Public Safety Committee

[greycar]

State Senator Jarrett Barrios, a committee co chair, said a registry exists,
but it is not enforced and needs vast improvement. Also, no mechanism
exists, he said, for monitoring guns "sold off the radar screen, because
there's no investigation to make sure people are actually registering there
guns . . . The issue is there's nobody enforcing the person-to-person sales."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/21/gun_court_eliminates_years_of_backlog/

 

[Admin]

I think I can already hear the goose stepping in the back ground...

 

[JellyFish]

Bleep!

 

[JellyFish]

I knew I was right to move. I knew it. I could sense this kind of shit was going to go on. Now with Deval in office they can do whatever they want and nobody will stop them.

 

[Scrivener]

OMFG!!!! I can't wait to get the hell out of here!!! Now they want guns to be registered?????

FA-10s (and, before them, the blue cards) ARE registration. Where have YOU been the last 3 or 4 decades?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is a difference between FA-10 registration, and "true registration" where it is a criminal offense to posess a firearm that is not confirmed to be in the state's database. For example, NY has handgun registration and carrying a handgun that is not listed on your NY pistol permit is the same offense as carrying one without a permit. If you range buddy has a heart attack while you are our shooting, you cannot legally even take posession of his handgun while he goes to the hospital.

 

[Scrivener]

There is a difference between FA-10 registration, and "true registration" where it is a criminal offense to posess a firearm that is not confirmed to be in the state's database.

I beg to differ. Either a firearm is required to be recorded in a state database or it is not.

As it now stands, only guns already in the possession of someone moving into the state or which have been owned by the same person prior to the requirement to record transfers with the state are excluded.

While the criminal penalties only apply to failing to file the FA-10 per s. 29C, we have de facto registration in MA and have had for decades. The difference between MA and NY is simply the degree of onerousness.

 

[JellyFish]

Bleep!

 

[drgrant]

I beg to differ. Either a firearm is required to be recorded in a state database or it is not.

As it now stands, only guns already in the possession of someone moving into the state or which have been owned by the same person prior to the requirement to record transfers with the state are excluded.

While the criminal penalties only apply to failing to file the FA-10 per s. 29C, we have de facto registration in MA and have had for decades. The difference between MA and NY is simply the degree of onerousness.

Yeah, but Scriv, how many prosecutions have there been over the
registration issues? Whenever criminals get bagged I never hear about
them getting charged with a failure to register a firearm transfer. There
must be a matter of "legal mechanics" with regards to registration, otherwise
wouldn't you think every DA would use that as a tack-on charge in addition
to illegal possession. This leads me to believe there is something wrong
with that law, or the burden of proof is on the state, and that burden
is too great for the prosecution to deal with. Something has to be
wrong with it if they ignore it with such frequency. Otherwise why wouldn't
they be charging more people with that crime?


-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

Yeah, but Scriv, how many prosecutions have there been over the registration issues? Whenever criminals get bagged I never hear about them getting charged with a failure to register a firearm transfer.

Criminals don't have a license. They can't lawfully possess any gun. It's THAT simple.

Having obtained the gun illegally, the charge is illegal possession; not merely failing to file a form to record an otherwise legal transfer.

 

[drgrant]

Criminals don't have a license. They can't lawfully possess any gun. It's THAT simple.

Having obtained the gun illegally, the charge is illegal possession; not merely failing to file a form to record an otherwise legal transfer.

So, in essence, you're saying that the registration laws only apply to
licensed gun owners making LAWFUL transfers? That's rather
amusing, when one thinks about it. You would think that say, a
criminal buying a gun from another criminal is still a "transfer" of a firearm
regardless of the fact that neither one of them could legally
possess it. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it wasn't
property that was not transferred from one person to
another.

Case in point WRT contraband.... many states make criminals
liable for not paying sales/income taxes on their sale of contraband (eg drugs)
so it would seem to me that criminals are not exempt from "administrative"
style laws simply because the property they're dealing in was illegal.

-Mike

 

[Jay G]

So, in essence, you're saying that the registration laws only apply to
licensed gun owners making LAWFUL transfers? That's rather
amusing, when one thinks about it. You would think that say, a
criminal buying a gun from another criminal is still a "transfer" of a firearm
regardless of the fact that neither one of them could legally
possess it. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it wasn't
property that was not transferred from one person to
another.
-Mike

But if they recorded the transfer, they would be incriminating themselves. Which would be a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. IIRC, there was a case regarding same which affirmed that criminals could not be charged with failing to register their firearms because doing so (registering) would implicate them in the commission of a crime (felon in possession)...

Law-talking guys, help me out here...

 

[Scrivener]

But if they recorded the transfer, they would be incriminating themselves. Which would be a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. IIRC, there was a case regarding same which affirmed that criminals could not be charged with failing to register their firearms because doing so (registering) would implicate them in the commission of a crime (felon in possession)...

Law-talking guys, help me out here...

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!