AG Enforcement Notice on Copies and Duplicates (July 20, 2016)

On July 20, 2016, Attorney General Maura Healey issued an enforcement notice^[1] reinterpreting the "copies or duplicates" language in the Massachusetts assault weapons ban. The notice fundamentally changed the enforcement landscape for assault-style firearms in the Commonwealth and created a new grandfathering date that still applies today.

What the Notice Changed

Before the 2016 notice, the "copies or duplicates" provision in the assault weapons ban was generally interpreted to apply only to firearms that were nearly identical cosmetic clones of the specifically named weapons (such as the Colt AR-15 or the Kalashnikov AK-47). Manufacturers and dealers operated under the understanding that firearms with different names and cosmetic variations were not "copies or duplicates" of the named weapons, even if they shared the same operating system.

The AG's enforcement notice stated that this interpretation was incorrect. The notice established that a firearm is a "copy or duplicate" if its internal operating system is substantially similar to one of the specifically enumerated weapons. Under this test, virtually all AR-15 platform rifles and AK-pattern rifles are "copies or duplicates" regardless of their manufacturer, model name, or cosmetic configuration.

The Interchangeable Operating Systems Test

The enforcement notice introduced the concept of "interchangeable operating systems" as the primary test for determining whether a firearm is a copy or duplicate. A weapon is a copy or duplicate if:

• Its operating system (the mechanism by which it loads, fires, and ejects cartridges) is substantially similar to one of the enumerated weapons, OR
• It can accept key interchangeable parts from an enumerated weapon, such as upper receivers, bolts, bolt carriers, or trigger assemblies

Impact on Sales

The immediate effect of the enforcement notice was that Massachusetts dealers could no longer sell any AR-15 platform, AK-pattern, or similar rifles. Before July 20, 2016, "Massachusetts compliant" variants of these platforms were sold openly. After the notice, all such sales ceased. Dealers who continued selling firearms covered by the notice faced potential enforcement action under both the assault weapons ban and consumer protection laws under Chapter 93A.

Two Grandfathering Dates

The enforcement notice created a layered grandfathering system with two distinct cutoff dates:

• September 13, 1994: The original federal AWB date. Firearms that were lawfully possessed before this date are grandfathered under the original "specifically named" weapon provisions.
• July 20, 2016: The AG enforcement notice date. Firearms that were "copies or duplicates" lawfully purchased before this date are grandfathered. Firearms of the same type purchased after this date are not.

Interaction with Chapter 135

Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024^[2] restructured the assault weapons ban into Sections 128 and 131M but did not repeal or supersede the AG's 2016 enforcement notice. The notice remains in effect as an interpretation of the underlying statutory language. Section 131M now provides that assault-style firearms lawfully possessed on or before August 1, 2024, may be retained under certain conditions, but the "copies or duplicates" provision and its July 20, 2016 cutoff remain relevant for determining which firearms were lawfully possessed in the first place.

Legal Challenges

The enforcement notice was challenged in federal court. In Worman v. Healey, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Massachusetts assault weapons ban, including the AG's interpretation, under intermediate scrutiny. Following the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen^[3], the related case Capen v. Campbell was decided by the First Circuit in April 2025, affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction under the historical tradition framework. A cert petition is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court as of March 2026. In June 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear two related assault weapons ban challenges -- Snope v. Brown (Maryland) and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island -- but Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately that the Court "should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two."^[4] A separate NRA-backed challenge, Hanlon v. Campbell (D. Mass., filed August 2025), also targets the assault-style firearms ban under both the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment (vagueness).