SBR questions

You'd think if mass law points to a federal law no longer on the book mass law would be void ...... Hmmmmm

It specifically points to an expired federal law ("...18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994...") which is no longer on the books. They actually expect you to be some sort of legal historian in order to follow the law. It hurts my brain trying to wrap my head around the unprecedented levels of stupidity and laziness required to even propose something so retarded, never mind actually passing it.
 
It specifically points to an expired federal law ("...18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994...") which is no longer on the books. They actually expect you to be some sort of legal historian in order to follow the law. It hurts my brain trying to wrap my head around the unprecedented levels of stupidity and laziness required to even propose something so retarded, never mind actually passing it.

To bad we couldn't try to use it to get ride if the awb bull shot but they'd come back with a ny safe act bull shot .
 
I agree with this, however I pussed out and used pre-Ban lowers for my SBRs.

To the OP, hang in there with all this a BS. I have a DD 10.3 mk18 upper and it runs like a dream, well worth the effort!

My head is going to explode with all these stupid rules...So I can legally purchase an mk18 upper with no issues. It isn't until I am ready to attach it to a lower that it becomes an NFA item and would then require a Form 1 and CLEO signature to make it a legal to possess because it is then considered to be a built title 2 firearm...If I find a pre ban lower to attach it to, I don't need to worry about any AWB evil dirty features, but if I attach it to a post ban lower it could cause problems depending on who was interpreting the laws...is that correct? Reading all these laws and interpretations makes me want to punch a politician.

Thank you to everyone for all of the information. I've been reading about this a lot and it is pretty overwhelming.
 
...If I find a pre ban lower to attach it to, I don't need to worry about any AWB evil dirty features...

I find it sort of amusing in a sick and twisted way that someone who's afraid that a cross-eyed DA would incorrectly interpret the MA laws to say that an SBR is a rifle (despite a clear definition to the contrary) wouldn't similarly "mis-interpret" the pre-ban exception. Just seems a bit naive to me.

Besides, isn't it Glidden who says that a pre-ban is no longer a pre-ban if you modify it? (I seem to recall someone saying that but I could be wrong.)
 
I find it sort of amusing in a sick and twisted way that someone who's afraid that a cross-eyed DA would incorrectly interpret the MA laws to say that an SBR is a rifle (despite a clear definition to the contrary) wouldn't similarly "mis-interpret" the pre-ban exception. Just seems a bit naive to me.

Besides, isn't it Glidden who says that a pre-ban is no longer a pre-ban if you modify it? (I seem to recall someone saying that but I could be wrong.)

Ooh, now that is an interesting twist I hadn't heard before. Is there any case law to support that? (not directed at you, since you stated some ambiguity on that point[wink]). It seems if what you said was true, it would make ALL rifles built on pre-ban "lowers" illegal wouldn't it?
 
Besides, isn't it Glidden who says that a pre-ban is no longer a pre-ban if you modify it? (I seem to recall someone saying that but I could be wrong.)

There are two things here that are separate wrt AWB:

- Yes, I've heard him say that "once an AW, always an AW", that you (or a gunsmith) can't modify it to make it legal if it left the factory with evil features. Don't know if that is an EOPS "interpretation", AG position, or what the genesis of that point is, but it is pontificated at many of his seminars.

- I have read or heard (really don't recall the source but it was years ago) that MA took the position that once a legit pre-ban was disassembled or reconfigured that it was no longer a legal pre-ban. That is such BS that I've never spewed that tripe. If so, merely cleaning an AR would thus make it illegal. I don't buy this one for a NY second.

IANAL but personally I take the position that if you have a legit pre-ban that you can modify it any way you'd like as often as you like.
 
There are two things here that are separate wrt AWB:

- Yes, I've heard him say that "once an AW, always an AW", that you (or a gunsmith) can't modify it to make it legal if it left the factory with evil features. Don't know if that is an EOPS "interpretation", AG position, or what the genesis of that point is, but it is pontificated at many of his seminars.

- I have read or heard (really don't recall the source but it was years ago) that MA took the position that once a legit pre-ban was disassembled or reconfigured that it was no longer a legal pre-ban. That is such BS that I've never spewed that tripe. If so, merely cleaning an AR would thus make it illegal. I don't buy this one for a NY second.

IANAL but personally I take the position that if you have a legit pre-ban that you can modify it any way you'd like as often as you like.

Glidden is probably confused with the ATF's (similarly stupid) principle that once a machine gun always a machine gun.
 
Glidden is probably confused with the ATF's (similarly stupid) principle that once a machine gun always a machine gun.

For the record it may be me that's confused on this one. I do have a hard time keeping up with his inanity, but I don't want to put words into his mouth.
 
For the record it may be me that's confused on this one. I do have a hard time keeping up with his inanity, but I don't want to put words into his mouth.

I also remember hearing the MA "once a banned assault weapon, always a banned assault weapon", but like you, I can't remember the exact source either. Sure sounds like something he would say.
 
I think that the test case would be an easy but costly one to get through. If someone got popped for it I think we would and should help fund their legal costs.
 
Umm... care to cite?


Seems to punt to the Federal law to me.

As WWB mentioned, I understand the MA AWB was a shitty copy and paste job from the FED AWB, but I was specifically talking about the definition of a rifle, MA AWB compared to the FED AWB. I was under the impression the Fed AWB had SBRs included in the definition of a "rifle", while the MA AWB has the all too repeated "over 16 barrel" in its rifle definition.
 
Last edited:
As WWB mentioned, I understand the MA AWB was a shitty copy and paste job from the FED AWB, but I was specifically talking about the definition of a rifle, MA AWB compared to the FED AWB. I was under the impression the Fed AWB had SBRs included in the definition of a "rifle", while the MA AWB has the all too repeated "over 16 barrel" in its rifle definition.

This is not quite the case. MGL Chapter 140 Section 121 includes most of the relevant definitions in MA firearms law, including the following two:

“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...

“Large capacity feeding device”, (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.

Chapter 140 Section 131M contains the actual ban on sale, transfer or possession of assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.

So, the two definitions from Section 121, in combination with the ban in Section 131M, are the whole AWB.

Let's say for sake of argument that the MA AWB doesn't apply to SBRs. You may also find that if you look up the 1994 AWB, it refers to a "semiautomatic pistol" in its language for what is banned. Chapter 140 does not contain any definition of pistol, only firearm, so one could argue that all firearms by MA law are not covered by the AWB since the federal AWB didn't ban "semiautomatic firearms".

AR pistols for all? I think not.
 
Let's say for sake of argument that the MA AWB doesn't apply to SBRs. You may also find that if you look up the 1994 AWB, it refers to a "semiautomatic pistol" in its language for what is banned. Chapter 140 does not contain any definition of pistol, only firearm, so one could argue that all firearms by MA law are not covered by the AWB since the federal AWB didn't ban "semiautomatic firearms".

AR pistols for all? I think not.

For the sake of further argument, since pistols are not defined in the MGLs one must use a reasonable and standard definition to fill in the gap. Rifles, on the other hand, are very clearly defined in the MGLs. No need to go looking for a definition when our legislature so thoughtfully provided us with the one they wanted us to use.
 
I called the chief in my town to schedule a meeting to make sure he'll sign off. If he will, I am going to buy the upper and figure out what I am going to put it on later.
 
Last edited:
This is not quite the case. MGL Chapter 140 Section 121 includes most of the relevant definitions in MA firearms law, including the following two:





Chapter 140 Section 131M contains the actual ban on sale, transfer or possession of assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.

So, the two definitions from Section 121, in combination with the ban in Section 131M, are the whole AWB.

Let's say for sake of argument that the MA AWB doesn't apply to SBRs. You may also find that if you look up the 1994 AWB, it refers to a "semiautomatic pistol" in its language for what is banned. Chapter 140 does not contain any definition of pistol, only firearm, so one could argue that all firearms by MA law are not covered by the AWB since the federal AWB didn't ban "semiautomatic firearms".

AR pistols for all? I think not.
By that definition of AW, post ban SBR are clearly covered by the AWB, because it references the federal definition in full, which defines both rifles and SBR as being AW given certain features. I had hoped/thought the MA AW definition quoted just the AW rifle definition from Fed law, which would possibly restrict the meaning.
 
I called the chief in my town to schedule a meeting to make sure he'll sign off. If he will, I am going to buy the upper and what I am going to put it on later.
You need the tax stamp before you have the upper and any lower you could assemble it to or in this state you could get charged with constructive possession since AR pistols are not legal.
 
I called the chief in my town to schedule a meeting to make sure he'll sign off.

Very smart move to meet with him and verify that he'll sign off BEFORE doing anything else. A lot more definitive than asking the web at large what the odds are!
 
By that definition of AW, post ban SBR are clearly covered by the AWB, because it references the federal definition in full, which defines both rifles and SBR as being AW given certain features. I had hoped/thought the MA AW definition quoted just the AW rifle definition from Fed law, which would possibly restrict the meaning.

Only it doesn't. It refers specifically to 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30). The federal definition of a semiautomatic rifle is 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(28).

With that said there is language in the Chapter 140, Section 121 that talks about context:

Section 121 said:
As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings....

Does the context clearly require otherwise in this case? I'd say no, it's not at all clear to me anyway, but I assume that's the angle a prosecutor would take should one of these cases actually go to trial. (Which is probably pretty unlikely but that's a whole different discussion.)
 
You need the tax stamp before you have the upper and any lower you could assemble it to or in this state you could get charged with constructive possession since AR pistols are not legal.

Actually AR pistols are perfectly legal. Just keep em under 50 oz.
 
Only it doesn't. It refers specifically to 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30). The federal definition of a semiautomatic rifle is 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(28).

With that said there is language in the Chapter 140, Section 121 that talks about context:



Does the context clearly require otherwise in this case? I'd say no, it's not at all clear to me anyway, but I assume that's the angle a prosecutor would take should one of these cases actually go to trial. (Which is probably pretty unlikely but that's a whole different discussion.)

So here is the distinction between what I thought before and what I am thinking now - MA AWB references the Fed AWB as it originally appeared. To me, this means that the MA incorporation of 921(a)(30) must be using the fed definitions of rifle. I thought that the MA AWB incorporated the text of the Fed AWB, in which case the MA definitions would obviously be the ones used. I'm pretty sure that prosecutors and judges would have no problem seeing the law the way that it suits them to.

- - - Updated - - -

I know that lol . It was a more to point out the flaws / loop holes for constructive possession etc .

The idea of constructive possession is in itself such a huge flaw :(
 
Last edited:
To me, this means that the MA incorporation of 921(a)(30) must be using the fed definitions of rifle.

Would you say that's clearly what it means? If not, the MGL definitions apply.
 
Would you say that's clearly what it means? If not, the MGL definitions apply.

Pretty clear to me. Since they refer to the Fed Law as it existed, it wouldn't make much sense for the fed law to refer to MA definitions. This is much more clear than if the text of the Fed law were inserted into the MA law (which is what I originally thought). Plus, laws like this, clear only means clear to a lawyer. Like I said before, MA prosecutors and judges have been shown to be able to read laws the way they want to, and I bet this would be easy as pie for them to convict someone on if they felt like it. (Not saying it would stand up under all the appeals, not saying it would be likely for someone to get busted on it)
 
Pretty clear to me. Since they refer to the Fed Law as it existed, it wouldn't make much sense for the fed law to refer to MA definitions. This is much more clear than if the text of the Fed law were inserted into the MA law (which is what I originally thought). Plus, laws like this, clear only means clear to a lawyer. Like I said before, MA prosecutors and judges have been shown to be able to read laws the way they want to, and I bet this would be easy as pie for them to convict someone on if they felt like it. (Not saying it would stand up under all the appeals, not saying it would be likely for someone to get busted on it)

Well, ultimately clear means what's clear to a jury if it goes that far. Regardless, we all have to make our own assessments of the potential legal risks. To each his own and all that.
 
how can they screw anyone when there is no established case law and there is no explicit wording in the MGLs stating that title II firearms must comply with the AWB?

i'm sure mr. guida would love to take a case like this if it ever went to court. opening up a whole new market, neva been dun befo, etc.

either way i think you're a bit too scared of the state. the black and white text of the law as it is written does not give any weight to the fears in which you outline above about a potential court case.

tl;dr: chill.

To put this in legal context, ambiguities in the statute are to be resolved in favor on the defendant. Rules of Statutory Construction.
 
The steps leading to a trial would be rediculous unless your merc somebody with your SBR... if it made it that far I doubt they would get a conviction on the AW charge... its just too ambiguous and even if incorrect its easy to argue the law intentionally exempted "SBRs" taking into account the extra steps needed to obtain one.

Bottom line is you are not likely to see someone arrested with the only charge being "posession of an assault rifle" with ATF form 1 in hand which is 9 times out of 10 signed by a police chief. The number of steps to get there in the first place are rediculous.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Back
Top Bottom