• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Semi-auto MG42 legal in MA?

calsdad

calsdad

Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
53,458
Likes
52,261
Location
Chelmsford MA
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
Ran across this while looking at some stuff on Gunbroker.com - and I was wondering what the legality of this would be in MA:

Semi-auto MG42 built from Yugo MG53 parts:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=111338238

- no adjustable stock
- no bayonet lug
- no removable "high capacity" magazine
- semi-auto


The only potential problems I see are the fact that it has a flash hider on it and it would scare the pants off the sheeple.
 
You can have 2 evil features. The MG42 has 3 (flash hider, pistol grip, belt feed). If you could replace the flash hider with a solid piece it might be OK. You would need to check how the flah hider mounts. If it screws into the receiver you would have to blind pin or silve solder the fake flash hider onto the threads.
 
WillyJP said:
You can have 2 evil features. The MG42 has 3 (flash hider, pistol grip, belt feed). If you could replace the flash hider with a solid piece it might be OK. You would need to check how the flah hider mounts. If it screws into the receiver you would have to blind pin or silve solder the fake flash hider onto the threads.
Click to expand...

2 questions/opinions...

1. does an mg42 muzzle booster really count as a flash suppressor anyway?
2. it threads into the reciever not the barrel, so how I don't see that as a problem as I thought it was treaded barrels that were an "AW" issue?

Personally I don't see a reason it wouldn't be MA OK, but thats just me...

evan9201 said:
if its C&R eligble than you might be able to own it in the state with out any mods.
Click to expand...
Its NOT C&R they are NEW guns...
 
securityboy said:
2 questions/opinions...

1. does an mg42 muzzle booster really count as a flash suppressor anyway?
2. it threads into the reciever not the barrel, so how I don't see that as a problem as I thought it was treaded barrels that were an "AW" issue?

Personally I don't see a reason it wouldn't be MA OK, but thats just me...


Its NOT C&R they are NEW guns...
Click to expand...

When I posted the original message I did not realize that the cone was a "booster" and not a flash hider. It looked like the flash hiders I have seen on WW2 and similar era rifles. I did some further reading and it is always referred to as a "booster". Plus it thread onto the barrel shroud - and not the barrel itself from what I can discern.

If the belt feed is not an "evil feature" - and the booster would not be considered a flash hider - that only leaves the pistol grip, and you are allowed one evil feature. Sure sounds like the thing would be legal - unless I am missing something. The "booster" looks like it might be bone of contention - since it does resemble a flash hider.
 
calsdad said:
When I posted the original message I did not realize that the cone was a "booster" and not a flash hider. It looked like the flash hiders I have seen on WW2 and similar era rifles. I did some further reading and it is always referred to as a "booster". Plus it thread onto the barrel shroud - and not the barrel itself from what I can discern.

If the belt feed is not an "evil feature" - and the booster would not be considered a flash hider - that only leaves the pistol grip, and you are allowed one evil feature. Sure sounds like the thing would be legal - unless I am missing something. The "booster" looks like it might be bone of contention - since it does resemble a flash hider.
Click to expand...

I think all you need is an FID card. I don't believe a belt constitutes a "high capacity feeding device" despite the logic that says it would...

PS: A rifle requires a "magazine" to trigger AWB issues. This has no such device. Hence why it should only require an FID card.
 
terraformer said:
A rifle requires a "magazine" to trigger AWB issues. This has no such device. Hence why it should only require an FID card.
Click to expand...

It requires a semi-automatic action and a detachable magazine for it to trigger the 'only one evil feature' AWB issues. But triggering AWB issues is not a criteria for needing an LTC over an FID card. Being a large capacity weapon is what makes an LTC necessary.
 
jdubois said:
It requires a semi-automatic action and a detachable magazine for it to trigger the 'only one evil feature' AWB issues. But triggering AWB issues is not a criteria for needing an LTC over an FID card. Being a large capacity weapon is what makes an LTC necessary.
Click to expand...

Is that a large "capacity" weapon?
 
terraformer said:
Is that a large "capacity" weapon?
Click to expand...

What? The rifle calsdad is talking about? Not unless it has a large capacity feeding device physically inserted into it or in your direct possession (or if the flash hider makes it an Assault Weapon, it's by default a large capacity weapon).

Is a belt with more than 10 rounds a large capacity feeding device? Maybe. The law says, "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". So the law could certainly be interpreted that way. Don't know what the state says about it though, if anything.
 
Last edited:
jdubois said:
What? The rifle calsdad is talking about?
Click to expand...
Yes.

jdubois said:
Is a belt with more than 10 rounds a large capacity feeding device? Maybe. The law says, "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". So the law could certainly be interpreted that way. Don't know what the state says about it though, if anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly, all of those things have ammo placed into them, not linking rounds together. If these links are illegal in qtys more than ten, how about 6 of them? How about the cotton links that are used in some old milsurp MGs?
Edit: Can I link them together with rubber bands? Does a box of ammo constitute a large capacity feeding device since that feeds a large capacity feeding device... [smile] What a crock this whole concept is. Just ban ammo and be honest about it.
 
Last edited:
terraformer said:
What a crock this whole concept is. Just ban ammo and be honest about it.
Click to expand...

I've often thought that if I were a gun grabber, I'd keep my legislation solely to ammo restrictions. You can only own X rounds of no greater than Y caliber with less than Z amount of powder in it. Fill in X, Y & Z according to how restrictive you want to be, and you're done.
 
terraformer said:
Yes.

Exactly, all of those things have ammo placed into them, not linking rounds together. If these links are illegal in qtys more than ten, how about 6 of them? How about the cotton links that are used in some old milsurp MGs?
Edit: Can I link them together with rubber bands? Does a box of ammo constitute a large capacity feeding device since that feeds a large capacity feeding device... [smile] What a crock this whole concept is. Just ban ammo and be honest about it.
Click to expand...

During the 94 AWB, it wasn't uncommon for vendors to sell linked ammo in 10 round strips so as not to run afoul of the law.

jdubois said:
What? The rifle calsdad is talking about? Not unless it has a large capacity feeding device physically inserted into it or in your direct possession (or if the flash hider makes it an Assault Weapon, it's by default a large capacity weapon).

Is a belt with more than 10 rounds a large capacity feeding device? Maybe. The law says, "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". So the law could certainly be interpreted that way. Don't know what the state says about it though, if anything.
Click to expand...


But, the exact text/definition of the MA ban on "large capacity feeding devices" reads...

(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.
Click to expand...

Section 921(a)(31) does include a belt as part of the definition...

b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of such title, as amended by section 2(b) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means--

`(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
Click to expand...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:h4296:
 
Scrivener said:
Think again. A link can connect only two cartridges - hardly "large capacity."
Click to expand...

So if I have 10 pairs of links, I don't then have something that "can be readily converted to accept" (which is an inclusive OR statement in the text) a large capacity? Then was I right when I said all you would need for a semi-belt fed was an FID card?
 
A link is not an issue; it's a souvenir.

TEN links - actually, any more than five - is potentially a "large capacity feeding device" and would require an LTC.
 
MassMark said:
MG-42 belts are pre-ban....Am I repeating myself? Sorry.
Click to expand...

Somewhat related...


Further, large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after September 13, 1994, shall be marked “RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/GOVERNMENT USE ONLY” or, in the case of devices manufactured or imported for export, effective July 5, 1995, “FOR EXPORT ONLY.”

(2) All markings required by this paragraph (c) shall be cast, stamped, or engraved on the exterior of the device. In the case of a magazine, the markings shall be placed on the magazine body.

(3) Exceptions —(i) Metallic links. Persons who manufacture or import metallic links for use in the assembly of belted ammunition are only required to place the identification marks prescribed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section on the containers used for the packaging of the links.
Click to expand...

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...iv8&view=text&node=27:3.0.1.2.3.6.1.2&idno=27

Since markings are only required on the packaging and not on the individual links, proving their pre-ban/post-ban status might be difficult if the packaging isn't present (where the burden of proof is on the government).

The only way a prosecutor might be able to make a case is by the headstamp/lot number on the original (unpackaged), linked ammo.
 
Last edited:
All this conversation that seems to point towards it being legal yet no bids. Hmm. Technically the onus would be on the FFL for selling it to you, would it not...?
 

Similar threads

Is the HK USP .45 legal in MA?
Replies
16
Views
426
drgrant
drgrant
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
New to MA
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
  • Locked
Is it legal ?
2 3
Replies
75
Views
2K
M1911
M1911
I open carried in Boston today
3 4 5
Replies
148
Views
3K
fencer
fencer
Back
Top Bottom