably the thing someone is being tried on to begin
with. (An AWB charge is the type of thing that exists as a
tack on... it needs a ritz cracker underneath to ride upon, eg,
something like a safe storage violation, a self defense related incident,
etc.... )
I find the "AWB obscurities" avenue especially improbable if the state
has the burden of proof in terms of convicting you. If they don't, then
you're probably going to go to jail anyways, cause they could just make
up something else and not have to back it up with facts either.
-Mike
