• 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.

Keep FID when you get a LTC A.

There used to be, when the FID was "Shall issue"; since the latest change, the FID is less "permanent."

Before the "grace period" with receipt policy, the FID and LTC on different schedules would let you buy ammo and long guns while you were waiting for the 40 days [laugh] time limit.

I kept both for years, and, in fact, had the PD ask me why I had both. I asked the ossifer if there was any law against both (I knew there was not), and he said, "I was just trying to save you $100."

There's not much point, now. Other threads have (apparently) factual stories of persons in households with 2+ LTCs having everything swept ,regardless of ownership, when a restraining order/suspension was issued, so having an FID to protect long guns, etc. is kind of moot.

I did not renew my FID at last expiration.

YMMV


ETA: Swatgig is the lawyer, not me....[laugh]
 
What is the point to keep an FID when you have something else that allows you to buy anything that is "legal" in MA?

I am not sure why this is even a concern. I might be missing something.

Edit:

I just saw this. This makes sense.

The Chief can’t take an FID based on suitability without going to court. He or she can take an ltc for suitability without going to court.

There’s nothing preventing having both. In fact, I recently got an FID even though I already have my ltc.
Click to expand...
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
What is the point to keep an FID when you have something else that allows you to buy anything that is "legal" in MA?

I am not sure why this is even a concern. I might be missing something.

Edit:

I just saw this. This makes sense.
Click to expand...
drivers
Well, we old timers just like to keep stuff around so that we can "reminisce". Old FID, pilots license, military drivers license, etc. Jack.
 
I kept both for many a year. My LTC always expired while I was out of state on hunting trips. Keeping a valid (off year expiration) FID allowed me to travel, be interstate and carry at least long guns back from my trips. When my LTC expired, and my FID was still valid, my buddy would transport the weapons I could not carry.

With the extended expiration date, the only other reason would be to purchase long guns and ammo with an expired LTC. Some FFL's are as*&^es.
 
MisterHappy said:
Cite, please?
Click to expand...
I clearly wrote “ I don’t think”.

I’m still not convinced there is any value in keeping a FID card having any weapons needing a LTC.
The only value of having a FID after a LTC is obtaining one after the fact of being guilt of OUI or some other violation. Your AR’s and pistols are sold and gone but at least you can still enjoy some aspects of shooting sports.
 
Asaltweapon said:
I clearly wrote “ I don’t think”.

I’m still not convinced there is any value in keeping a FID card having any weapons needing a LTC.
The only value of having a FID after a LTC is obtaining one after the fact of being guilt of OUI or some other violation. Your AR’s and pistols are sold and gone but at least you can still enjoy some aspects of shooting sports.
Click to expand...
From what I have researched, they did me a favor by denying me a LTC and issuing me FID. Got the rifles and shotguns out of state, no sales tax, did not have fill out MA registration forms (to aid in future confiscation actions, etc). Got all we need for home defense, hunting and recreational shooting. FID fits our lifestyle perfectly! No need for anything more.
 
308rifleman said:
From what I have researched, they did me a favor by denying me a LTC and issuing me FID. Got the rifles and shotguns out of state, no sales tax, did not have fill out MA registration forms (to aid in future confiscation actions, etc). Got all we need for home defense, hunting and recreational shooting. FID fits our lifestyle perfectly! No need for anything more.
Click to expand...
I’ve had a couple of friends that screwed up in 2 different towns. They were not hung out to dry and given some reasonable time to line things up. I helped them buying stuff at fire sale pricing thru a common FFL knowing I’d sell it back to them at cost should that day come. These were not POS firearms.
I believe #1 has his FID now and # 2 should be pretty soon if not now waiting for it. Not all departments suck just like the guys who work in them.
 
Asaltweapon said:
I’ve had a couple of friends that screwed up in 2 different towns. They were not hung out to dry and given some reasonable time to line things up. I helped them buying stuff at fire sale pricing thru a common FFL knowing I’d sell it back to them at cost should that day come. These were not POS firearms.
I believe #1 has his FID now and # 2 should be pretty soon if not now waiting for it. Not all departments suck just like the guys who work in them.
Click to expand...
Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.
 
42! said:
Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.
Click to expand...
You clearly missed the point.

He was busted for OUI.
FFL entered into his book.
Xfer was thru FFL to me.
Owner paid for gun after transaction.
100% above board.

If either one can reobtain their LTC I will gladly resale them their firearms for what I bought them for. No straws.

Not a damn thing questionable about any part of it.
 
Asaltweapon said:
You clearly missed the point.

He was busted for OUI.
FFL entered into his book.
Xfer was thru FFL to me.
Owner paid for gun after transaction.
100% above board.

If either one can reobtain their LTC I will gladly resale them their firearms for what I bought them for. No straws.

Not a damn thing questionable about any part of it.
Click to expand...

"knowing I’d sell it back to them" that sounds like intent to sell to me. Just my opinion. Not saying I agree with the law, just best to avoid the question.
 
42! said:
"knowing I’d sell it back to them" that sounds like intent to sell to me. Just my opinion. Not saying I agree with the law, just best to avoid the question.
Click to expand...
Total horseshit.
I bought a Python and Diamondback from a close friend. He wanted me to have them. If I ever get into a jam with money he gets first option for the same money he sold them to me for.

If he is not interested then full market value is the deal. Hardly another straw purchase and I can’t wrap my brain around how on Earth you can come to this conclusion.
 
Asaltweapon said:
Total horseshit.
I bought a Python and Diamondback from a close friend. He wanted me to have them. If I ever get into a jam with money he gets first option for the same money he sold them to me for.

If he is not interested then full market value is the deal. Hardly another straw purchase and I can’t wrap my brain around how on Earth you can come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
It come from Knowing what I'm talking about.
Fist, purchase from your buddy is probably a FtF so no 4473, so no claim that on what your intent is, so no straw purchase regardless of what you intend.
And with the 4473 it's all about intent. If your intent at the time of purchase is to do anything other than keep it yourself, then it's a straw purchase. The trick for the Feds is to prove intent. The only time they have ever successfully convicted, the buyer wrote/said what their intent was.
If you don't go around saying you intended to sell/transfer to someone else, they really can't prove any intent. On the other hand, if you do, you are doing the work for them.
 
42! said:
Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.
Click to expand...

42! said:
"knowing I’d sell it back to them" that sounds like intent to sell to me. Just my opinion. Not saying I agree with the law, just best to avoid the question.
Click to expand...

Few words on intent from a non-lawyer:

Intent is often an element in crimes, like possession of drugs. Possession of drugs is easy: you have drugs and you intended to possess them, e.g. they were in a used car when you bought the car and the cops found the drugs despite the drugs not being yours, but the prior owner's. You never intended to possess drugs, the drugs were there before you bought the car. Thus, there's no intent to possess drugs.

Intent in and of itself is not a crime. Intent is often an element of a crime, but intent alone is what we would call "thought crimes." Someone can't be arrested for saying "my friend gets first dibs on this gun if I decide to sell it." Intent requires some manifestation to commit a crime. Intent would be going to a gun shop, buying a gun, and then saying to the intended straw transferee "ok, here you go, here's your gun I bought for you, which you yourself cannot legally own!"

Obviously there's a difference between reality and legal theory. The cops aren't thinking "well jeeze, does that guy intend to unlawfully transfer that gun to a prohibited person?" Maybe ATF does because ATF has more resources, time, and support than a local police department, but that's a big maybe. The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove all elements of a crime at trial: only problem is that over 95% of people accept a plea bargain and never see a trial.

42! said:
It come from Knowing what I'm talking about.
Fist, purchase from your buddy is probably a FtF so no 4473, so no claim that on what your intent is, so no straw purchase regardless of what you intend.
And with the 4473 it's all about intent. If your intent at the time of purchase is to do anything other than keep it yourself, then it's a straw purchase. The trick for the Feds is to prove intent. The only time they have ever successfully convicted, the buyer wrote/said what their intent was.
If you don't go around saying you intended to sell/transfer to someone else, they really can't prove any intent. On the other hand, if you do, you are doing the work for them.
Click to expand...

Please provide a citation as to the number of times a gun forum post was used to jack someone up for transferring a pistol in regards to the intent element of lying on a 4473, which is what the actual crime is if someone commits a straw purchase.
 
42! said:
It come from Knowing what I'm talking about.
Fist, purchase from your buddy is probably a FtF so no 4473, so no claim that on what your intent is, so no straw purchase regardless of what you intend.
And with the 4473 it's all about intent. If your intent at the time of purchase is to do anything other than keep it yourself, then it's a straw purchase. The trick for the Feds is to prove intent. The only time they have ever successfully convicted, the buyer wrote/said what their intent was.
If you don't go around saying you intended to sell/transfer to someone else, they really can't prove any intent. On the other hand, if you do, you are doing the work for them.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just f***ing wow.
The OUI guys went thru a FFL.
The FTF Colt guy was just that. We were and are not criminals.

How you get a straw purchase out of any of that is just f***ing amazing.
 
42! said:
Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.
Click to expand...
How is it a straw purchase when you sell it to someone that can legally own it?

If I buy a Glock today with the intent in selling it to you, once you get your LTC, is that a straw purchase?
 
C. Stockwell said:
Few words on intent from a non-lawyer:

Intent is often an element in crimes, like possession of drugs. Possession of drugs is easy: you have drugs and you intended to possess them, e.g. they were in a used car when you bought the car and the cops found the drugs despite the drugs not being yours, but the prior owner's. You never intended to possess drugs, the drugs were there before you bought the car. Thus, there's no intent to possess drugs.

Intent in and of itself is not a crime. Intent is often an element of a crime, but intent alone is what we would call "thought crimes." Someone can't be arrested for saying "my friend gets first dibs on this gun if I decide to sell it." Intent requires some manifestation to commit a crime. Intent would be going to a gun shop, buying a gun, and then saying to the intended straw transferee "ok, here you go, here's your gun I bought for you, which you yourself cannot legally own!"

Obviously there's a difference between reality and legal theory. The cops aren't thinking "well jeeze, does that guy intend to unlawfully transfer that gun to a prohibited person?" Maybe ATF does because ATF has more resources, time, and support than a local police department, but that's a big maybe. The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove all elements of a crime at trial: only problem is that over 95% of people accept a plea bargain and never see a trial.



Please provide a citation as to the number of times a gun forum post was used to jack someone up for transferring a pistol in regards to the intent element of lying on a 4473, which is what the actual crime is if someone commits a straw purchase.
Click to expand...

Your own words make it clear "my friend gets first dibs on this gun if I decide to sell it." so no intent at the time of sal, just a statement.
And you are quite simply wrong. When you buy from a dealer and sign a 4473 you are stating that you are the intended owner. So any "intent" otherwise is a crime. And I don't need to find a cite about a forum, the source of the information only needs to be credible. As I recall, and it was discussed many times hetre on NES, one of the individuals convicted told the dealer he intended the gun for his uncle (or maybe it was a cousin) who couldn't get there to buy it himself. This is substantially the same as buying it for someone who couldn't buy it on sale themselves.

I'm not saying it's fair or good law, just that it is what it is and the few convictions they have had make it very clear that "intent" that is contrary to what you say when signing the 4473 is most definitely a crime.
Don't believe me? Go to a dealer and buy a gun and mention to the dealer that it's a good price and you're picking it up for you buddy who has an LTC but can't get there. And see how fast it goes south with just your intent.

The only two convictions I've read the details on were based on the buyers own statements, that he wasn't keeping the gun, and one where the actual buyer paid the purchaser by check (written document) before the purchaser actually purchasing the gun.
 
42! said:
Your own words make it clear "my friend gets first dibs on this gun if I decide to sell it." so no intent at the time of sal, just a statement.
And you are quite simply wrong. When you buy from a dealer and sign a 4473 you are stating that you are the intended owner. So any "intent" otherwise is a crime. And I don't need to find a cite about a forum, the source of the information only needs to be credible. As I recall, and it was discussed many times hetre on NES, one of the individuals convicted told the dealer he intended the gun for his uncle (or maybe it was a cousin) who couldn't get there to buy it himself. This is substantially the same as buying it for someone who couldn't buy it on sale themselves.

I'm not saying it's fair or good law, just that it is what it is and the few convictions they have had make it very clear that "intent" that is contrary to what you say when signing the 4473 is most definitely a crime.
Don't believe me? Go to a dealer and buy a gun and mention to the dealer that it's a good price and you're picking it up for you buddy who has an LTC but can't get there. And see how fast it goes south with just your intent.

The only two convictions I've read the details on were based on the buyers own statements, that he wasn't keeping the gun, and one where the actual buyer paid the purchaser by check (written document) before the purchaser actually purchasing the gun.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but without further proof backed up by other credible sources, or some form of personal knowledge that an ordinary gun owner lacks, your tone is uncalled for and frankly a disservice to the forum. Without any external support beyond your own words, you are stating your own opinion. Your opinion is not law, is not fact, and is not legal theory. When someone says "I don't need to cite sources", that means that they're stating opinion without external support. I'm not going to argue the 4473 point because frankly, it has nothing to do with OP's question. OP asked if there's a reason to have a FID after getting a LTC. Both of those are creations of Massachusetts law.

Further, the "if" hypothetical I posed is exactly what @Asaltweapon said himself: "if" he runs short of cash, his friend has first dibs. There's no intent there.

The only example you fail to mention with precision is Abramski, which has nothing to do with @Asaltweapon 's comment or OP's predicament. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts:

Abramski v. United States - Wikipedia

And as you said yourself, the only two convictions you know of are from someone's own oral statement and a written check found in a house (Abramski). Do you not know the difference between a check and a forum post?

Checks:

*Monetary transfer
*Demonstrates a sense of imminence: when the check clears, send the gun
*Demonstrates a sense of likelihood: people don't send checks to be cashed in years, but days or perhaps weeks or months
*Signed by the buyer
*Written to the seller
*Dated
*Says what payment is for

Forum posts:

*Not a monetary transfer
*No imminence whatsoever: @Asaltweapon might never go broke, might never sell the gun, or might sell the gun 20 years from now
*No likelihood whatsoever
*Has nothing to do with the buyer unless the buyer and seller engage in open conversation online
*Written by the seller, not to the seller (a check goes to someone)
*Dated
*Do not specify anything about payment

Intent doesn't turn simply on the fact that something's written. Writing is a tangible, expressed thought. Like all thoughts, writing can be complete or incomplete manifestations of intent.
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
How is it a straw purchase when you sell it to someone that can legally own it?

If I buy a Glock today with the intent in selling it to you, once you get your LTC, is that a straw purchase?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you're buying it from a federally licensed dealer. Abramski doesn't care if the buyer is legal, that's just one trigger for a straw out of many. Obviously if you did this completely on your own volition and said nothing about it to anyone, the "intent" stays between your ears and perhaps god, lol.... also proximity of events and movement of cash plays a role, too.


-Mike
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

you got a pet firearm?
Replies
12
Views
511
pinefd
pinefd
When 17 rounds aren’t enough
Replies
9
Views
509
Dench
Dench
Fid requirements for minors
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
Brannigan03
Brannigan03
Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Looking to get a HK-Vp9
Replies
23
Views
625
pdm
pdm
Back
Top Bottom