Wrentham Man charged and firearms seized

[Rob Boudrie]

I agree, its dumb. My understanding is it comes from the way they define a firearm. Part of that definition is "capable of firing" a projectile. If it isnt capable of doing that, it isnt a firearm. If it isnt a firearm, it doesnt need to be registered.

I believe the MA standard is "capable of firing or capable of firing with minor repair or adjustment". Taking the firing pin out on an AR or 1911 does not turn it into a non-gun, even under the MGL definition.

 

[PappyM3]

Since when is a Glock Giggle Switch a "bump stock"?

This is a big issue for anybody with a legal binary trigger.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

.
The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.

 

[Broc]

• Commercial grade fireworks, which, police say, could be used in the creation of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

"Could be", I guess that is enough. Maybe they should charge him for every single kitchen knife he owns. You know, they could be used to stab someone.

 

[Broc]

I don't see how anyone could ever be convicted for failing to FA-10 a home made firearm. I have parts that I purchased 5 years ago that I haven't used yet. If I assemble a rifle tomorrow, how would the Government prove that it was assembled more than 7 days ago?

They can't prove it. But today's legal system seems to be about YOU proving you didn't build it more than 7 days ago. All they have to do is charge you, good luck. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[richc]

Me thinks he should hire Dr. Kang Lu here on NES as legal representation...

Brookline Doctor Busted With Gun & Hooker

Going through Worcester court records from this week and just saw that Kang Lu had his gun charges dismissed. No other explanation, or info. Pretty interesting though, does anyone know anything else about it? Here's some clips from the story on him last month. Dr. Kang Lu, a radiologist...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[namedpipes]

Correct with the caveat that it be able to fire a shot, see below.

Plot twist.

(hypothetical)

I have a dozen, identical 80% ARs in the rack, "almost" ready to fire, requiring only the last couple pieces to complete each (firing pin, or lpk). None require FA10 until completed. I complete one, use it for 6 days and then destroy it before reaching the 7 days and then complete the next.

Is there a requirement to FA10 a firearm that I've destroyed prior to reaching that magical 7 days?

 

[namedpipes]

You only need a serial # to transfer a firearm.

If you build one you have 7 days to FA-10 it and you can FA-10 it without a serial #.

@Len-2A Training, please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[namedpipes]

You only need a serial # to transfer a firearm.
...

A home built firearm is NEVER required to have a serial number ("special" places such as California with local laws excluded), EVEN if you later decide to sell it.

 

[Broc]

Plot twist.

(hypothetical)

I have a dozen, identical 80% ARs in the rack, "almost" ready to fire, requiring only the last couple pieces to complete each (firing pin, or lpk). None require FA10 until completed. I complete one, use it for 6 days and then destroy it before reaching the 7 days and then complete the next.

Is there a requirement to FA10 a firearm that I've destroyed prior to reaching that magical 7 days?

I thought a gun was a gun when the receiver is finished and capable of accepting all the parts. Not when all the parts are installed.

 

[namedpipes]

I thought a gun was a gun when the lower is finished and capable of accepting all the parts. Not when all the parts are installed.

The letter of the law is "when it is capable of firing a shot". There's probably prosecutorial wiggle room on exactly what that means.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The letter of the law is "when it is capable of firing a shot". There's probably prosecutorial wiggle room on exactly what that means.

True, according to the literal wording on Chapter 140 Section 121, however, I believe the courts have interpreted that as also including "minor adjustment or repair". More details are welcome if anyone has them.

I do know that I would not expect someone to dodge a gun charge because the firing pin in the AR was broken or missing.

 

[Darksideblues42]

I thought a gun was a gun when the receiver is finished and capable of accepting all the parts. Not when all the parts are installed.

Federally, a receiver is a firearm if it is in a finished state ready to accept parts.

In Massachusetts, a finished receiver without parts is little more than a paperweight, until it has been assembled and is "capable of discharging a shot"

 

[namedpipes]

True, according to the literal wording on Chapter 140 Section 121, however, I believe the courts have interpreted that as also including "minor adjustment or repair". More details are welcome if anyone has them.

I do know that I would not expect someone to dodge a gun charge because the firing pin in the AR was broken or missing.

Federally, a receiver is a firearm if it is in a finished state ready to accept parts.

In Massachusetts, a finished receiver without parts is little more than a paperweight, until it has been assembled and is "capable of discharging a shot"

I feel like Schrodinger's cat. Right and wrong at the same time

 

[Boris]

Plot twist.

(hypothetical)

I have a dozen, identical 80% ARs in the rack, "almost" ready to fire, requiring only the last couple pieces to complete each (firing pin, or lpk). None require FA10 until completed. I complete one, use it for 6 days and then destroy it before reaching the 7 days and then complete the next.

Is there a requirement to FA10 a firearm that I've destroyed prior to reaching that magical 7 days?

That's a great question. I don't believe so, but I don't think that this was ever tested in court. Technically yes, you built it, now you need to register within 7 days, but practically this is non-sensical if firearm is not meant to live beyond that time, i.e. FA10 assumes that gun still exists at the time of filing.

 

[mpd61]

Interesting. Especially about the 80% lower ban just waiting to happen. The mere possession of incomplete "paperweights" is perhaps the only factor stopping Herr Healy from already doing it.
All the "what if" and hypothetical posts like about building guns for a week, are what make my eyes roll, and get printed out to use against us later

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Ok, I found some case law. While it dates from 1950, it demonstrates how MA courts can step beyond the plain-English text of a law to add additional implied proscribed activity.

BARTHOLOMEW, COMMONWEALTH vs., 326 Mass. 218

masscases.com

"A weapon coming within the definition of a machine gun in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 140, Section 121, as amended, did not lose its character as such merely because of the absence of a firing pin which, although necessary to its operation, was easily replaceable. "

"While it may be conceded that a weapon designed for firing projectiles may be so defective or damaged that it has lost its initial character as a firearm, see Burnside v. State, 105 Miss. 408, this character is not lost when a relatively slight repair, replacement, or adjustment will make it an effective weapon. "

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Federally, a receiver is a firearm if it is in a finished state ready to accept parts.

As to the AR15, the feds have a definition of what 80% is. It is OK to have the mag well finished in an 80% lower, but not acceptable to have the cavity for the fire control group present. Open that cavity and the fact that it is not "Ready to accept parts" because the various pin holes have not been drilled does not, according to the feds, render that item a non-firearm.

This is an area where you need to be technically correct, and not just use generalized imprecise descriptive comments if you want to be accurate.

 

[namedpipes]

Ok, I found some case law. While it dates from 1950, it demonstrates how MA courts can step beyond the plain-English text of a law to add additional implied proscribed activity.

BARTHOLOMEW, COMMONWEALTH vs., 326 Mass. 218

masscases.com

"A weapon coming within the definition of a machine gun in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 140, Section 121, as amended, did not lose its character as such merely because of the absence of a firing pin which, although necessary to its operation, was easily replaceable. "

"While it may be conceded that a weapon designed for firing projectiles may be so defective or damaged that it has lost its initial character as a firearm, see Burnside v. State, 105 Miss. 408, this character is not lost when a relatively slight repair, replacement, or adjustment will make it an effective weapon. "

What if it had not yet attained the character of a firearm though. Not a disabled firearm that was once capable of doing but one that had not yet been completed and shot

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What if it had not yet attained the character of a firearm though. Not a disabled firearm that was once capable of doing but one that had not yet been completed and shot

Do you really think that you can build a ghost AR15, never install a firing pin, and have the MA courts rule that such an item is not a firearm?

 

[namedpipes]

Do you really think that you can build a ghost AR15, never install a firing pin, and have the MA courts rule that such an item is not a firearm?

No

Still, an AR without a lower is a pile of unregulated parts.

Buy an 80%, complete it, add the lpk and install the lower, now you have a firearm.

At what point in that sequence is the fa10 required? 7 days after it is possible to chamber a round, pull the trigger and expect the bullet to pop out.

 

[EJFudd]

No

Still, an AR without a lower is a pile of unregulated parts.

Buy an 80%, complete it, add the lpk and install the lower, now you have a firearm.

At what point in that sequence is the fa10 required? 7 days after it is possible to chamber a round, pull the trigger and expect the bullet to pop out.

Another question for the legal Gurus: If you've rough assembled an 80% AR, but not yet checked headspace or functionality... is that a "need to register it right now" firearm in MA?

 

[Yazz]

QFT

 

[straightshooterjake]

Do you really think that you can build a ghost AR15, never install a firing pin, and have the MA courts rule that such an item is not a firearm?

I certainly do not think what you described would be accepted.

However, imagine that person A bought a bunch of complete lowers years ago, and put them in his safe. Assume that the 4473 was done, and the FA10 was not, since no steps had been taken to make these lowers into rifles. For the sake of argument, assume that person A also owns a working AR15, so at least one upper, and parts sufficient to complete a lower, are stored in the same safe. Legally, where exactly is the line which separates this situation, from the situation you described above?

The only thing I am certain of with these issues is that I never want to be a test case.

 

[EJFudd]

The only thing I am certain of with these issues is that I never want to be a test case.

Correct. Not unless you've won a lottery grand prize, retired and have a few million extra floating around to blow on fighting Dimples.

 

[Broc]

Interesting. Especially about the 80% lower ban just waiting to happen. The mere possession of incomplete "paperweights" is perhaps the only factor stopping Herr Healy from already doing it.
All the "what if" and hypothetical posts like about building guns for a week, are what make my eyes roll, and get printed out to use against us later

This is what happens when they create stupid / complicated laws to make Karens feel good.

No one is going to print this out and use it. They have lawyers, they can hire more lawyers, they have The Gun Parlor working for them. If they wanted to tighten things, they would.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I feel like Schrodinger's cat. Right and wrong at the same time