Statute Of Limitations For eFA10'ing A Completed Firearm?

[kalash]

What does it matter when the parts were purchased? You can put any date of completion. Just because the parts were purchased some time in the past dosent been the firearm was completed. It has a completion date any time you want to put a completion date. Example I have had a Lonewolf Timber wolf frame I purchased on let's say 10/15/2022 and a Glock 23 compensated slide I purchased on 1/3/2023. I purchased the slide parts 1/21/2023 and the barrel on 2/4/2023 now I can say I assembled the parts into a firearm at any date I want. If I want to record the completion of this firearm on 2/2/2024 and put it into the EFA10 system who's to know.
Just put the firearm into the system no one really knows when the finished build was completed.

Likewise, if you purchased a slide some time after purchasing the frame, who's to say you weren't borrowing a slide from the day you bought it? In other words, the statute of limitations clock could've started prior to you purchasing the slide.

 

[DJBrad]

NES takes troll threads too serious.

But sometimes troll threads do give clarity to otherwise muddy topics.

 

[scott-o]

How about this part.

report, in writing, to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information

Seems to me like if you are using the electronic submission you are out of compliance!

 

[Broc]

But sometimes troll threads do give clarity to otherwise muddy topics.

This is not a muddy topic. NES is just exercising their Olympic gold Winning mental gymnastics.

 

[Tartakovsky]

NES takes troll threads too serious.

1. You’re NOT new here. 2. You’re the godfather of troll threads.

 

[kalash]

Hey Maura,

You’re referencing MGL Chapter 140 S128B which speaks to recording the acquisition of complete firearms or serialized “receivers”, whether purchased or acquired by other means (“Crazy Uncle Joe gave it to me before he moved to Arizona”). There is no requirement to record or register a firearm you personally built either from scratch (no serial required unless you intend to sell) or from a stripped lower. I’ll eat my socks if you can prove otherwise. An AR lower for example does not meet the federal definition of a receiver. Building a firearm capable of firing from a stripped lower doesn’t meet the requirement of MGL Chapter 140 S128B.

128B says "purchased or obtained". Does building a gun mean you "obtained" it or no?

 

[kalash]

Is filing an eFA10 on the eighth day self incrimination? Is putting "yesterday" as the date falsifying a government document? So does the BoR cover you if you forget to file within the seven days?

I love MA legal threads. The laws are clear as mud so the threads are always entertaining.

 

[DJBrad]

This is not a muddy topic. NES is just exercising their Olympic gold Winning mental gymnastics.

Right. When it was built. That’s not muddy nor opaque.


But the larger question and one which many if not all don’t fully understand is that FA10 is not registration. It’s merely a record of transactions. And it is a .gov pile of diarrhea.

 

[Reptile]

My friend thinks that if he didn't eFA10 it years ago when he should have - that NOW years later - he is totally off the hook for not registering back then.

So, again this is not me but I'm going to pretend I'm the person in the next paragraphs. (Hoping not to go to jail)
___________
I bought a lower 10 years ago. A couple years later I built it up into a complete AR. I never eFA10'd it.

Could I NOW get in trouble for having an "unregistered" rifle???
___________

That is the question my friend wants to know. He claims he's innocent of any crimes and does not admit to anything.

 

[Tartakovsky]

128B says "purchased or obtained". Does building a gun mean you "obtained" it or no?

If you obtained a firearm (complete) or receiver (federal definition met, think Remington 700 or a revolver frame) then MGL Chapter 140 S128B applies. The rule is meant for recording transactions (money or cashless) where you obtained a gun or receiver. If you personally built it, like from a stripped AR lower, or an 80% lower, or milled from a solid block of aluminum, MGL Chapter 140 S128B doesn’t apply.

 

[cstockwell]

Your friend should be more concerned about acting as a for profit seller and posting the information and sales on a public forum. Talking about his "customers" and such. I mean people who specifically are buying lowers and things to just resell at a profit are engaging in business. As far as the ATF and MA are concerned with firearms. He should probably consult a lawyer because the glock may be the least of his worries.

I kid. Please don't go off the deep end on this now too.

 

[kalash]

If you obtained a firearm (complete) or receiver (federal definition met, think Remington 700 or a revolver frame) then MGL Chapter 140 S128B applies. The rule is meant for recording transactions (money or cashless) where you obtained a gun or receiver. If you personally built it, like from a stripped AR lower, or an 80% lower, or milled from a solid block of aluminum, MGL Chapter 140 S128B doesn’t apply.

Two things don't make sense to me here:
1) Why would it apply to receivers? They're not firearms, per MGL, so no firearm even exists until it's capable of firing a shot.
2) If you built out an AR lower, per your example, did you just "obtain" a firearm or no? I'm not sure if there's any case law that defines the word "obtain" as used in this law.

 

[Horatio_Alger_Jr]

@Reptile, the joke is played out. Sell your shit or hold it. Nobody f***ing cares.

 

[kalash]

I mean people who specifically are buying lowers and things to just resell at a profit are engaging in business.

Are they also doing straw purchases?

 

[Reptile]

If you obtained a firearm (complete) or receiver (federal definition met, think Remington 700 or a revolver frame) then MGL Chapter 140 S128B applies. The rule is meant for recording transactions (money or cashless) where you obtained a gun or receiver. If you personally built it, like from a stripped AR lower, or an 80% lower, or milled from a solid block of aluminum, MGL Chapter 140 S128B doesn’t apply.

Ok, that answers the AR question.

Now, what if he bought a complete Glock from a friend and they never eFA10'd THAT sale???

7 years ago?

Is he in the clear NOW???

 

[Reptile]

@Reptile, the joke is played out. Sell your shit or hold it. Nobody f***ing cares.

This does not pertain to my Noveske lowers.

Totally different situation that has to do with a complete rifle and Glock.

 

[kalash]

Ok, that answers the AR question.

Now, what if he bought a complete Glock from a friend and they never eFA10'd THAT sale???

7 years ago?

Is he in the clear NOW???

He was in the clear that same afternoon - it's on the seller to file the eFA10, not the buyer.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

_________
I bought a lower 10 years ago. A couple years later I built it up into a complete AR. I never eFA10'd it.

Could I NOW get in trouble for having an "unregistered" rifle???
___________

It could make it impossible to exercise grandfathering rights on that EBR if the grandfathering follows the Creem protocol.

 

[Tartakovsky]

Two things don't make sense to me here:
1) Why would it apply to receivers? They're not firearms, per MGL, so no firearm even exists until it's capable of firing a shot.
2) If you built out an AR lower, per your example, did you just "obtain" a firearm or no? I'm not sure if there's any case law that defines the word "obtain" as used in this law.

From the government perspective - the “receiver” is the regulated/controlled component most difficult to acquire either by transaction or manufacture. Everything else can easily/legally be acquired. If you made your own gun, you are not required to serialize it (unless you intend to sell it, at which point it must be serialized at the point of sale). If you EFA10 a firearm, you’re required to provide a serial number. How do you provide a serial number in an EFA10 for a PMF that you didn’t serialize because you don’t intend to sell it?

 

[Horatio_Alger_Jr]

This does not pertain to my Noveske lowers.

Totally different situation that has to do with a complete rifle and Glock.

Hold it or sell it. f*** off with the spam posts.

 

[kalash]

If you made your own gun, you are not required to serialize it (unless you intend to sell it, at which point it must be serialized at the point of sale). If you EFA10 a firearm, you’re required to provide a serial number. How do you provide a serial number in an EFA10 for a PMF that you didn’t serialize because you don’t intend to sell it?

What about building a stripped lower (serialized) into a functioning rifle?

 

[Tartakovsky]

Ok, that answers the AR question.

Now, what if he bought a complete Glock from a friend and they never eFA10'd THAT sale???

7 years ago?

Is he in the clear NOW???

That would be in violation of MGL 140 sec 128B but the burden of proof is on the state to prove he never FA10ed it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you made your own gun, you are not required to serialize it (unless you intend to sell it, at which point it must be serialized at the point of sale). If you EFA10 a firearm, you’re required to provide a serial number. How do you provide a serial number in an EFA10 for a PMF that you didn’t serialize because you don’t intend to sell it?

I've been toying with the idea of having a 1911 built with the serial number N0NE (that's a zero, not an oh, to meet BATFE numbering requirements), and perhaps "L0ST". Probably will pass on "ST0LEN".

 

[Tartakovsky]

What about building a stripped lower (serialized) into a functioning rifle?

MGL140 sec128B still doesn’t apply because a lower alone doesn’t meet the federal definition of a receiver.

 

[scott-o]

Two things don't make sense to me here:
1) Why would it apply to receivers? They're not firearms, per MGL, so no firearm even exists until it's capable of firing a shot.
2) If you built out an AR lower, per your example, did you just "obtain" a firearm or no? I'm not sure if there's any case law that defines the word "obtain" as used in this law.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
-Bill Clinton

 

[kalash]

Still doesn’t apply because a lower alone doesn’t meet the federal definition of a receiver.

The question is whether you're required to eFA10 a functioning rifle that you assembled on a serialized lower. Has nothing to do with federal definitions or even federal law, this is a Mass question.

 

[Reptile]

It could make it impossible to exercise grandfathering rights on that EBR the grandfathering follows the Creem protocol.

That would present a problem for my friend.

 

[Tartakovsky]

The question is whether you're required to eFA10 a functioning rifle that you assembled on a serialized lower. Has nothing to do with federal definitions or even federal law, this is a Mass question.

I understand but Mass doesn’t have state definitions for certain terms and thus defers to federal definitions (like a receiver). It’s my opinion, that the statute was meant to memorialize a record of the acquisition/transaction of a firearm by a person from another person or entity and that personally manufactured firearms don’t apply.

I challenge anyone here to show me a record of a single person in MA ever being prosecuted and convicted for violating MGL 140 Sec 128B that wasn’t a prohibited person.

There is a difference in the English language between the terms obtain/acquire and make. Obtaining is acquiring something that already existed. Making is literally transforming something (raw metal for example) into something else (a firearm for example).

 

[namedpipes]

I mean, how many times can everybody answer the questions.


Hey, at least five of you REALLY need to study up on MA gun laws. Is @Len-2A Training still doing that course? Look him up. Or somebody.

 

[Reptile]

I understand but Mass doesn’t have state definitions for certain terms and thus defers to federal definitions (like a receiver). It’s my opinion, that the statute was meant to memorialize a record of the acquisition of a firearm by a person from another person or entity and that personally manufactured firearms don’t apply.

I challenge anyone here to show me a record of a single person in MA ever being prosecuted and convicted for violating MGL 140 Sec 128B that wasn’t a prohibited person.

There is a difference in the English language between the terms obtain/acquire and make. Obtaining is acquiring something that already existed. Making is literally transforming something (raw metal for example) into something else (a firearm for example).

If that is the case I (ME) don't have to eFA10 a rifle that I just built up from a lower today or until the law changes???

That is pretty great because that mean I can create an off the books rifle without going the 80% route.