Question about a potential new AWB...

[ZainAnak]

So, I was just thinking about this. If a new Assault Weapons Ban gets past at the federal level, would that technically mean I can now buy all those wonderful AR mags made before 2008 that I currently cannot in MA?

 

[FunYun]

Why would MA law suddenly not apply to people living in MA?

How do you know what a non-existant AWB says?

 

[doobie]

If any ban is like the first, a lot of us are screwed IIRC, as anything that didn't ship as a completed upper is considered a post-ban regardless of how many years you had it completed.

 

[terraformer]

So, I was just thinking about this. If a new Assault Weapons Ban gets past at the federal level, would that technically mean I can now buy all those wonderful AR mags made before 2008 that I currently cannot in MA?

No. So lets run the scenario OBs change.gov website was implying. That the 94 ban would be put back in place (which assumes no changes). Nothing changes for us since we have been under that since '94. Now, if the state legislature somehow do something stupid like "reaffirm their support for..." and in the process of that security theater stupidity negate the '94 ban in favor of the new federal one (here's hoping...), then yes, we reach parity with the rest of the country. I doubt they would be that stupid, they wold only be stupid enough to screw us over, not themselves.

Now, lets say the feds really crank down hard at the federal level. Then it would likely be worse than what we have here, but it may require another sunset to pass it (which is what happened in '94). In that event, MA would have to mix the new fed one into our state laws like they did with AWB1 "in order to show support for ensuring the safety of our communities" (political theater is the only reason they did it in the first one) into our current laws. Then the opportunity for them to screw it up, negating parts of AWB1, goes up. But if they don't screw anything up, then we are actually screwed more since we will not have access to the pre-nobans that exist so our available stock is much more limited than everyone elses.

Don't expect them to screw this up though, we will be even more screwed than everyone else. And when you are buying prebans, you will then have to ensure it was pre-AWB1 and not just pre-AWB2....

 

[amb]

If any ban is like the first, a lot of us are screwed IIRC, as anything that didn't ship as a completed upper is considered a post-ban regardless of how many years you had it completed.

I believe that all you need is proof that it was a complete rifle as of the ban date. Obviously that's most easily and reliably obtained from the manufacturer, but a notarized statement and photograph ought to work fine. Perhaps it will all lead to an NES photographing-and-notarizing party.

This, of course, assumes the terms of any hypothetical ban look something like the last one. What's been proposed recently has been basically a rehash of the original AWB with the dates changed, but those seem to have been filed in order to please a small constituency, not with any real hope of passage; it's not clear to me that the anti-gun lobby has the votes for this now any more than they have for the last few years.

 

[doobie]

I believe that all you need is proof that it was a complete rifle as of the ban date. Obviously that's most easily and reliably obtained from the manufacturer, but a notarized statement and photograph ought to work fine. Perhaps it will all lead to an NES photographing-and-notarizing party.

This, of course, assumes the terms of any hypothetical ban look something like the last one. What's been proposed recently has been basically a rehash of the original AWB with the dates changed, but those seem to have been filed in order to please a small constituency, not with any real hope of passage; it's not clear to me that the anti-gun lobby has the votes for this now any more than they have for the last few years.

Any future ban would be speculation. But I believe in the previous AWB, you also needed it in a 'banned' configuration. If you had a built receiver in a post-ban configuration you couldn't turn it into a preban. I could be wrong. Also, the burden of proof would be on you, and the force of a BATFE with an Obama/Biden overlord against you. Not to say I wouldn't want to have a pile of AR's in my safe that I built from receivers.

 

[FunYun]

Technically you had to own the firearm in a 'Assault Weapon' condition on or before the date of enactment to be grandfathered.

BUT...

As always, the burden of proof is with the prosecution. While you may not be able to prove said rifle was in a AW condition on or before said date, they cannot prove contrary to that.

 

[Raoul Duke]

While you may not be able to prove said rifle was in a AW condition on or before said date, they cannot prove contrary to that.

hmmmm...perhaps, "they may have difficulty or "it would be very hard to" ?

I wouldn't underestimate the thuggish buffoonery of the BATFE. No matter which freak flag flies on Capital Hill, that loutish cadre of boorish reprobates is simply a "see-you-next-Tuesday" hair away from the criminals, the fundamentally stupid, and the perennially unlucky, on the sh@t stain measuring stick of cosmic justice...

I don't even know what I mean sometimes.

 

[RKG]

hmmmm...perhaps, "they may have difficulty or "it would be very hard to" ?

I wouldn't underestimate the thuggish buffoonery of the BATFE. No matter which freak flag flies on Capital Hill, that loutish cadre of boorish reprobates is simply a "see-you-next-Tuesday" hair away from the criminals, the fundamentally stupid, and the perennially unlucky, on the sh@t stain measuring stick of cosmic justice...

I don't even know what I mean sometimes.

Which raises the lovely question: who has the burden of proof? (This is a different way of saying, who has the risk of not being able to determine?)

Since hypothetically, you would be the subject of a criminal complaint or indictment, the burden of proof on all elements of the offense is on the Commonwealth. However, there is an exception to this rule for "exceptions" to a prohibition: a defendant who claims a defense of the benefit of the exception bears at least the burden of producing sufficient evidence to raise an issue about the applicability of the exception. (This is known as the "burden of producing evidence" or the "burden of going forward"; it is to be distinguished from the ultimate burden of persuading a fact finder on an issue that is genuinely contested on the basis of evidence.)

I believe, without having taken the time to research cases, that the Court would parse closely the wording of the statute under which the defendant has been charged. If the negative of the exception is part of the definition of the offense (e.g., "Thou shalt not pass through a light that is not green"), the burden of going forward would be on the Commonwealth, and in the absence of any evidence either way, the defendant would be entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. If, on the other hand, the charging language is unlimited, and then followed by an exception (e.g., "Thou shalt not pass by a traffic light. However, if the light is green, this rule does not apply."), the at least the burden of producing admissible evidence that the light was green is on the defendant, and in the absence of any evidence either way, the case goes to the jury and the defendant is convicted.

Here, the relevant statute is G.L. (2004 ed.) ch. 140, sec. 131M, which provides as follows:

"No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994." This would appear to impose a burden of showing "not otherwise lawfully possessed" on the Commonwealth (my first example above).

The problem is, you can't be sure one way or the other until the Court has ruled; who volunteers to be the canary?

 

[toga]

n00b question about this:
if you have a gun assembled pre-ban, are you allowed to make any modifications to it (e.g., changing a scope)?

what about repairs?

 

[uzi]

AWB Reauthorization Act of 2008

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

sponsored by Republicans

Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]

 

[Knob Creek]

You could have
Pre-Ban
Post Ban
Post Ban but Pre-New Ban
Post New Ban
or just Spam with Ham, or Spam with Spam & Ham, or Spam with Spam and Spam and Ham and.....

 

[ateamrob]

I would like Green Eggs and Ham because Sam I am....

I will have whatever I want to have and they will like it

yeah I wish it was that easy

 

[maee]

Which raises the lovely question: who has the burden of proof? (This is a different way of saying, who has the risk of not being able to determine?)
"No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994." This would appear to impose a burden of showing "not otherwise lawfully possessed" on the Commonwealth (my first example above).

If Obama, for example, gets a ban on all books not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 2009, seems to me that it would be a no brainier that due process would require the government to prove that the books were not lawfully owned on that date. Otherwise, they haven't even demonstrated that any crime has occurred.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

If any ban is like the first, a lot of us are screwed IIRC, as anything that didn't ship as a completed upper is considered a post-ban regardless of how many years you had it completed.

huh? "ship"? Please elaborate

 

[Raoul Duke]

huh? "ship"? Please elaborate

Get "mailed" ("shipped" from the manufacturer)

 

[depicts]

hmmmm...perhaps, "they may have difficulty or "it would be very hard to" ?

I wouldn't underestimate the thuggish buffoonery of the BATFE. No matter which freak flag flies on Capital Hill, that loutish cadre of boorish reprobates is simply a "see-you-next-Tuesday" hair away from the criminals, the fundamentally stupid, and the perennially unlucky, on the sh@t stain measuring stick of cosmic justice...

I don't even know what I mean sometimes.

What a wonderful burst of descriptive anger. Just marvelous stringing together of words Uncle Duke!!! +1

 

[Rob]

I agree. That was beautiful. If you read it fast enough it sounds like Barney Frank!

 

[dsm]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

sponsored by Republicans

Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]

Sure, why wouldn't it be sponsored by Republicans?

That's the same party who's last candidate for President was graded an "F" by the GOA and called an "ardent gun prohibitionist" by the JPFO.