imgone
NES Member
My son turned 21 yesterday and called to make an appointment to get his LTC A. He has had his FID for three years now. Is there any reason or benefit to keeping both ? Or should he just let the FID go ?
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***
No benefit at all. I don't think they even let you have both now.
No citation for that proposition exists.Cite, please?
#metoo (but only 40 years ago)I still have my FID from 66 years ago. Good forever. Says that right on it. Jack.
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.
driversWhat 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.
I clearly wrote “ I don’t think”.Cite, please?
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.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.
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.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.
Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.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.
You clearly missed the point.Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.
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.
Total horseshit."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.
It come from Knowing what I'm talking about.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.
Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.
"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.
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.
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.
How is it a straw purchase when you sell it to someone that can legally own it?Be careful how you say this. Buying a gun with the intent to sell/give/transfer it to another is a straw purchase.
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.
Mine also says good forever got it back in ‘93...I still have my FID from 66 years ago. Good forever. Says that right on it. Jack.
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.
FID required to hunt with a muzzleloader?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.
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?