User Panel
|
Just sell single shot ARs with no gas tube.
Insert gas tube and your back in business |
|
Sorry to for your loss MA.
An Interchangeable parts ban is devastating for an AR15, in theory if any single spring, or pin is the same as on an M16 the semi-auto version is banned. This bill sounds like it will be hard to fight. You would have to completely rebuild it from the ground up. I wonder how rifles like the CA compliant (No flash hider) mini-14s or M1A will hold up. May be at least a temporary solution for those looking for a semi-auto, mag fed rifle that can be modified to handle modern optics and accessories. |
|
|
Quoted:
I can see it easily happening. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't actually see this happening. I can see it easily happening. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Lol this. How in the fuck can you "not see this happening"? |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Not legally. We fought, and won, against a SAFE style law last year. We are not going down without a fight. Fuck that whore Maura Healey. Bitch will get tarred and feathered. The old school way. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't actually see this happening. I can see it easily happening. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Not legally. We fought, and won, against a SAFE style law last year. We are not going down without a fight. Fuck that whore Maura Healey. Bitch will get tarred and feathered. The old school way. No she won't. Nothing will happen, like always. But it's a cute notion and sounds good when you type things like that on the internet. |
|
Quoted:
As the FSA grows this plague will never stop. View Quote What the fuck does the FSA have to do with this reinterpretation of a law that is unrelated? The members of this forum are their own worst enemy, gun grabbing is a cake walk when gun owners are oblivious to the world around them. |
|
Quoted:
What the fuck does the FSA have to do with this reinterpretation of a law that is unrelated? The members of this forum are their own worst enemy, gun grabbing is a cake walk when gun owners are oblivious to the world around them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
As the FSA grows this plague will never stop. What the fuck does the FSA have to do with this reinterpretation of a law that is unrelated? The members of this forum are their own worst enemy, gun grabbing is a cake walk when gun owners are oblivious to the world around them. They keep these people in office. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone from MA confirm this? Seems that it would be an easy google....it's not. By Maura Healey July 20, 2016
Orlando. Baton Rouge. Falcon Heights. Dallas. Baton Rouge again. Five horrific headlines in five weeks. Each story unique in its circumstances, but bound by a common thread: human lives taken by a gun. There are myriad issues underlying each of these tragedies: fear, racism, mistrust, hate. These are critical issues that we, as a country, have an obligation to honestly and forthrightly address. And they’re issues my office is working hard to tackle alongside our partners in the community, in law enforcement, and in government. But there’s one issue that can be addressed right now — the proliferation of guns, particularly assault weapons. Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year — each one nearly identical to the rifle used to gun down 49 innocent people in Orlando. In the week after the Pulse nightclub massacre, sales of weapons strikingly similar to the Sig Sauer MCX used at Pulse jumped as high as 450 percent over the previous week — just in Massachusetts. It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands. How in Massachusetts, then, home to some of the strongest gun laws in the country, do we allow people to buy these guns? The gun industry has found a way to exploit our laws, a loophole of potentially horrific proportions. And it’s time we act. The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon. That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts. We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both. In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so. Maura Healey is the attorney general of Massachusetts. 10,000 MPXs sold in Massachusetts last year? I am impressed. |
|
Quoted:
Tinfoil hat time: May 24 the MA attorney general met with the white house to discuss gun control and the purpose of her meeting according to her speech (available on her website in .PDF) was to "share ideas and find solutions". Then this literally comes out of nowhere less than 2 months later. View Quote Advised by DOJ attorneys. |
|
The article is an opinion piece with no sources backing up the claim. My guess is it's fake.
|
|
Quoted:
No she won't. Nothing will happen, like always. But it's a cute notion and sounds good when you type things like that on the internet. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't actually see this happening. I can see it easily happening. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Not legally. We fought, and won, against a SAFE style law last year. We are not going down without a fight. Fuck that whore Maura Healey. Bitch will get tarred and feathered. The old school way. No she won't. Nothing will happen, like always. But it's a cute notion and sounds good when you type things like that on the internet. Kinda like the SAFE style law we shot down? Say what you want. I know I do more than just "type things like that on the internet". |
|
Today, we're taking steps to keep deadly assault weapons off our streets. We'll have more to say at 11 am. |
|
Quoted:
This is clearly inspired by the ban that was passed in Maryland in 2013. (Firearms Safety Act 2013) The language makes it obvious. One part of the Maryland ban includes a list of around a dozen rifles, and their "copycats", this is legally interpreted by the state police to mean that the major components are interchangeable. (It bans ARs other than HBAR, AKs, M1as, etc) For instance, piston ARs are legal, because their operation is substantially different from DI rifles. It will be interesting to see how they justify changing/tweaking/rewording a law that has already been passed, without voting on it. View Quote also all standard barrel AR's are legal as SBR's(or pistols) as SBR's are considered pistols/handguns in MD and FSA 2013 does not apply colt 6920 bad colt 6921 great success Just cant have a standard a barrel that is longer than 16 inches. |
|
Quoted:
10,000 MPXs sold in Massachusetts last year? I am impressed. View Quote That's not what it says. It says 10,000 "assault weapons" last year. But there is already an AWB so basically she's talking about anything that complies with the law but still looks scary. Percentages don't mean much without contex. There could have been 1 MCX sold one week then the next week 4-5 were sold. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As the FSA grows this plague will never stop. What the fuck does the FSA have to do with this reinterpretation of a law that is unrelated? The members of this forum are their own worst enemy, gun grabbing is a cake walk when gun owners are oblivious to the world around them. They keep these people in office. No, the damn leftist soccer moms and castrated limp wristed males in the large urban regions put these offensive cocksuckers in office. The FSA isn't a large enough block to insure an election, they just barely supply enough votes to swing a close election. |
|
|
|
If this is in fact, true then it's time for the Minute Men to assemble same as they did when the King of England tried to pull the same shit.
Or whine about it on the internet. One or the other. |
|
Quoted:
If this is in fact, true then it's time for the Minute Men to assemble same as they did when the King of England tried to pull the same shit. Or whine about it on the internet. One or the other. View Quote We actually assemble. The benefits of a small state. Word travels quickly. |
|
Quoted:
That's not what it says. It says "10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year — each one nearly identical to the rifle used to gun down 49 innocent people in Orlando". But there is already an AWB so basically she's talking about anything that complies with the law but still looks scary. Percentages don't mean much without contex. There could have been 1 MCX sold one week then the next week 4-5 were sold. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
10,000 MPXs sold in Massachusetts last year? I am impressed. That's not what it says. It says "10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year — each one nearly identical to the rifle used to gun down 49 innocent people in Orlando". But there is already an AWB so basically she's talking about anything that complies with the law but still looks scary. Percentages don't mean much without contex. There could have been 1 MCX sold one week then the next week 4-5 were sold. FIFY, and I was being sarcastic since I doubt there are even 10K MPXs in circulation across the US right now. Obviously, you and I both know what she meant. It doesn't make her statement any less absurd. |
|
Quoted:
No, the damn leftist soccer moms and castrated limp wristed males in the large urban regions put these offensive cocksuckers in office. The FSA isn't a large enough block to insure an election, they just barely supply enough votes to swing a close election. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As the FSA grows this plague will never stop. What the fuck does the FSA have to do with this reinterpretation of a law that is unrelated? The members of this forum are their own worst enemy, gun grabbing is a cake walk when gun owners are oblivious to the world around them. They keep these people in office. No, the damn leftist soccer moms and castrated limp wristed males in the large urban regions put these offensive cocksuckers in office. The FSA isn't a large enough block to insure an election, they just barely supply enough votes to swing a close election. In MA there is over 12% on food stamps alone. I agree that there are other reasons but it's certainly not insignificant. |
|
So will MA end up like NY and CT where only a few percent of firearms were ever registered and most people blatantly just ignore the laws and LEO simply refuse to enforce it?
|
|
Quoted:
Interpretation vs exact verbiage, I smell multiple court challenges... The state wasting your tax dollars to try and exert their privelege, perhaps its time the state finds out that receiving tax funding is just a privelege...consent of the governed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The AR15 is now dead in MA. Not even the SafeAct abortion would be legal in MA. Interpretation vs exact verbiage, I smell multiple court challenges... The state wasting your tax dollars to try and exert their privelege, perhaps its time the state finds out that receiving tax funding is just a privelege...consent of the governed. You can smell all of the court challenges you want, bottom line is that if every gun owner doesn't vote for Trump, you'll get Killary appointed judges to uphold this shit legislation |
|
Quoted:
So they passed a law and were upset that people complied with their law, because they didn't really want compliance. They wanted total prohibition, which is unconstitutional. MA is proving that the "common sense gun laws that respect 2A rights" argument that the left has been using is a total lie. Not that we didn't know this already. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
So they passed a law and were upset that people complied with their law, because they didn't really want compliance. They wanted total prohibition, which is unconstitutional. MA is proving that the "common sense gun laws that respect 2A rights" argument that the left has been using is a total lie. Not that we didn't know this already. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quoted:
So they passed a law and were upset that people complied with their law, because they didn't really want compliance. They wanted total prohibition, which is unconstitutional. MA is proving that the "common sense gun laws that respect 2A rights" argument that the left has been using is a total lie. Not that we didn't know this already. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Deserved to be said a few more times |
|
1. This is a preview of what we can expect on the national level.
2. Why would anyone with the slightest interest in guns choose to locate in Massachusetts (or New York, New Jersey, California, etc.)? The list of the "usual suspects" is well known. |
|
Some guy just posted yesterday how Mass has better gun laws than NY, the Governor must have seen it
"Get out there and oppress those citizens!" |
|
Quoted:
Update coming at 11am. From the attorney general of Massistan: The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.
That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts... View Quote View Quote |
|
There is a lot I like about MA, there really is. We have been going to Cape Cod for the past seven or eight summers, and it has become one of my favorite places in the U.S.A. Being from Texas, I was astounded how much I liked it the first time we went. Awesome summer climate, friendly yankees, and good fishing. I had just learned to grit my teeth and bear the draconian gun laws and do a damn good search of my luggage to make sure I didn't have any spent shell casings floating around. If this comes to pass, I will take the $20K or so I drop there each year and go elsewhere. I think it's time for the 2A supporters to start their own marches in the streets.
|
|
Well certain things they can't change. Mass. General Laws PART I TITLE XX CHAPTER 140 Section 121:
'Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M?10, M?11, M?11/9 and M?12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC?9, TEC?DC9 and TEC?22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine. View Quote The part in red is what they are redefining as far as what "copy" means. What's in blue are certain things they cannot wave a hand over and make assault weapons. I think the scariest part of that is actually the Tec-9. So are all blowback operated semi-auto pistols (same operation?!?) banned as assault weapons? Also appendix A I believe exempts the Ruger Mini-30 and Mini-14, so not sure how that accords with the new interpretation. Now let's look at the federal definition from 921(a)(30): any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as-- `(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); `(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; `(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); `(iv) Colt AR-15; `(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; `(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; `(vii) Steyr AUG; `(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and `(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; `(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; `(iii) a bayonet mount; `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and `(v) a grenade launcher; `(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- `(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; `(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; `(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; `(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and `(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and `(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; `(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and `(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'. View Quote Don't know if federal law defined "copies or duplicates" |
|
Quoted:
The article is an opinion piece with no sources backing up the claim. My guess is it's fake. View Quote The letters are apparently being mailed out to all FFL's in MA today. The list is publically available so it's easy for the AG's office to get them. We'll have to wait to see what the letter actually states. Not surprised that the NRA and GOAL were blindsided, it's not like there was any public discussion in the AG's office about the policy/law interpretation change. Short of someone actually in the office spilling the beans there would be no way to know it was coming. The FFL's in the state will play ball until this is fought out in court as violating the statute is a crime. The FFL's won't be fighting civil suits, they will be arrested if they do not comply. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
You're being too narrow in your "essentially the same" reasoning. They'll be calling it like this eventually: "if it has a firing pin instead of OR an external hammer... if it has any sort of magazine other than OR a revolving cylinder... if it uses a rifled barrel instead of OR a smooth bore... if it uses cased ammo instead of OR a separate charge and ball..." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
... So this would ban ANY DI or piston driven semi-auto weapon? "If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon" You're being too narrow in your "essentially the same" reasoning. They'll be calling it like this eventually: "if it has a firing pin instead of OR an external hammer... if it has any sort of magazine other than OR a revolving cylinder... if it uses a rifled barrel instead of OR a smooth bore... if it uses cased ammo instead of OR a separate charge and ball..." FIFY |
|
Sounds like she's interpreting the word "copy" in the law to mean any gun that has any parts commonality with a banned firearm.
Its like saying a Prius and a Ferrari are copies because the car battery is interchangeable. ETA - the "same operating system" test they want to use is even more idiotic. My weed wacker is a copy of an M1 Abrams because they both have internal combustion engines. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Update coming at 11am. From the attorney general of Massistan: The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.
That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts... View Quote View Quote Good luck |
|
There go all post ban style ARs, AKs, minis and the BAR hunting rifle. I guess the Remington hunting rifle might be okay, I don't know if there is a "assault weapon" version of that, the Merkel should still be legal. Is the Garand "a version of the m14?"? no more 30 carbines.....
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Update coming at 11am. From the attorney general of Massistan: The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans "copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a "copy” or "duplicate” weapon is. They market "state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon. That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a "copy” or "duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a "copy” or "duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts... Good luck |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.