Ruger 10/22 rifles

[SKS Ray]

In the build section a post was made about adding accessories to a Ruger 10/22 such as a folding stock, high cap magazines, etc. I know high cap magazines are ok to use as long as they're pre ban, but what are the legalities of adding a side folding stock to a Ruger 10/22? Does the rifle have to be made before 10/98 to be able to add one legally or is the addition of one prohibited under Mass laws no matter what?

 

[LoginName]

Same rules as any other pre-ban/post-ban firearm... has to have been manufactured before 9/13/14 (covered under the old federal and current state AWB).

 

[Len-2A Training]

Same rules as any other pre-ban/post-ban firearm... has to have been manufactured before 9/13/14 (covered under the old federal and current state AWB).

And "I THINK" (check this out as I'm not 100% positive) that it had to have been in "Assault Weapon" CONFIGURATION PRIOR to that date as well to be legal. If this is true, it would not suffice to just have a DOB or pre 9/13/94 (NOT 1914 ).

 

[SKS Ray]

And "I THINK" (check this out as I'm not 100% positive) that it had to have been in "Assault Weapon" CONFIGURATION PRIOR to that date as well to be legal. If this is true, it would not suffice to just have a DOB or pre 9/13/94 (NOT 1914 ).

Thats what I thought too. So if you bought a 10/22 that had an old folding stock that had a busted spring to lock it in place, you could technically buy a new replacement one and keep it in the configuration that you originally bought it in.
So the question here is does the rifle date have to be before October of 1998?

 

[Len-2A Training]

NO, AWB was 9/13/94 . . . that is the magic date for AWs and hi-cap mags (NOT 1998).

 

[LoginName]

And "I THINK" (check this out as I'm not 100% positive) that it had to have been in "Assault Weapon" CONFIGURATION PRIOR to that date as well to be legal.

Now that you mention it, I'm %100 certain that you're right.

Of course any prosecutor proving that no alterations were made between the time the rifle left the factory and Sept, 13 1994 would have their work cut out for them.

I like to think of it as an "honor system" myself.

If this is true, it would not suffice to just have a DOB or pre 9/13/94 (NOT 1914 ).

Brain fart and typo aside... what was legal before 9/13/94 was certainly legal before 9/13/14 (that and a whole lot more).

 

[Scrivener]

However, a Ruger 10/22 was not in an AW configuration at any time as manufactured and is not on the AW or large capacity roster. IF a large cap mag is possessed, obviously an LTC is required.

SO, unless someone with a "tactical" fetish puts on MORE than a simple folding stock; i.e., flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc. it won't qualify as an AW.

 

[LoginName]

SO, unless someone with a "tactical" fetish puts on MORE than a simple folding stock; i.e., flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc. it won't qualify as an AW.

That might be kind of tough. I can't ever recall seeing an aftermarket folding stock that didn't necessitate having a pistol grip. That's not to say that with a little good'ol Yankee ingenuity that it couldn't be done.

 

[matt1956]

yea, I think all the folders Ive seen have the pistol grip

 

[Scrivener]

That might be kind of tough. I can't ever recall seeing an aftermarket folding stock that didn't necessitate having a pistol grip. That's not to say that with a little good'ol Yankee ingenuity that it couldn't be done.

A tack-weld or pin would give you just the PG, which would be legal and still give the pray-n-spray afficianados that tactical "look." Otherwise, it would be a no-no.

 

[firtree]

Pre-Ban 10/22

Just for fun, preban 10/22 with original RamLine button folder
and eagle 30rd. mag (don't mind the el cheapo scope)

F

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Thread resurrection.

I'm still trying to get my head around this. First, since there are so many Ruger 10/22 references in the gun laws forum (search turned up two pages of threads), let me state clearly what I do know (I think):

1. The 10/22 was never delivered with a high-cap feeding device, therefore, it is OK to purchase with a simple FID although some shops will only sell them to LTC holders (much discussion about this previously).
2. It is legal for a MA LTC holder to purchase and use a pre-ban high-cap magazine on a Ruger 10/22.

I have two questions:

1. How does one identify pre-ban vs post-ban high-cap mags for the 10/22?
2. If a MA LTC holder owns a pre-ban Ruger 10/22, is it legal for him to equip it with a pistol grip, folding stock and pistol grip? If there is a buden of proof requirement to demonstrate that a particular Ruger 10/22 was or was not configured with a high-cap mag, pistol grip and folding stock (e.g., configured as an "assault weapon," does that burden of proof rest with the gun owner or with the Attorney general?

 

[jar]

1. The 10/22 was never delivered with a high-cap feeding device, therefore, it is OK to purchase with a simple FID although some shops will only sell them to LTC holders (much discussion about this previously).
2. It is legal for a MA LTC holder to purchase and use a pre-ban high-cap magazine on a Ruger 10/22.

I agree with this.

I have two questions:

1. How does one identify pre-ban vs post-ban high-cap mags for the 10/22?
2. If a MA LTC holder owns a pre-ban Ruger 10/22, is it legal for him to equip it with a pistol grip, folding stock and pistol grip? If there is a buden of proof requirement to demonstrate that a particular Ruger 10/22 was or was not configured with a high-cap mag, pistol grip and folding stock (e.g., configured as an "assault weapon," does that burden of proof rest with the gun owner or with the Attorney general?

[/QUOTE]

No idea on the first one. On the second, it does have to have been in an assault weapon configuration before the ban. I'm not sure on who has the burden of proof. To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a prosecution under the MA AWB, so I'm not sure anyone can know until someone is a test case.

 

[jdubois]

On the second, it does have to have been in an assault weapon configuration before the ban. I'm not sure on who has the burden of proof. To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a prosecution under the MA AWB, so I'm not sure anyone can know until someone is a test case.

I think you're right, it's not necessarily provable either way. But since the guns come from the factory in non-AW configurations, it would be awful iffy to tell the court, "well, I don't have any evidence that it wasn't an AW before the ban so I just assume it was," since the overwhelming likelihood is that it wasn't, unless you had some specific information to the contrary. I certainly wouldn't want to be on the defensive with that one.

 

[Ripach]

While it meets the definition of illegal, do we really think there is a possibility of an AWB case where the sole offending item is a .22 caliber rifle. Also I know it's MA, and we are surrounded by moonbats, but innocent until proven guilty tells me the burden would be on the government to prove the rifle was only recently made an AW.
Of course, IANAL and take your own risks at your own peril.

 

[Len-2A Training]

. . . innocent until proven guilty tells me the burden would be on the government to prove the rifle was only recently made an AW.

I'd bet this depends on the DA running for higher office or "wanting to make a point" about being tough on crime.

Not a bet that I'd like to take!

If you "go for the ride" it will be an expensive trip ($$, emotionally, etc.) even if you do prevail.

 

[dwarven1]

1. How does one identify pre-ban vs post-ban high-cap mags for the 10/22?
2. If a MA LTC holder owns a pre-ban Ruger 10/22, is it legal for him to equip it with a pistol grip, folding stock and pistol grip? If there is a buden of proof requirement to demonstrate that a particular Ruger 10/22 was or was not configured with a high-cap mag, pistol grip and folding stock (e.g., configured as an "assault weapon," does that burden of proof rest with the gun owner or with the Attorney general?

1 - No way that I'm aware of; I have a couple of pre-ban Eagle hi caps and there are no date markings on them of any sort.

2 - I'd assume with the AG... but the Assmuppet General has LOTS more resources to wear you down financially with. Practically, I suppose you could just say "Oh, this old thing? Why, it's had that folding stock and pistol grip forever"... as long as your next credit card statement doesn't have a bill from MidwayUSA on it for "Folding Stock w/Pistol Grip, Ruger 10/22, Qty 1" on it, that is. I wouldn't, though.

 

[meth0d]

You have to get pre-ban high cap mags for a 10/22?!?

 

[dwarven1]

Yup. There are NO exceptions to the hicap mag ban here behind the Tofu Curtain (unless you're a LEO, active duty Military or you have a tube-fed .22).


NOW do you understand why so many people want to leave this fscking Worker's Paradise?

 

[jdubois]

Yup. There are NO exceptions to the hicap mag ban here behind the Tofu Curtain.

Gee, I miss Scrivener... I'd post up a big red obnoxious "WRONG" but it's just not the same as when he does it .

There is an exception for attached tubular magazines for .22 caliber. There are also exceptions for § 122 dealers and for active and retired LEO.

 

[meth0d]

Yup. There are NO exceptions to the hicap mag ban here behind the Tofu Curtain (unless you're a LEO, active duty Military or you have a tube-fed .22).


NOW do you understand why so many people want to leave this fscking Worker's Paradise?

Ahh that's terrible!! I dunno why I thought it was exempt, maybe I confused it with the tubular style as mentioned by jdubois.

I've been wanting out of this Worker's Paradise for YEARS!! Hopefully next summer...

Thanks guys. +1's

 

[the_doctor]

I have just really thought about this.

Does this mean I can not put a Fajen Legacy Stock on a post ban 10/22?

What about all the kids I see running in the streets with Anschutz 64 models and other actions with adjustable stocks?

please help!

 

[jdubois]

What about all the kids I see running in the streets with Anschutz 64 models and other actions with adjustable stocks?

Those Anschutz 64's are bolt action. AWB doesn't apply.

 

[the_doctor]

Those Anschutz 64's are bolt action. AWB doesn't apply.

You are right. Can I put a Fajen Legacy on a 10/22? I had thought about for awhile. I am getting rid of my old 22 and I wanted something MUCH better.

I was thinking of a better barrell and some other upgrades.

I originally thought that the words of fold unto itself did not imply that adjustable stocks were forbidden. I only thought that this referred to stocks that completely collapse into 2 or 3 inches.

Are people really sure that an adjustment pad with a movement of 1 to 2 inches at the end of a stock of 11 or 12 inches in length is really collapsing unto itself?

Am I out to lunch or do people not interpret statute based on Black's and common usage of the English language? Can I put the Legacy stock on a post ban 10/22?

thanks
bill

 

[jdubois]

Can I put a Fajen Legacy on a 10/22?

Does that adjustment mechanism make the stock "folding or telescoping"? I'd say no. Is that thumbhole stock considered a "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action"? I'd again say no. So I don't think it has either evil feature, and it would even be fine if it did have one of those evil features (but not both).

It looks ok to me. But having said that, I also have to say I honestly just don't know if somebody would try to come after you for it or not.

 

[the_doctor]

Does that adjustment mechanism make the stock "folding or telescoping"? I'd say no. Is that thumbhole stock considered a "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action"? I'd again say no. So I don't think it has either evil feature, and it would even be fine if it did have one of those evil features (but not both).

It looks ok to me. But having said that, I also have to say I honestly just don't know if somebody would try to come after you for it or not.

Yet, you read these posts saying that an adjustable stock on a post ban ar-15 is illegal in Mass.

So what to do ? I usually do nothing in such cases.

bill

 

[jdubois]

Yet, you read these posts saying that an adjustable stock on a post ban ar-15 is illegal in Mass.

Well, your typical adjustable stock on an AR-15 is very clearly 'telescoping'.

 

[the_doctor]

Well, your typical adjustable stock on an AR-15 is very clearly 'telescoping'.

No. I just read on this forum that the Magpul PRS is illegal for use on postban ar-15s in MA.

It is an ADJUSTABLE stock. It is not a stock which collapses unto itself via a telescoping action. It has only one inch of adjustment for the pad.

So I somehow doubt the legacy is legal if the PRS is not legal.

thanks
bill

 

[jdubois]

So I somehow doubt the legacy is legal if the PRS is not legal.

Agreed, if one isn't legal, the other isn't. I personally wouldn't interpret either as illegal, either by the letter or spirit of the law. However, the problem is that nobody 'official' from MA will tell you if they are legal or not (like ATF used to for the federal ban), and there's no case law to go on. So you either have to be extremely conservative in your attempts to guess what is legal (which is what the advice here, smartly, usually tends toward), or accept the risk of being charged with a crime.

 

[the_doctor]

Agreed, if one isn't legal, the other isn't. I personally wouldn't interpret either as illegal, either by the letter or spirit of the law. However, the problem is that nobody 'official' from MA will tell you if they are legal or not (like ATF used to for the federal ban), and there's no case law to go on. So you either have to be extremely conservative in your attempts to guess what is legal (which is what the advice here, smartly, usually tends toward), or accept the risk of being charged with a crime.

Agreed.