Confirmed instances of .pdf/paper FA-10 form rejection by MA FRB

That's the first complaint I remember about security, but tell me: who do you know that's running a system that's guaranteed to be absolutely secure right now? Even air-gapped systems have been compromised. Federal government sites and private financial, defense and commercial sites have all been hacked. I am not suggesting that we should be complacent about any of that, but it's worth keeping in perspective.
It's far from the first expressed security concern about efa10.

I'm aware of a number of Feral and private systems having security I would trust to be secure. (Although to be fair they are in the minority)
 
It's far from the first expressed security concern about efa10.

I'm aware of a number of Feral and private systems having security I would trust to be secure. (Although to be fair they are in the minority)

Honestly, there are only two kinds of systems: those that have been hacked, and those that will be hacked.
 
Don't get me wrong, I am a big privacy and security hawk. I will say that of all of the personal info that's "out there," my greatest concern is medical records, not firearms ownership (which is probably #2, just a whisker behind my #1 concern).
 
The thing is there's no value in attacking the system unless someone can break into the back end of it and suck out the database. That would obviously be a serious problem. That's the biggest REAL security concern, and EVERYONE 's records are potentially vulnerable to that even if you DO NOT use the system.

-Mike
 
Did you move out of Mass, or are you not going to buy or sell guns in Mass any more?

No to both, it's just that I don't lose sleep over something I don't have any control over. Yeah, questions should be asked about security, but knowing this state, it's not liable to get us anywhere. Hell that ****ing portal still has "legal information" on it that is probably wrong. If we can't even get
that removed, then asking questions about security isn't likely to go very far.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
I think I'm lost on what you all are trying to do...

I just transferred a firearms last night using the online from found here:
https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentTrans

This thread made me quite nervous in that I didn't think there was anything else I needed to do, such as turn in a copy of the PDF. I quickly jumped on the state's transfer page and called the phone number on the bottom:
200 Arlington Street, Suite 2200, Chelsea, MA 02150
Phone: 617-660-4782

I asked very detailed questions to completely confirm that there is nothing else that needed to be done once I completed the form and printed the transaction and receipt. He told me that was it and that NO, nothing had to be turned in to the local PD.

AM I missing something in what this thread is about?
 
I just transferred a firearms last night using the online from found here:
https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentTrans

This thread made me quite nervous in that I didn't think there was anything else I needed to do, such as turn in a copy of the PDF. I quickly jumped on the state's transfer page and called the phone number on the bottom:
200 Arlington Street, Suite 2200, Chelsea, MA 02150
Phone: 617-660-4782

I asked very detailed questions to completely confirm that there is nothing else that needed to be done once I completed the form and printed the transaction and receipt. He told me that was it and that NO, nothing had to be turned in to the local PD.

AM I missing something in what this thread is about?

Yeah, I think your missing what the thread is about, but that's not a problem.

I'll take a stab at the Readers Digest summary.

When the state started transitioning from the multi-part paper FA-10 forms to the eFA10 program, there were questions about whether you could still report transactions on a paper form, and if you could whether you had to use the often very difficult to obtain official sequentially numbered state multi-part forms or whether you could use a pdf version that you downloaded, completed and printed out. What this thread is mostly about, or what it started out being about, is whether the state would and could reject a transaction report filed on a pdf version that you printed out, completed and mailed to the state.

The "official" multi-part, sequentially numbered state forms are so hard to obtain that I think for most purposes the question has become academic, unfortunately.
 
Yeah, I think your missing what the thread is about, but that's not a problem.

I'll take a stab at the Readers Digest summary.

When the state started transitioning from the multi-part paper FA-10 forms to the eFA10 program, there were questions about whether you could still report transactions on a paper form, and if you could whether you had to use the often very difficult to obtain official sequentially numbered state multi-part forms or whether you could use a pdf version that you downloaded, completed and printed out. What this thread is mostly about, or what it started out being about, is whether the state would and could reject a transaction report filed on a pdf version that you printed out, completed and mailed to the state.

The "official" multi-part, sequentially numbered state forms are so hard to obtain that I think for most purposes the question has become academic, unfortunately.

It's beyond that - with the law change last year, the "web portal" is the ONLY reporting mechanism allowed.
 
It's beyond that - with the law change last year, the "web portal" is the ONLY reporting mechanism allowed.

What happens if someone uses the old 3 part form they have saved from years ago, 'cuz they don't know about the law change?

Yes, I'm sure there are lots of people who don't know.
 
It's beyond that - with the law change last year, the "web portal" is the ONLY reporting mechanism allowed.

Good catch, I'd forgotten that (though that wasn't the original question in the thread). So at this point, the original question posed by the thread is legally irrelevant, since reporting transactions on a paper form is no longer legal.

- - - Updated - - -

But they don't have the forms either! [laugh]

I still have a few squirreled away...

- - - Updated - - -

The problem I see, is it's still not a secure website.

But given what we've seen in the last two or three years, what web site can really be considered secure? I'm asking a serious question, not trying to be either sarcastic or humorous.
 
But given what we've seen in the last two or three years, what web site can really be considered secure? I'm asking a serious question, not trying to be either sarcastic or humorous.

Very true!

As for the law wrt online only, since when is gov't required to comply with laws?? Serious question!
 
What happens if someone uses the old 3 part form they have saved from years ago, 'cuz they don't know about the law change?

Yes, I'm sure there are lots of people who don't know.

They'll probably receive a nastygram from the FRB/CHSB telling them to use the web portal, with at least an implied threat of prosecution if they don't comply.
 
And if you hold a paper LTC, you can only use 1 of the 7 transaction options, "Personal Sale or Transfer"

Notice how the state doesn't force the licensing officer to go to a public library to use MIRCS, but they will tell old, poor, and/or computer illiterate FID or LTC holders to do the same to record private sales.
 
The really, really stupid thing about all of this is that it's completely pointless. We've had a "universal background check" ever since we started licensing gun owners. You can't get a licence unless you can pass a background check, and you can't *keep* a licence unless you can *continue* to pass a background check.

The only tiny little window not covered is the several hour window between when the authorities know you're a baddie, and when they come to your house to arrest you and/or confiscate your guns and LTC.

The new system is a huge imposition on gun owners, with zero change to public safety, 'cuz it won't catch *anyone*, and can't, by its own design.
 
They'll probably receive a nastygram from the FRB/CHSB telling them to use the web portal, with at least an implied threat of prosecution if they don't comply.

And if the person ignores this notice, absolutely nothing will happen. I don't even think I've ever seen a 128A/B prosecution, just nasty letters. The entire thing is a farce. It would be funny to see the state try to prosecute someone who submitted paper forms, because it's obvious that they still made a good faith effort to comply with the spirit and intent of the law, which was to document transfers. It'll probably never happen, though.

-Mike
 
But they don't have the forms either! [laugh]

Len, has CJIS completely banned dealers from using the forms when MIRCS blows up? Not sure if this has changed since I was more in the game... I know in the past whenever MIRCS blew up CJIS will allow the dealers to use paper forms with verbal permission over the phone, at least until the system came back up.

-Mike
 
Len, has CJIS completely banned dealers from using the forms when MIRCS blows up? Not sure if this has changed since I was more in the game... I know in the past whenever MIRCS blew up CJIS will allow the dealers to use paper forms with verbal permission over the phone, at least until the system came back up.

-Mike

No one has asked me so I haven't asked FRB about this. Since the forms are impossible to obtain, I doubt that any dealers have them (except if they saved their old 3-part forms, as they had to actually buy those).
 
Apologies for the 5+yr bump but I can't for the life of me find the law that mandates eFA10 over paper FA10. Help?
 
Apologies for the 5+yr bump but I can't for the life of me find the law that mandates eFA10 over paper FA10. Help?
MGL Ch. 140, §128A

"Any sale or transfer conducted pursuant to this section shall comply with section 131E and shall, prior to or at the point of sale, be conducted over a real time web portal developed by the department of criminal justice information services."
 
Back
Top Bottom