Glock question

[Executive]

Let's say someone bought a Glock in MA in May or June of 2004 during that short window when they were thought to be in compliance with the AG regulations. Let's also say that that individual chose (legally, I think) not to return the Glock as requested, when the AG ruled that Glocks did not, in fact comply with the double secret requirements. Can this firearm be transferred via an FFL legally or must any transfer be done via FA-10?

 

[szaino]

Questions like yours always beckon assumptions which are not included in the question. Below is a true statement relative to your question:

If the owner resides in Mass and has a LTC-A, he may transfer (sell) the Glock to another Mass resident with a LTC-A as a private sale. The seller must file the completed FA10 form with the state within 7 days.

No dealer is necessary for this transaction.

 

[drgrant]

It typically has to go on an FA-10 privately (to another LTC-A holder)
unless you find a dealer that simply doesn't care and is willing to transfer
it anyways. (doubtful, but there are still a few out there that probably
quietly thumb their nose at the AG) Remember that in the case of
the AG/EOPS crap, if a dealer sells/transfers you a gun that is non compliant,
there is no skin off you, or the buyer's back. It's the dealers responsibility
to deal with handgun "compliance" and it doesn't extend in any way/shape/form
to the consumer or "non dealer" seller.

-Mike

 

[vellnueve]

Short answer is that you will have to do a private sale. However there are FFLs in the state who will do the transfer, according to at least one guy when the AG tried to land on a particular dealer he fought back and quietly won.

 

[Executive]

I know the rules regarding private transfers. What I am asking is, if the firearm was originally sold as new by a "purveyor of firearms", is it now able to be transferred by a FFL in MA? I am fully aware that I may transfer the firearm via FA-10 irrespective of its appearance on any EOPS list or AG secret criteria.

 

[Lugnut]

The AG "rules" re Glocks apply to sellers only.. not buyers. Buyers can buy Glocks since they are on the roster. NO selllers in MA- ie can sell or transfer to my knowledge... unless it's to a LEO.

 

[Executive]

OK Let me try this one more time. In May/June 2004, Glocks were sold by gunshops here in MA, under the assumption that they were compliant with the AG regulations. A disagreement between the AG and Glock resulted in Glocks being taken off the market in MA. Many were sold during this time, though Glock REQUESTED that the buyers return these firearms for a full refund. If someone chose NOT to return one of these guns, is it considered a compliant firearm since it WAS in fact sold by a "purveyor of firearms". I am fully aware that it can be sold via FA-10 personal transfer, so please do not explain that to me again. What I am asking is: is it permissible to do an FFL transfer on one of the Glocks that was sold during this time?

 

[vellnueve]

You are failing to grasp the point. The fact is that there is no clear answer. An FFL may choose to do the transfer if they wish to risk the AG's wrath, but strictly speaking these Glocks still fall under the same AG regulations as any brand new Glock would, regardless of their being used or legally sold previously. Therefore, most dealers will NOT do this transfer for you as transfers have a low profit margin and they don't want to risk huge fines and license revocations over it.

Againm, this firearm is subject to the same AG regulations about sales of noncompliant handguns as any other newly built Glock. Dealers may transfer at their own risk.

In short, you're not going to easily find an FFL who will do the transfer because it is just as against the AG regs as any sale of a post 98 non compliant firearm.

 

[vellnueve]

The AG "rules" re Glocks apply to sellers only.. not buyers. Buyers can buy Glocks since they are on the roster. NO selllers in MA- ie can sell or transfer to my knowledge... unless it's to a LEO.

And Lugnut, that is not true either. It only applies to MA licensed purveyors
of firearms (FFLs), not to private sellers. A private seller may sell any firearm that they legally possess to anyone possessing the proper license.

 

[Lugnut]

And Lugnut, that is not true either. It only applies to MA licensed purveyors
of firearms (FFLs), not to private sellers. A private seller may sell any firearm that they legally possess to anyone possessing the proper license.

Yes, in my haste I wasn't clear. Thanks for picking that up.

 

[szaino]

You can probaly find a local dealer that will do the transfer. Although if you can do a private transfer what is your insistance on having a dealer do it?

"Is it permissable ?" According to the AG regs, for an in state transfer the dealer should not do it, however, the AG regs are probably not enforceable. I know of a dealer that ignores the AG regs and will sell guns as long as they are on the state EOPS list.

He brought the AG to court over this a couple of years ago and won. According to him, when in court, The AG's office (representative) basically admitted that they couldn't enforce this.

 

[szaino]

The Glock(s) in question, (as we sit here today) are not in compliance with the AG regs.

As far as I know ( I am not an attorney like some others on this forum) from my exposure to a lot of the legal posts on this forum as well as looking at the AG regs:

The specific Glocks sold during the period you mentioned, are not given any differentiation or "grandfathering" by the AG.

As it is, the laws/regs are sufficiently confusing enough with out adding yet another bizarre twist of conforming AG 3rd gen glocks that are on a non-existant AG list to begin with.

 

[Len-2A Training]

He brought the AG to court over this a couple of years ago and won. According to him, when in court, The AG's office (representative) basically admitted that they couldn't enforce this.

I and thousands of others wish that the out-of-state mfrs also realized this!

If we are to believe what we read on the AG's website, he did get some court injunctions (definitely enforceable) against some mail-order houses. My suspicion is that they failed to show up in court, and thus lost by default (as opposed to the MA Dealer you reference who stood his ground and won on legal points).

[NB: When I serve legal papers as a Constable, some that I've served asked me "what if I ignore them?" My response is that the legal action goes forward and you will likely lose. If you defend yourself, it's the only chance you have of potentially winning. It applies here (MA gun laws) too!]

 

[FPrice]

Interesting question. Then this thread shows up:

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=15384

 

[MikeD]

He brought the AG to court over this a couple of years ago and won. According to him, when in court, The AG's office (representative) basically admitted that they couldn't enforce this.

If this is true, why aren't other dealers selling new Glocks? Or is this a case where each is judged on it's own? Does precedence rule here?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Precedence only occurs at the Appellate Court level. So you can get totally different results in different district courts (or different judges even in the same district).