-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Gun Transfer Dilemma
- Thread starter theGringo
- Start date
- Status
As stated in the OP, one pistol is not Mass compliant.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
I understand that most FFL's won't transfer a non-compliant one but if there is no transfer of ownership and the FFL is just receiving it is it still a no go? IDK which is why I mentioned that it might be a possibility.
I am always learning something new with nonsensical gun laws we have here.
Bob
Exactly, that suggestion does NOT meet FOPA, especially with recent court cases.
It is a TRANSFER and the FFL can't do it legally. The person who comes in to claim the goods has to do the 4473 and MIRCS (FA-10) and the MA Dealer is now in violation of state law (not AG Regs here) . . . ask Mike from Tite Group how that works!
![[sad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/004.gif "Sad [sad]")
dcmdon
NES Member
But its not a transfer if the person is just holding the firearms for the owner. At least not federally.
Len - does MA weigh in on this?
Lets say the following happens. Father and MA LTC holder meets son at the border and brings the firearms to his house. Where they go into a safe.
Where's the problem. If they do a FA10, and declare the guns, where is the problem? Doe s it have to do with the fact that the guns would be in the sons name and he doesn't have a LTC?
- - - Updated - - -
Who cares if there isn't a transfer done through a FFL.
- - - Updated - - -
It looks like this is the most purely legal option.
Len - does MA weigh in on this?
Lets say the following happens. Father and MA LTC holder meets son at the border and brings the firearms to his house. Where they go into a safe.
Where's the problem. If they do a FA10, and declare the guns, where is the problem? Doe s it have to do with the fact that the guns would be in the sons name and he doesn't have a LTC?
- - - Updated - - -
Who cares if there isn't a transfer done through a FFL.
- - - Updated - - -
It looks like this is the most purely legal option.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
It is a TRANSFER and the FFL can't do it legally. The person who comes in to claim the goods has to do the 4473 and MIRCS (FA-10) and the MA Dealer is now in violation of state law (not AG Regs here) . . . ask Mike from Tite Group how that works!
I understand now and appreciate you taking the time to explain it. My brothers guns were outbound so non-compliance wasn't an issue.
Bob
If the MA Dealer hands them over to another person, an eFA-10 (MIRCS) must be done and as far as MA is concerned, that IS a TRANSFER of ownership. There is no other way to do an FA-10/eFA-10 for "holding for another person". MA Dealer per C. 140 S. 123 is PROHIBITED from doing said transfer if the gun isn't on the EOPS List or grandfathered (proof it was in MA on or before 10/21/1998 in hands of a licensed MA person).
OK. I don't know how to quote, multiquote or whateverthe****evah.
So, with respect to "Who cares if there isn't a transfer done through a FFL.", I was replying to a suggestion that I do an FFL transfer. With respect to "It looks like this is the most purely legal option.", how the **** did New Hampshire figure into this?
**** it.
So riddle me this, Batman. Is it true that FOPA only protects someone traveling for purpose of hunting or other sporting purpose? So, Dan would need to, hypothetically produce a hunting license or some document indicating participation is a sporting event in VT, if traveling from KY to VT?
I haven't seen that purpose restriction mentioned anywhere else. FOPA covers travel between two points that the transporter can legally possess firearms. KY to VT in one shot with no significant stops will work.
****, **** and double **** this ****ing country and state. If we don't up and start using our ****ing guns for the purpose the founders intended then we are ****ed, and we are ****ing limpwristed goo-garglers. When the **** does the revolution start? I am one machete-hungry mutha****er.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but as long as the guns are not illegal in MA like free state AR's, the OP could meet him in Vt (yeah NH or RI too but he's in Western MA so that's why VT came up in the first place), then borrow them and bring them back to MA. As long as he isn't going to carry the guns, he can borrow across state lines for sporting purposes (i.e. target or hunting). No FFL involved, no safe deposit box and the costs or restrictions a place may have for firearms, etc.
Just meet in VT, borrow them and bring them back to MA. Simple and no cost. As DrGrant mentions, there are many ways you could deal with this situation but adding in FFL's, transfers, etc. are adding layers and costs. Keep it simple and move on.
Last edited:
Len, do you have anything to support your interpretation of 131G besides Jason Guida personal opinion? Has GOAL or Comm 2A or any other authoritative body published their agreement with his interpretation (GOAL still has their "Travel Information" page up with the longstanding interpretation)? Has any representative of the Commonwealth weighted in on this matter? Has Guida himself published his opinion on the subject anywhere?
I understand that you spend a lot of time studying this material, but for everyone reading this website (including the hundreds of competitors who come to Massachusetts for sanctioned NRA, IDPA, USPSA and other national competitions), I think we deserve more than one man's report of an attorney's opinion.
I understand that you spend a lot of time studying this material, but for everyone reading this website (including the hundreds of competitors who come to Massachusetts for sanctioned NRA, IDPA, USPSA and other national competitions), I think we deserve more than one man's report of an attorney's opinion.
Chris,
GOAL is clueless. They obviously aren't bothering to question anything that they published many years ago.
Read 131G with an eye to the following:
The "or" before the drug issue grammatically refers back to the beginning of the sentence. In other words, a visitor MUST possess a license from some other gov't agency which would NEVER issue to anyone convicted of any drug use/possession regardless of whether it happened when they were juveniles or 50 years ago.
Jason claimed that NO other state meets this requirement. I have NH, ME, PA and FL NR permits and every one of those states have a finite "look back period" (3-7 years, each state is different) that once past will forgive an old drug use conviction. I haven't and won't bother to check the other 45 states' laws to see if there is one that might meet this requirement, I took Jason's word for it that no other state is as strict and backwards as MA.
If you send a written request to Elisabeth Ryan, Deputy General Counsel for EOPS I'm sure that she'll be happy to provide documentation from the state on this interpretation.
---------------------
In the past ALL of us interpreted this (wrongly) that as long as the PERSON was never convicted, all was good for the exemption of competition. Ask an English teacher to parse that paragraph and you'll get the proper result.
Glock stopped all their GSSF matches in MA after 1998 . . . I suspect that they read and understood that law properly and wisely decided not to poke the bear. Other groups never bothered to do any research and proceed as if nothing changed. Good until someone gets jacked up and it gets the proper publicity.
GOAL is clueless. They obviously aren't bothering to question anything that they published many years ago.
Read 131G with an eye to the following:
The "or" before the drug issue grammatically refers back to the beginning of the sentence. In other words, a visitor MUST possess a license from some other gov't agency which would NEVER issue to anyone convicted of any drug use/possession regardless of whether it happened when they were juveniles or 50 years ago.
Jason claimed that NO other state meets this requirement. I have NH, ME, PA and FL NR permits and every one of those states have a finite "look back period" (3-7 years, each state is different) that once past will forgive an old drug use conviction. I haven't and won't bother to check the other 45 states' laws to see if there is one that might meet this requirement, I took Jason's word for it that no other state is as strict and backwards as MA.
If you send a written request to Elisabeth Ryan, Deputy General Counsel for EOPS I'm sure that she'll be happy to provide documentation from the state on this interpretation.
---------------------
In the past ALL of us interpreted this (wrongly) that as long as the PERSON was never convicted, all was good for the exemption of competition. Ask an English teacher to parse that paragraph and you'll get the proper result.
Glock stopped all their GSSF matches in MA after 1998 . . . I suspect that they read and understood that law properly and wisely decided not to poke the bear. Other groups never bothered to do any research and proceed as if nothing changed. Good until someone gets jacked up and it gets the proper publicity.
JGreen
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,887
- Likes
- 702
"If you send a written request to Elisabeth Ryan, Deputy General Counsel for EOPS I'm sure that she'll be happy to provide documentation from the state on this interpretation."
And here lies the problem, EOPS doesn't have the authority to interpret law. What does the Chief say Len?
And here lies the problem, EOPS doesn't have the authority to interpret law. What does the Chief say Len?
Look Len, I'm not going to get in the middle of a pissing match between you and GOAL. But if this is one man's interpretation (as it appears to be) than you should represent it as such, even if it's one that you happen to (strongly) agree with.
Try learning English grammar and read it for yourself!
The problem is that Guida isn't wrong. A strict reading of the law proves it. On the ground, however, good luck to the state trying to get a jury to hang someone on this. A "reasonable person" would not be easily convinced that a commoner reading the law would really be aware of that caveat; and while "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" the problem is that a reasonable person would be led to believe that the exemption applies to them; The odds of someone getting charged for, never mind prosecuted by virtue of that "reverse loophole" are virtually zero. IMO this legal problem almost falls into the same pit of vagueness that exists with things like the tube fed shotgun capacity issue.
-Mike
Well, ****. I'm not in America anymore. I have a Utah non-resident permit and a Mass LTC. As such, I'm legal in both states. And the guns are legal, for me to possess, in both states, even the non-Mass-compliant one.
I'll drive to KY and get the ****ing guns. If someone has to do 20 years for gun-running, it'll be me and not my Top Secrety Army Career Man son.
Hell, that's what Dad's are for, and if some punk state trooper busts my balls, I'll put a cap in his ass.
Is that about it for THIS thread, boys?
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, just kidding about that "cap in his ass" thing. I joke!
I'll drive to KY and get the ****ing guns. If someone has to do 20 years for gun-running, it'll be me and not my Top Secrety Army Career Man son.
Hell, that's what Dad's are for, and if some punk state trooper busts my balls, I'll put a cap in his ass.
Is that about it for THIS thread, boys?
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, just kidding about that "cap in his ass" thing. I joke!
- Status
Similar threads
