I have a frame that I never ended up using for anything so I might sell it. Since it was never built into a functioning gun, I never filed an FA10 on it. Strictly legally speaking, I don't believe I'm required to do an FA10 if I sell it. However, is there any way that it can come back on me if something happens down the line? E.g. the buyer builds it and uses it in a crime, or it gets stolen, etc? Should I have a bill of sale signed by both myself and the buyer?
-
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.
FA10 for a frame sale
- Thread starter kalash
- Start date
Bill of Sale with info on both and done.
EJFudd
NES Member
Does that comply with the infamous Dimples Decree of 7/20/2016 wherein a stripped AR or AK lower is now an "assault weapon" in the loony People's Republic of Massachusetts?
![[devil]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/015.gif "Devil [devil]")
Garys
NES Member
He said "frame", not AR or AK lower. Could be a Glock frame or some other frame.
Does that comply with the infamous Dimples Decree of 7/20/2016 wherein a stripped AR or AK lower is now an "assault weapon" in the loony People's Republic of Massachusetts?
EJFudd
NES Member
Ahhh... okay. Got it. Then the Dimples Decree clearly does not apply.
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
Read the FAQ and Email responses from AGO. If a MA resident owned a lower prior to the 7/20 BS, her office said it was OK to build up, sell to another MA LTC and/or register it.
How would you go about proving that you had the lower before 07/20/16? No FA10 filed on just a lower... sales receipt? Emails to the seller arranging the sale? Not like you keep a copy of the 4473...
EJFudd
NES Member
I'm not sure I'd personally want to risk transferring a supposedly pre-7/20/16 Dimples-approved AR or AK lower in MA without an eFA-10 on the transfer, assuming I care to cover my legal ass with the Dimpled One, of course.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I realize that some folks still have non-eFA-10'd pre-7/20/16 lowers still out there with no verifiable record of when they acquired them. I kind of thought those lowers were in legal limbo right now... again, assuming folks actually give two ****s about the Dimpled One's Decree. ![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
But as pointed out above, this is not an evil AR or AK lower so the Dimples Decree does not apply here at all.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
I guess I better go back and read all of Dimples' BS again.
![[crying]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/006.gif "Crying [crying]")
I must have missed something in the minutia.
EJFudd
NES Member
Well, that's my point (just made above). A sales receipt alone is going to protect you from you-know-who? Good luck with that.
Let's take a step back here... how, exactly, do you comply with a law that doesn't actually exist?
Healey could basically say:
"I decree that boogers are now part of the assault weapons ban, and if you are seen picking your nose while carrying or touching a firearm, the booger is an unauthorized part and puts you in violation"
That's functionally not any different from the AG's 7/20 spew on this "issue." I use those quotes lightly.
-Mike
Well then we also get into the mess that is the eFA10 system and it's incredible lack of accurate records. If they can't find an FA10 for that old lower you built, you're in a pissing match trying to figure out if you never filed the form or if it just got lost in the nonsensical system.
- There is a 4473 on each of those lowers which if push came to shove a lawyer could get a copy of. I also have a receipt for every lower I bought . . . it may be a receipt for the FFL transfer fee or a bill of sale depending on where/how I bought them.
My example may have been a little more polite, but Mike is right. Healey could issue a decree tomorrow (by press conference and memo of course) that the use of the word "black" in any context is a felony. So saying that you want a black car, black sofa, etc. could get you 10 years in prison per Healey's edict! Her huffing and puffing doesn't make it so! No law on the books = no real chance of a conviction (and she knows it) assuming that a DA is dumb enough to bring charges and that you are smart enough to hire a good ($$$) lawyer.
In other words, all this worry is for naught, no individual is going to get prosecuted for violating her memo, period!!
For those that don't believe me (plenty of opportunities have occurred since 7/20/16) can continue to hide under their beds waiting for the door to burst open, but it just isn't going to happen.
