# Unlicensed and building an AR-15



## Section 131 (Dec 15, 2015)

I'm contemplating on building an inoperable AR-15. Inoperable as in an 80% "BATFE accepted" lower un-machined, no fire control group, trigger assy, or safety provisions, but with all the other real AR-15 parts that would normally make up the rifle. 

Could this inoperable, gun shaped assembly be considered a firearm in MA? 
If not considered a firearm, does something like this need to comply with MA Assault weapons ban as far as mag capacity, fixed stock, non flash hiding muzzle break, etc?


Massachusetts law on the matter is kinda murky.
I'm open to any opinion.


----------



## Patr8726 (Dec 12, 2015)

USC says the lower is the regulated part. MGL and caselaw says it must be a functioning firearm capable of firing a shot. Mag capacity is clearly addressed in MGL, can't be over 10 rounds without an LTC A or B + must be pre-ban. I wouldn't recommend a collapsible stock. Get the old A2 style, it has a neat storage compartment you can hide your bail money in for when you get caught with this thing.

*I'm not a cop, I saw this in the feed for the site not realizing what section this was in. Mea maxima culpa mods.


----------



## Section 131 (Dec 15, 2015)

Patr8726 said:


> USC says the lower is the regulated part. MGL and caselaw says it must be a functioning firearm capable of firing a shot. Mag capacity is clearly addressed in MGL, can't be over 10 rounds without an LTC A or B + must be pre-ban. I wouldn't recommend a collapsible stock. Get the old A2 style, it has a neat storage compartment you can hide your bail money in for when you get caught with this thing.
> 
> *I'm not a cop, I saw this in the feed for the site not realizing what section this was in. Mea maxima culpa mods.


I appreciate your input anyhow.
So its your impression of the law that the assembly would need to comply with MA AWB?
You opined that even if it were compliant, I would eventually require bail from some sort of illegality? Not sure I follow.


----------



## Section 131 (Dec 15, 2015)

Hank Moody said:


> Sure. I'll bite. What are your intentions with a "non operable" AR ?


Simply a novelty.

But since you asked, im curious... What intentions could someone have that would make a lawful consideration in its assembly? I cant think of many intentions.


----------



## RodneyFarva (Jan 18, 2007)

Why would you want to invest all that cash in a paper weight?


----------



## Section 131 (Dec 15, 2015)

RodneyFarva said:


> Why would you want to invest all that cash in a paper weight?


Ok then, why do you need an AR at all?

And in all honesty... I have seen uglier paperweights.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

please forgive me but you'll do better over here;
Northeastshooters.com Forums


----------



## Section 131 (Dec 15, 2015)

mpd61 said:


> please forgive me but you'll do better over here;
> Northeastshooters.com Forums


mpd61, your right. and I have lurked there before. But... I _also_ wanted to get a feel of how LE would respond to coming across said assembly. If your average police officer would see it for what it is. Or see it as an evil implement of terrorism.

Im not baiting anyone into a Gun Rights debate. But federal law specifically has provisions to actually complete a working rifle for personal(not for sale) use. Its MA law that has so many holes in it, it leaves too much up for interpretation.

I digress, im not interested in a working rifle.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Most of us here are pro-2nd amendment. Part of the issue is MGL is so confounding on gun laws in particular that even if something is legal, you could potentially get hemmed up for it by a cop that believes they are acting in good faith.

My opinion? Get a LTC to be on the safe side.


----------



## RodneyFarva (Jan 18, 2007)

Section 131 said:


> Ok then, why do you need an AR at all?
> 
> And in all honesty... I have seen uglier paperweights.


because I can. that's all the reason I need.


----------



## Patr8726 (Dec 12, 2015)

Section 131 said:


> I appreciate your input anyhow.
> So its your impression of the law that the assembly would need to comply with MA AWB?
> You opined that even if it were compliant, I would eventually require bail from some sort of illegality? Not sure I follow.


No, I'm saying that any magazine you had would have to be AWB compliant. A bayonet lug or other scary features are irrelevant under MGL if the gun can't fire. But in this anti-gun state, with everything in the news today, do you honestly not expect some type of charges to result? Even in towns bad about LTC's you should at least be able to get a Class B to cover the large cap rifle possession. If there's something on your record preventing you from getting even a B...you should expect problems if you're contacted by LE. $100 for the permit is a lot cheaper than a defense attorney's retainer.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

There are no more class B LTC's. Everything is a class A


----------



## Section 131 (Dec 15, 2015)

Thanks guys. This is the exchange I wanted to have here.

Its unfortunate someone needs to jump through hoops originally set for Concealed Carry applicants, simply to own a rifle. And if im not mistaken, MA Firearms ID "FID" only allows Pepper Spray? SMH It gets worse the more I read.
What he hell, I will give it a shot. Sucks to potentially lose $100. But that's life.

So... Who is the acting Police Chief in New Bedford now that Mr Provencher has passed? I should begin crafting a letter to explain myself and why I "need" an LTC.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

FID is for non-large capacity shotguns and rifles. Restricted FID was originally for mace/pepper spray only but you don't need a license for it anymore.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Right on Hank!


----------



## Section 131 (Dec 15, 2015)

Hank, I'm offended by that. You don't know me... If you did, you would know I would build a WAY better clock in a suitcase... Would look good in my den actually. Is there something inherantly wrong with that?

Some differing opinions in here apparently. 
The state has the mentality that everyone is by default a criminal. That is profoundly wrong.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Section 131 said:


> The state has the mentality that everyone is by default a criminal. That is profoundly wrong.


Not true. According to the state most actual criminals are just "victims" of something and are deserving of a 22nd (not a typo I did mean twenty second) chance at turning their lives around.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Section 131 said:


> The state has the mentality that everyone is by default a criminal. That is profoundly wrong.


Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The stupid people ruin it for the rest of us.


----------

