• 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.

FFL Purchase & Delivery of Non-Roster Handgun

Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
43
Likes
6
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
Can a MA gun club with an on-site FFL purchase and have delivered to the club an out-of-state handgun not on the MA roster for the sole purpose of using it as an in-house-only training gun that will not be sold or transferred to a MA LTC holder?
 
The roster only applies to a MA licensed dealer (MGL 140 123) In your example you do not say anything about the ffl holder also having a MA Dealers license ( not that I think it would matter in this case)

So the roster is not in play.

The only way the dealers license comes into play is sale, rental or lease. The activity you describe does not appear to fall within that scope.

I see no issues. IANAL, so of course my opinion is worth every penny you paid for it.
 
To clarify, yes, the club’s FFL holder is also a MA licensed firearms dealer. The gun in question would not be sold, transferred, leased , or rented. The intent is for the gun to be used by club members and guests as a live-fire training gun. This particular gun meets all Federal requirements, but is unavailable for purchase in MA, not even in the private sales marketplace. The out-of-state manufacturer/distributor of the gun is being very careful and is requesting “legal proof” that he can ship the gun to MA without running afoul of MA gun laws. I am wondering if there is a way to satisfy his request without involvement of our AG’s office.
 
You can never show the type of proof they are demanding. If it is not prohibited it is permitted. You would have to show the entirety of MGL and CMRs show it was not prohibited.

MGL 140 121 last paragraph says dealers are exempt from most of the firearms laws. You are AWB exempt and magazine limit exempt. Off list is irrelevant as that only applies to sales, rent, lease.

Pm me details. I am a FFL 07/SOT and MA dealer and may be able to help. I have dealt similar issues with manufacturers on many occasions.
 
There is no proof there is no law that actually "grants permission". That's not how laws work. Basically the remote is just being a big pussy use a different vendor and get the gun from them instead... another trick is you can just trick the vendor into sending it into friendly nh/me ffl and then just have them forward it to you.. f*** those people and their retarded made-up fears...
 
There is no proof there is no law that actually "grants permission". That's not how laws work. Basically the remote is just being a big pussy use a different vendor and get the gun from them instead... another trick is you can just trick the vendor into sending it into friendly nh/me ffl and then just have them forward it to you.. f*** those people and their retarded made-up fears...
Having a buddy who is an FFL in NH is actually critical for getting some things. It is just not possible to overcome some manufacturers severe pussyitis. I try and avoid those manufacturers but sometimes the customer wants what the customer wants. I have a long list of anti-MA suppliers/manufacturers.
 
Curious why it needs to be this specific gun. If it's for training arent there like a million others you could use without any strings attached?
 
This would just be a FFL to FFL transfer like all the others, right? If were the receiving FFL I would log the gun into the bound book and keep it in my safe and take it to the club for training, but not leave it there. If there were a safe at the club that only I had access to I would take this up with Lisa at ATF. Jack.
 
If the inbound FFL always maintains ownership of it then I don’t see why it would be a problem
 
Having a buddy who is an FFL in NH is actually critical for getting some things. It is just not possible to overcome some manufacturers severe pussyitis. I try and avoid those manufacturers but sometimes the customer wants what the customer wants. I have a long list of anti-MA suppliers/manufacturers.
Even better if the NH FFL is one's son. Jack.
 
To clarify, yes, the club’s FFL holder is also a MA licensed firearms dealer. The gun in question would not be sold, transferred, leased , or rented. The intent is for the gun to be used by club members and guests as a live-fire training gun. This particular gun meets all Federal requirements, but is unavailable for purchase in MA, not even in the private sales marketplace. The out-of-state manufacturer/distributor of the gun is being very careful and is requesting “legal proof” that he can ship the gun to MA without running afoul of MA gun laws. I am wondering if there is a way to satisfy his request without involvement of our AG’s office.
In the case you describe, I wouldn't put it past the AG to claim that the gun was "transferred" when handed to the shooter, and that it's just a "loophole" to get around the "leased, or rented", or that since membership is required, the gun was actually rented, with the rental cost being included in the membership cost.
 
In the case you describe, I wouldn't put it past the AG to claim that the gun was "transferred" when handed to the shooter, and that it's just a "loophole" to get around the "leased, or rented", or that since membership is required, the gun was actually rented, with the rental cost being included in the membership cost.
Not likely, but that might have to be in the club bylaws. Anyway, how would she know? I promise not to tell. Jack.
 
Curious why it needs to be this specific gun. If it's for training arent there like a million others you could use without any strings attached?
Because ppl want what they want... no other motivation required. If they have an FFL they already have 99% of the problem dealt with...
 
Thanks, Folks. This input is invaluable and I will follow up with one or more of you once the gun is released into the market, which will not be until late spring. I just wanted to understand and weigh various options well in advance. To 90% of regular shooters, there is indeed nothing particularly magical about this gun. This is strictly a “we want what we want” situation.
 
Because ppl want what they want... no other motivation required. If they have an FFL they already have 99% of the problem dealt with...
Yeah I get that, just seems like a utilitarian situation so Im thinking why hold up training to get something special.
 
In the case you describe, I wouldn't put it past the AG to claim that the gun was "transferred" when handed to the shooter, and that it's just a "loophole" to get around the "leased, or rented", or that since membership is required, the gun was actually rented, with the rental cost being included in the membership cost.

^This
(Or a variation on it).

I can't figure out what phrase of MGL is relevant.
So I'm uncertain whether the exact definition of "transfer"
is the crux of the matter.
But I wouldn't necessarily obsess over that term.

More fundamentally, lots of domains and jurisdictions
outlaw the sale or lease of various items.

Yet claiming the item was "gifted" or "loaned" (no money changed hands)
is frequently (but not universally) no defense against being charged with the crime.

In some circumstances, a court will accept the "I didn't sell, lease, or rent" defense.
(Rule of Lenity).

But in other circumstances,
the judge would pause to ask defense counsel
if they were a freaking 8-yo.

Please Don't Eat the Daisies, by Jean Kerr
Chapter: Please don't eat the daisies​
We are being very careful with our children. They'll​
never have to pay a psychiatrist twenty-five dollars an hour​
to find out why we rejected them, We'll tell them why we​
rejected them. Because they're impossible, that's why.​
...​
You take Christopher - and you may; he's a slightly used​
eight-year-old. The source of our difficulty with him lies​
in the fact that he is interested in the precise value of words​
whereas we are only interested in having him pick his​
clothes up off the floor. I say, "Christopher, you take a bath​
and put all your things in the wash," and he says, "Okay,​
but it will break the Bendix" Now at this point the shrewd​
rejoinder would be, "That's all right, let it break the Bendix."​
But years of experience have washed over me in vain​
and I, perennial patsy, inquire, "Why will it break the​
Bendix?" So he explains, "Well, if I put all my things in​
the wash, I'll have to put my shoes in and they will​
certainly break the machinery."​
"Very well," I say, all sweetness and control, "put​
everything but the shoes in the wash." He picks up my​
agreeable tone at once, announcing cheerily, "Then you​
do want me to put my belt in the wash." I don't know what​
I say at this point, but my husband says, "Honey, you​
mustn't scream at him that way."​
Another version of this battle of semantics would be:​
"Don't kick the table leg with your foot."​
"I'm not kicking, I'm tapping."​
"Well, don't tap with your foot."​
"It's not my foot, it's a fork."​
"Well don't tap with the fork."​
"It's not a good fork" . . . et cetera, et cetera.​

P. S. Christopher Kerr grew up to become, you guessed it, a lawyer.

Like I say, I don't know what the actual statutes (or case law) look like here.
But unless it's well established that the gift/loan wallhack was valid in this situation,
I would want my lawyer to verify it before staking my freedom upon it.
 
Last edited:
Since the OP says it can't be obtained via private sale I assume it must be quite special indeed, like non-AWB compliant pistol.

TEC-9?
 
Rhino? Tec-9? A-10 Warthog? Nope! Just a good old-fashioned revolver, albeit one with “a very particular set of skills.”
 
Back
Top Bottom