-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Confirmed instances of .pdf/paper FA-10 form rejection by MA FRB
- Thread starter JFR2
- Start date
Yes.
Have any *sellers* gotten their PDF FA10s returned? I've gotten some registrations returned (stuff bought out of state), but haven't sold a gun in a while so don't have any recent personal experience.
I ask because I just got a paper one returned to me as a *buyer*. I assume this is because my address is on the form, but the seller's isn't, and the CHRB couldn't be bothered to look up the seller's address from his LTC #.
This means the seller (the only one who has a legal obligation to report the transaction) will never get any sort of notification that the state didn't process the paperwork unless I tell him.
I'm having trouble thinking of a compelling reason why I should do anything other than file the rejected FA10 with my other paperwork and go on with my life.
The irony of all this is that if the state just continued to accept the PDF version they published, a lot more transactions would get recorded. Presumably they want transactions to be reported.
Unless you assume malice instead of incompetence, then they're actually recording everything and they're someday going to break down our doors and arrest us for failing to respect their authority.
I ask because I just got a paper one returned to me as a *buyer*. I assume this is because my address is on the form, but the seller's isn't, and the CHRB couldn't be bothered to look up the seller's address from his LTC #.
This means the seller (the only one who has a legal obligation to report the transaction) will never get any sort of notification that the state didn't process the paperwork unless I tell him.
I'm having trouble thinking of a compelling reason why I should do anything other than file the rejected FA10 with my other paperwork and go on with my life.
The irony of all this is that if the state just continued to accept the PDF version they published, a lot more transactions would get recorded. Presumably they want transactions to be reported.
Unless you assume malice instead of incompetence, then they're actually recording everything and they're someday going to break down our doors and arrest us for failing to respect their authority.
The usual photocopied nastygram misrepresenting MA law. They quote and underline MGL C140s128A part about "furnished", (which the PDF was) and then go on to say the PDF isn't furnished by them (which it is, for the same reason that the older three part forms are still "furnished" even though they don't make that style any more.
They neglect to quote the part about "in writing", and then offer the eFA10 as a "convenient option", which it isn't since the seller isn't in my living room and I don't have (and won't ask for) his PIN.
It's also funny that it starts out with "... that you submitted..." which I didn't because I'm the buyer.
If they actually cared about transaction reporting and they were truly incapable of using a non-serialized form, you'd think they'd at least make the serialized forms easily available and include one in the return letter.
They are just flat out lying at this point. Sending 10 FA-10s to a PD doesn't mean they're going to be available for very long. Somoene upstairs is obviously pushing this. Would be funny as hell if one of the FA-10 PDFs had some kind of watermark embeded in it that showed it was from the
state, etc. I know someone here found the state one and edited it to make it work better.
-Mike
state, etc. I know someone here found the state one and edited it to make it work better.
-Mike
I thought it was the other way round, that someone on here made the PDF that the state ended up using?
Yeah, actually you're right about that. I think someone from CHSB had snarfed up one one of our members created, and for awhile there was a link on their website to it, then it suddenly disappeared.
[SIZE=-1]A friend of mine went to his local PD a few months ago and asked for a few paper FA10 forms in order to comply with the law to report the anticipated acquisition of a non-high cap rifle (a registration, not a transfer).
The PD said they only had a couple of forms left, and gave him one, it was a single page form torn from the top of a "pad" of forms.
My friend informed the PD that he needed more than 1 form and asked when more might be available, they told they didn't know, and told him to just make copies of the form and use the copies, which he did, once he obtained the rifle.
He reported the acquisition within 7 days, in writing, to the DCJIS, on a form provided by the DCJIS, which was obtained from the local PD, following the specific instructions of his local PD in how to use the form they provided.
A few weeks later he received a letter back containing a generic copy of the FA10 rejection letter, along with the returned actual form he had filled out in blue ink. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
He said he would just file it as proof of receipt of notification.
WTF?[/SIZE][/SIZE]![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
The PD said they only had a couple of forms left, and gave him one, it was a single page form torn from the top of a "pad" of forms.
My friend informed the PD that he needed more than 1 form and asked when more might be available, they told they didn't know, and told him to just make copies of the form and use the copies, which he did, once he obtained the rifle.
He reported the acquisition within 7 days, in writing, to the DCJIS, on a form provided by the DCJIS, which was obtained from the local PD, following the specific instructions of his local PD in how to use the form they provided.
A few weeks later he received a letter back containing a generic copy of the FA10 rejection letter, along with the returned actual form he had filled out in blue ink. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
He said he would just file it as proof of receipt of notification.
WTF?[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]A friend of mine went to his local PD a few months ago and asked for a few paper FA10 forms in order to comply with the law to report the anticipated acquisition of a non-high cap rifle (a registration, not a transfer).
The PD said they only had a couple of forms left, and gave him one, it was a single page form torn from the top of a "pad" of forms.
My friend informed the PD that he needed more than 1 form and asked when more might be available, they told they didn't know, and told him to just make copies of the form and use the copies, which he did, once he obtained the rifle.
He reported the acquisition within 7 days, in writing, to the DCJIS, on a form provided by the DCJIS, which was obtained from the local PD, following the specific instructions of his local PD in how to use the form they provided.
A few weeks later he received a letter back containing a generic copy of the FA10 rejection letter, along with the returned actual form he had filled out in blue ink. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
He said he would just file it as proof of receipt of notification.
WTF?[/SIZE][/SIZE]
That is my SOP these days.
Send in a form, keep the rejection letter. I've done everything the law asks, and they choose not to do their part. I'm OK with that.
IIRC it was Scouter-Rick who created it and FRB Director Jason Guida who scooped it up. I think someone checked the properties and it was indeed from NES. When they printed up the new ones and some folks sent in photo-reduced copies, copies printed landscape, etc. which FRB couldn't scan, they pulled the plug on us using those.
SJan
NES Member
Among other reasons:
You are required to report "in writing"
electric forms are not "in writing"
Difficulty of reporting transactions online vs paper when you meet somebody in a parking lot.
namedpipes
NES Member
I don't have a computer.
namedpipes
NES Member
No, paraproxyly.
Besides the legal reasons ("in writing" &c.) and the problems with doing a transfer in a public place, the eFA10 is the fast road to "no personal transfers"
Once "a majority" (as defined by some bureaucrat at CHRB) is using the eFA10 instead of paper, there's no reason to continue printing or accepting any paper versions at all (despite the law). Once that happens only people who have access to technology will be able to legally sell or buy a gun in MA. The entry fee to exercising our rights is already too high, adding on "must have a computer with internet access and a printer" or even "must have a computer that runs XXXX operating system and YYY browser" is unacceptable. Furthermore, it only takes one hardware failure on the computer running the eFA10 website and *nobody* can sell a gun privately. Don't make it easy for them.
The law says the seller (or buyer if a registration where the seller is out of state) must report the transaction in writing. A printed PDF fulfills that requirement
The law says we must use a form furnished by the "executive director". The PDF was provided by that director. (or his agent)
The law says nothing about what the state does with the form once we send it to them, and nothing about any responsibility on our part to make sure the state's records are correct. If they return it, we're covered. If they choose not to record the transaction we've reported and send it back to us, that's their prerogative.
I can think of no good reason other than paranoia to do anything more than what the law explicitly says we must.
If you want a copy for you and one for the other person, get some carbon paper. It's in the office supply stores near the typewriters.
My memory of the PDF version is a little different than what I've seen here:
The first PDF version was made and published by someone here (I don't remember who), it was OK, a little fuzzy, the registration was a little off. Clearly it was a scan that had been turned into a PDF.
The state realized that they needed to provide *something* (since their copyright SNAFU made their paper ones unobtainum) so they snarfed the NES version and put it on their website.
Sometime after that the CHRB made their own PDF that's very clean and doesn't look like someone scanned a paper version.
That's the one that was on their website for the longest, and the one that is currently here:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/FA10.pdf
I think. I know there were at least two versions on the state website, I'm pretty sure I got the order of events right.
namedpipes
NES Member
I abbreviated but meant pretty much the same thing.
It costs a stamp to send a letter. Earlier in this thread others on the subject you'll find speculation on the results if you tried to conduct a transfer using the free computers at the public library. And frankly, I know a huge number of people that simply DON'T do computers. They don't make sense to them, will never ever learn to use one and would thus be forever barred from owning a gun.
It's bad enough that our government has set a price tag (your fid/ltc fees to start with) on a God given, Constitutionally guaranteed right. As Milktree states: Don't make it easier for them.
In spite of MGL stating "in writing" I do believe they passed a more recent law that allows "electronic signatures" (by hitting "send") on gov't documents, etc. and that law also emphasized that everything possible should be done via computer vs. paper. It probably over-rides what is in MGL C. 140 but I've never checked. This would make the eFA-10 a legal form and enforceable by the courts vs. paper only requirement. [e.g. I assume you don't actually sign the Form 1 or 1040 if you submit your tax returns electronically, which I'm sure that a lot of folks here do. Never done that and don't intend to, so I'm merely speculating here.]
The former Director of FRB told me that anyone can use the computers in a public library and thus it is not an impediment not to own one personally. I do agree that there are some fossils out there who will never use a computer for anything. And there is no need to bring the gun into a public library to do the "paperwork" so we can't use that excuse.
My Licensing Officer didn't even know what a Firearms Transfer Form (or FA-10) was when I asked him if he had any, and he's been doing this job for probably 15 years now.
The former Director of FRB told me that anyone can use the computers in a public library and thus it is not an impediment not to own one personally. I do agree that there are some fossils out there who will never use a computer for anything. And there is no need to bring the gun into a public library to do the "paperwork" so we can't use that excuse.
My Licensing Officer didn't even know what a Firearms Transfer Form (or FA-10) was when I asked him if he had any, and he's been doing this job for probably 15 years now.
I don't wright well that is why I only use the paper FA-10 form
Even in MA, at current, I would love to see them even -try- to do this to someone.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Before October of 2011, this form was available at this URL, and then CHSB/CJIS vaporized the file on their webserver:
http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs//chsb/firearms/FA10.pdf
The fact that this form resided here at all, is congruent with "forms provided/furnished by the director" as stipulated in the law. It would be funny as hell to listen to the current CJIS director on the witness stand try to explain this away; "Well, we no longer furnish that form, so anything submitted with it doesn't count. "
The fact that nobody (to my knowledge) has been prosecuted, or even merely charged, for failure to re file, after getting the nastygram in the mail, proves this out. If it was prosecutorially viable the state would
have convicted someone by now to make an example out of them. It clearly is not.
Now, if the law actually changes, which remains to be seen, then all bets are off.... 85% of the reason that someone got the "E-FA10 only thing" inserted into the new bill is because it makes it so they (eg, the state, or presumably a DA at the mechanical end) can actually prosecute if they wanted to. The way the law is currently, pushing this is liable to cause whoever is bringing the charges to have some serious egg on their face, or even a judge dressing them down in court for lodging a bogus criminal complaint.
-Mike
Last edited:
Even in MA, at current, I would love to see them even -try- to do this to someone.
Before October of 2011, this form was available at this URL, and then CHSB/CJIS vaporized the file on their webserver:
http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs//chsb/firearms/FA10.pdf
I don't know why I never bothered to check before, but the wayback machine (archive.org) has *exactly* that form still:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110313064055/http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/FA10.pdf
It's pretty trivial to prove that the state did in fact furnish the PDF.
n1oty
NES Member
I was at Beacon Trading Post today picking up my new H&K 45C. Andrey had problems getting past certain screens in the system in order to process the transfer. When he called the state, Andrey was initially told to process my purchase on a paper FA-10, but he didn't have any. The state worker finally figured out the problem that was causing errors. Somehow, on my last LTC, the state listed me as 9 feet 9 inches tall and their computer system choked on that erroneous data. In any event, the state is sending the FFL some paper forms for the future, so any claim by them that paper FA-10's are NOT acceptable is a crock of BS.
You can still find the official FRB-supplied pdf form hosted on on some police deparment websites.
Similar threads
