Threaded barrels in MA

[squarooticus]

I know the Mass AWB prohibits two or more of the evil features, one of which amounts to a threaded barrel or flash hider. My question is: is it illegal to possess a threaded barrel that is not attached to a receiver?

I tried the search functionality, but there appears to be no way to search for ALL keywords. The search functionality seems to return all messages that have ANY keyword, which is not terribly helpful.

Kyle

 

[LoginName]

Nope, it's not illegal.

You can also own flash hiders, folding/collapsible stocks and gas blocks/front sight towers with bayonet lugs.

I suppose if the AG wanted to hit the owner with a constructive intent charge, they might be able to make it stick.

But, if anyone has reached that point, they have a lot more to worry about.

 

[drgrant]

I suppose if the AG wanted to hit the owner with a constructive intent charge, they might[/]b be able to make it stick.

But, if anyone has reached that point, they have a lot more to worry about.

Yeah, and something like a post-ban style AR upper while only
having postban lowers around is probably far "worse" than just
a threaded barrel hanging around.

I've never seen/heard about a constructive possession case in
MA in this regard but that doesn't mean that they couldn't try to
do it, under some circumstances. I think it would be a pretty
hard sell, though, with a few exceptions.

-Mike

 

[Fooped]

Yeah, and something like a post-ban style AR upper while only
having postban lowers around is probably far "worse" than just
a threaded barrel hanging around.

I've never seen/heard about a constructive possession case in
MA in this regard but that doesn't mean that they couldn't try to
do it, under some circumstances. I think it would be a pretty
hard sell, though, with a few exceptions.

-Mike

Not for nothing, but has there ever even been a AWB prosecution period in Mass? I don't mean some scumbag who shouldn't/couldn't have guns legally in the first place with a trumped up list of charges, but a regular Joe like one of us doing absolutely nothing other than possessing a AWB violation item.

 

[LoginName]

Yeah, and something like a post-ban style AR upper while only having postban lowers around is probably far "worse" than just a threaded barrel hanging around.

Been there... done that.

While I was fabricating a couple of my AR builds I took the extra effort to keep my complete upper(s) with unpinned flash suppressors well away from my lower receivers until they were acceptable by previous ATF rulings/standards.

Did I need to do that? Probably not, but it was just as easy to do as not to do.

The ATF's determinations on constructive intent were (are), rather vague (not to be confused with the MA determination which is non-existent).

More often than not, it applied to the possession of semi-auto firearms/receivers along with possession of full-auto parts.

Even then, it was a difficult call (unless the idiot had a full set of schematics, a drill press, receivers and auto sears stashed in the garage ).

I've never seen/heard about a constructive possession case in
MA in this regard but that doesn't mean that they couldn't try to
do it, under some circumstances. I think it would be a pretty
hard sell, though, with a few exceptions.

-Mike

And barring a concise clarification from the MA AG's office, you (we), more than likely never will. Like I posted, if they're looking to charge a person with that, that persons goose is already cooked.

 

[drgrant]

Not for nothing, but has there ever even been a AWB prosecution period in Mass? I don't mean some scumbag who shouldn't/couldn't have guns legally in the first place with a trumped up list of charges, but a regular Joe like one of us doing absolutely nothing other than possessing a AWB violation item.

I haven't seen an AWB prosecution for anyone, scumbag or not.

In what (admittedly limited) law/case searches I've done, I've
only ever been able to come up with people that got hit with "large
capacity device" convictions- but those were due to the fact that
the perp had no LTC/FID, and the cases had nothing to do with
AWB status of said devices. It's way easier to convict someone
of that, as it's basically a slam dunk if the guy possessed a mag
but had no LTC A/B.

That being said, there is some evidence circulating that DA's have
tried to research it, eg, with the intent of trying to hang someone
(major criminal or otherwise) on postban mag charges, I would
guess as a tack-on charge. (eg, they have tried to pester glock
about mag provenance, but glock told them to go screw because
even the company has no way of being sure when a given mag
was made. )

It is safe to say that for most folks a charge would not be
soley on possession, so to speak, but it might be one of those
deals where someone lawfully defends themselves, but the
anti gun prosecutor might be out for blood, and will certainly go for
the jugular if he/she can, if he finds out the guy's gun has a LEO
marked hicap in it or something else he can hang someone with.

Well, theres that and a bunch of other exigent circumstance
possibilities that could lead to trouble.... I could fill the page
with "what ifs" though. Any unplanned "more than cursory"
interaction with LE is basically a possible conviction if one has an
illegal item.

-Mike

 

[LoginName]

I haven't seen an AWB prosecution for anyone, scumbag or not.

I'm not even certain there has ever been a federal prosecution of an AWB violation without other criminal circumstances involved.

Amusingly, immediately after the federal AWB expired, the ATF issued a statement that although the AWB was no longer in effect and subject to enforcement, anyone who constructed an AW during the ban was still subject to prosecution.

In what (admittedly limited) law/case searches I've done, I've
only ever been able to come up with people that got hit with "large
capacity device" convictions- but those were due to the fact that
the perp had no LTC/FID, and the cases had nothing to do with
AWB status of said devices. It's way easier to convict someone
of that, as it's basically a slam dunk if the guy possessed a mag
but had no LTC A/B.

That being said, there is some evidence circulating that DA's have
tried to research it, eg, with the intent of trying to hang someone
(major criminal or otherwise) on postban mag charges, I would
guess as a tack-on charge. (eg, they have tried to pester glock
about mag provenance, but glock told them to go screw because
even the company has no way of being sure when a given mag
was made. )

It is safe to say that for most folks a charge would not be
soley on possession, so to speak, but it might be one of those
deals where someone lawfully defends themselves, but the
anti gun prosecutor might be out for blood, and will certainly go for
the jugular if he/she can, if he finds out the guy's gun has a LEO
marked hicap in it or something else he can hang someone with.

Well, theres that and a bunch of other exigent circumstance
possibilities that could lead to trouble.... I could fill the page
with "what ifs" though. Any unplanned "more than cursory"
interaction with LE is basically a possible conviction if one has an
illegal item.

-Mike

The suck part about that (even if they were to do that), isn't so much as to get a conviction of the charge (illegal possession of a "hi-cap" mag), the purpose is to get a plea bargain relating to the other charges.

 

[drgrant]

I'm not even certain there has ever been a federal prosecution of an AWB violation without other criminal circumstances involved.

I believe you're right. It's the same situation with 922R, never
any prosecutions against "mere possessors" but likely a few
tack-ons here and there. When I went looking for 922R stuff,
most of what I found actually had something to do with a licensed
manufacturer! (some guys shop was raided by the ATF for some
reason not related directly to the violation).

Amusingly, immediately after the federal AWB expired, the ATF issued a statement that although the AWB was no longer in effect and subject to enforcement, anyone who constructed an AW during the ban was still subject to prosecution.

Probably as a weak attempt to try to protect any ongoing
investigation or prosecution; but mignt not hold water in
court- how can someone be convicted of something which
isn't illegal anymore? (Could the defense ask for a withdrawl
of such a case/charge based on "mootness" ?)

The suck part about that (even if they were to do that), isn't so much as to get a conviction of the charge (illegal possession of a "hi-cap" mag), the purpose is to get a plea bargain relating to the other charges.

Maybe, depending on which charges are more likely to stick, which
is heavier, etc. It does allow vicious prosecutors a sort of a
fallback- eg, if an anti-gun prosecutor knows they cannot hang
a guy on a murder rap for shooting his attacker due to a pretty
strong affirmative defense, if the guy has an "AW" or an obvious
postban mag they can still hang him on that. Not all that much
different from how Bernie Goetz was eventually acquitted of
shooting the BG's but still ended up serving time on an "illegal carry"
charge.

-Mike

 

[digitech]

I have heard second hand (and we all know how reliable that is) that one of the officers at the SP crime lab firearms division told my friend they have never testified in court on a high cap mag charge and that they never would because they have no way of knowing or proving manufacture date. Now like i said take the reliability of a second hand source at face value but it does sound promising to me.

 

[JAMMIN]

What is the dumb reason for the making of an adjustable stock illegal in MA?

 

[drgrant]

What is the dumb reason for the making of an adjustable stock illegal in MA?

There is no "reason" to any of these laws- the MA legislamers just
adopted the already-lame definitions from the 1994 federal assault
weapons ban. [sad2]

-Mike

 

[JonJ]

What is the dumb reason for the making of an adjustable stock illegal in MA?

The original reason in the Federal ban was because of concealability and mobility.

 

[squarooticus]

The original reason in the Federal ban was because of concealability and mobility.

Yeah, take off four inches, and I can conceal that AR-15 IWB, running down my pants leg, with no one the wiser. I have to wonder how that thing ever passed...

Kyle

 

[Amicus]

What is the dumb reason for the making of an adjustable stock illegal in MA?

To demonstrate "solidarity" with the liberal Democratic brothers and sisters in the US Senate and House.