The AR-15 pre and post ban Q's

[Shame302]

I know this information is probably within the site in one form or another but I'm looking to clarify a couple things regarding some conflicting information. I'll try to make it short and sweet. Thank you in advance for your time.

1.
I was always under the impression that a PRE-BAN lower could be fitted with either a PRE or POST-BAN upper without consequence. I was recently told this would be illegal.

2.
It was my understanding if a POST-BAN lower was fitted with a PRE-BAN upper it would simply have to be modified to comply in the same manor a POST-BAN upper would. This would effectively make the assembly generally accepted as a MA compliant POST-BAN unit. I was told this would be illegal.

3.
I was recently told the only way to legally obtain a legal PRE-BAN AR-15 would be if it was assembled into a working unit prior to the ban and sold as this complete unit. (That a used or unused PRE-BAN lower could NOT be legally assembled after the ban into PRE-BAN "status" legally with PRE or POST BAN parts.)

I'd really like to build a Pre-Ban AR-15 but i want to be crystal clear on the legality if it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Item 3 is correct. Gun had to be built or "kitted" as a complete gun with evil features on/before 9/13/1994 to be considered "pre-ban".

It later could have been disassembled, sell the lower to someone else who rebuilds it as a pre-ban legally.

EOPS has ruled "once an AW (post-ban with evil features), always a AW" claiming that you can't legally grind off bayo lugs, change flash-hider, remove/pin collapsible stock to make it MA-compliant . . . even if done outside MA by gunsmith. This has not made it to court yet, so untested, although I'm sure that a MA court would convict on this if tested.

 

[Shame302]

Item 3 is correct. Gun had to be built or "kitted" as a complete gun with evil features on/before 9/13/1994 to be considered "pre-ban".

It later could have been disassembled, sell the lower to someone else who rebuilds it as a pre-ban legally.

So one COULD legally purchase a used Pre-Ban lower separately and assemble it with another pre-ban upper legally, but NOT with a Post-Ban upper? I'm not sure that makes sense.

 

[dbott63]

So one COULD legally purchase a used Pre-Ban lower separately and assemble it with another pre-ban upper legally, but NOT with a Post-Ban upper? I'm not sure that makes sense.

I think Len was specifically addressing question #3. If you have a pre-ban lower you can install any upper you would like on it. Just keep in mind there are other rules that apply (such as overall barrel length...which needs to be at least 16"). The upper does not need to be pre-ban.

 

[rlee]

Your assumptions in #2 were also correct, with limitations.
Specifically, you can't have simultaneously both the post-ban lower and the non-compliant upper.
Even though they're not assembled, it's still constructive possession.
The modifications have to happen before the upper and lower come together.

And there may be yet more limits that I'm not aware of.

 

[Len-2A Training]

No, you didn't get what I was trying to say.

Buying a pre-ban lower does NOT automatically allow you to construct a legal pre-ban gun. To do that, there has to be some proof that that lower was ONCE part of a FULL GUN (or GUN KIT) in "evil configuration". Plenty of lowers were made before the ban that were merely sold as bare lowers . . . if they weren't built up with evil features prior to that fateful day, it would be ILLEGAL to build them up any time after 9/13/1994 (wrt to MA AWB)!!

 

[jasons]

No, you didn't get what I was trying to say.

Buying a pre-ban lower does NOT automatically allow you to construct a legal pre-ban gun. To do that, there has to be some proof that that lower was ONCE part of a FULL GUN (or GUN KIT) in "evil configuration". Plenty of lowers were made before the ban that were merely sold as bare lowers . . . if they weren't built up with evil features prior to that fateful day, it would be ILLEGAL to build them up any time after 9/13/1994 (wrt to MA AWB)!!

Huh?

Section 131M. 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. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The law only requires that the gun was "lawfully possessed" prior to the cutoff date. There's nothing in there that says it had to be configured in any certain way. (How would anyone know that you didn't install a stock or a flash hider on September 12th anyway?)

 

[securityboy]

The law only requires that the gun was "lawfully possessed" prior to the cutoff date. There's nothing in there that says it had to be configured in any certain way. (How would anyone know that you didn't install a stock or a flash hider on September 12th anyway?)

it is written in the law you are just missing it.

Section 131M. 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

It wouldn't be an assault weapon if it wasn't configured as an assault weapon prior to the ban, it would just be a "regular" gun.

 

[Len-2A Training]

it is written in the law you are just missing it. It wouldn't be an assault weapon if it wasn't configured as an assault weapon prior to the ban, it would just be a "regular" gun.

I'm glad someone understands. Thanks!

Note: In MA terminology of C. 140, it wouldn't be a gun if it were a mere bucket of parts either.


Besides which back in the day . . . BATFE either stated this in the FAQ/Q&As or in a Letter Ruling. Don't recall where it was, just that it was there somewhere. And a DA will dig that out and use it to stick it to anyone in MA that tries to skirt this law, you can count on it. And guess who the judge/jury will listen to?

 

[jasons]

it is written in the law you are just missing it. It wouldn't be an assault weapon if it wasn't configured as an assault weapon prior to the ban, it would just be a "regular" gun.

Before September 13, 1994 we didn't have "assault weapons." All we had was "regular guns."

Anyway - how would anyone know (or more to the point prove) when you installed the flash hider or adjustable stock? How could anyone prove that you didn't buy a lower on September 12, bring it home, and throw an adjustable stock on it that same day? Or that you didn't buy a complete rifle and swap the fixed stock for an adjustable?

 

[jasons]

I'm glad someone understands. Thanks!

Is there any case-law on this or is this just another biased opinion of a certain former chief?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

No, you didn't get what I was trying to say.

Buying a pre-ban lower does NOT automatically allow you to construct a legal pre-ban gun. To do that, there has to be some proof that that lower was ONCE part of a FULL GUN (or GUN KIT) in "evil configuration". Plenty of lowers were made before the ban that were merely sold as bare lowers . . . if they weren't built up with evil features prior to that fateful day, it would be ILLEGAL to build them up any time after 9/13/1994 (wrt to MA AWB)!!

True, but despite the efforts of the system, the burden of proof in "ban cases" has not shifted to the owner to prove legality and, as such, it would be up to the prosecution to prove the lower was not part of a complete gun; not the other way around.

Of course, this is MA where anything can happen. I've even seen charging sheets for actions that were legal (not, the courts don't check to see if the law the police claim the defendant violated even exists until you get to trial or, if the defendant is really lucky, the magistrate's hearing)

The law only requires that the gun was "lawfully possessed" prior to the cutoff date. There's nothing in there that says it had to be configured in any certain way. (How would anyone know that you didn't install a stock or a flash hider on September 12th anyway?)

Under MGL, a stripped lower is not a gun until it is assembled, at which point the time of assembly is, from the state's perspective, the time of assembly.

 

[jasons]

Under MGL, a stripped lower is not a gun until it is assembled, at which point the time of assembly is, from the state's perspective, the time of assembly.

Yeah, I know but how does the DA prove that I didn't buy a stripped lower and assemble it into a complete rifle on September 12th?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yeah, I know but how does the DA prove that I didn't buy a stripped lower and assemble it into a complete rifle on September 12th?

Currently chiefs (and DAs) are being taught (in those seminars for LE) to call the mfrs and verify the condition of S/N xxxxxx when it left the factory. If the answer is anything but AW, they are being directed to charge the person. After you pay your attorney $10-20K to defend yourself against a bogus charge, come back and tell me that I was giving bad advice!!

If you read my first post on this, I am pretty sure that I said that some of this stuff hasn't made "REPORTABLE" case law as of yet. Anyone is welcome to be first in line here if they wish! [FYI: District Court cases aren't reported electronically, so unless someone does "gumshoe research" none of us would know who/how many may indeed have been prosecuted for this.]

The "burden of proof" may be on the state, but I'd say that a $10-20K legal bill would be a "burden" many may not want to lift by themselves!

 

[jasons]

Currently chiefs (and DAs) are being taught (in those seminars for LE) to call the mfrs and verify the condition of S/N xxxxxx when it left the factory. If the answer is anything but AW, they are being directed to charge the person. After you pay your attorney $10-20K to defend yourself against a bogus charge, come back and tell me that I was giving bad advice!!

If you read my first post on this, I am pretty sure that I said that some of this stuff hasn't made "REPORTABLE" case law as of yet. Anyone is welcome to be first in line here if they wish! [FYI: District Court cases aren't reported electronically, so unless someone does "gumshoe research" none of us would know who/how many may indeed have been prosecuted for this.]

The "burden of proof" may be on the state, but I'd say that a $10-20K legal bill would be a "burden" many may not want to lift by themselves!

I would tend to agree, but I also think we should be clear about the difference between actual law and mere opinion (even if it is Glidden's opinion - or maybe especially if it is) when talking about this kind of stuff.

 

[Shame302]

No, you didn't get what I was trying to say.

Buying a pre-ban lower does NOT automatically allow you to construct a legal pre-ban gun. To do that, there has to be some proof that that lower was ONCE part of a FULL GUN (or GUN KIT) in "evil configuration". Plenty of lowers were made before the ban that were merely sold as bare lowers . . . if they weren't built up with evil features prior to that fateful day, it would be ILLEGAL to build them up any time after 9/13/1994 (wrt to MA AWB)!!

That being said, we can generally accept that if one were to acquire a pre-ban lower (and we will assume this was a previously assembled weapon) it would be within the law to built it up with any upper regardless of manufacture date or acquisition? (pre or post ban). Further more, what would this "proof" be? Were we registering weapons prior to the ban? This scenario is what I'm most interested in at this time.

Jason makes a decent point though. How does one prove or even distinguish the lower was assembled and complete prior to the ban? Am I to or should I assume lowers that were purchased prior to the ban to be illegal to build up as a pre-ban? Do I take a seller at his word that the 17+ year old lower was assembled prior to the ban? Or are only factory/shop/Kit lowers considered to be "safe"?

I think part of the problem is the way the law is written. It's left to opinion and a bit subjective. I would have made the same point that Jason made about prior to 9/13/94 there were no assault weapons and only those purchased from that point on only are to be considered AW. Section 131M does not imho directly address weapons complete or partial prior to 9/13/94, only those to be considered AW on and after that date. The law can be intentionally vague, confusing or left to interpretation (I think intentionally.) Seems the logical, sensible and least confusing take on the law would be all lowers pre-ban should be considered pre-ban and those following to be post. But this is MA so logic and common sense probably wasn't a first priority consideration when restricting my rights.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Shame302, most likely you and most NES'rs weren't around (wrt gun ownership) before the Fed Ban occurred.

Here are the holes in your assumption:

- BATFE REQUIRED all mfrs to submit S/Ns (ranges, if appropriate) of ALL pre-ban ARs that had been kitted or assembled into "AW" configuration. That list has been published on ARfcom and IIRC is on NES as a Sticky. If it isn't within that range of S/Ns, it does NOT qualify as "pre-ban" for purposes of building up an evil-configuration gun in MA. [Plenty of bare lowers were sold pre-9/13/1994 and won't appear on that list.]
- If someone built one up from parts on/before 9/13/1994, unless you have some proof (some folks got things Notarized, etc.) you could be in for a rough time if someone decides to prosecute you.
- MGL C. 140 S. 121 defines what a "gun" is and the current definition has to be built up so that it could fire a projectile. So a lower isn't and can't be a "gun" under MGL until built up. [This definition is NOT the same as BATFE for federal purposes.]

 

[Shame302]

Shame302, most likely you and most NES'rs weren't around (wrt gun ownership) before the Fed Ban occurred.

Here are the holes in your assumption:

- BATFE REQUIRED all mfrs to submit S/Ns (ranges, if appropriate) of ALL pre-ban ARs that had been kitted or assembled into "AW" configuration. That list has been published on ARfcom and IIRC is on NES as a Sticky. If it isn't within that range of S/Ns, it does NOT qualify as "pre-ban" for purposes of building up an evil-configuration gun in MA. [Plenty of bare lowers were sold pre-9/13/1994 and won't appear on that list.]
- If someone built one up from parts on/before 9/13/1994, unless you have some proof (some folks got things Notarized, etc.) you could be in for a rough time if someone decides to prosecute you.
- MGL C. 140 S. 121 defines what a "gun" is and the current definition has to be built up so that it could fire a projectile. So a lower isn't and can't be a "gun" under MGL until built up. [This definition is NOT the same as BATFE for federal purposes.]

Ah, Thank you. That is very helpful. I wonder why a pre-ban lower that isn't (not that I've looked yet) on that list would still bring a premium? They all seem quite pricey when you happen to come by them. Bottom line is though it appears that I CAN legally still build a pre-ban AR if I happen to find a "legit" lower. This is at least a step in the direction I wanted to go. As long as it's "provable" with such a list, I'd feel comfortable. Nobody wants to take on the state. Thank you again.

 

[securityboy]

...I wonder why a pre-ban lower that isn't (not that I've looked yet) on that list would still bring a premium? They all seem quite pricey when you happen to come by them...

You aren't looking hard enough... sure likely you wont find a stripped "preban" AR lower for $60 like you can a new "no name" lower (but good luck going out and trying to find a new "big name" lower for that price)... but look at complete guns, if you cant find a Colt SP1 for the price (more often than not less than the price) of a new Colt AR15, then you aren't looking very hard at all.

(I use Colt SP1 as an example because they are all preban, but there are plenty of other makes/models out there that the same can be said for)

 

[Shame302]

You aren't looking hard enough... sure likely you wont find a stripped "preban" AR lower for $60 like you can a new "no name" lower (but good luck going out and trying to find a new "big name" lower for that price)... but look at complete guns, if you cant find a Colt SP1 for the price (more often than not less than the price) of a new Colt AR15, then you aren't looking very hard at all.

(I use Colt SP1 as an example because they are all preban, but there are plenty of other makes/models out there that the same can be said for)

No, I really haven't. Just beginning actually. I expected to pay around 1300-1400 for a complete and 500-700 for a lower prior to starting this thread. I've seen the M&P sport new for 515 and then you have your Bushmasters and other completes for 700-800ish. I want the one the liberals hate the most though, out of spite. I just want to make sure it's done legally.

 

[glide]

No, I really haven't. Just beginning actually. I expected to pay around 1300-1400 for a complete and 500-700 for a lower prior to starting this thread. I've seen the M&P sport new for 515 and then you have your Bushmasters and other completes for 700-800ish. I want the one the liberals hate the most though, out of spite. I just want to make sure it's done legally.

You realize you can buy a $515 M&P15 right? They do make a MA compliant version.

So is a collapsible stock and a muzzle device worth an extra $800? You could be dual-weilding M&P15's and still have money left over for ammo. That would really make them angry.

 

[dbott63]

No, you didn't get what I was trying to say.

Buying a pre-ban lower does NOT automatically allow you to construct a legal pre-ban gun. To do that, there has to be some proof that that lower was ONCE part of a FULL GUN (or GUN KIT) in "evil configuration". Plenty of lowers were made before the ban that were merely sold as bare lowers . . . if they weren't built up with evil features prior to that fateful day, it would be ILLEGAL to build them up any time after 9/13/1994 (wrt to MA AWB)!!

Len...I guess I worded my response poorly. I agree with your interpretation above. I stated he could put any upper on a pre-ban lower...I should have said lower from a pre-ban rifle to avoid confusion. That being said it is my understanding that he could install any non-NFA upper on lower from a pre-ban rifle and comply to the MA AWB...correct?

 

[Mike-Mike]

Shame302, most likely you and most NES'rs weren't around (wrt gun ownership) before the Fed Ban occurred.

This is so true. When giving a class, I often have students to tell me what mags are pre-ban (to prove a point). When I tell them that "I know this one is pre-ban because I owned it the day they banned it" They look at me like it was 100 years ago.

 

[milktree]

EOPS has ruled "once an AW (post-ban with evil features), always a AW" claiming that you can't legally grind off bayo lugs, change flash-hider, remove/pin collapsible stock to make it MA-compliant . . . even if done outside MA by gunsmith. This has not made it to court yet, so untested, although I'm sure that a MA court would convict on this if tested.

This is bizarre, what possible reasoning could they have used to come up with this ruling?

This is the first time that I've heard of the definition of an "assault weapon" to not only include, "doesn't have two evil features" but also, "never had two evil features."

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len...I guess I worded my response poorly. I agree with your interpretation above. I stated he could put any upper on a pre-ban lower...I should have said lower from a pre-ban rifle to avoid confusion. That being said it is my understanding that he could install any non-NFA upper on lower from a pre-ban rifle and comply to the MA AWB...correct?

Yes, if the lower is a legit pre-ban (per definition above) you can put whatever non-NFA features you like on the upper.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This is bizarre, what possible reasoning could they have used to come up with this ruling?

This is the first time that I've heard of the definition of an "assault weapon" to not only include, "doesn't have two evil features" but also, "never had two evil features."

They are using a "spin" on a BATFE ruling that "once a machine gun, always a machine gun"!

Chief Glidden (and EOPS) have been spouting this stuff for >2 years now. Rob Boudrie, Jon Green and Terraformer can all vouch for this, all of us were in the room this past May when Ron told all the chiefs/LOs that this was the EOPS "ruling".

I don't agree that this was the intent of that law, but am just reporting it as given. Under the current "administration" EOPS has gotten "creative" in re-interpreting MGLs . . . all of it in ways to screw the legal gun owner.

 

[vellnueve]

Is there any case-law on this or is this just another biased opinion of a certain former chief?

That's how ATF and the entire firearms industry interpreted it for ten years.

 

[securityboy]

... I expected to pay around 1300-1400 for a complete...prior to starting this thread...

for that you can get an unquestionable preban complete AR and at least one spare upper

 

[thousm]

I vote for just getting a post ban AR. The telescopic stock, flash hider and bayonet lug is overrated. Not worth the extra money to get them in this state. This is coming from someone with two pre-ban ARs. I did a version of what you are planning. I found a complete pre-ban Bushmaster with all the evil fetchers. Sold all the parts off it and had the lower striped and refinished. Then built it from scratch. On the up side I know have an AR just like I want. But it was very expensive. On the down side I always wonder if this will be more trouble than its worth. It looks like a new AR. Everyone who sees it thinks it an illegal firearm at first. If a cop sees it he my think the same. Cops are not sure on the laws sometimes. Yes I can win in court. But this would be a big and expensive hassle. If I had to do it again I would just build a very nice MA compliant AR and save hundreds of dollars.

 

[thousm]

Is this what you want. With optic cost $3,000. Get a post ban.