AWB of 2019...Permanent this time?

JNewell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
418
Likes
89
Not quite. That database is filled with garbage and a lot of people have stuff not in it, or stored elsewhere outside the
reg, etc. Old guns aren't even likely in the thing because of the "bird poop incident" etc. Then you have scores of guys building 80% etc (something I never got into, but I see why others do). And anyone building off an 80 sure as hell isn't FA-10ing their crap, unless they're terminally stupid.

Another fun problem- I could sell all my guns tomorrow and the state will still think I own like 50 guns, according to their "database" because of the
way records are not cleaned up there. So the state is going to be harassing people based likely on poor quality data.

Not to mention- this is a state that won't spend any money on gun control. Where do you think they're going to get all the cash to pay for the LE OT to start seizing a bunch of guns?


-Mike
This probably doesn't need elaboration, but FWIW...as far as I know (take that for whatever you think it's worth), the system appears to be able to produce either a report of every firearm transaction an individual was involved in or a report of every owner of a given gun, but not a "net" report of only the guns currently owned by an individual.

Even if every transaction had been correctly recorded (many weren't before the electronic FA-10s were required) and digitally stored (all those destroyed blue cards), the system still has no ability at all to account for (1) guns transferred either to a MA dealer who shipped the gun out of state or for guns transferred directly to an out of state FFL, which is one reason that it's useful to keep your own records of every transaction, especially dealer receipts for guns transferred to the dealer, or (2) guns owned by individuals at the time they move into MA (no reportable transaction involved).
 

Asaltweapon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
46   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
14,342
Likes
7,343
Location
Northern Mass
I think in the Watertown situation people were trying to help catch the bomber weren't they. As a normal course of events thing, I don't think most gun owners would let them in without a warrant. I know that I wouldn't. I can't speak for the average Joe. That's for sure.
IF I lived there at the time I would have never allowed them access into my home and you can bet I would have been heavily armed and at the ready for that scum bag. Thankfully I live in the sticks.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
855
Likes
530
This probably doesn't need elaboration, but FWIW...as far as I know (take that for whatever you think it's worth), the system appears to be able to produce either a report of every firearm transaction an individual was involved in or a report of every owner of a given gun, but not a "net" report of only the guns currently owned by an individual.

Even if every transaction had been correctly recorded (many weren't before the electronic FA-10s were required) and digitally stored (all those destroyed blue cards), the system still has no ability at all to account for (1) guns transferred either to a MA dealer who shipped the gun out of state or for guns transferred directly to an out of state FFL, which is one reason that it's useful to keep your own records of every transaction, especially dealer receipts for guns transferred to the dealer, or (2) guns owned by individuals at the time they move into MA (no reportable transaction involved).
3) guns turned in to a gun buyback
4) guns destroyed in accordance with ATF requirements
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,904
Likes
12,845
You've overlooked a big something in your post. You said judge trying to apply unconstitutional law. You didn't consider the clear and obvious fact that the judge will certainly achieve the application of unconstitutional law. Once he does, you're sitting in jail, while your attorney prepares your appeal and waits for a prolonged court date. Your court date arrives. You are driven from prison to the courthouse you face yet another judge applying unconstitutional law. Then back to jail you go. And so on and so on and so on. The summary is both obvious and clear. Your life sucks from that point on. At what point do you say damn, the plan that I was so proud of, when I posted it on NES, just plain sucks in practical application.
Doesnt really matter

The point is that people have the ability to do the easy shit NOW but are too lazy to make the effort
 

M60

NES Member
Rating - 100%
56   0   0
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
5,486
Likes
4,168
Location
Occupied Massachusetts
Doesnt really matter

The point is that people have the ability to do the easy shit NOW but are too lazy to make the effort
So now you say it doesn't matter that your plan sucks and you're sitting in jail, as long as we understand that people take the easy way out. I'm out after that piece of intelligence.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
1,382
Likes
937
Location
Down the rabbit hole, somewhere in Paradise.
This probably doesn't need elaboration, but FWIW...as far as I know (take that for whatever you think it's worth), the system appears to be able to produce either a report of every firearm transaction an individual was involved in or a report of every owner of a given gun, but not a "net" report of only the guns currently owned by an individual.

Even if every transaction had been correctly recorded (many weren't before the electronic FA-10s were required) and digitally stored (all those destroyed blue cards), the system still has no ability at all to account for (1) guns transferred either to a MA dealer who shipped the gun out of state or for guns transferred directly to an out of state FFL, which is one reason that it's useful to keep your own records of every transaction, especially dealer receipts for guns transferred to the dealer, or (2) guns owned by individuals at the time they move into MA (no reportable transaction involved).
We obtained all of our guns out of state. Can't see paying MA sales tax and having transactions recorded. Don't even know what a FA10 looks like and don't care to. Those are for suckers; no thanks!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
158
Likes
103
Aside from the obviously dangerous slippery slope that UBCs will perpetuate and all of the solid arguments as to why it is a bad idea there is another American tradition it kills, trading.

When I lived in Montana I traded a handgun for a truck in a rural town about 120 miles from anything. The romance of it all wasn't lost on me, it was pretty cool to be in wide open country trading a sixgun for an old truck with a rancher. But hey, next time we'll just each drive an hour and a half into a town to do the deal at an FFL so a transgender soccer mom in NYC feels like she's "done something" about Mass shootings...
I bought a 93 F-250 7.3 IDI diesel in Blandford with a stick for a Hi-Point 9mm carbine, a Remington 12 gauge autoloading shotgun, a 20 gauge pump, and $150. The only gun I miss is the 20 gauge pump, and its on the list of things to get back. My father received it as a wedding gift back in the 80s for being a groomsman. The father of the bride or groom worked for Remington, and took 5 very nicely grained stocks and had them carved to match with carvings of a duck in flight. Every time I think of it, I kick myself for parting ways. The rest of the guns were dime-a-dozen, but that one had a lot of personal value to me.

Adding an FFL to FTF trade/sales is incomprehensible to me.
 

CrackPot

NES Member
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
3,833
Likes
2,802
Location
Worcester County
Wrong .... all of you who have not been visited by the ATF do not know jack, so please dont tell me that your magically going to say you sold them out of state. Because guess what, you need to keep records of all your transactions, even when i went to places like GFA arms, or gartman, or mikes back in the day, i got a bill of sale from every store. It proves you do not own the gun still. Just because everything you have ever purchased is on file, IE the serial numbers are what they show up with, they go through your paperwork and check off each serial number. Thankfully the atf guy did not care to see all the guns just wanted to see the paperwork. long story for another time.

So good luck saying oh i sold them all out of state. Your best option are 80% lowers, stick them in a pvc tube and into the ground. stick to that vs trying to lie to the atf agent and town police officer at your door in the morning while getting ready for work. If they take them, so what you have your off the books guns already stashed.
Ive spent MANY hours with the ATF, thanks (I am an FFL 07). Based on your follow on post you are talking about being visited after your FFL filled out ATF form 3310.04 "Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers" which gets sent both to the local police and the ATF. Anytime you purchase 2 or more handguns within 5 business days, the FFL is required to complete and submit this form. Sounds like you triggered a look and see for purchasing too many of the same gun too quickly. This sounds like a straw for bangers or other criminal activity. They just wanted to lay eyes on you and decide if they wanted to pursue it further.

I am sure they told you any number of things to get you to talk. The response of "lawyer" would either of made it all go away or had them come back with a warrant (seems unlikely since no evidence of criminal activity). They can ask. You get to decide if you want to bend over or not.

Don't confuse this behavior with the viability of the state database on what you own. The MA database is corrupt as hell and not intended to be accurate. There is no fed database. Retention of 4473s is by the dealer or sent to the ATF on the business discontinuing. This supports traces, but is not a database. They retain NICS check info for 60 days (or at least they say this and only use 60 days as part of an FFL audit)

Door to door confiscation is never happening.

The real scenario to worry about is if you sold something and it ends up being used in a crime. The ATF runs a forward trace on the gun (initiated by whatever police ran across the gun). They go to manufacture and work forward. Dealers are called or records are checked from discontinued dealers. They get to you (assuming you bought it new). They have a copy of your 4473 and then contact you to find out where the gun is. Now you get to explain it fell off your boat or you sold it to some dude on the street in West Roxbury.

We all get called to support traces. It always makes you wonder, "what did John Doe do after I sold him that gun?"

True story, a FFL I know got a trace on a Glock. He checked his book and still had the frame for the glock. "Mrs ATF Trace Person, I still have that". "Huh?" Turns out it had come in from out of state as a frame. Someone in Ohio had been splitting them and selling the slides and internals on EBay. The gun found in the crime must have been a P80 or similar unserialized frame with a OEM barrel and slide attached so they did the trace on the only serial number they had, the one on the slide and/or barrel (3 on glocks that match from the factory). Guess that was a dead end. They never even bothered to look at the frame in inventory.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,904
Likes
12,845
How the eff did you go from this

jpk said:
The point is that people have the ability to do the easy shit NOW but are too lazy to make the effort
To this?

So now you say it doesn't matter that your plan sucks and you're sitting in jail, as long as we understand that people take the easy way out. I'm out after that piece of intelligence.
SMH
 

JNewell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
418
Likes
89
They retain NICS check info for 60 days (or at least they say this and only use 60 days as part of an FFL audit)
Even so, the NICS check records nothing about the gun other than its general type (for example, "shotgun"), so to do anything with the NICS records you'd need to go back to the FFL and search the dealer's 4473s and/or bound book.

The real scenario to worry about is if you sold something and it ends up being used in a crime. The ATF runs a forward trace on the gun (initiated by whatever police ran across the gun). They go to manufacture and work forward. Dealers are called or records are checked from discontinued dealers. They get to you (assuming you bought it new). They have a copy of your 4473 and then contact you to find out where the gun is. Now you get to explain it fell off your boat or you sold it to some dude on the street in West Roxbury.
I've gotten that call. Bought a SIG P229 from a well-known local dealer. Traded it back to the same dealer. Got a call - your gun was found at the scene of a crime. Me: It's not mine - wait, I can tell you who I sold it to (I actually had my paper copies handy, so I found the dealer receipt) - the pistol was traded back to [dealer] on [date]. I assume they either pursued a further check of the state records or called the dealer. Being able to tell them exactly where and when the gun went was very helpful.
 

one-eyed Jack

Manufacturer
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
10,625
Likes
13,180
Location
Eastern Mass and southern NH
Strange "Trace" things can happen. I had responded a trace request for a Ruger revolver one time. I gave them the customer info, but they never contacted him. The Ruger was taken by the PD due to a restraining order and went to the famous BW who denied receiving it. Never to be seen or heard from again. Just slipped thru a crack. Jack.
 

Racenet

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
3,170
Likes
1,897
Location
New Hampshire
Strange "Trace" things can happen. I had responded a trace request for a Ruger revolver one time. I gave them the customer info, but they never contacted him. The Ruger was taken by the PD due to a restraining order and went to the famous BW who denied receiving it. Never to be seen or heard from again. Just slipped thru a crack. Jack.
We all know what crack it slipped into.
 

clampett

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,495
Likes
1,014
I don't believe it's a matter of compliance. These guns are registered. They know what we have and they know where we live. They will find a way to take the guns if they want them. They will probably use the same method, that they will use to impose the red flag law.
If they ever show up at your door to confiscate your rifles, just tell them that your conscious was bothering you because of the last mass shooting, so you took a chop saw to all of your rifles and turned them into scrap metal.
 

M60

NES Member
Rating - 100%
56   0   0
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
5,486
Likes
4,168
Location
Occupied Massachusetts
If they ever show up at your door to confiscate your rifles, just tell them that your conscious was bothering you because of the last mass shooting, so you took a chop saw to all of your rifles and turned them into scrap metal.
LOL. Wouldn't it be nice if life was that easy.
 

one-eyed Jack

Manufacturer
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
10,625
Likes
13,180
Location
Eastern Mass and southern NH
We all know what crack it slipped into.
Probably. I was able to retrieve the guy's guns from the BW and store them as inventory. The 15 other guns were Hi Standard .22 pistols, rifles and shotguns. The 4" Ruger in .357 mag was the one that I would call the one most likely to fall thru the crack. I probably should have had a sit down with ATF, but the guns' owner got off easy (he had let his LTC expire), and didn't want to stir the pot. Jack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cur

Beretta92FS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,111
Likes
1,493
Location
In front of a gun shop
Trump is really playing with fire if he signs a new "assault weapons" ban into law.

Talk about setting yourself up for being a one term president. Or maybe he waits until after the 2020 election, and then goes full retard and screws us all over doubly bigly.

Every damn time this BS: The immediate action is to punish all the people that didn't do it.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,020
Likes
1,838
Location
WNW of MHT
Trump is really playing with fire if he signs a new "assault weapons" ban into law.
Talk about setting yourself up for being a one term president.
That'd only be the case if Trump's actions lead to the pro-gun crowd sitting out the 2020 general election in sheer disgust.

It's not as if any Republican will make a serious push to primary a sitting president, and meanwhile the Democrats are having a slugfest to see who can claim the title of most anti-gun of the anti-gun party.
 

Jsfitzgerald85

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
8,721
Likes
1,056
Location
New Bedford
I think the next ban we see will be one similar to the NFA in the 80s. Existing rifles will be grandfathered but will have to be registered. And i dont think they are going to do it based on cosmetic features. My guess any semi auto that can take a detachable magazine will fall under the ban. And then the Left will make sure SCOTUS doesnt overrule it. They are essentially already threatening it.
 

M60

NES Member
Rating - 100%
56   0   0
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
5,486
Likes
4,168
Location
Occupied Massachusetts
I think the next ban we see will be one similar to the NFA in the 80s. Existing rifles will be grandfathered but will have to be registered. And i dont think they are going to do it based on cosmetic features. My guess any semi auto that can take a detachable magazine will fall under the ban. And then the Left will make sure SCOTUS doesnt overrule it. They are essentially already threatening it.
I'm curious to know exactly how the left will force SCOTUS to do anything. Sounds a bit like the cart trying to pull the horse to me.
 

NHCraigT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
4,455
Likes
3,894
Location
Southern NH
8/15/19: Nearly 200 House Dems Now Support Bill Outlawing All New Semi-Automatic Weapons
Proving once again they're absolutely clueless on firearms, nearly 200 House Democrats have indicated their support for legislation banning all semi-automatic firearms nationwide.

They aren't just talking about the dreaded AR-15 here. Every new Glock, outlawed. My dad's old .22 Browning target pistol, which my 13-year-old insists I leave to him in my will, would be among the last of its kind. And -- try not to think about this too hard, or you'll cry -- the Colt 1911 .45, perhaps the American sidearm, would be no more....
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
4,567
Likes
4,394
Location
NH
I'm curious to know exactly how the left will force SCOTUS to do anything. Sounds a bit like the cart trying to pull the horse to me.
It's actually pretty easy in theory if the Democrats win the White House and get control of Congress. The answer is court packing. FDR wanted to do it when the courts were striking down New Deal initiatives: Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia.

The Constitution does not quantify the number of Supreme Court justices--so no amendment required.
You get Congress (if they wrest control of both houses) to pass a bill saying "there are now 19 SCOTUS judges."
Then, whichever Democrat wins the White House nominates ten judges that fit his or her agenda. The same Congress that bumped the number of judges now rubber stamps their confirmation. Now you've got a rock solid (presumably) slam dunk on every SCOTUS case. The only thing stopping you would be the morality of those judges.

This, of course, presumes you have enough of a majority in the houses of Congress to pass the bill and confirm the nominations, and to override any coalition of Republicans + Democrats that might not want to go along with it. FDR faced a good amount of pushback within his own circles; unsurprising since it sets a really bad precedent.

But still, a blue wave coupled with desperation could lead to a stacked court that makes Trump's appointments irrelevant.

Just imagine, two years from now we could be facing ten fresh RBGs being sworn in to SCOTUS. The left won't have to "force SCOTUS to do anything" - they'll collaborate with them as co-conspirators against the Constitution.
 
Top Bottom