SBR question

[mav]

Do you mean that if you follow all the normal rules for MA compliance to the AWB, basically a non collapsible stock, no bayo lug and the muzzle device (not a flash hider) pinned and welded that a rifle being an SBR would not be mass compliant like a standard crippled 16" barrelled AR is?

As for the FFL's at the Mill, many of them seem quite knowledgable regarding MA low (which I would expect) but some of them seem perfectly willing to sell you a rifle, after they break it down to a lower and an upper, that would technically violate MA law when go home and put it together and presumably file the state required FA10 (assuming you do).

No, he basically provided an insightful argument as to why an SBR in MA is still handicapped by the AWB, as in just because you take an AWB MA compliant rifle with a 16" barrel and cut it down to 10" for example, you can't now also use an adjustable stock or flash hider as the number of "evil features" is still an issue. At the time, I was under the impression an SBR, not being a rifle nor a pistol, wouldn't come under the AWB in MA. An SBR starts life as either a pistol or a rifle. That means the AWB applies according to the dealer as it never loses that designation...

MA definition:
"“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; "

Here is the 94 AWB definition:
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means--
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and


Again, I'm not providing proof, evidence or legal advise. I'm just trying to explain what was told to me. I still think it's legally grey, but I'm sure there are others with more knowledge/legal experience on this.

 

[PappyM3]

Do you mean that if you follow all the normal rules for MA compliance to the AWB, basically a non collapsible stock, no bayo lug and the muzzle device (not a flash hider) pinned and welded that a rifle being an SBR would not be mass compliant like a standard crippled 16" barrelled AR is?

As for the FFL's at the Mill, many of them seem quite knowledgable regarding MA law (which I would expect) but some of them seem perfectly willing to sell you a rifle, after they break it down to a lower and an upper, that would technically violate MA law when go home and put it together and presumably file the state required FA10 (assuming you do).

I’m really confused on what your interpretation of MA compliant is.

 

[mav]

I’m really confused on what your interpretation of MA compliant is.

I mean, it is basically 2 or more "evil" features plus a detachable magazine so...

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

Seems clear to me, assuming you keep your detachable magazine, pick one feature above to keep and remove the rest. The vast majority choose the pistol grip, so that means no folding/telescoping stock, no bayonet mount, no flash suppressor or threaded barrel, no grenade launcher. That last one makes me laugh.

 

[PappyM3]

I mean, it is basically 2 or more "evil" features plus a detachable magazine so...

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

Seems clear to me, assuming you keep your detachable magazine, pick one feature above to keep and remove the rest. The vast majority choose the pistol grip, so that means no folding/telescoping stock, no bayonet mount, no flash suppressor or threaded barrel, no grenade launcher. That last one makes me laugh.

Oh yes. I just wasn’t sure about the OP’s thoughts because of his talk about MA compliance and the mill.

 

[Asaltweapon]

I was in the camp that a proper SBR had little bearing on MA state law.
Threaded, short, hiders or??

I also knew I was getting out of dodge as well so I did not have too much concern about the risks. I never pinned or welded shit. Bought a pistol in 2 parts and they were never assembled in MA until it was in Maine.
I now want a brace just because but a 8.5 on my current SBR lower might be fun.

 

[Varmint]

Barrel rise vs recoil mitigation?

My BCM is stupid loud thanks to the muzzle brake. If I move to a free state that thing's coming off ASAP.

 

[Varmint]

As for the FFL's at the Mill, many of them seem quite knowledgable regarding MA law (which I would expect) but some of them seem perfectly willing to sell you a rifle, after they break it down to a lower and an upper, that would technically violate MA law when go home and put it together and presumably file the state required FA10 (assuming you do).

Why would such a rifle violate MA law? Are you referring to the Healy FAQ, like an AR15? Cause that's not law, just a recommendation which you're free to ignore.

 

[milktree]

An SBR isn’t a “rifle”as defined by Mass. law, it’s a “firearm”, so the AWB stuff doesn’t apply. Except when “firearm” means what the rest of the country thinks it means and when “rifle” appears in the quoted federal law as part of the Mass. AWB. Probably. Maybe.

So maybe an SBR is exempt from the Mass AWB because under Mass. law it’s not a rifle and “pistol” isn’t defined, so the “pistol” section of the AWB doesn’t apply to anything. Unless it does.

Or maybe it’s a rifle and a firearm and a pistol so the Venn diagram of legality has zero overlap and SBRs in any configuration are illegal if manufactured after 1994.

I hope that clears it up.

 

[Varmint]

An SBR isn’t a “rifle”as defined by Mass. law, it’s a “firearm”, so the AWB stuff doesn’t apply. Except when “firearm” means what the rest of the country thinks it means and when “rifle” appears in the quoted federal law as part of the Mass. AWB. Probably. Maybe.

So maybe an SBR is exempt from the Mass AWB because under Mass. law it’s not a rifle and “pistol” isn’t defined, so the “pistol” section of the AWB doesn’t apply to anything. Unless it does.

Or maybe it’s a rifle and a firearm and a pistol so the Venn diagram of legality has zero overlap and SBRs in any configuration are illegal if manufactured after 1994.

I hope that clears it up.

So you're saying I can put a suppressor on my Mass not-firearm as long as it's an SBR?

 

[milktree]

So you're saying I can put a suppressor on my Mass not-firearm as long as it's an SBR?

Sure! Why not?

I mean, there’s nothing illegal about putting an oil filter on not-a-rifle or not-a-pistol, right?

Although an SBR is still a firearm, which might cause legal gastric distress.

 

[milktree]

So you're saying I can put a suppressor on my Mass not-firearm as long as it's an SBR?

Interestingly, C. 269 §10A says nothing about rifles or machine guns, but does mention guns, pistols, and revolvers, and “weapons”, which could mean the floofer things on bow strings are a five year felony.

 

[PappyM3]

An SBR isn’t a “rifle”as defined by Mass. law, it’s a “firearm”, so the AWB stuff doesn’t apply. Except when “firearm” means what the rest of the country thinks it means and when “rifle” appears in the quoted federal law as part of the Mass. AWB. Probably. Maybe.

So maybe an SBR is exempt from the Mass AWB because under Mass. law it’s not a rifle and “pistol” isn’t defined, so the “pistol” section of the AWB doesn’t apply to anything. Unless it does.

Or maybe it’s a rifle and a firearm and a pistol so the Venn diagram of legality has zero overlap and SBRs in any configuration are illegal if manufactured after 1994.

I hope that clears it up.

MGL cites federal USC text for assault weapon definitions. So it is entirely possible that the “rifle” referenced by the federal AWB USC is actually referencing the federal definition of rifle, and not the Mass MGL definition of rifle.

 

[milktree]

MGL cites federal USC text for assault weapon definitions. So it is entirely possible that the “rifle” referenced by the federal AWB USC is actually referencing the federal definition of rifle, and not the Mass MGL definition of rifle.

I’m sure that’s what they meant, but I don’t think the federal definitions of firearm, rifle, pistol, shotgun, SBR, SBS, or AOW are included in the Mass. law. (I’m only 80% sure if that though)

 

[FalArAk]

Please consider a comp instead of a brake…

Signed,
Your friendly fellow range attendees

So... Mini Y Comp is GTG? lol

 

[Mesatchornug]

I’m sure that’s what they meant, but I don’t think the federal definitions of firearm, rifle, pistol, shotgun, SBR, SBS, or AOW are included in the Mass. law. (I’m only 80% sure if that though)

They're not.

But the MA law says "the same as USC [...] September 14, 1994."

It's reasonable, therefore, to assume that you have to use the USC definitions of rifle, shotgun, and pistol.

 

[milktree]

They're not.

But the MA law says "the same as USC [...] September 14, 1994."

It's reasonable, therefore, to assume that you have to use the USC definitions of rifle, shotgun, and pistol.

From a purely practical standpoint, yes. You’d lose in court every time claiming otherwise, because of the “you know what I mean” doctrine.

But from a black letter reading of what the law actually says, it’s not that clear. The USC that provides those definitions isn’t included or referenced.

If you forget your include files, your code doesn’t work the way you expect.

 

[PappyM3]

From a purely practical standpoint, yes. You’d lose in court every time claiming otherwise, because of the “you know what I mean” doctrine.

But from a black letter reading of what the law actually says, it’s not that clear. The USC that provides those definitions isn’t included or referenced.

If you forget your include files, your code doesn’t work the way you expect.

Say you worked for ACME corp, and your boss gave you a manual written by the DoD and said we are using this manual as our SOP for doing such and such.

Reading through the manual, you see they use lots of acronyms, some acronyms that ACME corp also uses. But the acronyms mean different things. When reading the DoD manual, as an ACME employee, are you going to use your company’s meanings for the acronyms? Or are you going to use the DoD acronyms listed in the appendix of the DoD manual?

I get your logic, which is why this is a grey area. But I think the logic on the other side is stronger than just a “you know what I mean”.

 

[milktree]

Say you worked for ACME corp, and your boss gave you a manual written by the DoD and said we are using this manual as our SOP for doing such and such.

Reading through the manual, you see they use lots of acronyms, some acronyms that ACME corp also uses. But the acronyms mean different things. When reading the DoD manual, as an ACME employee, are you going to use your company’s meanings for the acronyms? Or are you going to use the DoD acronyms listed in the appendix of the DoD manual?

I get your logic, which is why this is a grey area. But I think the logic on the other side is stronger than just a “you know what I mean”.

I'm 100% sure that in a court your interpretation would be used.

Having said that, government is not a corporation. "you know what I mean" is far more compelling when doing so is to the benefit of everyone.

But with laws, which are meant to restrict government, technicalities are important. Sometimes they're mistakes (loopholes), sometimes they're deliberate.

When the state (who is trying to limit your actions) is sloppy with the technicalities, it's generally not our job to go above and beyond what they ACTUALLY WROTE and comply with what we think they probably meant (but didn't write)

Really, all of this is just an exercise in hypotheticals, we all know that if you claimed you could put a supressor on an SBR because they're not defined correctly, you'd go to jail after a very short trial, regardless of what the law actually says.

And... this is another great example of how absurdly complex gun laws are. (and how people who are trying to follow them are not the problem)

 

[AMV]

I'm 100% sure that in a court your interpretation would be used.

Having said that, government is not a corporation. "you know what I mean" is far more compelling when doing so is to the benefit of everyone.

But with laws, which are meant to restrict government, technicalities are important. Sometimes they're mistakes (loopholes), sometimes they're deliberate.

When the state (who is trying to limit your actions) is sloppy with the technicalities, it's generally not our job to go above and beyond what they ACTUALLY WROTE and comply with what we think they probably meant (but didn't write)

Really, all of this is just an exercise in hypotheticals, we all know that if you claimed you could put a supressor on an SBR because they're not defined correctly, you'd go to jail after a very short trial, regardless of what the law actually says.

And... this is another great example of how absurdly complex gun laws are. (and how people who are trying to follow them are not the problem)

similar to the debate on registering frames that you have been built into firearms, rifles, pistols in MA. No law states you have to….. although they want you to,

 

[PappyM3]

similar to the debate on registering frames that you have been built into firearms, rifles, pistols in MA. No law states you have to….. although they want you to,

That one just depends on one’s interpretation of “obtain”. If you build it yourself, are you “obtaining” it? Attorneys have said that yes, that is obtaining it. I personally don’t think it meets the definition of the word, but I’m not an attorney and am not familiar with legal definitions, which can differ from colloquial definitions.

 

[AMV]

That one just depends on one’s interpretation of “obtain”. If you build it yourself, are you “obtaining” it? Attorneys have said that yes, that is obtaining it. I personally don’t think it meets the definition of the word, but I’m not an attorney and am not familiar with legal definitions, which can differ from colloquial definitions.

no not really, it is about a transfer occurring, and who was it transferred from? There is no registration In MA for something not transferred to you.

 

[PappyM3]

no not really, it is about a transfer occurring, and who was it transferred from? There is no registration In MA for something not transferred to you.

No. Please read the actual MGL text. It specifies “obtained”, not just transferred.

 

[Mesatchornug]

No. Please read the actual MGL text. It specifies “obtained”, not just transferred.

Right.

This is why a licensee is expected to record firearms brought into MA following out of state purchase.

 

[AMV]

Right.

This is why a licensee is expected to record firearms brought into MA following out of state purchase.

Correct a transfer has occurred from one person to another, because it occurred out of state the seller has no responsibility so the buyer must use the registration portion of the portal, the bottoms line is you do not need to register something you already own and has not been transferred to you, only transfers are recorded in MA we do not have a registration.
I have first hand experience on this,

 

[AMV]

No. Please read the actual MGL text. It specifies “obtained”, not just transferred.

This has been beat to death over the years….. go read it again carefully

 

[PappyM3]

… you do not need to register something you already own …

If you already own firearms and MOVE to Massachusetts, they do not need to be registered, correct.

But again, MGL does not only say transfers. It says “obtained”, which is not defined in MGL or CMR. So, it is up to interpretation. There are attorneys who claim “obtained” includes making it yourself.

 

[PappyM3]

This has been beat to death over the years….. go read it again carefully

 

[milktree]

No. Please read the actual MGL text. It specifies “obtained”, not just transferred.

Sure.. but do you "obtain" a sweater when you turn a bunch of yarn into a sweater by knitting it? Do you "obtain" the potatoes you grow in your garden? Do you "obtain" the shed you built?

Obviously if you buy a sweater or potatoes or a shed you obtain them, but when they didn't exist before, is that the same as obtaining them?

Obviously you didn't have the sweater or potatoes or shed before knitting or growing or building them, but that seems more like "make", than "obtain".

Now, if "obtain" was defined in MGL as something like, "acuquire by any means including manufacture", then it would be 100% obvious.

 

[PappyM3]

Sure.. but do you "obtain" a sweater when you turn a bunch of yarn into a sweater by knitting it? Do you "obtain" the potatoes you grow in your garden? Do you "obtain" the shed you built?

Obviously if you buy a sweater or potatoes or a shed you obtain them, but when they didn't exist before, is that the same as obtaining them?

Obviously you didn't have the sweater or potatoes or shed before knitting or growing or building them, but that seems more like "make", than "obtain".

Now, if "obtain" was defined in MGL as something like, "acuquire by any means including manufacture", then it would be 100% obvious.

I agree with your colloquial usage of the word. The question is what it means in common legalese.

I’m told it can mean you didn’t have something, and now you do. Regardless of HOW you now have it.

It is totally grey and anybody who claims you definitely do not need to register builds is being naive.

 

[AMV]

But again, MGL does not only say transfers. It says “obtained”, which is not defined in MGL or CMR. So, it is up to interpretation. There are attorneys who claim “obtained” includes making it yourself.

So who did you obtain it from? That would be the transferee, if that person is you? No transfer has occurred.

The attorneys for the Boston PD in my case felt otherwise on what obtained meant

You can’t obtain something you already have.