- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,603
- Likes
- 19,975
It's always best to ask the OWNER of the shop on these type questions. It's HIS FFL that is on the line and thus his answers will stick.
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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Federal Firearms License Search
The purpose of this program is to allow an FFL or other user to verify that a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is valid. The user needs only enter the first 3 digits and the last 5 digits of the FFL being verified in the blocks provided and select the SUBMIT button. Selecting the RESET button will clear previously entered data.
FFL eZ Check does not validate Type 03 (Collectors of Curios and Relics) and Type 06 (Manufacturer of Ammunition) licenses. All attempts to check the validity of Type 03 and Type 06 licenses will result in an error message, even though the licenses may be valid. An FFL should not use this error message as reason to deny dealing with a Type 03 licensee.
Hi All,
I'm selling a revolver to an individual.
He gave me the name of an FFL to do the transfer.
Where can I find out what my requirements are? What kind of paperwork do I need to keep and or file with the state?
Thanks.
David
Along the lines of selling to someone out-of state:
If a MA C&R is selling a C&R gun to an out-of state individual, (a) can seller ship directly to the buyer's FFL or is the C&R irrelevant and the shipment must go through a Massachusetts FFL and (b) what would the FA-10 requirements be - in order to "unregister" the gun from the seller?
Specifically for Massachusetts, although one can purchase a post or no-ban assault weapon such as a RRA AR-15 or a LE marked Colt outside of MA, you cannot bring said rifle back into the state.
Please tell me how a MA resident can legally purchase a post ban assault weapon outside of MA (keeping in mind 18 USC 44 § 922(b)(3))?
While it -might- not be legal for the dealer to sell it - eg "It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—" I don't see anything in that section of law that says that the person buying the gun is committing a crime.
drgrant said:Further, that whole segment of law would be a hard sell legally, IMO. You're creating a situation where contextually, a person is bound to the laws of another state when they're not even within the borders if that state. I'm fairly sure there is some legal precedents that prohibit or block this to some degree, which would be why I've never heard of an FFL getting hung out to dry for this.
drgrant said:Even if there is a legal block against the FFL selling the rifle, there is no legal block to someone owning or possessing such a rifle. (at least within the borders of the states where they're legal. ) So worse comes to worse, a guy with an NH/ME/FL whatever vacation home could build a post-ban EBR and keep it there, if they wanted to, they just couldn't buy a whole rifle at once.
They have not committed a crime, per se, but they are also not legally in possession of the rifle, because the sale was illegal. If you argue that it isn't the buyers responsibility and they are legally in possession, then you'd have to argue the same thing when buying stolen merchandise from a fence.
Further, if you have knowledge of the federal law but still allow the FFL to sell it to you, you are an accomplice to their crime.
That's a fine possible defense, but that's hardly an argument that the law doesn't exist and there is no issue with buying the gun. As the law stands, you cannot legally do it.
I think you probably don't hear of an FFL being hung out to dry because you haven't heard of anybody being charged under 131M, even without this complication.
Frankly, thats apples vs oranges. In this case the merchandise is hardly "stolen". Further, why should the buyer be legally liable for a mistake made by the FFL? A better example would be trying to charge a buyer with a crime because the FFL did not log the transfer in his bound book correctly- it just doesn't wash.
drgrant said:Look at other parts of federal gun law. They start with things like "for any person" which, means everyone. Yet, you look at 8 USC 44 § 922(b)(3), and it explicitly says " It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector...." this clause, IMO, is intentionally restrictive, for a reason.
drgrant said:Good luck to the feds trying to prove that.
drgrant said:How is 131M even relevant here? The gun isn't even coming back into MA, in the example I posited above.
You're missing my point. There's a difference between committing a crime and not being legally in possession of something. My example was showing that. If you buy a stolen item from a pawnshop who was acting as a fence without your knowledge, you have committed no crime (the pawn shop owner has), but you cannot keep the item you purchased because it was not a legal sale. Same with the FFL. They cannot legally sell you that item, so even though you went through a transaction with them, it is void and the rifle does not belong to you.
Notice the wording of the federal law is much different than the wording of the MA AG regulations that we all say are the dealer's responsibility. There it is an 'unfair and deceptive practive' not an 'illegal sale', so you have no legal obligation to return the gun. This is, however, a different situation.
Yes, the law is restricted to sales by FFLs. It has nothing to do with private sales. Since private sales of rifles to non-residents are forbidden, I fail to see your point here.
You can talk all you want about whether the feds could actually successfully prosecute a federal law, but that's an entirely different argument from whether the federal law exists. Putting the wording, "you can do this" when there is a federal law saying you can't is a half truth at best, and irresponsible at worst.
Because who is going to accuse an FFL of selling a post-ban rifle to a non-resident while in a state without a AWB? Nobody. The only way it would ever cause trouble for an FFL is if the rifle was discovered in a AWB state and was traced back to an FFL in the non-AWB state. Then the feds might be interested in why the FFL sold it illegally to the non-resident.
If what you posit is true, then the BATFE would be able to justify systematically seizing firearms from every otherwise law abiding person who just so happened to buy a gun from a dealer that wasn't on the straight and level. (Perfect example- that guy in Norton who was selling on an expired FFL... ) I'm sure they would just love to do something like that, but reality is that they would get laughed out of court for trying to make the case that a buyer with a clean record that filled out the paperwork, and is otherwise legal for Title I ownership, now all of a sudden owns "contraband" because of the transgressions of the dealer that sold them the thing. At the end of the day it's still just a Title I firearm, even if the dealer screwed up his duties in the transfer process, that doesn't change the nature of the item.
I think you're still missing the point. The gun is not "contraband". I never said that.
The point is that a sale is a contract, and a contract that requires an illegal act is null and void. In a case where a seller commits a crime in order to complete a sale, the sale never legally takes place.
You see what I'm saying? You have not committed any crime, nor do you have any 'contraband' in your posession. However, you are also not legally the owner of the rifle you thought you bought. This eventuality that you find yourself in is why I was making the comparison to accidentally purchasing stolen goods. It's the same short end of the stick for you either way.
See how well that flies...
Anyway, while this is actually a fascinating discussion and I am enjoying your arguments, it's a little away from my original intended point.
What I was trying to get across in my original post was that you're likely to have trouble being able to purchase a post-ban AWB rifle from an out of state FFL because as soon as you show your MA ID, any FFL who is knowledgeable is going to shut down the sale right there.
I
Can someone help with which is which? Sorry if this is a super dumb question.
Preban guns by definition are OK to purchase in MA. Doesn't matter what features (flash hider, folding stocks, etc). If it was a complete rifle on 9/13/1994, it does not fall under the ban and thus you can have all the features you want on it.