• 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.

Mass: FFL Transfer “grace period” Question

BW23

NES Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
273
Likes
12
Location
South Shore
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Scenario in MA:
I just got a firearm transfer using Gun Shop FFL Transfer from Person-X to me. Basically used the gun shop FFL as the middle man for the transaction.

Question:
How long do I need to wait to sell via eFA10 from a FTF transaction? ie good rule of thumb is 2 business days

I ask because I don’t know how long it takes the system to “ log” the initial FFL transfer from Person X.

Thanks!
 
Did you get a great deal and trying to flip it quick to make a few bucks or are you some kind of LE trying to get your friend something he can’t get on his own?
 
There is no rule of thumb and it's not a given that anyone will look at the EFA-10 anyway. Just don't do a straw a purchase. A straw purchase is not selling with the intent to resell, which is what many think it is. The ATF has fundamentally centered their definition and investigations of straw purchases to a scenario where a purchasing agent acquires a firearm for someone who they know cannot legally possess one, or would not pass a background check. This knowledge must be apparent and substantiated between two parties, and some level of financial compensation is involved. If it did not involve the receiver being prohibited, then gift buying would be considered a straw purchase.

If you know the person you are selling to is a prohibited person, and you bought the item with the predetermined intent to "sell" to that person, it doesn't matter how many days have passed at the state level as you've committed a federal crime.

If you buy something and the next day someone says, "I'd really like to buy that from you," that's not a straw purchase - even if you thought, at some point, that person would want the item.

Also, in Massachusetts, all private, legal sales must occur between two parties with active, valid LTCs. It's presumed that someone with a valid LTC isn't a prohibited person. It's very difficult to conduct a straw purchase in this state as long as both parties have active, valid LTCs.

In summary: as long as you're not doing what you know you shouldn't, all is well. I know people who bought something and sold it to a friend the same day (they did not like the item).

To be extra safe, though not necessary: just go through the FFL to conduct the transaction between you and the buyer. If this can't be done, I would seriously reconsider the transaction.
 
Scenario in MA:
I just got a firearm transfer using Gun Shop FFL Transfer from Person-X to me. Basically used the gun shop FFL as the middle man for the transaction.

Question:
How long do I need to wait to sell via eFA10 from a FTF transaction? ie good rule of thumb is 2 business days

I ask because I don’t know how long it takes the system to “ log” the initial FFL transfer from Person X.

Thanks!
I dunno, as long as it takes you to take a piss or get a coffee? All that stuff is done on the fly there's no delay.
 
Nope, not a straw purchase.

My friend’s LTC expired. He doesn’t want to renew. So he wanted to transfer it to me. But I already have this pistol so I wanted to do a eFA10 transfer to my dad. Who’s LTC is still valid (not expired)
 
Last edited:
Nope, not a straw purchase.

My friend’s LTC expired. He doesn’t want to renew. So he wanted to transfer it to me. But I already have this pistol so I wanted to do a eFA10 transfer to my dad. Who’s LTC is still valid (not expired)
I think that is still a straw purchase.

You should keep the gun for a month until you get tired of it and don't like it anymore.

Then transfer to dad.
 
There is no rule of thumb and it's not a given that anyone will look at the EFA-10 anyway. Just don't do a straw a purchase. A straw purchase is not selling with the intent to resell, which is what many think it is. The ATF has fundamentally centered their definition and investigations of straw purchases to a scenario where a purchasing agent acquires a firearm for someone who they know cannot legally possess one, or would not pass a background check. This knowledge must be apparent and substantiated between two parties, and some level of financial compensation is involved. If it did not involve the receiver being prohibited, then gift buying would be considered a straw purchase.

If you know the person you are selling to is a prohibited person, and you bought the item with the predetermined intent to "sell" to that person, it doesn't matter how many days have passed at the state level as you've committed a federal crime.

If you buy something and the next day someone says, "I'd really like to buy that from you," that's not a straw purchase - even if you thought, at some point, that person would want the item.

Also, in Massachusetts, all private, legal sales must occur between two parties with active, valid LTCs. It's presumed that someone with a valid LTC isn't a prohibited person. It's very difficult to conduct a straw purchase in this state as long as both parties have active, valid LTCs.

In summary: as long as you're not doing what you know you shouldn't, all is well. I know people who bought something and sold it to a friend the same day (they did not like the item).

To be extra safe, though not necessary: just go through the FFL to conduct the transaction between you and the buyer. If this can't be done, I would seriously reconsider the transaction.
Not trying to be alarmist, but Abramski proved that using an FFL as a buffer will not reliably immunize someone from a straw purchase indictment.

All it takes to get a straw indictment is:

-money flows the wrong way (eg, a payment is made before the 4473 signer buys the gun! Reeeeealy stupid! )
-someone in gov sees that

Deal in cash, don't leave paperwork hanging around. (Or secure it somewhere separate from your guns) Even if you are arguably very well within the law. A few of the straw indictments i read, the accused basically gift wrapped the evidence used to justify issuing the indictment.
 
I think that is still a straw purchase.

You should keep the gun for a month until you get tired of it and don't like it anymore.

Then transfer to dad.
It's not a straw unless it involves a 4473 as an integral part of the process. You can buy a gun for someone else legally under limited circumstances.

Example, take a big square state where privsales are legal between residents.

Guy C has a gun but guy B lives between A and C. B uses As cash to buy the gun from C and then gives it to A next time he sees A on the other side of the state. Not illegal unless it involved an FFL or some weird state law that likely doesn't exist

"Illegal Straw Purchases" as a federal legal issue requires a certain sequence of events and money flow while purchasing from an FFL that don't exist at all in the above example.
 
Nope, not a straw purchase.

My friend’s LTC expired. He doesn’t want to renew. So he wanted to transfer it to me. But I already have this pistol so I wanted to do a eFA10 transfer to my dad. Who’s LTC is still valid (not expired)
A purchase can be a straw purchase even if the ultimate owner isn’t a prohibited person. The law is very murky here, but I absolutely would not acquire a gun with the intention of transferring it to someone else, even if that person is properly licensed.
 
Nope, not a straw purchase.

My friend’s LTC expired. He doesn’t want to renew. So he wanted to transfer it to me. But I already have this pistol so I wanted to GIFT it to my dad. Who’s LTC is still valid (not expired)
FIFY for clarity. And maybe your dad will pay you back for other stuff you did or purchased for him.
 
I would just let your dad borrow the pistol, after he has it a while and decides he likes it then you can decide weather you want to do an FA10.
 
How about you keep the pistol you bought from your friend and gift the one you already own to your dad? I had a similar situation on a gun I inherited. It was brand new and the one I already owned had some mileage on it. I kept the inherited one and transferred (gifted) the old one to a friend.
 
A purchase can be a straw purchase even if the ultimate owner isn’t a prohibited person. The law is very murky here, but I absolutely would not acquire a gun with the intention of transferring it to someone else, even if that person is properly licensed.
I ordered a MA 365 from my buddy who is a FFL. Months went by and no word on when it would be in due to such high demand.
I bought a ME version (no safety but the shop would not allow the purchase of extended capacity mags) as a ME resident. I brought it back to MA and notified same.
Shortly thereafter the MA gun showed up and I bought it because of my word.
I very shortly sold it to a friend who was looking anyway and wanted the safety.

No visits.
 
I would just let your dad borrow the pistol, after he has it a while and decides he likes it then you can decide weather you want to do an FA10.

This is what my local friendly lawyer told me some years ago. I wanted to buy my dad a Shotgun for Xmas and was advised against it. Basically was suggested that I lend it to him to use while keeping it in my name. Unfortunately my dad has passed so I still have the shotgun without having to do anything.
 
It's not a straw unless it involves a 4473 as an integral part of the process. You can buy a gun for someone else legally under limited circumstances.

Example, take a big square state where privsales are legal between residents.

Guy C has a gun but guy B lives between A and C. B uses As cash to buy the gun from C and then gives it to A next time he sees A on the other side of the state. Not illegal unless it involved an FFL or some weird state law that likely doesn't exist

"Illegal Straw Purchases" as a federal legal issue requires a certain sequence of events and money flow while purchasing from an FFL that don't exist at all in the above example.

I am confused ...

Why is it a problem if it involves a 4473, that involves a background check, wouldn't that make it legal since they are checking the dude can own a gun?

I could understand it using an eFA10 making it illegal because that doesn't involve any background checks.
 
This issue, which should be easy to understand, as it has been covered many other times, has become just a twisted pretzel.
 
Direct from the man:

Are you the actual transferee buyer?

Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner).
1704649805888.png
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives | › docs
PDF

Firearms Transaction Record - ATF

 
I am confused ...

Why is it a problem if it involves a 4473, that involves a background check, wouldn't that make it legal since they are checking the dude can own a gun?

I could understand it using an eFA10 making it illegal because that doesn't involve any background checks.
Strictly speaking a straw purchase is a federal thing that descends from that 4473 and related events when the supposed "straw buyer" purchased the gun originally. The allegations are always linked to that singular original event.

You don't need prohibited persons or people avoiding background checks to break the law, it can be simpler or worse than that. The feds use braindead shitlogic to expand the scope as much as they can get away with.

Example: Joe gunowner's dad wants gun Z. He knows that Joe regularly Drives By the Cabela's in such and such a place so that he doesn't have to drive there to get it he gives Joe money to do so. Joe takes the money and buys the gun next week and then gives it to his dad. strictly speaking this is a straw purchase. It's still a straw even if Joe meets the tabletop dealer down the street w/dad and does another FFL transfer to his dad at that FFL this still doesn't wash away the original sin of the straw that joe committed at Cabela's.

Now strictly speaking in the real world if Joe and his dad used cash and they all shut the f*** up about what they did then it's not a problem but if somebody was stupid and commemorated the event through paper or some other trail of garbage then you have a problem. In reality there are probably thousands of accidental felons this way. They just don't get caught because the circumstances are such that some third gov party doesn't get wind of anything being wrong.

The other fun thing is if Joe just bought his dad the gun for Christmas or his birthday or whatever/with no money changing hands/ as an actual, whole gift... then you can't have a straw purchase at that point. That's the main exception.
 
The other fun thing is if Joe just bought his dad the gun for Christmas or his birthday or whatever/with no money changing hands/ as an actual, whole gift... then you can't have a straw purchase at that point. That's the main exception.
This part is key. Makes sense.

Still, seems like soemthing put in place as something else they can use against someone if needed. Because if both parties can legally own a gun, then this shouldn't matter.
 
This part is key. Makes sense.

Still, seems like soemthing put in place as something else they can use against someone if needed. Because if both parties can legally own a gun, then this shouldn't matter.
You're right it shouldn't matter but the law is f***ing stupid. This is literally a perfect example of a situation where somebody like the NRA could have put up a small bill to redefine what a straw purchase actually is and constrain it to something more rational. Like if the law cannot be deleted entirely at least constrain it so it only matters if the person ultimately getting the gun is a PP. Then at least it would match what most people think that the law is actually about vs the pile if byzantine empire shitlogic it is now.
 
You're right it shouldn't matter but the law is f***ing stupid. This is literally a perfect example of a situation where somebody like the NRA could have put up a small bill to redefine what a straw purchase actually is and constrain it to something more rational. Like if the law cannot be deleted entirely at least constrain it so it only matters if the person ultimately getting the gun is a PP. Then at least it would match what most people think that the law is actually about vs the pile if byzantine empire shitlogic it is now.
Imagine, if I send you money to buy me a gun and legally transfer it to me, that is illegal.

However, if I don't send you money and you buy it, then I pay you when you transfer it = legal.
🤯
 
Imagine, if I send you money to buy me a gun and legally transfer it to me, that is illegal.

However, if I don't send you money and you buy it, then I pay you when you transfer it = legal.
🤯
Well strictly speaking given intent both could still be straws but generally speaking if the money flow isn't stupid it makes it a lot harder for them to try to indict somebody because the buyer then has all kinds of ways out unless they were stupid enough to like run their mouth in front of the authorities or something.
 
A lot of paranoia on this thread, if Maura is reading this she's probably LHAO over the pantshitting
There are a lot folks that mistakenly believe that as long as they have no criminal intent that they would never get jammed up. Unfortunately, the ATF has proved that wrong on a number of occasions.

Bruce Abramski, a VA police officer, bought a Glock for his uncle using his police discount. His uncle was a PA resident and paid Abramski for the gun. His uncle was legally able to buy and own the gun. But since his uncle paid for the gun and Abramski was not the real purchaser, it was a straw purchase and Abramski’s life was ruined.

But, yeah, it’s just pantshitting to worry about this stuff. It would never happen to you because, reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom