central mass FFL willing to work with PD...

milktree

NES Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
7,922
Likes
11,089
Feedback: 35 / 0 / 0
I'm looking for an FFL near enough to Northampton who is willing to pick up some guns from the Northampton PD, confiscated because of an RO.

A friend had an RO pulled on him a year ago, and the PD just informed him that they're going to transfer his stuff to a bonded warehouse, which as we all know, means, "basically stolen from him" through fees and storage costs.

So the perfect FFL would be willing to pick up from the PD, and then transfer them to me after they go on his books.

This would all be simpler if they were allowed to transfer directly to another LTC holder. (stupid laws)

Thanks,
 
I'm looking for an FFL near enough to Northampton who is willing to pick up some guns from the Northampton PD, confiscated because of an RO.

A friend had an RO pulled on him a year ago, and the PD just informed him that they're going to transfer his stuff to a bonded warehouse, which as we all know, means, "basically stolen from him" through fees and storage costs.

So the perfect FFL would be willing to pick up from the PD, and then transfer them to me after they go on his books.

This would all be simpler if they were allowed to transfer directly to another LTC holder. (stupid laws)

Thanks,
I believe Jim just referred you to me. Feel free to PM me.
 
This would all be simpler if they were allowed to transfer directly to another LTC holder. (stupid laws)

I suppose the rationale is that if it's not an arm's-length transaction, the subject of the restraining order could avoid making a bona fide transfer and retain access or even de facto possession while having nominally transferred them "to his buddy". There's also the state limitation of 4 FTF transfers in a year, making FTF transfer of an entire collection problematic, but that's yet another stupid law.

The real problem isn't the need to involve an FFL; it's the fact that someone's property can be confiscated without compensation, without conviction of a crime.
 
I suppose the rationale is that if it's not an arm's-length transaction, the subject of the restraining order could avoid making a bona fide transfer and retain access or even de facto possession while having nominally transferred them "to his buddy".

That rationalization sounds like something someone who didn't care about safety or rights would make up simply to harass gun owners. 'cuz seriously, if the imaginary problem that policy solved existed, then the policy wouldn't have any effect, because the buddy would still just give a gun to the RO victim.

It fails the "criminals don't obey laws" test something fierce.
 
I suppose the rationale is that if it's not an arm's-length transaction, the subject of the restraining order could avoid making a bona fide transfer and retain access or even de facto possession while having nominally transferred them "to his buddy". There's also the state limitation of 4 FTF transfers in a year, making FTF transfer of an entire collection problematic, but that's yet another stupid law.

The real problem isn't the need to involve an FFL; it's the fact that someone's property can be confiscated without compensation, without conviction of a crime.
Sadly while I mostly agree with you, there are people out there that shouldn’t be allowed to own anything more dangerous than a butter knife.

Its not uncommon for the recipient of an RO to immediately kill the person that took it out on them. In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. Every person serving hard time in every prison in the country at one time had a clean record and probably had legal access to guns.

it’s one of those situation that can’t be adjudicated on a case by case basis and instead it caters to the most extreme cases as a blanket measure.
 
Sadly while I mostly agree with you, there are people out there that shouldn’t be allowed to own anything more dangerous than a butter knife.

Its not uncommon for the recipient of an RO to immediately kill the person that took it out on them. In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. Every person serving hard time in every prison in the country at one time had a clean record and probably had legal access to guns.

it’s one of those situation that can’t be adjudicated on a case by case basis and instead it caters to the most extreme cases as a blanket measure.

While you're right that there are some terrible, violent, irrational people out there who shouldn't be walking free, the policy of "cannot transfer to another LTC holder, it must be an FFL" doesn't solve that problem anyway. Because any shitball who would give the guns back to a person who *EVERYONE KNOWS* shouldn't have them is the sort of shitball who who would give or sell the violent guy a gun anyway.
 
While you're right that there are some terrible, violent, irrational people out there who shouldn't be walking free, the policy of "cannot transfer to another LTC holder, it must be an FFL" doesn't solve that problem anyway. Because any shitball who would give the guns back to a person who *EVERYONE KNOWS* shouldn't have them is the sort of shitball who who would give or sell the violent guy a gun anyway.
Sometimes you just don’t know. People are always shocked when someone they know blows a fuse and kills someone. Nobody ever says “yeah I saw that coming”
 
Sometimes you just don’t know. People are always shocked when someone they know blows a fuse and kills someone. Nobody ever says “yeah I saw that coming”

You're missing my point.

Say we have a guy, "Hannibal", and his buddy, "Gump"

Hannibal has a RO pulled on him, the cops take his guns. Same as before.

Now his buddy Gump goes to the PD and collects Hannibal's guns. There's NO WAY that Gump doesn't know that Hannibal isn't supposed to have guns because of a restraining order.

How big is the window of Gumps who would give Hannibal's guns back after picking them up from the PD, but WOULDN'T just give or sell Hannibal a gun anyway?

If Gump is willing to give Hannibal a gun, knowing full well that Hannibal isn't supposed to have them, it doesn't really matter which gun it is or how he got it.

People who break laws don't care about laws.
 
You're missing my point.

Say we have a guy, "Hannibal", and his buddy, "Gump"

Hannibal has a RO pulled on him, the cops take his guns. Same as before.

Now his buddy Gump goes to the PD and collects Hannibal's guns. There's NO WAY that Gump doesn't know that Hannibal isn't supposed to have guns because of a restraining order.

How big is the window of Gumps who would give Hannibal's guns back after picking them up from the PD, but WOULDN'T just give or sell Hannibal a gun anyway?

If Gump is willing to give Hannibal a gun, knowing full well that Hannibal isn't supposed to have them, it doesn't really matter which gun it is or how he got it.

People who break laws don't care about laws.
Ok I see your point. Putting an FFL in the middle only serves to add cost and hassle to the process. 👍
 
Ok I see your point. Putting an FFL in the middle only serves to add cost and hassle to the process. 👍

It's actually worse than that. An FFL ("Mass. licensed dealer", to be precise) cannot transfer any handguns that aren't on the EOPSS and AG's list, so anything the RO victim owns that is "interesting" is basically stolen from him, as there's no legal way for him to get them back, even if he gets his LTC back.
 
It's actually worse than that. An FFL ("Mass. licensed dealer", to be precise) cannot transfer any handguns that aren't on the EOPSS and AG's list, so anything the RO victim owns that is "interesting" is basically stolen from him, as there's no legal way for him to get them back, even if he gets his LTC back.
Damn didn’t even think of that. I think I only have 3 guns that are MA compliant
 
Could be wrong, but I think a MA FFL can buy them and sell them out of state on Gunbroker. Crappy deal, but better than the bonded warehouse.
 
I suppose the rationale is that if it's not an arm's-length transaction, the subject of the restraining order could avoid making a bona fide transfer and retain access or even de facto possession while having nominally transferred them "to his buddy". There's also the state limitation of 4 FTF transfers in a year, making FTF transfer of an entire collection problematic, but that's yet another stupid law.

The real problem isn't the need to involve an FFL; it's the fact that someone's property can be confiscated without compensation, without conviction of a crime.

Nah, it's just more BS baked into the law to increase the extrajudicial punishment nature of a DV RO.

I know people who have been charged or accused with far worse shit than a DV RO that had at least a modicum of freedom to do what they needed to do with their
guns. The last one literally threw all his guns in my car and we brought them to a dealer to transfer to me. The kopsch never showed to steal his shit, but they easily
could have done so. On a 209A you don't really get that option once you've been served, the kopsch get control of your shit.
 
It's actually worse than that. An FFL ("Mass. licensed dealer", to be precise) cannot transfer any handguns that aren't on the EOPSS and AG's list, so anything the RO victim owns that is "interesting" is basically stolen from him, as there's no legal way for him to get them back, even if he gets his LTC back.

This isn't entirely true, it's just more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be because of the compliance garbage.
 
This isn't entirely true, it's just more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be because of the compliance garbage.

You're technically correct, but only because there are technicalities around the technicalities.
 
It's actually worse than that. An FFL ("Mass. licensed dealer", to be precise) cannot transfer any handguns that aren't on the EOPSS and AG's list, so anything the RO victim owns that is "interesting" is basically stolen from him, as there's no legal way for him to get them back, even if he gets his LTC back.

Not quite stolen.

If he can get the guns into the hands of an FFL, he can sell them. Either wholesale by selling to the FFL or retail by consigning them with the FFL or selling on gunbroker and using the FFL holding them to ship to the buyer's FFL.

Either way, the victim does get compensated for the taken firearms. So its not really theft.
 
You're technically correct, but only because there are technicalities around the technicalities.

Let's put it this way, I've literally been there and done that. Friend of mine lost his LTC, I got all his stuff, we got it all to me in a matter of a week. That said, if he had certain "really hairy" guns those would have still been significantly more difficult.
Not quite stolen.

If he can get the guns into the hands of an FFL, he can sell them. Either wholesale by selling to the FFL or retail by consigning them with the FFL or selling on gunbroker and using the FFL holding them to ship to the buyer's FFL.

Either way, the victim does get compensated for the taken firearms. So its not really theft.
The problem with the 209a system is that in a lot of shit towns, that stuff will end up in a Bonded Warehouse in a nanosecond.... and the extortion will happen.... I mean none of them were as bad as dowd but I'm sure the others aren't hanging around to make nothing....
 
Let's put it this way, I've literally been there and done that. Friend of mine lost his LTC, I got all his stuff, we got it all to me in a matter of a week. That said, if he had certain "really hairy" guns those would have still been significantly more difficult.

The problem with the 209a system is that in a lot of shit towns, that stuff will end up in a Bonded Warehouse in a nanosecond.... and the extortion will happen.... I mean none of them were as bad as dowd but I'm sure the others aren't hanging around to make nothing....
What is the going rate for storage at a bonded warehouse ball park?
 
Not quite stolen.

If he can get the guns into the hands of an FFL, he can sell them. Either wholesale by selling to the FFL or retail by consigning them with the FFL or selling on gunbroker and using the FFL holding them to ship to the buyer's FFL.

Either way, the victim does get compensated for the taken firearms. So its not really theft.


How many extrajudicial fees and charges and loss of use does it have to be before “stolen” is an appropriate word?
 
If he can get the guns into the hands of an FFL, he can sell them. Either wholesale by selling to the FFL or retail by consigning them with the FFL ...
I wonder how many PDs suck for "consignment" as a disposition of guns
that an owner is required to get rid of?

(Related question: If a Mass resident (who remains legit to own guns),
consigns an off-list gun to a Mass FFL,
can they change their mind and get it back?)

I guess a consigned gun is added to the bound book,
but consignment is not a Mass "transfer"?
 
How many extrajudicial fees and charges and loss of use does it have to be before “stolen” is an appropriate word?

This.

There is no doubt in my mind that the legislature has designed the system in such a way that it resembles the roach motel. Once your weapons enter the system they make it hard to get them back. They make it next to impossible for the “off list weapons” that they don’t approve of.

Beyond that , you don’t even have to commit a crime to have your property taken from you and you are placed in a highly disadvantaged position to get your property back.

Bob
 
I wonder how many PDs suck for "consignment" as a disposition of guns
that an owner is required to get rid of?

(Related question: If a Mass resident (who remains legit to own guns),
consigns an off-list gun to a Mass FFL,
can they change their mind and get it back?)


I guess a consigned gun is added to the bound book,
but consignment is not a Mass "transfer"?
Depends on the dealer.
 
Close.

They can only be transferred to an entity holding a MA license to sell firearms, which generally means an FFL.

There are some FFLs without a MA license to sell.

Yeah, I know - pushing on a technicality.

That’s why I specifically said, “Mass. licensed dealer” (although not in the first post)
 
What is the going rate for storage at a bonded warehouse ball park?
Order of magnitude:

$.50 per day per gun
$25 intake per gun
$25 outtake per gun
$25 surcharge on top of outtake to transfer to another person
No partial redemptions - all or nothing.
Ammo boxed up (VV used milk crates from what I heard) and each boxed unit charged as a gun
Charges continue to accrue if warehouse is closed due to owners vacation
Billed regularly; after a certain period (may be 90 days) bonded warehouse claims it holds title
 
Last edited:
I'm looking for an FFL near enough to Northampton who is willing to pick up some guns from the Northampton PD, confiscated because of an RO.

A friend had an RO pulled on him a year ago, and the PD just informed him that they're going to transfer his stuff to a bonded warehouse, which as we all know, means, "basically stolen from him" through fees and storage costs.

So the perfect FFL would be willing to pick up from the PD, and then transfer them to me after they go on his books.

This would all be simpler if they were allowed to transfer directly to another LTC holder. (stupid laws)

Thanks,

Is the RO still in effect? If it is, your friend is barred from regaining them until it's over.
 
Back
Top Bottom