Pre-July AR-15 question

[bigbravehog]

I think I know the answer already, but have to ask. I never heard of "Pre-July".

This is part of a description of an AR in the classifieds, and my question is:
Is this item illegal for a MA resident to purchase under the current Mass. AWB ?


Description : Pre-July Custom built AR-15

Selling Terms : Face to face with EFA-10.

 

[Mass-diver]

Maybe, no one knows since the AG made all this stuff up.

In terms of the classifieds, in general, MYOB- if there's an issue, don't buy it

 

[rcoolbaugh]

... there is a firm possibility of a definite maybe ...

 

[1903Collector]

Obligatory IBTL post!!

 

[Wrench75]

The only accurate answer is. No one has a ****ing clue.

The only real mention of transfers in her guidance says FFLs can still transfer them as long as it is to a LEO or out of state. At this point anyone FA10ing an AR into their possession is rolling a very loaded set of dice.

 

[CMEBoston]

I had to leave a FB group because of some "expert" gunshop employee berated the shit out of me for saying know one knows.... he claimed only dealers cant transfer them and pre-july guns were good to go face to face.... but the transfer would be POST 7/20, so I am sticking with my interpretation of her interpretation as it is not in compliance with her directive to transfer one in state....

 

[bill o]

It's nonsensical to ask if it's legal, because you're begging the question of whether the AG is acting in good faith to the actual law, and whether judges are hopelessly corrupt. Those are the real two questions you should be asking.

 

[bigbravehog]

thanks all. I'll stick to an M1A and M&P 15-22 for now.

 

[Individualist]

I recall seeing some correspondence someone posted from the AGs office approving transfer of a pre 7/20 AR. Did I imagine that?

 

[mikelawtown]

sorry you asked for it

 

[nhpoke]

Can I legally buy a ?????

The real answer is nobody knows. Nobody. Nobody on this site knows. No lawyers know. No law enforcement officers know. No gun shop owners know. Even your AG and all of the AAGs across the state don’t know. No one.
We will only begin to know the answer to that once someone is actually either successfully or unsuccessfully prosecuted under these new interpretations. Until then were all guessing.

As best I can tell there are these three possibilities.


The edict, issued by the AG’s office on 7/20/2016 is meaningless. It holds just as much legal stature as this post, which is none. It is clearly not within the AG’s ability to create new “rules” that make things legal or illegal. Given the 20 something years of previous legal precedence, both within, and outside the state of MA. If this is the case, people should continue acting just like they acted prior to the 7/20/2016 “announcement”. This is what I believe to actually be the case, but as mentioned, we will not know until we see it go through the courts.

The edict, issued by the AG’s office on 7/20/2016 has legal standing and will be enforced by the courts. This means that any (I’m going to use the term killy rifle, because “assault weapon” has become such a confusing term) killy rifle manufactured and brought into the state any time after 1994 (the federal AWB) is in MA is an illegal weapon. All post-ban killy rifles are illegal. It is illegal to possess killy rifles. It is illegal to transfer (sell or buy) killy rifles. They are all illegal objects. The AG has stated that she will not actively prosecute people who bought these rifles (at this time), but these people did commit a crime. They better not do it again. This is what I believe the AG’s office intends. By the way… If you agree with this interpretation, and you decide to transfer a killy rifle, there is no reason to fill out an eFA-10. Filling one out would be giving up your right to not self-incriminate, as killy rifles are illegal to transfer. Filling out an eFA-10 would be self-incriminating, which is something that the state cannot compel you to do.

The edict, issued by the AG’s office on 7/20/2016 has legal standing, but only on “new” killy rifles. Those rifles that were in the state prior to the 7/20/2016 announcement are “grandfathered in” and can be bought and sold legally by people already within the state with no repercussions from the justice system. This idea has been discussed as being the case by many people, but I don’t believe it to have any actual standing. For something to be “grandfathered in” is an actual legislative process with clear rules about what it means. There was nothing of the sort in the AG’s new interpretation. She has no authority to state a date after which a crime begins or stops being a crime. It is either a crime at the time the legislation becomes effective or it is never a crime. She does have prosecutorial judgement, and can elect to prosecute or not prosecute people for whatever reasons she wishes, but she can’t determine when a law starts or stops. While a lot of people rationalize that this MUST be the case, I believe it to be the least likely actual possibility.

Anyway, as I see it those are the options. There are probably some variations on them as well, but those are the big buckets. It’s up to you to think about the risk and reward and decide on what you want to do.

IANAL. This isn’t legal advice.

 

[CMEBoston]

I recall seeing some correspondence someone posted from the AGs office approving transfer of a pre 7/20 AR. Did I imagine that?

would love to see it... all ive seen is the FAQ saying transfers before 7/20 were illegal but not prosecuted... somehow people translate that to a post-pre-ban unit.....

 

[inerlogic]

Oblig:

[video=youtube_share;xBdpINm9UBU]http://youtu.be/xBdpINm9UBU[/video]

 

[bill o]

would love to see it... all ive seen is the FAQ saying transfers before 7/20 were illegal but not prosecuted... somehow people translate that to a post-pre-ban unit.....

Not that anyone will ever get prosecuted for owning these guns they're licensed to own, but good luck showing a local DA an immunity email typed up by a hungover college intern at the AG's office. That'll carry some weight.

 

[mikeboston]

would love to see it... all ive seen is the FAQ saying transfers before 7/20 were illegal but not prosecuted... somehow people translate that to a post-pre-ban unit.....

Actually she claims that they are assault weapons by her definition but her directive will not apply on possession, sale, transfer of those rifles pre 7/20 and only apply going forward. I do agree with CMEBoston. Regardless this is again a beat the dead horse thread

 

[CMEBoston]

Not that anyone will ever get prosecuted for owning these guns they're licensed to own, but good luck showing a local DA an immunity email typed up by a hungover college intern at the AG's office. That'll carry some weight.

oh Id need more than an Email....... im gonna sit tight till this is sorted out, i have plenty of EBRs but I really wanted one in .308 to go with my M1A

- - - Updated - - -

Actually she claims that they are assault weapons by her definition but her directive will not apply on possession, sale, transfer of those rifles pre 7/20 and only apply going forward. I do agree with CMEBoston. Regardless this is again a beat the dead horse thread

thats how a non-desperate person with common sense and basic reading comprehension should interpret it...

 

[bill o]

Can people stop using the word "directive," which implies the AG has more authority than she really does? FFLs and LTC holders don't take orders from the AG. She can give directives to her own employees, but that's about it. I'd prefer idiotic opinion, deliberate misinterpretation, etc. Language matters.

 

[mikeboston]

Nobody claims it's the law or that we agree with it. We use the term for purposes of reference to know what we are talking about. We can call it her deliberate misinterpretation "the directive" for purposes of reference. But we have already established and all agree in here that's is a deliberate misinterpretation so that will be again beating the dead horse just like this thread

 

[snax]

I can almost guarantee, there will be one uninformed idiot who will transfer something, that they'll go after. My guess, is that they do a daily data dump at the AG office looking for, or compiling lists of poor bastards to go after. I'm sure they will check the person's entire xfer history. They already have a profile of what they want, probably somebody with multiple questionable purchases, or a pattern, will probably go after somebody with multiple guns. They will build their case(s) silently. My guess is that any prosecution will happen only after Hillary or whatever Dem is elected president. That way, there will be 0 chance that it can be challenged all the way up to the supreme court, the best way to make this directive stick, is to ensure any challenges will meet a dead end at the end of the line.

 

[MAD Geary]

Hell just give it a shot man what's the worst that can happen?

 

[Len-2A Training]

The answer to the question can be found here:

https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-here-gt-OK-under-the-AG-s-quot-guidance-quot

 

[Powderhorn]

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/assault-weapons-enforcement-notice.pdf

Been in touch with the AG Office numerous times in reguards to this. Best I can figure out based on the enforcement notice put out is Dealers are prohibited from selling but civilian sales are still alright as long as the firearm was obtained legally and registered in the state before July 20th. The link is the letter we received as Dealers. Check out Page 4 at the very bottom as it pertains to dealer and civilian sales.

Good luck,
Greg Coleman
Powderhorn Outfitters

 

[drgrant]

I can almost guarantee, there will be one uninformed idiot who will transfer something, that they'll go after. My guess, is that they do a daily data dump at the AG office looking for, or compiling lists of poor bastards to go after. I'm sure they will check the person's entire xfer history. They already have a profile of what they want, probably somebody with multiple questionable purchases, or a pattern, will probably go after somebody with multiple guns. They will build their case(s) silently. My guess is that any prosecution will happen only after Hillary or whatever Dem is elected president. That way, there will be 0 chance that it can be challenged all the way up to the supreme court, the best way to make this directive stick, is to ensure any challenges will meet a dead end at the end of the line.

It isn't likely to be a consumer, because that makes the AG look bad. This is quite obviously directed against dealers, if you read between the lines.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

The answer to the question can be found here:

https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-here-gt-OK-under-the-AG-s-quot-guidance-quot

this, cwithe

- - - Updated - - -

special bonus, this week only.... doge choir presents...