Firearm Sale Scenario

S

sniper_uppercut

Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23
Likes
0
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Please comment on the following scenario. Your input is appreciated:

Jane Doe is an MA LTC Class A holder. She walks into XYZ gun store and sees a used (Like New In Box) Glock 22 manufactured in 2008 up for sale. The gun was sold to the dealer by an LEO. The sales staff informs her that the gun is legal for sale in MA. Jane Doe purchases the gun (all legal paperwork has been processed) and walks out. The Glock 22 is on the AG's approved firearms roster for 2009.

Additional Info: This model has a loaded chamber indicator

Has anything illegal happened here? If so, what are the legal ramfications for

a) Jane Doe?
b) The dealer?

Thanks all!!
 
Last edited:
hunter46spring said:
TIJAG:

10 year felony for the dealer for selling a banned weapon

Lady is fine
Click to expand...

I dont think that is accurate. The gun is on the list, it just doesn't meet the AG requirements. Therefore I am pretty sure the dealer only faces fines from the AG (if they actually show up to court)
 
hollewud7 said:
I dont think that is accurate. The gun is on the list, it just doesn't meet the AG requirements. Therefore I am pretty sure the dealer only faces fines from the AG (if they actually show up to court)
Click to expand...

That is correct. The dealer will be fined $5000 if the AG finds out. The consumer is in the clear regardless as long as no post 9/13/1994 large capacity magazines are included..

All of which has been covered approximately 5,000 times on this forum.
 
I took my information from a firearms forum that Chief Glidden moderates. I cut and pasted the Q&A below.

Question:

Can a MA licensed dealer sell H&K USP .45 caliber pistols? I didn't find it
on the approved firearms roster.

Answer:

No. Only the USP in 40 S&W is on the roster. The roster is caliber
specific. H&K did not submit a .45 for testing or consideration as a
functional design equivalent. If a MA dealer is trying to sell one to a MA
resident, he is committing a 10 year felony (even if the sale is to law
enforcement) .
Chief Ron Glidden

I know this is a different make and model but I thought it parralled the subject.

This dosn't mean I am correct..just where I got my information. Please let me know if I am in error. I am curious what the answer as well
 
jdubois said:
The difference is that the gun we are discussing is on the EOPS list, it just does not meet the AG requirements. The gun being discussed in your cut & paste isn't even on the EOPS list.
Click to expand...

So only guns not on the EOPS list are punishable by a felony... and if it is on EOPS list but not the AG's list it is only a fine?

Damn 2 list system gets me every time[wink]
 
jdubois said:
With the exception that the AG would probably be legally able to confiscate the gun from the purchaser, if they so desired.
Click to expand...

You and I have had this disagreement for a long time now. Let's play out this scenario for all to see and they can then (each) decide if this is a LEGITIMATE FEAR or a "man the tinfoil, the helicopters are circling" level of threat?

- AG's Regs are under CONSUMER PROTECTION - justified as a way to PROTECT the CONSUMER from "unscrupulous acts" and Dealers plying SUB-STANDARD PRODUCT on unwary buyers!

- Now if a DEALER violates these AG Consumer Protection Regs, going after the dealer makes a great snews story on how the AG is PROTECTING YOU AND I!

- Now if the AG goes after the CONSUMER (VICTIM of unscrupulous act) and CONFISCATES the product . . . WHO HAS HARMED THE CONSUMER? The consumer has <allegedly> been taken advantage of by the unscrupulous dealer and to "PROTECT HIM/HER", the AG has now CONFISCATED and FURTHER HARMED the VICTIM financially??

Really??? [rolleyes]

How likely is it that the AG wants to face the BAD PUBLICITY of FURTHER HARMING THE VICTIM?

The AG's alleged job is to make sure that the Victim is "made whole" . . . and doing what you propose is "possible" sure won't do that and in fact would damage the "reputation" of the AG's office in the minds of the sheeple.

Therefore, the likelihood that anyone would suffer "double damages" as you propose, is less than being struck by a meteor while in an underground bunker.

I am hereby kindly requesting that you stop throwing that "fear bomb" in these discussions. Folks here respect both you and I for our knowledge of these idiotic MA gun laws, they are confused enough without either of us painting a totally unnecessary/extremely unlikely "doom and gloom scenario". Please reconsider what you post on this subject my friend, OK?
 
rchap36 said:
So how do we change the list????????????????????
Click to expand...

Do you mean the EOPS list, or the AG requirements? There's some evidence that the AG requirements could be effectively destroyed by all the dealers simply ignoring them. Not many want to be the first to try it, however there are at least a few out there that have shown that the AG doesn't seem to want the requirements to get their day in court.
 
LenS said:
You and I have had this disagreement for a long time now.
Click to expand...

And we've discussed it enough in the past that we don't need to rehash all the legal arguments again. The simple fact is that the AG would be within their legal right to take the gun. Considering the fact that they have in past asked dealers to take the guns back from people, I don't find it terribly hard to see them going after the cosnumers directly. I think the only reason they didn't in those cases (like the Bass Pro incident) was that most of the consumers complied and returned the guns at the dealer's request, so going after the few others left wasn't worth the money.

I certainly respect your opinion, Len, and I'm glad that people here are able to see both arguments. But I don't see what I'm doing is a 'fear bomb', as you put it. If somebody is terrified of having the gun taken away and then having to recoup their money from the dealer, then they must not have any serious problems to worry about.
 
I just don't think that we need to scare the good folks on NES unnecessarily. Doing differently isn't much better than the S&W 22A incident where allegedly a shop instilled fear in some poor hapless owner that they would get arrested/prosecuted/jailed/etc. for buying a gun that they (and the alleged seller) thought was approved (albeit this was the EOPS List that does have criminal penalties for the DEALER <ONLY>), but wasn't sold in the approved configuration.

The AG will never go after the "victim" as this would be political suicide and AGs are "political animals". It really is that simple.

Gun owners are scared and confused enough in MA without you and I contributing to it.
 
jdubois said:
I find your post offensive and against my civil rights. I have reported you to the moderators, and to local and Federal law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Wow...that was fast! There's allready a black heli...Hey! What are you guys going? Hey take your hands off....


Allright allright! I'm a Rabit I'm a Rabit!
 
jdubois said:
I don't find it terribly hard to see them going after the cosnumers directly.
Click to expand...

I do- it's two different ballgames. For starters, even when the AG tells the dealers to take the guns back, it's not as if the AG's office even gets those firearms, the AG's office just wants them "unsold" as part of their little civil blackmail agreement with the dealer. If they really had the authority to take guns, they'd probably also be able to shut the dealer down and seize the dealer's entire inventory for "examination" among other things. IMHO the AG would be doing exactly that if they were able to get away
with it...

If the AG REALLY had legal authority to get these guns back, don't you think that they'd simply demand to see the FA-10s, then send out nasty sounding letters to the owners/buyers, and effect a return? They don't have the authority to do this, it's literally that simple. Even when they were able to get FA-10 info from EOPS/CHSB, they were basically told to pound sand and only given info with the buyer name/address redacted. (Not sure if this is still the case now, but that's what the deal was a few years ago, at least under Herr Reilly.)

-Mike
 
Last edited:
LenS said:
- AG's Regs are under CONSUMER PROTECTION - justified as a way to PROTECT the CONSUMER from "unscrupulous acts" and Dealers plying SUB-STANDARD PRODUCT on unwary buyers!

- Now if a DEALER violates these AG Consumer Protection Regs, going after the dealer makes a great snews story on how the AG is PROTECTING YOU AND I!

- Now if the AG goes after the CONSUMER (VICTIM of unscrupulous act) and CONFISCATES the product . . . WHO HAS HARMED THE CONSUMER? The consumer has <allegedly> been taken advantage of by the unscrupulous dealer and to "PROTECT HIM/HER", the AG has now CONFISCATED and FURTHER HARMED the VICTIM financially??
Click to expand...

The AG is ONLY going to get involved IF the consumer complains about the dealer. I really doubt THAT would happen. SO the "list" is a joke.
 
Wow - I learned a lot from this... so it sounds like dealers have to follow stricter guidlines - for instance, Jane Doe purchases the glock from Bob who recently moved to MA from Nevada and had legally transferred the gun into the state when he moved - that would be a legal transaction?
 
ratdog said:
Wow - I learned a lot from this... so it sounds like dealers have to follow stricter guidlines - for instance, Jane Doe purchases the glock from Bob who recently moved to MA from Nevada and had legally transferred the gun into the state when he moved - that would be a legal transaction?
Click to expand...

Yes, assuming that both are appropriately licensed (valid LTC-A) and the FA-10
gets filled out correctly, it'd be legal...

-Mike
 
Kicker96FS said:
The AG is ONLY going to get involved IF the consumer complains about the dealer. I really doubt THAT would happen. SO the "list" is a joke.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong answer. The AG's office has stung several dealers over CMR 940 crap. In one case not so long ago, the AG hit bass pro shops for selling new glocks, some fat rat bastard dealer ratted them out to the AG's office. Back when Reilly was the AG, he also tried to whack at least 2 or 3 prominent gun stores in MA for "compliance
violations".

BPS Thread:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=27028

-Mike
 

Similar threads

Private Sale Question for 2024
Replies
5
Views
131
MAJoe
M
Is the HK USP .45 legal in MA?
Replies
16
Views
447
drgrant
drgrant
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
442
67ray
67ray
C&R firearm to 01 dealer question
Replies
9
Views
438
MAJoe
M
New to MA
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
Back
Top Bottom