I am about to get a form 1 approved for a SBR not yet efa10'd. This is my 1st SBR which wasn't already registered via efa10 prior to form1 being mailed. So the ATF knows it exists but the state of MA doesn't. In reading the MGL it clearly states you have 7 days to register a firearm or rifle in the online portal. Since MA doesn't define a sbr as either a rifle or a firearm doesn't that mean I'm under no legal obligation to register it? Prior thread here says to register it as a pistol but I'm confused by that logic. Can anyone educate me?
-
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.
Why do I need to efa10 a SBR anyway
- Thread starter Lxpony
- Start date
CrackPot
NES Member
An SBR (federal definition) is a firearm (MA definition). Read MGL chap 140 sec 121 definition of “firearm”. It is a “other weapon of any description ... from which a ... bullet can discharged” and is not a rifle or shotgun.
You screenshot the definition of firearm then highlight when something is not a firearm. Not sure how what applies. Those are triggers for it being a covert weapon which is illegal. Nothing in the definition of firearm excludes a SBR from being a firearm.
So the requirement exists to register within seven days of construction. Not sure how the state knows when that is. Not sure what your requirements are if on day seven it is no longer assembled. Not sure what fifth amendment requirements are if seven days pass and you forgot; are you required to self incriminate.
But on the question of what is it, it is a firearm and subject to the seven day registration period. As a firearm you can lawfully carry it loaded both concealed and unconcealed. I suspect that will result in certain police attention and would make great case law.
You screenshot the definition of firearm then highlight when something is not a firearm. Not sure how what applies. Those are triggers for it being a covert weapon which is illegal. Nothing in the definition of firearm excludes a SBR from being a firearm.
So the requirement exists to register within seven days of construction. Not sure how the state knows when that is. Not sure what your requirements are if on day seven it is no longer assembled. Not sure what fifth amendment requirements are if seven days pass and you forgot; are you required to self incriminate.
But on the question of what is it, it is a firearm and subject to the seven day registration period. As a firearm you can lawfully carry it loaded both concealed and unconcealed. I suspect that will result in certain police attention and would make great case law.
CrackPot
NES Member
I knew who was to blameThis is all your fault you know....
Haynes v United States decision continues to block state prosecutions of those who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia
CrackPot
NES Member
I would not think of it as falsifying so much as dealing with stupid MA definitions. Ma defines rifle and shotgun and everything else is a firearm. The fa10 system has one minor problem using handgun instead of firearm in their pull down menu but otherwise is ok.
Yea, but the FA10 is a legal document, and a legal requirement.
Imagine if there was a question like, "have you stopped using illegal drugs?" when they should be asking, "are you a regular user of illegal drugs?"
How do you answer that?
If you say either "yes" or "no", you're admitting to a felony.
When you submit the eFA10, you're certifying that the information is true, even though it's not, because an SBR is *NOT* a handgun.
Sure, it's never going to come to anything, and if it did, there would be thousands of witnesses testifying there's no way to do it right because the system is broken, but that doesn't change the fact that they are forcing you to lie on a firearm related government form.
That's step one in creating a tyrannical government: Make everyone a criminal, even if you don't enforce it. That way you can arbitrarily destroy any individual simply by picking a law they broke.
And if you record it as a handgun, I don't know why it wouldn't violate the AWB definition of a handgun.
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
DPR
NES Member
I recall something regarding written legislation in Mass that barrel length <16" is a pistol? Maybe it what they define is a pistol? Maybe somebody will chime in if they do know about this.
DPR
NES Member
I believe this may be what I was thinking of.
Section 121:
''Firearm'', a stun gun or a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured;
CrackPot
NES Member
Because you are mixing terms. The AWB is not language incorporated into MGL but a reference to federal law. The reading of the AWB has to be done in the context of federal law and the definitions there in. So a SBR is a rifle under federal law and when reading the federal AWB as it existed on 13-sep-1994.
That's some really f*cking long term, slow moving fascism then. Do you know how long the FA10 system has been in place?? When is this finally going to kick in so I can be ready? I've been told since the 1990s when the original AWB went into effect that they'd be coming to get my guns. Still waiting....
There is no tyrannical government, only tyrannical people. The government is too incompetent to be tyrannical.
CrackPot
NES Member
CZ Scorpion EVO carbine massified yes. pistol no.
MGL 140 131M says felony to possess or sell an assault weapon
MGL 140 121 defines assault weapon as some words followed by "as defined in USC 921(a)(30) of 13-sep-1994"
So the definition of an assault weapon is AS defined in federal law. So you have to read the federal law and the terms/definitions inside federal law to make a determination. MA definitions are not in play while reading the AWB definition in federal law so there is no confusion or loopholes, or magical thinking.
Had they taken the federal text and replicated it in MGL, then we would have the confusion of terminology where the fact that MA does not define pistol/handgun and rifle is > 16", etc would cause chaos. It is actually done reasonably well for a gun law in MA. The outcome sucks, but it is not in fact ambiguous or confusing from a legal perspective.
Do you seriously think that if .gov cared about *you*, they wouldn't find something to hang you on?
This is one of those "something"s. Look at all the ways they make it difficult for people who are TRYING to obey the law to actually obey the law. The easy Occam's Razor explanation is that they're just incompetent. But they're not just incompetent; they're incompetent with malice, with an agenda.
Maybe it's not the FA10, but for sure every single f***up and contradiction and ambiguity in law and impossible-to-use website or form is designed to make it more difficult for people to own guns legally, and easier to turn gun owners into criminals.
Wickedcoolname
NES Member
Just say you bought it at a gunshot loophole and now you're grandfathered. That aught to hold them off for a while.
Lol MA is all about the slow moving fascism. That's the name of the game, here. Ironically the only reason we're not completely f***ed here is because the fascism is delayed by sloth, diverted liberal priorities, and pure ineptitude. "They" don't like spending money on gun control, so "slow moving fascism" is the next logical outcome of that.
It's not about someone "coming to get your guns" it's just a confluence of ineptitude and malice mixed into a bowl, basically, the point he's trying to make is the state likes it this way
so that they have the capability to f*** nearly anyone over, anytime they want, on obscure legal bullshit. The sooner MA gun owners realize that the stupid f***ing plastic card in their wallet, and obeying basic bitch stuff like safe storage laws, will basically only protect them from being the lowest of hanging fruit, the sooner they can grow up and figure out how to act or operate within that reality. The nostrum that anyone other than perhaps the most boring gun owner in MA can obtain a 100% iron clad legal toilet seat cover is laughable. Sure you can do some basic
things to protect yourself against the most obvious failures, but the state will literally invent shit out of whole cloth if it wants to. (look at what it did to MTBS guy, then, Edward Fleury (the guy in the westfield MG thing, although he was an idiot, he broke no laws, but they tried to whack him anyways) and many others. Ones protection from shitty gun laws in this state is only
contingent on two things - 1 staying out of trouble (and this means all kinds of things) and 2, if you get in trouble, how much money you have and what kind of counsel you can get. Merely "making a best effort to obey the gun laws of the commonwealth" is not enough by itself.
I don't know if its always INTENDED, but lets put it this way, even when they KNOW its f***ed up, they like it, and leave it being f***ed up, because it benefits their agendas. That's still malice.
And... thats just the tip of the iceberg. The only saving grace WRT the FA-10 shit is the S128A/S128B shit is so difficult for even attorneys to parse out completely that I think even the DAs in
parts of this state read it, have a "douche chill" moment and then give up, if the defendant's attorney is any good, they can apply a cuisinart type thing to S128A/B and produce the desired
outcome.
I read the link. It reads like only criminals and prohibit people might fall under this.Haynes v United States decision continues to block state prosecutions of those who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
“The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynesto make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm”
But I suppose, if you breached the FA10 period you are in essence unlawfully possessing ?
MGL citing 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) is clear.
The SBR as falling under this is fuzzy.
AWB doesn’t mention barrel length, just “likeness” and features.
It’s clear in MGL Section 121 that an SBR would be defined as a “firearm” per mass law.
help me connect the dots here..
USC 18 would obviously define as SBR as well as 26 USC 5845 (assuming it’s under the tax section do to the stamp?).
trying to connect some dots.
CrackPot
NES Member
Again stop worrying about MA definitions. They are not in play. The MA AWB says as defined in USC of 13-sep-1994. All definitions read there are from USC. You make the AWB determination solely based on reading USC and then come back to MGL with a binary, do I have an AW yes or no
Crackpot may be able to makes sense of these convoluted laws, but I question what would happen in a court.
yes, I can understand why an SBR is not an AW. However, when you FA10 it as a pistol, that's where I have trouble with the clarity.
And it's a double standard to say that MGL doesn't define AW and it just refers to the Fed ruling, but then you can't have an EVO pistol. But there is no federal AWB against those pistols. How can they have it both ways
yes, I can understand why an SBR is not an AW. However, when you FA10 it as a pistol, that's where I have trouble with the clarity.
And it's a double standard to say that MGL doesn't define AW and it just refers to the Fed ruling, but then you can't have an EVO pistol. But there is no federal AWB against those pistols. How can they have it both ways
CrackPot
NES Member
It’s is a assault weapon under federal law of 13-sep-1994. That is the key here. Mgl says see federal law of 1994. It is all logical and self consistent.
