e-FA10. It's officially a mess!

dcmdon said:
turbo38 - you seem to be missing one other point. The state's intent is to ELIMINATE the paper FA10. You keep referencing "you have the paper".

If the State was a customer focused corporation, I would agree that it would be in their best interest to provide paper and electronic means.
Even if the state was the state of FL, which is very pro gun.

If you call the FL DEP for a non-resident permit app, they will happily send you as many packets as you like in about 3 days. And they provide an electronic means to get the app.
For FL, its about convenience.

For MA its not about convenience. Once all the paper FA10 forms are gone, they have got us by the short curleys. Or so they think.
Click to expand...


Noo, I really didn't miss that point either. If that is the case, then the more FA-10's we do, the quicker we will be forced to use the EFA-10's.. because the state will run out of FA-10's quicker. You seem to miss my point, we need both options, our energy should be directed toward ensuring that both options are available... period. Or that the whole system of registry be dropped. Either way, I am for us not having to register but being a realist, if we have to, then we need various options to do it.
 
I love all this argument back and forth etc.... you know what... the state doesn't give a shit, really. They are only going to provide more paper forms if someone forces their hand. Frankly those requiring paper should do what I've always advocated. If you file a form and the state rejects it... **** it, don't resubmit anything. The rejection letter is proof that the state received your form. The fact that they didn't put it in their system is not your problem. Your INTENT was to obey the law and the state told you to go **** yourself. Any judge (even in MA) would laugh them out of court if they tried to bring an S128A/B case based on "failure to report" when you show up in court with that evidence. The well documented failure of the state to supply enough of the "proper" forms is also pretty good evidence in your favor, as well. It would be like the state trying to prosecute someone for driving without a license if all the RMV branches were closed for a month. For once I would think the "reasonable person" principle would apply here.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
I If you file a form and the state rejects it... it, don't resubmit anything. The rejection letter is proof that the state received your form. The fact that they didn't put it in their system is not your problem.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When they run out, they print more or we use the pdf form that the state provided, per the law. The law has no provision for "accepting" anything. It only says it must be completed and filled out within a certain number of days.

Shoot, for an out of state purchase, you don't even need to do that. If you read the law carefully, it only says you have to notify in writing. It allows no provision for any additional regulations or requirements.
you could send them a letter with the info required in the law and be in full compliance. No form necessary:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section128b
 
dcmdon said:
Exactly. When they run out, they print more or we use the pdf form that the state provided, per the law. The law has no provision for "accepting" anything. It only says it must be completed and filled out within a certain number of days.

Shoot, for an out of state purchase, you don't even need to do that. If you read the law carefully, it only says you have to notify in writing. It allows no provision for any additional regulations or requirements.
you could send them a letter with the info required in the law and be in full compliance. No form necessary:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section128b
Click to expand...

Probably the only sticky bit would be 128A "on forms furnished by said executive director"
 
drgrant said:
I love all this argument back and forth etc.... you know what... the state doesn't give a shit, really. They are only going to provide more paper forms if someone forces their hand. Frankly those requiring paper should do what I've always advocated. If you file a form and the state rejects it... **** it, don't resubmit anything. The rejection letter is proof that the state received your form. The fact that they didn't put it in their system is not your problem. Your INTENT was to obey the law and the state told you to go **** yourself. Any judge (even in MA) would laugh them out of court if they tried to bring an S128A/B case based on "failure to report" when you show up in court with that evidence. The well documented failure of the state to supply enough of the "proper" forms is also pretty good evidence in your favor, as well. It would be like the state trying to prosecute someone for driving without a license if all the RMV branches were closed for a month. For once I would think the "reasonable person" principle would apply here.

-Mike
Click to expand...

You go first, Mike. Let us know how you make out.

You know how law enforcement/ judicial interpretation works here- it is applied only to achieve a desired end.
 
Friday said:
You go first, Mike. Let us know how you make out.

You know how law enforcement/ judicial interpretation works here- it is applied only to achieve a desired end.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to "go first on", because if I did what I propose exactly nothing would happen. S128A/B cases in this state are rarer than hens teeth with golden fillings in them. There are already people ignoring the rejection letters... I know this because I talk to people who've felt exactly the same way about this that I do. I haven't gotten one but I know others who have who basically ignored the things.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
turbo38gn said:
Noo, I really didn't miss that point either. If that is the case, then the more FA-10's we do, the quicker we will be forced to use the EFA-10's.. because the state will run out of FA-10's quicker.
Click to expand...

So, you admit the paper forms are a scarce resource; even though the state is required *by law* to provide the forms, and they're not doing it.

In general I subscribe to the adage, "never ascribe to malice what can be more easily explained by incompetence" but in this case the FRB through their mouthpiece Jason Guida has made it exceptionally clear that they deliberately restrict access to paper forms, not just through failing to print them, but by refusing to accept the PDF version of the form *THEY PROVIDED*.
 
milktree said:
So, you admit the paper forms are a scarce resource; even though the state is required *by law* to provide the forms, and they're not doing it.

In general I subscribe to the adage, "never ascribe to malice what can be more easily explained by incompetence" but in this case the FRB through their FORMER mouthpiece Jason Guida has made it exceptionally clear that they deliberately restrict access to paper forms, not just through failing to print them, but by refusing to accept the PDF version of the form *THEY PROVIDED*.
Click to expand...

Guida went Indian.
 
Coyote33 said:
Once again, follow the money.

State House News -- State imposing hiring cap, agencies asked to identify possible budget cuts

With the hiring cap, are they going to put in a new FRB director? NOW is the time to strike and get this fixed once and for all, and save money at the same time we save civil rights.
Click to expand...
As I have said, this is often the single most effective method against stupidity in MA. They don't give a hoot about our rights, but if you can get them to drain budget A for the sake of budget B that they like even more, they are willing.
 
namedpipes said:
*sigh*

You guys never played cowboys and indians when you were sprouts?

It just means he switched teams. (or at least is purported to have done so)
Click to expand...

Huh... I've heard "went native", but it doesn't, in my vernacular, mean "switched sides".

Are you saying that Jason Guida is now pro-gun? I must have missed a memo.
 
exodious said:
So where is the penalty for not filing (or filing on a form they don't like), 128A doesn't mention penalties, is it 128 or 128B then? MGLs are confusing.
Click to expand...


Please correct this if it's wrong, but here's my reading:


Sec. 128: says:

[stuff about FFLs]

any person who, [isn't an FFL/licensed by the state], sells,
rents or leases a [gun] or is engaged
in business as a gunsmith, shall be punished by a fine of not less than
$1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not less than one
year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.



Sec. 128A says:
Sec. 128 doesn't apply if :

[ stuff to do with selling to FFLs ]

and provided, further, that such resident reports within seven days,
in writing to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice
information services on forms furnished by said executive director,

[information that should go on the form ]


Then Sec. 128B is for *buyers*, and just says,
[anyone who buys a gun from anywhere] shall within seven days after
receiving [the gun], report, in writing,
to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information
services [information about the seller/donor and gun ]

This all implies two things, if read carefully:

1) only the seller has to fill out the FA10, the buyer doesn't.
2) if you buy a long gun from out of state (or a handgun via a FFL03/C&R) you don't have to use the FA10, but you *do* have to report the seller's information. I've never heard of anyone doing that, Most people just put "registration" on the FA10 and don't bother filling in the seller information.
 
namedpipes said:
The PDF version WAS furnished by said executive director.

It does not say "currently available from" FRB.
Click to expand...

If you could find an old "blue card" from back when that's what they provided, would that count as "provided by said executive director"?

My gut (not backed up by any research) is that sections 128[AB] didn't exist when the blue cards did, but I don't know the specific history that well. When was the FRB formed?
 
milktree said:
If you could find an old "blue card" from back when that's what they provided, would that count as "provided by said executive director"?
Click to expand...

The MGL does not state that some specific form be used. Only that it be furnished by the director.

A reasonable person would find the PDF is identical to the carbonless FA10 (except of course the serial number. A reasonable person would recognize that if the serial number didn't matter during the "formless" years, then the serial number doesn't matter now.

I tend to doubt a reasonable person would find the blue card is substantially the same as the FA10, especially if the FRB was created after the blue cards. This date I don't recall but I believe it was in the 90's.

The FRB issued the PDF form from it's website and via police departments because they were unable to have forms printed. Some sort of dispute with the printing company, I believe.

Of course I'm not encouraging you to do it, but I suspect you would win in court, provided you $pend enough ca$h to feed the lawyer$.

All of the above is an opinion based on my non-lawyerly readings, both of the MGL and information from the internet.
 
namedpipes said:
The MGL does not state that some specific form be used. Only that it be furnished by the director.

A reasonable person would find the PDF is identical to the carbonless FA10 (except of course the serial number. A reasonable person would recognize that if the serial number didn't matter during the "formless" years, then the serial number doesn't matter now.

I tend to doubt a reasonable person would find the blue card is substantially the same as the FA10, especially if the FRB was created after the blue cards. This date I don't recall but I believe it was in the 90's.

The FRB issued the PDF form from it's website and via police departments because they were unable to have forms printed. Some sort of dispute with the printing company, I believe.

Of course I'm not encouraging you to do it, but I suspect you would win in court, provided you $pend enough ca$h to feed the lawyer$.

All of the above is an opinion based on my non-lawyerly readings, both of the MGL and information from the internet.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. I've advanced the same argument in the past. If the FRB really has to have a serial #, let them generate their own list of numbers. They could even preface the number with a G to indicate that it was generated in-house. When they get a pdf form, insert the number. All of the freakin' info they require is on the GD pdf form. Is it really that hard to do? Especially in light of the fact that the whole database is useless.

My take on this whole clusterfark is that this is just a way to screw with people because they can. I would seriously love to see the state explain, in court, that they rejected a completed form because it didn't have a serial number, therefore the person that submitted the form violated the law.
 
milktree said:
Please correct this if it's wrong, but here's my reading:
Sec. 128: says:
[stuff about FFLs]
any person who, [isn't an FFL/licensed by the state], sells,
rents or leases a [gun] or is engaged
in business as a gunsmith, shall be punished by a fine of not less than
$1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not less than one
year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Sec. 128A says:
Sec. 128 doesn't apply if :
[ stuff to do with selling to FFLs ]
and provided, further, that such resident reports within seven days,
in writing to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice
information services on forms furnished by said executive director,
[information that should go on the form ]

Then Sec. 128B is for *buyers*, and just says,
[anyone who buys a gun from anywhere] shall within seven days after
receiving [the gun], report, in writing,
to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information
services [information about the seller/donor and gun ]

This all implies two things, if read carefully:
1) only the seller has to fill out the FA10, the buyer doesn't.
2) if you buy a long gun from out of state (or a handgun via a FFL03/C&R) you don't have to use the FA10, but you *do* have to report the seller's information. I've never heard of anyone doing that, Most people just put "registration" on the FA10 and don't bother filling in the seller information.
Click to expand...

I did not see the "FRB" mentioned anywhere in there.


milktree said:
If you could find an old "blue card" from back when that's what they provided, would that count as "provided by said executive director"?

My gut (not backed up by any research) is that sections 128[AB] didn't exist when the blue cards did, but I don't know the specific history that well. When was the FRB formed?
Click to expand...

Executive Director of what? CJIS or FRB?


namedpipes said:
The MGL does not state that some specific form be used. Only that it be furnished by the director.

A reasonable person would find the PDF is identical to the carbonless FA10 (except of course the serial number. A reasonable person would recognize that if the serial number didn't matter during the "formless" years, then the serial number doesn't matter now.

I tend to doubt a reasonable person would find the blue card is substantially the same as the FA10, especially if the FRB was created after the blue cards. This date I don't recall but I believe it was in the 90's.

The FRB issued the PDF form from it's website and via police departments because they were unable to have forms printed. Some sort of dispute with the printing company, I believe.

Of course I'm not encouraging you to do it, but I suspect you would win in court, provided you $pend enough ca$h to feed the lawyer$.

All of the above is an opinion based on my non-lawyerly readings, both of the MGL and information from the internet.
Click to expand...


Again, which director? And if the FRB issued the .pdf form, what about the CJIS one?

By the way, who IS the director right now, anyhow? Maybe they should just call the whole thing a waste (which it is), and throw it away. By "whole thing", I mean FRB, CJIS, FA-10, registration, etc. Just think of the savings, and it would not change a thing in regards to public safety.
 
Ok, here's a question or maybe I should say an observation.. last saturday I was out to N. Reading at a little Buick car show. While talking to one of my friends who happens to be a local PD sergeant, he told me he called and was told that paper FA10's were not being accepted any longer and he would have to do an EFA-10, which he did and he had no problem. Now my question... has anyone heard that, I told him I thought no way, I would have heard about it here if that was the case....
 
turbo38gn said:
Ok, here's a question or maybe I should say an observation.. last saturday I was out to N. Reading at a little Buick car show. While talking to one of my friends who happens to be a local PD sergeant, he told me he called and was told that paper FA10's were not being accepted any longer and he would have to do an EFA-10, which he did and he had no problem. Now my question... has anyone heard that, I told him I thought no way, I would have heard about it here if that was the case....
Click to expand...

Your friend is misinformed, or lying. Can't tell without knowing where he got the information and exactly what he was told. In any case, he's wrong. The paper FA10s printed by the FRB (not the PDFs) are still valid, and still accepted, and *should* still be printed.

The FRB is "encouraging" people to use the eFA10, and using their perceived authority to imply that the eFA10 is the *only* way to register a transaction. But that's a lie. Yes, I said "lie", because it is. It's a deliberate misrepresentation, a deception.

You keep saying "had no problem." Why is that? It implies that you have no understanding of the whole problem with eFA10s. "had no problem" is simply *wrong*, because the problem isn't with any individual transaction, it's a systemic problem.

If I said, "I ate some mercury today, and had no problem", or said, "I walked across the interstate today, and had no problem", you'd think I was nuts, because the long term cost of regularly eating mercury or walking across an interstate is obvious. This is the same, except you seem to be completely incapable of understanding the real problem with the existence and long/repeated use of the eFA10. Or maybe you don't think mercury is poisonous or that there's cars on the highway.
 
Last edited:
The question has to be asked . . . "what paper FA-10s?" If someone called FRB and asked if the photocopied or PDF "paper FA-10s" were accepted they would be told NO and they mean it.

Everything hinges on HOW you ask the question and to whom!

I can also believe that individual employees in that department may be putting their own spin on it, as they really don't have the people-power anymore to manually scan forms in. I know that this doesn't garner any sympathy from this crowd, but I point it out because it might indeed taint the view of the employee who answers that question for anyone who calls them.
 
LenS said:
The question has to be asked . . . "what paper FA-10s?" If someone called FRB and asked if the photocopied or PDF "paper FA-10s" were accepted they would be told NO and they mean it.

Everything hinges on HOW you ask the question and to whom!

I can also believe that individual employees in that department may be putting their own spin on it, as they really don't have the people-power anymore to manually scan forms in. I know that this doesn't garner any sympathy from this crowd, but I point it out because it might indeed taint the view of the employee who answers that question for anyone who calls them.
Click to expand...

Actually it makes me want to organize a round robin paper FA-10 transfer party...
 
namedpipes said:
Actually it makes me want to organize a round robin paper FA-10 transfer party...
Click to expand...

We should do it on printed versions of the PDF provided by the FRB. Then they'd have to process them all twice.

I wonder if they'd get confused when all the dates are the same.
 
milktree said:
We should do it on printed versions of the PDF provided by the FRB. Then they'd have to process them all twice.

I wonder if they'd get confused when all the dates are the same.
Click to expand...

Half on PDF and half on carbonless "official" forms.

If they process them in the "proper" order they'll send out a bazillion "warnings" yet every single transfer will have been legal registered.
 

Similar threads

Firearm Legislation? This is how it's done in a "free state"
Replies
13
Views
611
APFSDS
APFSDS
Still going to FA10? Top Pentagon Insider: Abolish Second Amendment, Deploy National Guard For Mass Gun Confiscation Effort
Replies
29
Views
1K
1919FAN
1919FAN
Purchase a lower as a lower or rifle?
Replies
22
Views
492
MAJoe
M
Transfer a preban pistol to Ma but the FFL said it's not on the list
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
zork51
Z
  • Locked
2016: How did dealers FA10 stripped lowers? They were NOT complete guns...
Replies
20
Views
735
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom