FA-10 forms

[Coyote33]

I know that there have been tons of posts on this issue, but I'll repeat this again . . .

- ALL PDs have been advised at least twice (most likely Email) from CJIS that they are SUPPOSED TO REQUEST pads of FA-10s (1 sheet/transaction) from CJIS to give out to those that request them.
- These new FA-10 forms and the old 3-part forms are the ONLY ones that CJIS will accept via Snail Mail. They really want us to use the e-FA-10 system however and all "push" goes to that effort.
- CJIS will no longer send any FA-10 forms to mere subjects, period! [Only exception is with the reject letters for those filing photocopies or PDF forms.]
- If you visit a PD that tells you that they don't have the forms or tries to give you photocopies, you can call CJIS and request that they mail the proper forms to that PD! [Telling a PD that they should request them probably will go nowhere as most don't really care to be giving forms out anyway.] ...

red items:
1) How do PD's request them?
2) Who do they work for and get paid by again? (US!)

...
- CJIS budget keeps getting cut, Jason now has less than 1/2 the number of employees (now 4) that he had 4 years ago when he took the job.
- The scanning software is ancient, developed back in 1998 and there is no money to upgrade it.
- Oftentimes printers print pages just a hair off proper registration. CJIS scanning software can't handle pages that aren't perfectly lined up and thus requires an employee to hand-type in the information off the form.
- They do use the S/N for tracking purposes. [I suggested and still don't understand (like most here) why CJIS can't slap a S/N sticker on a form just like Red Cross does when you donate blood!]
- Jason reads NES and is upset when he sees posts where people mention/show that they have scooped up many forms from PDs. The hoarding of forms costs CJIS money for printing more than they think that they need and upsets them. Therefore, they have changed policy and will no longer mail them to us directly.

Of course, just ELIMINATING THE WHOLE THING would solve all of the above problems, and is not even a law, just a regulation which is easier to do!!!!! This would save time, money, aggravation, and violation of rights all in one fell swoop.

I'm with you on this and made this case (about where xfrs happen) when talking with him. Didn't seem to compute.

There are two alternatives that he told me about:

- Get person to give you needed info over the phone/Email in advance, do online transaction and print out forms to take to the actual transfer. Problem is many won't give you info that way. [Jason tells me that there is an online way to cancel a transaction that doesn't happen for whatever reason.]
- Write down info at transfer, go home and create online FA-10 and then print/copy to other party. No signatures this way, but he doesn't care about that as e-system doesn't require pen signatures.

Since they are down to 4 employees (from 9) I suspect (my assumption here) that they don't have the manpower to process everything on paper, thus the desire to do e-forms. You can do more with fewer employees this way.

Jason has seen posts offering forms to folks, I'm sure that he's seen Andy's pile of forms by now, mentions of giving them out as Karma, etc. He interprets this as us doing unnecessary hoarding and I think the result of no longer sending them to residents directly is a knee-jerk reaction to this.

Again, THEY are creating their own problem. Just eliminate the whole thing. They could probably cut down to 3 people. Who is watching the budget in this state anyhow?

 

[drgrant]

Of course, just ELIMINATING THE WHOLE THING would solve all of the above problems, and is not even a law, just a regulation which is easier to do!!!!! This would save time, money, aggravation, and violation of rights all in one fell swoop.

It is a law (MGL) actually, you would have to modify or eliminate C140 - S128A/B to get rid of it all. Have fun with that.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

It is a law (MGL) actually, you would have to modify or eliminate C140 - S128A/B to get rid of it all. Have fun with that.

-Mike

The "form provided" by the FRB could read:
Did you transfer a gun? YES ____ NO ____
Form FA-10 (revised 4/20/2012)

 

[beaker]

Interesting, however the only ones suffering are us. I guess it is just better to complain about stuff rather than do anything. Helping them would be a good opportunity to understand the issues on the inside, and help to fix the system including the availability of paper forms. Nobody probably understands everything that is broken with the system. The State is never going to give them funding to do this properly, because they don't really want it to run smoothly. And no offense to the people who are doing the job, but they have no motivation to make it go smoothly either. Getting involved to protect our interests by coming up with a better way to do this isn't a stupid idea, nor would it be to perpetuate a system designed to harass us, it would be to change it. Even if people could think outside the box about this it probably would never be allowed to happen anyway...

I would hope no gun owner would be interested in bailing out this broken system?

They need to suffer the full consequences of creating pointless bureaucracies. Did you check the box to pay the optional higher tax rate too?

 

[cekim]

Interesting, however the only ones suffering are us. I guess it is just better to complain about stuff rather than do anything. Helping them would be a good opportunity to understand the issues on the inside, and help to fix the system including the availability of paper forms. Nobody probably understands everything that is broken with the system. The State is never going to give them funding to do this properly, because they don't really want it to run smoothly. And no offense to the people who are doing the job, but they have no motivation to make it go smoothly either. Getting involved to protect our interests by coming up with a better way to do this isn't a stupid idea, nor would it be to perpetuate a system designed to harass us, it would be to change it. Even if people could think outside the box about this it probably would never be allowed to happen anyway...

Actually, the more they block our ability to do the things that free people ought to be able to do, the more vulnerable they are to legal challenges...

 

[Coyote33]

It is a law (MGL) actually, you would have to modify or eliminate C140 - S128A/B to get rid of it all. Have fun with that.

The "form provided" by the FRB could read:
Did you transfer a gun? YES ____ NO ____
Form FA-10 (revised 4/20/2012)

I am so screwed up. I don't know what is law, what is regulation, what is made up, what is legend, what is wives tale, or what is decree.

Interesting, however the only ones suffering are us. I guess it is just better to complain about stuff rather than do anything. ...

We should have jumped in with some suggestions when GOAL had the giant 2259 bill before them and they were listening. Tossing them a few updates would have gone a long way versus the whole enchilada which was going nowhere. I STILL think we need to put together a package of fixes and amendments to current laws, rather than wholesale replacement...for now. The committee agreed it needs to be fixed, we had our window of opportunity.

Actually, the more they block our ability to do the things that free people ought to be able to do, the more vulnerable they are to legal challenges...

Interesting.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Actually, the more they block our ability to do the things that free people ought to be able to do, the more vulnerable they are to legal challenges...

Only in court. NO hope in the legislature . . . they just pretend to listen then go off to do "important stuff" like vote raises for themselves, tackle social issues, ad nauseum!

 

[namedpipes]

Then we need a State Rep or Senator from our ranks. Someone that IS a true believer in 2A rights and is familiar with processes... maybe known by some of the existing players... yet still reasonable...

Someone ...


LenS? Whatcha doin this summah?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Then we need a State Rep or Senator from our ranks. Someone that IS a true believer in 2A rights and is familiar with processes... maybe known by some of the existing players... yet still reasonable...

Someone ...


LenS? Whatcha doin this summah?

Bite your tongue!! See my reply above yours?

I gave up beating my head on brick walls many years ago.

Comm2A can make a difference. Waiting for legislative action AND a governor who will sign it into law is a fruitless effort.

 

[cekim]

Only in court. NO hope in the legislature . . .

Self evident, but I will keep trying.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Self evident, but I will keep trying.

I'm not advocating that we give up on legislation (which is GOAL's job), just being a realist that it's not the way that we will succeed.

 

[cekim]

I'm not advocating that we give up on legislation (which is GOAL's job), just being a realist that it's not the way that we will succeed.

Well, there is part of the problem.

No, it isn't...

The responsibility to reigning in government falls to every adult, at all times. The legislative process is annoying, tedious, corrupt and generally dysfunctional, but as they say, at all times in all places, people get the government they deserve.

 

[enbloc]

.

 

[calsdad]

I know that there have been tons of posts on this issue, but I'll repeat this again . . .

- ALL PDs have been advised at least twice (most likely Email) from CJIS that they are SUPPOSED TO REQUEST pads of FA-10s (1 sheet/transaction) from CJIS to give out to those that request them.
- These new FA-10 forms and the old 3-part forms are the ONLY ones that CJIS will accept via Snail Mail. They really want us to use the e-FA-10 system however and all "push" goes to that effort.
- CJIS will no longer send any FA-10 forms to mere subjects, period! [Only exception is with the reject letters for those filing photocopies or PDF forms.]
- If you visit a PD that tells you that they don't have the forms or tries to give you photocopies, you can call CJIS and request that they mail the proper forms to that PD! [Telling a PD that they should request them probably will go nowhere as most don't really care to be giving forms out anyway.]


Since there are some here on NES that like to shoot the messenger, I'll probably get crap for the following . . . but here are the reasons for the above as given to me by Jason Guida in a recent phone conversation.

- CJIS budget keeps getting cut, Jason now has less than 1/2 the number of employees (now 4) that he had 4 years ago when he took the job.
- The scanning software is ancient, developed back in 1998 and there is no money to upgrade it.
- Oftentimes printers print pages just a hair off proper registration. CJIS scanning software can't handle pages that aren't perfectly lined up and thus requires an employee to hand-type in the information off the form.
- They do use the S/N for tracking purposes. [I suggested and still don't understand (like most here) why CJIS can't slap a S/N sticker on a form just like Red Cross does when you donate blood!]
- Jason reads NES and is upset when he sees posts where people mention/show that they have scooped up many forms from PDs. The hoarding of forms costs CJIS money for printing more than they think that they need and upsets them. Therefore, they have changed policy and will no longer mail them to us directly.That's it in a nutshell.
Signed,
Just the messenger!

Just for the record - since you mentioned that Jason gets upset that people request more forms than they need and he thinks we "hoard" them, I'm one of those people who he's talking about.

Probably 3 years ago now - I called CHSB and asked them to send out 20 FA-10 forms to me. Back then - they did it (apparently they don't do it any more).

I've been using those FA-10 forms for the last 3 years. I'm down to my last four now. By asking him for 20 forms 3 years ago I:

- saved him a bunch of time having to send out onesies and twosies
- saved postage
- saved gas
- saved him a bunch of phone calls
- had the things actually in my possesion when time came to do a transfer - thereby encouraging me to actually file the form instead of saying "Screw it - this is too much of a PITA - I'm just not going to do it"

etc. etc.

I didn't use them as kindling for my fireplace. I actually used them to do transfers. If the local police departments would carry them - this might not be such an issue, but they don't. So trying to find FA-10 forms at police departments typically turns into a rock fetch exercise.

As far as the electronic FA-10 system goes: I will try to avoid using it for as long as I possibly can. Because paper and a pen just plain work.

In the bigger scheme of things - this is another example of the govt. imposing a burden on "the people" and then cost shifting the burden of compliance of that burden - even further onto the people.

I realize Jason is just trying to get his job done - but he's also got to realize that his job entails managing a system the is basically a burden to the citizens of MA. If he was my co-worker and was asking my advice - I would tell him to start looking for another career if he wants a true solution to his problems.

 

[calsdad]

Do the electronic transfer before actually doing the transfer? Not only will I not do that, but I suspect that would actually be illegal. Are you not signing an affidavit when you sign an FA-10? Would that not also be true of the electronic system? More than a few of us have had screw ups happen at transfers where people don't show or back out and if you are the buyer, you have no guarantee that the seller will properly cancel the transaction. In contrast, with a paper form if the seller doesn't show up or you don't like the gun, then you simply don't complete the paper form and nothing goes to the state.



Do double the work just for him plus risk all of the privacy issues with the electronic system? No, Jason, not going to happen.



That doesn't change the fact that the e-system is simply unworkable. We don't have wifi where we do transfers. The places that do have wifi are not suitable for doing a transfer. So he has spent a great deal of state time and money creating a system that is fundamentally unusable because he simply did not understand the users' requirements before building it.

Jason, you could have avoided all of this crap if you had simply been open about what you wanted to do and solicited input from gun owners (the users of this system) prior to building it.

This is a ridiculously common problem when people design systems. I see it at my job all the time. We had a director - and one of his butt-licking lackeys decide to design a test management system - with pretty much no input from any of the people who would use it. The guy who actually worked on the system - basically had no real long term experience with doing the actual work he was designing the system for - and the director was , well - a director (I mean to imply no real day to day experience in doing the work the system was supposed to manage).

They worked on this for a year and a half - and finally rolled it out (actually forced us to use it is a better word) - and it flopped. The thing just plain didn't work. The GUI sucked. It was web based but only compatible with one browser type. It lost data on a constant basis. The whole flow of the thing was completely non-intuitive - etc. Problem after problem after problem after problem has plagued this thing for the year and a half we have used it. Now - we are going to another system.

People get entranced by electronic systems. The reality is that for something like an FA-10 form - paper just plain works better. I'm sure there is a way that a better system could be designed to lessen the burden of having to enter all those paper FA-10 forms manually - but the current system isn't it.

 

[cekim]

This is a ridiculously common problem when people design systems. I see it at my job all the time. We had a director - and one of his butt-licking lackeys decide to design a test management system - with pretty much no input from any of the people who would use it.

The trouble here is that there was never any intention to make the system orderly, effective and convenient for users.

No shocker that it is none of those things.

 

[Coyote33]

If every police department had plenty of forms readily available, nobody would need to stockpile them. Just print them out, or eliminate the need for them completely. Somebody needs to defund the Firearms Record Bureau. Is the state budget done yet? Is it available online? Where is are the FRB line item budget details?

 

[M1911]

Somebody needs to defund the Firearms Record Bureau.

And just who do you think would do that? Do you think Governor Deval Patrick would do that? Do you think the pro-gun-control Senate President Murray or Speaker DeLeo would do that?

That's a nice dream, but that is all it is -- a dream.

 

[BW23]

I called many MANY police departments around my town and no one seems to have them.

What is the alternative when I want to sell my firearm and there's no FA-10 to be found?

 

[kilroth]

Use the electronic version? https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentHome

 

[namedpipes]

I called many MANY police departments around my town and no one seems to have them.

What is the alternative when I want to sell my firearm and there's no FA-10 to be found?

Call the FRB and let them know which departments are out, ask that they send a pack to each. Check back with the pd and let them know you requested forms on their behalf and when can you stop by for a couple.

 

[thevelvethammer]

I picked up forms from Newton today, they have a "bunch" and the detective was very friendly.
They are two pagers from Jan 2012, and say fill out, make 2 copies and send in original.
Not sure how far you are from Newton, but they do have them if you need them.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

Use the electronic version? https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentHome

Have you not read this entire thread about about all the crap the online version has?

 

[kilroth]

Have you not read this entire thread about about all the crap the online version has?

Yes, and they clearly don't want people using the paper forms. That's all there is to it.

Whoever decided to cut budgets decided that they wanted the legal morass that poorly verifiable electronic signatures entail is cheaper than printing a few reams of paper FA10s or printing a few pages of serial numbers for the PD's to stick on their own forms. Well, I think they're right simply because it's not going to be the issue in play. If a bureaucracy is forced to add paperwork to something by law, and that law is made by people who just want to make things harder, that's the exact type of paperwork that a] is implemented to poorly that the people on the government side of the aisle don't want to use it or trust it, and b] the other side avoids it.

We have a couple of options: 1] DrGrant's idea of just printing the forms and sending them in. It's more work for them, harder to index, and you could tack in a short and polite note saying that the on-line system was too insecure to really trust it. I like this idea. 2] Go on a scavenger hunt for paper FA-10's. It's like being in a frat except you're actually trying to find the cops, aren't drunk and are generally not having a good time. Finally, 3] Suck it up and live with the crap-tastic on-line system and either trust whom you're buying/selling from/to, or just use a trusted 3rd party computer.

 

[namedpipes]

Yes, and they clearly don't want people using the paper forms. That's all there is to it.

Whoever decided to cut budgets decided that they wanted the legal morass that poorly verifiable electronic signatures entail is cheaper than printing a few reams of paper FA10s or printing a few pages of serial numbers for the PD's to stick on their own forms. Well, I think they're right simply because it's not going to be the issue in play. If a bureaucracy is forced to add paperwork to something by law, and that law is made by people who just want to make things harder, that's the exact type of paperwork that a] is implemented to poorly that the people on the government side of the aisle don't want to use it or trust it, and b] the other side avoids it.

We have a couple of options: 1] DrGrant's idea of just printing the forms and sending them in. It's more work for them, harder to index, and you could tack in a short and polite note saying that the on-line system was too insecure to really trust it. I like this idea. 2] Go on a scavenger hunt for paper FA-10's. It's like being in a frat except you're actually trying to find the cops, aren't drunk and are generally not having a good time. Finally, 3] Suck it up and live with the crap-tastic on-line system and either trust whom you're buying/selling from/to, or just use a trusted 3rd party computer.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Coyote33]

Yes, and they clearly don't want people using the paper forms. That's all there is to it.

Whoever decided to cut budgets decided that they wanted the legal morass that poorly verifiable electronic signatures entail is cheaper than printing a few reams of paper FA10s or printing a few pages of serial numbers for the PD's to stick on their own forms. Well, I think they're right simply because it's not going to be the issue in play. If a bureaucracy is forced to add paperwork to something by law, and that law is made by people who just want to make things harder, that's the exact type of paperwork that a] is implemented to poorly that the people on the government side of the aisle don't want to use it or trust it, and b] the other side avoids it.

We have a couple of options: 1] DrGrant's idea of just printing the forms and sending them in. It's more work for them, harder to index, and you could tack in a short and polite note saying that the on-line system was too insecure to really trust it. I like this idea. 2] Go on a scavenger hunt for paper FA-10's. It's like being in a frat except you're actually trying to find the cops, aren't drunk and are generally not having a good time. Finally, 3] Suck it up and live with the crap-tastic on-line system and either trust whom you're buying/selling from/to, or just use a trusted 3rd party computer.

You left out:

4] Don't bother, because it is an infringement on your rights from the get-go.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

Yes, and they clearly don't want people using the paper forms. That's all there is to it.

*snip*-full of fail here-*snip*

So...what agency do you work for?

I'll continue to use the paper forms until they stop this FA-10 silliness.

 

[glide]

Yes, and they clearly don't want people using the paper forms. That's all there is to it.

Whoever decided to cut budgets decided that they wanted the legal morass that poorly verifiable electronic signatures entail is cheaper than printing a few reams of paper FA10s or printing a few pages of serial numbers for the PD's to stick on their own forms. Well, I think they're right simply because it's not going to be the issue in play. If a bureaucracy is forced to add paperwork to something by law, and that law is made by people who just want to make things harder, that's the exact type of paperwork that a] is implemented to poorly that the people on the government side of the aisle don't want to use it or trust it, and b] the other side avoids it.

We have a couple of options: 1] DrGrant's idea of just printing the forms and sending them in. It's more work for them, harder to index, and you could tack in a short and polite note saying that the on-line system was too insecure to really trust it. I like this idea. 2] Go on a scavenger hunt for paper FA-10's. It's like being in a frat except you're actually trying to find the cops, aren't drunk and are generally not having a good time. Finally, 3] Suck it up and live with the crap-tastic on-line system and either trust whom you're buying/selling from/to, or just use a trusted 3rd party computer.

You outed yourself pretty quickly.

 

[drgrant]

I don't think he outed himself at all- It sounds like he is just speculating on their reasoning for pushing this crappy system. That doesn't necessarily mean that he supports its existence.

The most alarming thing to me about the E-FA-10 system itself is not its existence, its the fact that they are "turtling" on not providing the old paper forms, in a pretty scummy way. There is obviously a need for people to still have those forms- particularly in circumstances when you are dealing with someone you've never met before. There is no way to "back out" or cancel an E-FA-10 transaction at the user level, which is a serious deficiency, among a whole host of other things (such as a lack of a mechanism which emails out copies of the FA-10 form. )

The other MORE disturbing thing that I don't like about the system is the FACT that it is basically a billboard for CJIS/EOPS to lie to the public about what the laws actually entail- there is a TON of verbiage on that site telling people to do things that are CLEARLY not required by MGL. This further creates an atmosphere of bad information on MA gun laws. The amount of falsehoods circulating about MA gun law are vast enough to fill a book the size of a bible, and a state level mouthpiece parroting more crap only makes it worse, because it has a veneer of legitimacy/authoritativeness to it. We are going to have a constant stream of gun owners running around braying "bbbbut the E-FA-10 site said you had to do it, and that's right from the state itself!!!"

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

The most alarming thing to me about the E-FA-10 system itself is not its existence, its the fact that they are "turtling" on not providing the old paper forms, in a pretty scummy way. There is obviously a need for people to still have those forms- particularly in circumstances when you are dealing with someone you've never met before. There is no way to "back out" or cancel an E-FA-10 transaction at the user level, which is a serious deficiency, among a whole host of other things (such as a lack of a mechanism which emails out copies of the FA-10 form. )

The other MORE disturbing thing that I don't like about the system is the FACT that it is basically a billboard for CJIS/EOPS to lie to the public about what the laws actually entail- there is a TON of verbiage on that site telling people to do things that are CLEARLY not required by MGL. This further creates an atmosphere of bad information on MA gun laws. The amount of falsehoods circulating about MA gun law are vast enough to fill a book the size of a bible, and a state level mouthpiece parroting more crap only makes it worse, because it has a veneer of legitimacy/authoritativeness to it. We are going to have a constant stream of gun owners running around braying "bbbbut the E-FA-10 site said you had to do it, and that's right from the state itself!!!"

-Mike

I do NOT support the e-FA-10 system as implemented, period.

Jason told me that there is a way to cancel a transaction that you did electronically prior to a meet-up (and decided not to do the deal) or failure of the person to show up (deal never happened). Having never used the system, I don't know how this is done and just reporting what he told me here.

Yup, the most offensive things are the wording implying stuff that's not in the law, plus "REQUIRING" info that likewise isn't required or even appropriate.

I looked at the online form for inheritance . . . it demands the deceased name, LTC number, etc. Well, nothing in MGL requires that (in spite of Scriv's insistence that even a copy of Probate docs should be sent with the FA-10), and MGL and Fed Law allow inheritance (with NO FFL involved) from outside MA. I'm sure that the online system will refuse to process if you don't have the LTC #, it had expired prior to death, or a non-MA inheritance attempts to use this system.

There is an "agenda" here and it is NOT HIDDEN! It's bad and reflects what TPTB WISHES the law required instead of what the law actually requires!