Well, the state also avoids the problem just by dropping the charge, too, regardless. They got like 10 other things to hang this kid on, it wouldn't surprise me if 90% of it drops away if the feds don't take it.
-Mike
-
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***
Rifle from 80% lower seized in Rutland MA traffic stop
- Thread starter Cheesehead
- Start date
Well, the state also avoids the problem just by dropping the charge, too, regardless. They got like 10 other things to hang this kid on, it wouldn't surprise me if 90% of it drops away if the feds don't take it.
-Mike
MachineHead
NES Member
Actually quite illegal, my friend.
Non-licensees can only sell to residents of their own state and only in their own state. That's Federal law, from GCA '68.
Plus, state laws may even not allow that, as some do not allow non-licensses to sell without going through an FFL.
Now, IF your state laws allow it (as in VT & NH), a non-dealer may transfer to another resident of his state, while in his state. But, not to a resident of another state.
They can still charge someone with a whole bunch of crap though. Like I said earlier, I bet the sticky shit gets dropped at some point or another. Or he pleas out to some of the stuff where the bar is low. .
-Mike
dcmdon
NES Member
Uh. . you didn't read what I wrote, did you? I never said anyone should buy across state lines.
(By the way. thank you for doing appleseed instruction. Its a fantastic program)
You are a bit confused about what a licensee is. A licensee is an FFL
Did you notice the part where I said, its legal provided you are a resident of NH or VT
I didn't advocate buying firearms across state lines.
In other words, if you are a NH resident, go to a show in NH. If you are a VT resident, go to a show in VT.
Basically, in any New England state, other than CT, a receiver can be transferred between non-licensees with no record keeping.
Don
p.s. The ATF refers to FFLs as Licensees, and people who are not FFLs as "unlicensed". This has nothing to do with any state permits. . For example:
Licensees: https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/conduct-business
Unlicensed Persons - https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/unlicensed-persons
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
MA is the only state in New England that requires non-FFLs to have a carry license in order to sell a firearm.
But again, you forget that MA does not consider a receiver to be a firearm. So even in this case. A person does not need a MA LTC or FID to buy or sell a receiver on the secondary market (not from a dealer).
Don
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
This guy is clearly an idiot. But then again, he did not appear to intend any harm to anyone, so in my simple mind, he didn't do any anything ethically wrong. And even from a legal standpoint, the absence of mallace should get him some points.
If the gun was cased, and the guy did not consent to a search, then he would have stood a decent chance of getting everything thrown out.
I will "cop" to the fact that I know nothing about the courts in that area of MA, and Im starting to think the kid may be seeing some time, tho I think 18 months is a stretch, but Ive been wrong before.
Nice to see an NES lawyer or two add their 2cents in a non ambiguous way, thank you.
Looking for an excuse to do an inventory search makes me think they had some prior info from somewhere and were looking to stick him. I will read the case tho
dcmdon
NES Member
GPP, it looks like the rifle was in plain sight. Although that is a common lie when cops toss the inside of a car.
I've yelled at cops for shining their lights in my car at sobriety checkpoints. Its you know, its SOP to look for anything suspicious in plain sight.
The kids gun could have been cased and the cop could have lied.
Which is why I own a sedan.
Don
- - - Updated - - -
Smash - I'm not an atty. But I agree the search's legality is key.
One of the things I read said the gun was in plain sight.
I've yelled at cops for shining their lights in my car at sobriety checkpoints. Its you know, its SOP to look for anything suspicious in plain sight.
The kids gun could have been cased and the cop could have lied.
Which is why I own a sedan.
Don
- - - Updated - - -
Smash - I'm not an atty. But I agree the search's legality is key.
One of the things I read said the gun was in plain sight.
Actually I'm not confused. Nor should I be. Especially that I have been an FFL, both type 01 and 06 (Dealer and ammo manufacturer). Of course you had no way of knowing that.
Now, I apparently did fail to catch you did mention the part on residency. And, that's the part I was talking about. So, on my end of missing that, I deeply apologize.
I didn't know that. Then again, it totally doesn't apply to me, seeing that I don't live in MA.
I do know that receivers in MA are not firearms. That said, I was referring to federal law. They (the feds) consider an AR lower receiver to be a firearm.
Being a Vermonter myself, we can transfer a firearm to another Vermont resident anyways.
The following isn't directed at dcmdon. It is, however, for those that think the only people that use 80% receivers are criminals and kooks. I personally do not use them myself (yet), but others do. I fail to see a problem with that. Now, so it's said, there's tons of legitimate reasons people build with 80% receivers. It is legal to do so.
There's tons of bad assumptions here, mostly from a couple of people.
Judges can and do though.
dcmdon
NES Member
Nickle -
Don't forget that the feds do not regulate secondary transfers between non-licenses of the same state. So there are no federal laws that require any record keeping. Money and a handshake is all it takes.
Reread my post. All that I suggested was legal, IS legal. Once you realize that I was referring to in state transfers between non licensees and you know that MA doesn't consider a receiver to be a firearm.
Don
p.s. 07/Class2 myself.
Don't forget that the feds do not regulate secondary transfers between non-licenses of the same state. So there are no federal laws that require any record keeping. Money and a handshake is all it takes.
Reread my post. All that I suggested was legal, IS legal. Once you realize that I was referring to in state transfers between non licensees and you know that MA doesn't consider a receiver to be a firearm.
Don
p.s. 07/Class2 myself.
Everything is about the amount of risk you are willing to take. Some people crack open a nice, relaxing beer on the drive home from work. Others don't put punisher grips on their carry guns because they don't want to look like vigilantes to a jury.
I won't lie. I didn't read the whole thread.
But I did come across this..
ETA: Looks like I'm late to the game![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Also
http://www.telegram.com/article/20151102/NEWS/151109808
But I did come across this..
ETA: Looks like I'm late to the game
Also
http://www.telegram.com/article/20151102/NEWS/151109808
Last edited:
There's a fine line between not shitting yourself with fear over the system (I can't live like that either) and managing risk by eliminating terminally stupid things from one's legal diet. (like driving around as a minor in a car that has an expired sticker, with booze openly displayed with a rifle floating around in the back of the car with a round in the pipe....)
-Mike
fencer
NES Member
Geezum Crow... this kid is soooo screwed. Even if he doesn't do jail time, he can forget about any job that requires a background check.
I see a long career as a pizza delivery driver. The kid is a dumbass of epic proportions. Hope Mommy and Daddy can afford a good lawyer. He is going to need one.
Anyone else a little surprised they let his girlfriend drive the car away?
I see a long career as a pizza delivery driver. The kid is a dumbass of epic proportions. Hope Mommy and Daddy can afford a good lawyer. He is going to need one.
Anyone else a little surprised they let his girlfriend drive the car away?
30 years ago, the unopened beer would not have been a problem. In which states would this other stuff not be a crime, for those of you who said that?
The Facebook stuff is pretty crazy. They said they can't imagine that gun for hunting or for a kid to use. Someone who has Facebook needs to rebut that stuff.
The Facebook stuff is pretty crazy. They said they can't imagine that gun for hunting or for a kid to use. Someone who has Facebook needs to rebut that stuff.
You don't have to hit facebook to hear things like that. Several of our fine members here feel exactly the same way. We've already had a gentleman chime in here to state that the only people who want 80% lowers are felons and wife beaters. In a thread a week or so ago another fellow was supporting the cops hassling a kid for sitting in a car minding his own business...kid happened to have a (legal) handgun on him. There is a lot of stupidity out there and it isn't confined to facebook by any means.
Yep.
If that doesn't tell you how useless and ****ed up the US court system is, I don't know what will.
I'm not saying either should have bail, I'm saying the "discretion" is so abused it's bullshit.
MA also has "dangerousness" hearings too for things since the Middlesex county DA let jared remy out on basically nothing. So a lot of people get held until trail because they are "dangerous" although it's BS. That guy in Wrentham or Franklin (somewhere down near there) who had possession of some guns, one a scary AW was just held because a judge deemed him "dangerous" at the hearing. He I think he had an open RO but he seemed pretty tepid.
If the guy at BU was transgender, the Boston judge would have given him an award prior to giving him no bail.
