Illegal Data Release Massachusetts

[Mesatchornug]

And yet here we are.

Is a "transaction registry" that can be used against you like an in-fact registry can be used against you really a different thing in practical terms?

bringing us back to his closing comment

[...] either willful ignorance or malicious intent.

 

[EJFudd]

I guess I don't see the point of making the database larger. In the best case scenario they have record of something you should have record of yourself. In the more likely case it's inaccurate, non-useful, and inadmissible anyway, unless it's to be used against you. Honest question: what's the benefit?

Respectfully, I'm not trusting the gubmint to keep a record I would need to get myself out of trouble. But that's just me.

Hey, if you want the FRB database to show you still owning a bunch of guns that you sold off months or years ago, that's fine. By my guest. Hell, don't even report the transfers to other LTC holders or to in-state dealers. I don't care what you or others do.

 

[Goliathan]

Hey, if you want the FRB database to show you still owning a bunch of guns that you sold off months or years ago, that's fine. By my guest. Hell, don't even report the transfers to other LTC holders or to in-state dealers. I don't care.

Nah, my point is I couldn't care less what they think they have. I'll keep my own transaction records without counting on .gov to have them when I need them. There is no plausible scenario in which the state wishes to jam me up, where state record-keeping as shoddy as this will be of any help to me.

Remember they keep repeating the mantra that it's "only" a mostly self-reporting record of transactions, thereby absolving themselves of any responsibility for the accuracy of the system. In other words, be prepared for that record of your out of state transfer to not be "good enough" when the time comes.

Naturally, I'd be happier if the system (and the bureaucracy behind it) didn't exist at all, so my natural inclination is to not give them any more power than they already claim for themselves.

 

[EJFudd]

Nah, my point is I couldn't care less what they think they have. I'll keep my own transaction records without counting on them to have them when I need them. There is no plausible scenario in which the state wishes to jam me up, where state record-keeping as shoddy as this will be of any help to me.

Remember they keep repeating the mantra that it's "only" a mostly self-reporting record of transactions, thereby absolving themselves of any responsibility for the accuracy of the system.

Naturally, I'd be happier if the system (and the bureaucracy behind it) didn't exist at all, so my natural inclination is to not give them any more power than they already claim for themselves.

I think we would all be happier if the registration system & bureaucracy behind it didn't exist. On that point we agree.

The problem is that it does exist... so I guess you can ignore it and take your chances... or you can try to live with it and take your chances. Damned if you do and damned if you don't here in Massachusetts.

But I'm talking about one small "bug" in the portal that I would like to see fixed. No more, no less. Don't read more into it than I'm saying.

 

[Broc]

.

It’s far more accurate than calling it registration. It is just the recording of a transfer and nothing more. All the state ever knows is what was sold/transferred to you at a given point in time. They never can and never will know what you actually have. You can have nothing that was previously transferred to you and lawfully have 100 guns the state has no clue about.

The fact that they think the database has a relation to what you actually possess is either willful ignorance or malicious intent.

So why do they make it mandatory to "register" when we build a gun?

 

[M125X]

Hey, if you want the FRB database to show you still owning a bunch of guns that you sold off months or years ago, that's fine. By my guest. Hell, don't even report the transfers to other LTC holders or to in-state dealers. I don't care what you or others do.

If it is wrong about one you can claim it is wrong about all. The more inaccuracies the better IMO.

 

[drgrant]

Hey, if you want the FRB database to show you still owning a bunch of guns that you sold off months or years ago, that's fine. By my guest.

You don't get it

ITS ALWAYS GOING TO SAY THAT

Even when you sell to other MA dealers (or even an EFA10 FTF for that matter!) IT STILL SHOWS YOU AS OWNING THAT GUN. Period. Yes, it can be demarcated by another transfer out, but there are still problems with that:

-The original entry or event is never removed - the event where you acquired the gun!
-You still have to hope or assume that the kopsch or whoever it is that is leering at your records recognizes that the later transfer actually happened. Or be able to correlate the two events.
-You will still likely have to explain that, and point it out to authorities if challenged for whatever stupid reason.
-CJIS is not going to provide them with a sanitized list that has the sold guns removed from it.

 

[namedpipes]

You don't get it

ITS ALWAYS GOING TO SAY THAT

Even when you sell to other MA dealers (or even an EFA10 FTF for that matter!) IT STILL SHOWS YOU AS OWNING THAT GUN. Period. Yes, it can be demarcated by another transfer out, but there are still problems with that:

-The original entry or event is never removed - the event where you acquired the gun!
-You still have to hope or assume that the kopsch or whoever it is that is leering at your records recognizes that the later transfer actually happened. Or be able to correlate the two events.
-You will still likely have to explain that, and point it out to authorities if challenged for whatever stupid reason.
-CJIS is not going to provide them with a sanitized list that has the sold guns removed from it.

Well I for one have no faith in this EFA10 system and I resolve here and now that I will NEVER file another EFA10 so long as I live. It doesn't matter HOW many guns I buy or sell! SCREW 'EM!

 

[EJFudd]

You don't get it

ITS ALWAYS GOING TO SAY THAT

Even when you sell to other MA dealers (or even an EFA10 FTF for that matter!) IT STILL SHOWS YOU AS OWNING THAT GUN. Period. Yes, it can be demarcated by another transfer out, but there are still problems with that:

-The original entry or event is never removed - the event where you acquired the gun!
-You still have to hope or assume that the kopsch or whoever it is that is leering at your records recognizes that the later transfer actually happened. Or be able to correlate the two events.
-You will still likely have to explain that, and point it out to authorities if challenged for whatever stupid reason.
-CJIS is not going to provide them with a sanitized list that has the sold guns removed from it.

And I am totally fine with that. I am supposed to be all upset that the legal transfer to me doesn't ever get deleted? Nope... not at all.
For better or worse, the system was set-up to record and keep all transfers... and as long as the legal transfer away from me is recorded, I am totally good with that.

But (once again) we still have to back up to my original point... and that was re: transfers to out-of-state FFLs. All I am saying is to please give us the ability to record transfers to out-of-state FFLs just like we record transfers to in-state FFLs and transfers to other MA LTC holders.

What the Hell is so hard to understand about that???

 

[tbk5]

If I still lived in MA, I most certainly would never voluntarily file anything in it ever again.

 

[Goliathan]

What the Hell is so hard to understand about that???

I understand what you want just fine, I just don't see the benefit.

I don't pretend to understand how the black magic of the system currently "works," but I wonder if it has something to do with the data recording being geared toward licensed people... Massachusetts licenses, that is, be they FFL/MA dealer license or private citizen. Maybe it's not so easy to tie a record to someone not licensed in the PRM.

Or maybe they don't care enough to make the changes. The system has always been philosophically geared toward making life harder for MA gun owners, not providing a service to them.

Then again, if I was an out of state FFL I might think long and hard about wanting to be under some other state's microscope and subject to their systemic incompetency, instead of just the fed's. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You must think I was born yesterday. Too funny! Thank you for the education on how the FRB database works.

I am not asking for or expecting that a legit transfer record will be removed. I am asking for a new transfer record that shows the gun is no longer in my possession. You can do that for a personal transfer or a MA dealer transfer, but you cannot do that for a transfer to an out-of-state dealer. Why?

Why?

Because both parties MUST have a MA license, either LTC or MA Dealer License #.

So you want MA Govt to FORCE all non-MA FFLs to get licensed in MA so you can feel good when you sell a gun to a non-MA dealer!!!

 

[drgrant]

And I am totally fine with that. I am supposed to be all upset that the legal transfer to me doesn't ever get deleted? Nope... not at all.

You still don't get it. If a cop sees a list of guns you have, that gun is NEVER going to disappear from the list. By default, they will assume you still own that firearm, Even if it was transferred out long ago. The data has to be cleaned up in order for that 2nd (disposal) event to be exposed. It's not like CJIS has code which would say "oh we should list this immediately after that". and I think by default if a PD runs a check on someone, its only flagging acquisitions anyways, it's possibly not going to report the full extended history of all your firearms transfers, at least not based on your UserID as the system thinks of it.

For better or worse, the system was set-up to record and keep all transfers... and as long as the legal transfer away from me is recorded, I am totally good with that.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCsVOO_3EUU


NO, IT WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOT! The law doesn't even require that level of reporting, it's a lot less than that. And no dealer that has to pay
bills is going to do anything more than the state minimum compliance on that front.

But (once again) we still have to back up to my original point... and that was re: transfers to out-of-state FFLs. All I am saying is to please give us the ability to record transfers to out-of-state FFLs just like we record transfers to in-state FFLs and transfers to other MA LTC holders.

What the Hell is so hard to understand about that???

Why would it do any good? MIRCS has no way of easily validating an out of state dealer. You could literally TYPE ANYTHING in there. no LE agency is going to take
that on faith, that you sold a gun to Jim Bob Durex's gun Emporium, in Intercourse PA on the 4th of July last year. They have no way of validating it, at least not without some
digging.

I get it, it makes you feel good, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a terminally stupid/pointless idea.

Also, nobody ever uses mircs to record a transfer to even another MA dealer. The state "says" you should do it, but lets be honest here, NOBODY f***ing does it. No gun shop will ever tell you or suggest to do it. So it's obviously irrelevant.

"Let's invite more government into my life becuz it makes me feel safe and warmy" said nobody, ever.

 

[EJFudd]

I understand what you want just fine, I just don't see the benefit.

There may be no benefit for you. You may even want guns showing as still owned by you in the FRB database after they are gone. Different strokes for different folks as they say. But in my case, once they are gone, I want the FRB database to show that I don't own them any longer regardless of whether they went to another LTC holder, an in-state dealer or an out of state dealer. Call it a quirk of mine if you must.

I don't pretend to understand how the black magic of the system currently "works," but I wonder if it has something to do with the data recording being geared toward licensed people... Massachusetts licenses, that is, be they FFL/MA dealer license or private citizen. Maybe it's not so easy to tie a record to someone not licensed in the PRM.

Now you are onto something. You are correct. If/when a gun leaves the state permanently, the state apparently loses all interest in it.

Or maybe they don't care enough to make the changes. The system has always been philosophically geared toward making life harder for MA gun owners, not providing a service to them.

True be that.

Then again, if I was an out of state FFL I might think long and hard about wanting to be under some other state's microscope and subject to their systemic incompetency, instead of just the fed's. Thanks but no thanks.

I suppose it's possible. Anything is possible.

 

[EJFudd]

Why?

Because both parties MUST have a MA license, either LTC or MA Dealer License #.

The portal form does not currently have an option for recording a transfer to an out-of-state dealer. Do you really believe it would be impossible for the FRB to add that option to the portal? If so, I'd like to know why.

So you want MA Govt to FORCE all non-MA FFLs to get licensed in MA so you can feel good when you sell a gun to a non-MA dealer!!!

Oh, Len. Dear God. Not you too? Please. I mean... really???

 

[drgrant]

There may be no benefit for you. You may even want guns showing as still owned by you in the FRB database after they are gone. Different strokes for different folks as they say. But in my case, once they are gone, I want the FRB database to show that I don't own them any longer regardless of whether they went to another LTC holder, an in-state dealer or an out of state dealer. Call it a quirk of mine if you must.

Ok Beatrice


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq_1l316ow8



That's not how it works now, nor how it will ever work.

 

[Mesatchornug]

The portal form does not currently have an option for recording a transfer to an out-of-state dealer. Do you really believe it would be impossible for the FRB to add that option to the portal? If so, I'd like to know why.

Oh, Len. Dear God. Not you too? Please. I mean... really???

When filling an eFA10, the recipient must have a valid MA license. If they do away with that requirement, they make it trivial to fill the database with transfers to fake people. That opens a huge vector for attack on the database.

That alone makes your idea untenable.

 

[namedpipes]

When filling an eFA10, the recipient must have a valid MA license. If they do away with that requirement, they make it trivial to fill the database with transfers to fake people. That opens a huge vector for attack on the database.

That alone makes your idea fantastic.

FIFY

I want their database to be completely, utterly useless for any purpose at all.

 

[drgrant]

When filling an eFA10, the recipient must have a valid MA license. If they do away with that requirement, they make it trivial to fill the database with transfers to fake people. That opens a huge vector for attack on the database.

That alone makes your idea untenable.

Ostensibly he's just talking about MA gun owners ratting themselves out about some business they carried out out of state though, that would really moot that
somewhat, it would require the "seller" to log in at least. Regardless, the system isn't really set up to accomodate that in any way shape or form. Not to mention the
law does not support maintaining data integrity in any way. @EJFudd's false dream of protection ends when a dealer just logs his gun that he just bought from him into the books and the entire transaction never generates another FA-10 ever again.

 

[drgrant]

FIFY

I want their database to be completely, utterly useless for any purpose at all.

Yes, but to get there you'd have to have someone write a program, and a few thousand people would have to stick their necks out a bit to
do it... contaminate the data with enough real looking but fake crap that the whole system loses credibility in a court of law wrt "gun registration" ...

 

[Mesatchornug]

Ostensibly he's just talking about MA gun owners ratting themselves out about some business they carried out out of state though, that would really moot that
somewhat, it would require the "seller" to log in at least. Regardless, the system isn't really set up to accomodate that in any way shape or form. Not to mention the
law does not support maintaining data integrity in any way. @EJFudd's false dream of protection ends when a dealer just logs his gun that he just bought from him into the books and the entire transaction never generates another FA-10 ever again.

No, I understand that. But without a recipient ID, there's no reason to believe it's real. Short of confirming the buyer's FFL info, there's no way for that to work.

The state wouldn't accept that.

 

[drgrant]

No, I understand that. But without a recipient ID, there's no reason to believe it's real. Short of confirming the buyer's FFL info, there's no way for that to work.

The state wouldn't accept that.

yes, I kinda brought this up earlier.... like whats the point of writing in a dealer if you can just make it up on the fly?

 

[drgrant]

FIFY

I want their database to be completely, utterly useless for any purpose at all.

A funny dream is going to bed one night, some bored guy from some country weve never heard of haxors them, and then inside of like 6 months somehow every gun owner in MA has like 20,000 new guns registered to them, but because the problem went on for so long, they have no way of identifying which transactions are fake and which are real... basically invalidating the "Sanctity" of the system a being completely bogus.

Even a liberal MA judge would then at that point shit on the system when the police have to bring up a ream of paper to talk about the accused's gun collection. A local school janitor will be brought into court and will just get to laugh his ass off at the fact that the state thinks the he owns like 10,000 guns.

 

[namedpipes]

Yes, but to get there you'd have to have someone write a program, and a few thousand people would have to stick their necks out a bit to
do it... contaminate the data with enough real looking but fake crap that the whole system loses credibility in a court of law wrt "gun registration" ...

You probably know that it is pretty easy to purchase a cyber attack. These days you don't even have to be a hacker, just be able to pay one with bitcoin.

I wouldn't stick MY head out that far, but someone with deeper pockets and a mean streak could solicit millions of transactions to creep in with enough time distribution it wouldn't be clear which were fake. With or without them introducing any (new) flaws.

 

[namedpipes]

A funny dream is going to bed one night, some bored guy from some country weve never heard of haxors them, and then inside of like 6 months somehow every gun owner in MA has like 20,000 new guns registered to them, but because the problem went on for so long, they have no way of identifying which transactions are fake and which are real... basically invalidating the "Sanctity" of the system a being completely bogus.

Even a liberal MA judge would then at that point shit on the system when the police have to bring up a ream of paper to talk about the accused's gun collection. A local school janitor will be brought into court and will just get to laugh his ass off at the fact that the state thinks the he owns like 10,000 guns.

You probably know that it is pretty easy to purchase a cyber attack. These days you don't even have to be a hacker, just be able to pay one with bitcoin.

I wouldn't stick MY head out that far, but someone with deeper pockets and a mean streak could solicit millions of transactions to creep in with enough time distribution it wouldn't be clear which were fake. With or without them introducing any (new) flaws.

 

[OnTheRoad]

Why any firearms owner would think that an accurate and reliable government maintained database of who owns what is a good thing is totally beyond my ability to comprehend. Tighten the chains and lick the hand of your masters. There is ONE reason and ONE reason only why such a database would exist and in no way whatsoever is it to your benefit.

The more screwed-up any such database is, the better off we all are.

 

[JoseyWales]

Just 2 more weeks...

 

[Broc]

Why any firearms owner would think that an accurate and reliable government maintained database of who owns what is a good thing is totally beyond my ability to comprehend. Tighten the chains and lick the hand of your masters. There is ONE reason and ONE reason only why such a database would exist and in no way whatsoever is it to your benefit.

The more screwed-up any such database is, the better off we all are.

Because people get scared.
Go visit one of the NH threads discussing how most require the buyer to have a license.

*moves to a Constitution carry State*
*brags about how free he is*
*demands others have government issued ID*

#NESstrong

 

[tbk5]

It is a different world in the south. We don't waste paper or electrons.

 

[Picton]

The more screwed-up any such database is, the better off we all are.

I have no idea why that's not completely obvious to everyone here.