-
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
AHM
NES Member
Another fly in the ointment
On Monday morning someone thought he already has a record
(everyone seems to have missed that fun factoid):
Emphasis mine.
On Monday morning someone thought he already has a record
(everyone seems to have missed that fun factoid):
Emphasis mine.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
Don, so does this mean that as a MA resident, if I was going to buy, or sell an AR lower, it wouldn't need to be done with an E-FA10? I've always been a bit confused about that because a lot of dealers seem to process the sale of a stripped lower as if you were buying any firearm. Sorry for the partial thread derail.
True, think of it this way . . .
What is the bbl length of a stripped lower?
What is the caliber?
MGL is very clear on the matter (NO FA-10s unless able to fire a bullet for the first time in MA) but I usually see (for those that insist on an FA-10) that they put down some BS caliber (usually 223) and BS bbl length for a stripped lower so that the MIRCS system is none the wiser. If FRB had the wo/manpower (they don't) they would cull the 0" bbl FA-10s and trash them (at one time Jason Guida did just that, but as his group grew smaller and workload larger they had to cease doing this).
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
That is very interesting Len, thanks. It's as I suspected, but it's always best to know for sure in these matters. I know that the first stripped lower I bought many years ago was from a dealer and they filled out the form like you mentioned. I was really pissed to find out later that it was not a requirement by the state. My gray area here was in private transfer by non FFLs, and whether or not the E-FA10 needed to be done since the rules may be different for private transfers, but I guess not. Thanks.
That's the difference in loop vs non loop. West of 128 things are slightly less retarded. They still have to enforce the same shitty laws but, internally, they know that this isn't like some guy planning on going on a killing spree or some crack dealer or something, it's just a dumb, unlicensed kid with a gun to them, in someplace like Newton or Brookline they'd be foaming at the mouth and talking about the domestic terrorist they just arrested.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
-Mike
If the authorities were really interested in discretion, in terms of not being retarded they would have just made this kids gun disappear (while at the same time, telling him about the 48 felonies he just dodged ) and wrote him up for the booze misdemeanor or whatever it is and let that be the end of it. "Gun, what gun?"
-Mike
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
I had a shop try to register my Psl receiver as 7.62x39 16"
Yeah more like 24" 54r lol
dcmdon
NES Member
I hope we answered your question. It may be grey in your mind. But in MGL it is pure WHITE.
A stripped lower transferred between two people (non-ffl's) requires NO paperwork and no licenses (FID or LTC). Why?
Federal - the feds consider this to be a firearms transfer. But they do not have any record keeping requirements. As long as the recipient is not a prohibitied person, all is good.
State of MA - This is not a firearm. End of conversation.
Don
Meaning: Four Seasons is registering your firearm with the state of Mass, even though the state of Mass indicates this, in fact, is NOT a firearm. And unless the upper is a specific caliber, the most FS should do is indicate "multi" in their bound book and on the 4473.
Solution? Stop buying from Four Seasons. They're screwing you.
Agreed. I never said that I purchased either of these from FS; merely that I know first hand that they do this. None of my rifles have 16" bbl so Fs would be lying on the FA10 were I to purchase from them.
dcmdon
NES Member
I have an email with a conversation between me and the MA FRB which begins by me asking:
I currently have a complete lower receiver in my personal collection that I would like to sell. Based on my reading of the MA laws, if I sell a receiver to someone, the state would prefer that I NOT do a FA10. It seems that the responsibility would fall on the buyer once they build it into a functional firearm.
I ask because the buyer is pushing me to do an e-FA10 with him. In my mind, I would be perjuring myself by filling in the fields asking for barrel length and caliber, since as a frame/receiver, it would not have a barrel that defined these specifications.
So in summary, I am asking. Based on current interpretations, how would the state prefer that I handle the transfer of a personally owned receiver? Should I use a FA-10 or not?
The response I received was:
Good afternoon,
Parts are not considered in the definition of a firearm in Massachusetts (see https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121). Therefore, a FA10 does not have to be completed until the firearm is functional. Once the firearm is functional, the owner has 7 days to register the firearm as required by law.
Like I said. Done. End of conversation. Anyone who does it differently is wrong. Period.
Don
I currently have a complete lower receiver in my personal collection that I would like to sell. Based on my reading of the MA laws, if I sell a receiver to someone, the state would prefer that I NOT do a FA10. It seems that the responsibility would fall on the buyer once they build it into a functional firearm.
I ask because the buyer is pushing me to do an e-FA10 with him. In my mind, I would be perjuring myself by filling in the fields asking for barrel length and caliber, since as a frame/receiver, it would not have a barrel that defined these specifications.
So in summary, I am asking. Based on current interpretations, how would the state prefer that I handle the transfer of a personally owned receiver? Should I use a FA-10 or not?
The response I received was:
Good afternoon,
Parts are not considered in the definition of a firearm in Massachusetts (see https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121). Therefore, a FA10 does not have to be completed until the firearm is functional. Once the firearm is functional, the owner has 7 days to register the firearm as required by law.
Like I said. Done. End of conversation. Anyone who does it differently is wrong. Period.
Don
Last edited:
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
Finally! Jack.
This isn't news to most of us, Len (and probably a few other folks im forgetting) did the same thing when Guida was running FRB and probably also confirmed it again with Michaela.
Then again Don's confirmation is helpful in a way, someone might have said "oh well last time they told us this it was a year ago!" etc. I don't think they've ever waffled on this policy however, because it dovetails with the way the law is written.
Not to mention none of this matters anyways, because that whole system is a joke, but you knew that already.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
-Mike
This isn't news to most of us, Len (and probably a few other folks im forgetting) did the same thing when Guida was running FRB and probably also confirmed it again with Michaela.
Then again Don's confirmation is helpful in a way, someone might have said "oh well last time they told us this it was a year ago!" etc. I don't think they've ever waffled on this policy however, because it dovetails with the way the law is written.
Not to mention none of this matters anyways, because that whole system is a joke, but you knew that already.
-Mike
While yes, we knew all that already, it never hurts to have a current bureaucrat provide confirmation of how the current administration interprets these things.
These idiots seem to change their mind every time the wind blows and I wouldn't be surprised to see some idiot propagating the wrong interpretation due to incompetence or ignorance (or both).
I think they do it for liability. I'm going to stand on a limb and say most people don't register once their AR can be assembled into complete unit. AR lowers don't really bother me, but when they start requiring registration for vintage firearms I start getting pissed.
If they're concerned about liability, they shouldn't be filling in false information on FA10's. They don't know what their customers are going to build out of them and just guessing and filling it out with imaginary figures if falsifying the document.
Especially with all of the possibilities to use a blank AR lower for caliber, barrel, and OAL. There do not appear to be any penalties for falsifying an FA10 but that seems like a silly path to walk for little benefit.
None of this matters because the entire thing is a farce. Nobody will ever be prosecuted for filing unecessary FA-10s and the odds are very long that anyone would ever be prosecuted for not filing one at all, for that matter.
-Mike
Last edited by a moderator:
I do agree that the whole FA10 thing is a farce, generally speaking. I just think it's stupid that they are filling them out when they don't have to and they're doing it wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
Not sure what you mean by this. So you are saying that you don't mind someone such as FS filing an FA10 on an AR lower, but you would be pissed if they filed one when they transferred something old like a Mosin? I think that's what you meant, but you do realize that one is considered a complete firearm, and the other isn't, right? Not saying I agree with registration of ANY kind, but since it is the law here, that is a moot point.
They pressed these guys on getting everything "FA-10'd":
https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-Comm2A-Sues?p=4723747&viewfull=1#post4723747
Not a prosecution, doesn't count. That's just plain old PD ****ery is what that is. Them telling them to "register everything" is no different than demanding that the LTC holder wear clown shoes whenever they're carrying a gun.
-Mike
According to the Telegram, he was due back in court January 15. I was not there that day, so I don't know what happened.
Actually, it's odd they had a return date on a Friday. Return dates in that court are usually Tuesday and Thursday. Maybe they just made it go away quietly.
