EC1
NES Member
Was this a transfer from the FFL to a MA resident or from MA resident to MA resident with the FFL doing the transfer?
-
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***
Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers
- Thread starter CAR
- Start date
- Status
Was this a transfer from the FFL to a MA resident or from MA resident to MA resident with the FFL doing the transfer?
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
No such thing. It's either a FTF or a FFL transfer. Jack.
EC1
NES Member
No such thing as what?
bfm
NES Member
What ain't no country I ever heard of.
they speak English in what?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
bfm
NES Member
If the FFL was transferring something from their own stock or doing a transfer between customers I am not sure would make a difference in how the report would be filed as far as a search on weapons type in the transfer system cares.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
Correct, both look the same in the system.
--------------------------
If she's hanging her hat on C. 93A, consumer protection, going after consumers (FTF) might backfire on her. Likely she's sticking to threatening dealers at this point. Once she gets a MA or Fed Court to agree with her that they are all banned and felonies, she's likely to go after both FTF and FFL transfers. But that case will likely take a year or two to reach that verdict.
EC1
NES Member
I get that, but the question is if the FFL either had the rifle in stock or received the rifle from another dealer or out of state dealer/owner and made the transfer to a MA resident or he acted as the agent for two MA residents making the transfer. If the later, it suggests that the AGO is going to prohibit transfer of post ban AR/AK etc even if they were owned before the 7/19/2016 arbitrary date.
DarthRevan
NES Member
Meaning they have an open case they're investigating? Some one must have already been charged unless the AG office has greater powers than other LE agencies when it comes to information access.
Are you sure?
GlockJock
NES Member
If you were in law enforcement and had two options after roll call, which would you choose:
Option A) Lock, load, ballistic helmet/armor/etc, battering ram, shield, hop in the humvee with the crew, park in front of the projects, walk up to the door with ten of your coworkers beside you, two or three of whom may not be on the same train home with you after work, depending on how "agitated" and ____ infused (fill in the amphetamine or opioid of your choice) Homey may get when told to "get on the ground! NOW!!...
or
Option B) Ask the hot (in cop terms anyways) female detective to ride with you to the quiet cul-de-sac in the mean streets of North Andover or Cohasset, where you park in the driveway of the immaculately landscaped split-level ranch, ring the doorbell and ask the cute housewife "Good afternoon, ma'am....State Police.. Would your husband be home?" as she turns to the wailing two year old, says "it's OK honey, it's OK..." and yells to her older daughter "Ashley, go get your dad and tell him to come up from his workbench in the garage...We have visitors...."
Seems a no-brainer choice (especially when your paycheck is gonna read exactly the same next Friday whether you pop Homey or Hubby today and drag em in for fingerprinting)....
Just sayin'
GlockJock
NES Member
Mike S
NES Member
My reading on what Michaela said is that they have access to the records at their whim and frequently check them.
That's an interesting question.
From DCJIS
The following is an excerpt from the Massachusetts Public Records law (M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)) regarding firearms license and ownership information:
The commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services, the department of criminal justice information services and its agents, servants, and
attorneys including the keeper of the records of the firearms records bureau of said department, or any licensing authority, as defined by chapter one hundred and forty
shall not disclose any records divulging or tending to divulge the names and addresses of persons who own or possess firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns
and ammunition therefore, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and names and addresses of persons licensed to carry and/or possess the same to any
person, firm, corporation, entity or agency except criminal justice agencies as defined in chapter six and except to the extent such information relates solely to the
person making the request and is necessary to the official interests of the entity making the request.
Therefore, based upon state law as cited above, the DCJIS will not disclose the names and addresses of those who possess firearms licenses or firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, or ammunition to ANY individual or entity. The only exception to this policy is that such information will be disclosed to law enforcement and criminal justice organizations and personnel when that data is sought for legitimate criminal justice purposes.
Jesus. That's like a hospital giving police full access to the medical record because there's an LE provision in HIPAA.
DarthRevan
NES Member
Okay so, what's a legitimate purpose?
Is there life on other planets?
Does God exist?
See where I'm going yet?
GlockJock
NES Member
- Whatever the hell she wants it to be
- Ask her - she's been to several
- Judging by what I've seen from the Brazilian Women's Beach Volleyball competition, YESSSSSSSS!!!
- Absolutely head-slamming-against-the wall Nucking Futs... (just like the rest of us are, so you'll have plenty of company..)
+1
Not disagreeing with you. And, I understand where you are going with this. It would be interesting if they are overstepping their authority once again. Just posting what DCJIS claims.
But, ya. Is this a legitimate use? Don't know. Clearly in their mind anything they cook-up is legitimate...
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
So that Ingsoc can make sure that the proles are obeying it's authority.
Mass-diver
NES Member
As expected, they are going to continue to push the issue. Clearly they afraid of a court case and are just looking for the right one.
426wedge
NES Member
Please tell me I am not the only one who's head is spinning. It must be part of the plot.....
What are the "criminal justice agencies as defined in chapter six"?
What's disturbing to me is that it appears that the AG's office isn't investigating an individual or solitary business relative to an investigation
of a reported crime, rather they're going through the database in search of a crime, and in the process are accessing the records of uninvolved individuals.
Sure... any PD can request the firearms ownership history of an individual based on certain criteria (have been arrested, has an RO, etc),but can a department
request the ownership records of all LTC/FID holders within it's community?
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Ingsoc ! Nice !
DarthRevan
NES Member
Maybe if they're going after the low hanging fruit for possible possession... Idk, clearly this whole thing is shite.
inerlogic
NES Member
.22 GTG, good, so my 5.56NATO AR is exempt..... but that .300AAC has to go, ok...
*off to go print up the latest version of the FAQ before it changes again*
*off to go print up the latest version of the FAQ before it changes again*
Chapter Six (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter6/Section167) defines:
''Criminal justice agencies'', those agencies at all levels of government which perform as their principal function, activities relating to (a) crime prevention, including research or the sponsorship of research; (b) the apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, incarceration, or rehabilitation of criminal offenders; or (c) the collection, storage, dissemination or usage of criminal offender record information.
I've been told that the AG is the "chief law enforcement officer" in the Commiewealth. Given that, she'd have unfettered access to the database. And since she is looking for "Crimes" according to her mis-interpretation of law, she can justify access to the entire database.
From her pronouncements, it appears that this is the case, daily.
IIRC, when the AG went after some (~10) dealers (including FS) for allegedly selling non-AG compliant handguns many years ago, I was told by FRB that they redacted the buyer info and only provided gun and dealer info to the AG. [For the record, all said guns sold by FS were to LEOs and thus exempt from the AG non-list. This motivated me to request Glidden to see if they (GCAB & FRB) could put a check-block on the old FA-10 form for LE transaction to avoid those witch-hunts. It never happened. This is why FS is the most conservative dealer in MA, it cost him $$$$ legal fees to prove his innocence and Carl has no desire for a repeat encounter.] ETA: It appears that that access has changed from requesting data from FRB which they sanitized to either direct access by the AG or being given all the data requested without protecting the buyers.
Last edited:
MachineHead
NES Member
Here's hoping that a hacker can find some dirt on the Queen.
In case it isn't clear to anyone yet. Don't register anything you don't have to.
- Status
Similar threads
