If Mass. law is identical to the `94 Clinton ban,
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994:
the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an assault weapon under federal law.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
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
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.
I think CA has similar legislation. If the firearms lack the features set forth in the act, she can’t just arbitrarily decree that they are illegal anyway. Presumably she’s a lawyer and knows or should know better.
Are either a Ruger Mini-14 or a Springfield Armory M1A1 be included under this definition? I’m thinking “No” but figure that “government think” is “Yes.”