Marty McFly
NES Member
Barrett m82a1????
Are you offering to buy me something? Because if so I have to let you know that’s nice but I'm not gonna put out on the first date.
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Barrett m82a1????
Are you offering to buy me something? Because if so I have to let you know that’s nice but I'm not gonna put out on the first date.
I gotta see a picture before I promise anything.???
Are you offering to buy me something? Because if so I have to let you know that’s nice but I'm not gonna put out on the first date.
I am here to listen to you.Not really. Once someone gets a lower, its pretty much up to them to build the gun right. Most of the, uh, "less good" ARs I see on here come more from a lack of understanding of what a good AR is. Like guys who put 5-25x56 scopes on a 16" carbine and their gun club has a rifle range of only 100 yards.
move to free state...I want to build a nice AR.
I disagreemove to free state...
$1,400 for a pre 94 in MA is a great deal these daysAnother one came in yesterday. 1400. Good idea to keep in touch with the old military buddies.
move to free state...
Take up knitting...I want to build a nice AR.
This. As a mass resident, our laws have not prevented me from building, shooting and achieving marksmanship goals with an AR15 rifle. Last I checked, quality barrels, triggers, scope mounts, optics, etc are not illegal here. Also, don't be fooled by or think you need fancy uppers, lowers and even bolt carrier groups. They just need to work.What does moving to a free state have to do with putting together a quality rifle in Mass? I have more than a handful of quality rifles.
Im not saying you’re wrong, but you’re certainly not 100% right either.This. As a mass resident, our laws have not prevented me from building, shooting and achieving marksmanship goals with an AR15 rifle. Last I checked, quality barrels, triggers, scope mounts, optics, etc are not illegal here. Also, don't be fooled by or think you need fancy uppers, lowers and even bolt carrier groups. They just need to work.
Is PSA really that bad?Im not saying you’re wrong, but you’re certainly not 100% right either.
You don’t need top shelf I’ll agree, but try to buy better than PSA stuff too.
My first complete upper was a psa, they aren’t “bad”. Good enough to complete your first rifle if you can’t afford anything else. Just don’t expect 1 moa groupsIs PSA really that bad?
Sorry, the scope of my comment was referring to stripped uppers and lowers - not pre-built assemblies. As long as everything is in spec, they are GTG.Im not saying you’re wrong, but you’re certainly not 100% right either.
You don’t need top shelf I’ll agree, but try to buy better than PSA stuff too.
This. As a mass resident, our laws have not prevented me from building, shooting and achieving marksmanship goals with an AR15 rifle. Last I checked, quality barrels, triggers, scope mounts, optics, etc are not illegal here. Also, don't be fooled by or think you need fancy uppers, lowers and even bolt carrier groups. They just need to work.
Is PSA really that bad?
My first complete upper was a psa, they aren’t “bad”. Good enough to complete your first rifle if you can’t afford anything else. Just don’t expect 1 moa groups
Sorry, the scope of my comment was referring to stripped uppers and lowers - not pre-built assemblies. As long as everything is in spec, they are GTG.
Jeez, leaving us with blue balls..I have let this ramble on long enough.
I have made my decision, but I don’t want to discuss it.
Yup. If MA wanted all AR type rifles banned, the MA legislature would have changed the language of the law in 1998.Copies and duplicates terminology was in the federal ban and had clear interpretation.
Mass ban is a copy of the federal ban so brings the interpretation of terms with it.
Got it. So as long as adhering to the features test there is no violation of MGL?Yup. If MA wanted all AR type rifles banned, the MA legislature would have changed the language of the law in 1998.
No violation of the letter of the law, nor 18 years of state interpretation, nor a further 4 years of federal interpretation from which the MA law was copied.Got it. So as long as adhering to the features test there is no violation of MGL?
The thing is that the interpretation of the definitions of “copy” and “duplicate” have long been a strict interpretation meaning copies and duplicates of the “Colt AR-15” would need to have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and/or a telescoping stock. Because at the time of the ban, the “Colt AR-15” was in that configuration. We now use the term “AR-15” pretty broadly, but the law was written for a very specific firearm. And if you have a feature compliant rifle, it’s no longer a copy or duplicate of that specific firearm.I was browsing through M.G.L. it looks like “copies or duplicates” has indeed been added to the definition of an “assault rifle” -
therefore chapter 140, section 131m comes into question on the legality here.
So here’s the question- I was always under the impression Maura’s bs was not written into MGL- but it appears it is? Are new builds simply able to be owned/built due to this simply not being enforced, but technically according to MGL not “legal” ?
Appreciate the clarification! Makes far more sense, in a nonsensical kind of way...The thing is that the interpretation of the definitions of “copy” and “duplicate” have long been a strict interpretation meaning copies and duplicates of the “Colt AR-15” would need to have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and/or a telescoping stock. Because at the time of the ban, the “Colt AR-15” was in that configuration. We now use the term “AR-15” pretty broadly, but the law was written for a very specific firearm. And if you have a feature compliant rifle, it’s no longer a copy or duplicate of that specific firearm.
This strict interpretation of the definitions existed in 1998 when the state decided to cite the federal law for the state AWB. In 1998 the legislature had the chance to broaden those definitions if they wanted to. But they didn’t. They only wanted to remove the sunset.
Tucker carlson voice: "No, its not"I was browsing through M.G.L. it looks like “copies or duplicates” has indeed been added to the definition of an “assault rifle” -
therefore chapter 140, section 131m comes into question on the legality here.
So here’s the question- I was always under the impression Maura’s bs was not written into MGL- but it appears it is? Are new builds simply able to be owned/built due to this simply not being enforced, but technically according to MGL not “legal” ?
I was browsing through M.G.L. it looks like “copies or duplicates” has indeed been added to the definition of an “assault rifle” -
therefore chapter 140, section 131m comes into question on the legality here.
So here’s the question- I was always under the impression Maura’s bs was not written into MGL- but it appears it is? Are new builds simply able to be owned/built due to this simply not being enforced, but technically according to MGL not “legal” ?
Isn’t this all nonsensical? Gender neutralizing plastic potatoes, banning bayonets and collapsible stocks (cause those are the killiest features) and on and on..Appreciate the clarification! Makes far more sense, in a nonsensical kind of way...