FTF Transfers Being Rejected???

[FPrice]

Has anyone heard of any FTF transfers being returned for any sort of problems? Since State law accepts these, I cannot imagine any being returned except for really gross errors.

Don't know if this is "gun-range commando" talk or not, the source did not have any examples so I tend to doubt it but sometimes you never know.

 

[drgrant]

I've never heard of anyone ever getting back anything from CHSB.

I might guess that if you left parts of the form blank that were usually
filled in with a certain box checked, that they might send you something in the mail
saying "WTF?"

Course this is just a WAG on my part- based on that it would be pretty hard
to log a "transfer" if a big part of the buyer/seller info is missing, or the SN is
missing, etc. Kind of pointless to create a record in any database if key
pieces of info are missing.

-Mike

 

[Cross-X]

I have only had one FA 10 bounce, for failure to include the seller's (expired)LTC.

In my original filing, I had sent a letter explaining that the seller's LTC was expired, so that is why I had not included it on the form.

By return mail, the CHSB sent the form back along with a cordial letter asking me to provide the info even though the license was expired.

I did what they asked, returned the form, and haven't heard anything more about that transaction.

Don't believe every caustic myth you hear about the evil state agencies who exist solely to oppose us. Not all are true.

Darius Arbabi

 

[FPrice]

Don't believe every caustic myth you hear about the evil state agencies who exist solely to oppose us. Not all are true.

Well, since my previous experiences with the CHSB have been uniformly positive my impression of the CHSB is pretty good.

But when I hear something like this I revert to my Ronald Reagan mode. I trust, but I verify. (Actually I don't fully trust, that's why I verify.)

 

[Scrivener]

I have only had one FA 10 bounce, for failure to include the seller's (expired)LTC.

In my original filing, I had sent a letter explaining that the seller's LTC was expired, so that is why I had not included it on the form.

I'll bite - if the seller had no license, what authority did he/she have to even possess, still less sell, a gun?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Go get 'em Scriv! I was about to ask the same question.

I HAVE heard of "FA-10s" being returned, but can't verify the info.

In at least one case, someone submitted either a hand-written or typed "equivalent" (NOT on a real FA-10 form) and it was rejected. MGL does NOT mandate the FA-10 form, so a hen-scratched copy is actually "legal" but they obviously are scanning them in and such a written "form" would not be readable by the software.

 

[Cross-X]

I'll bite - if the seller had no license, what authority did he/she have to even possess, still less sell, a gun?

The seller had his LTC revoked (I know, I said expired, but the net result is the same, in that at the time of sale he had no LTC) due to a 209A domestic situation that ultimately led to a divorce. I picked up his gun a couple months later from the police department that had possession at the time.

The seller was still the owner, but he did not have possession of the firearm at the time of the sale.

 

[Scrivener]

The seller had his LTC revoked (I know, I said expired, but the net result is the same, in that at the time of sale he had no LTC) due to a 209A domestic situation that ultimately led to a divorce. I picked up his gun a couple months later from the police department that had possession at the time.

The seller was still the owner, but he did not have possession of the firearm at the time of the sale.

I'm surprised at CHSB taking it. An FA-10 for personal transfers requires authority on the part of the seller; either a firearms license or the executor/administrator of an estate. Someone with a revoked license is neither.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scriv, I thought (not 100% certain) that someone who was revoked/suspended was specifically authorized to transfer the guns from the PD to an individual or a dealer (I thought I saw this in Regs or Law). Thus, the FA-10 in this case was appropriate.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the bean-counters (CHSB) don't care if the person listed is live/dead/revoked/suspended, as long as they get a piece of paper filled in so that they can scan it.