Another lower question

There is No need to register a rifle that was not transferred to you. Even if it can fire a shot. So a lower that you own gets assembled and can now shoot but was never transferred So. No fa10 is needed. Not looking for a fight just trying to be clear
 
"How did you obtain this gun?"
"I didn't, I manufactured it"
"So you obtained it by manufacturing it?"
"Well, no, that's not my interpretation of the word but, but..."

Pretty broad definition as it pertains to the law as written.

Obtain
1. get, acquire, or secure (something)
Example: "adequate insurance coverage is difficult to obtain"
  • get
  • acquire
  • come by
  • secure
  • procure
  • come into possession of
  • pick up
  • be given
 
"How did you obtain this gun?"
"I didn't, I manufactured it"
"So you obtained it by manufacturing it?"
"Well, no, that's not my interpretation of the word but, but..."

Pretty broad definition as it pertains to the law as written.

Obtain
1. get, acquire, or secure (something)
Example: "adequate insurance coverage is difficult to obtain"
  • get
  • acquire
  • come by
  • secure
  • procure
  • come into possession of
  • pick up
  • be given
Who did you receive it from and who was the seller?
 
I do have some first hand experience already with the argument and law enforcement

Jammed up and talked your way out of it? Or asked cop at the range?

Who did you receive it from and who was the seller?

Does obtaining something require a seller? You don’t enter a seller when recording out of state purchase or inheritance.
 
Who did you receive it from and who was the seller?
As already stated above, no requirement for a seller.
The law states "...obtains a firearm, rifle or shotgun or machine gun from any source within or without the commonwealth." I could argue that the manufacturer is 'any source' even if it's yourself. Thin point, yes.

I can see your point, it's just a bit too grey to bank on in a court system predisposed to your guilt on gun issues.
The law also states "...obtains a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun from any source... ...and receives such firearm..."
So you could also argue that you can't both manufacture it and receive it but that's also a pretty thin point on which to base the entire case.

Then... If you never received it then how is it you have it?
Well, I received the parts, yes but it wasn't a firearm at that point. Then I manufactured it...
So you received it after you obtained it by manufacturing it.
Then you tell me who I received it from.
You received it as a result of the manufacturing process.
The manufacturing process is not a person or place.
But it could be a source.
And round and round... Chit makes my head spin.

The upside is that first offense is just civil.
 
Last edited:
As already stated above, no requirement for a seller.
The law states "...obtains a firearm, rifle or shotgun or machine gun from any source within or without the commonwealth." I could argue that the manufacturer is 'any source' even if it's yourself. Thin point, yes.

I can see your point, it's just a bit too grey to bank on in a court system predisposed to your guilt on gun issues.
The law also states "...obtains a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun from any source... ...and receives such firearm..."
So you could also argue that you can't both manufacture it and receive it but that's also a pretty thin point on which to base the entire case.

Then... If you never received it then how is it you have it?
Well, I received the parts, yes but it wasn't a firearm at that point. Then I manufactured it...
So you received it after you obtained it by manufacturing it.
Then you tell me who I received it from.
You received it as a result of the manufacturing process.
The manufacturing process is not a person or place.
But it could be a source.
And round and round... Chit makes my head spin.

The upside is that first offense is just civil.
Point of order: individuals don't manufacture. Manufacturing is an activity reserved for those "in the business," i.e., FFLs. Individuals can make, or build, or any number of other verbs, though.
 
Point of order: individuals don't manufacture. Manufacturing is an activity reserved for those "in the business," i.e., FFLs. Individuals can make, or build, or any number of other verbs, though.
you are thinking on the federal level not the state level

Jammed up and talked your way out of it? Or asked cop at the range?



Does obtaining something require a seller? You don’t enter a seller when recording out of state purchase or inheritance.
for out of state purchases a transfer has clearly occurred, there is no duty to register anything you already own the reason why you do not when moving into the state with guns,

my personal experience was vetted by detective and their council from one of the largest police department in the state, involving a recovered glock that was not in the database, that was sold within that year as a frame. I won't go into in it any more than that, as the story has been told here before
no courts no charges, and same conclusions I state here where arrived at
I can see your point, it's just a bit too grey to bank on in a court system predisposed to your guilt on gun issues.
The law also states "...obtains a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun from any source... ...and receives such firearm..."
So you could also argue that you can't both manufacture it and receive it but that's also a pretty thin point on which to base the entire case.

Then... If you never received it then how is it you have it?
Well, I received the parts, yes but it wasn't a firearm at that point. Then I manufactured it...
So you received it after you obtained it by manufacturing it.
Then you tell me who I received it from.
You received it as a result of the manufacturing process.
The manufacturing process is not a person or place.
But it could be a source.
And round and round... Chit makes my head spin.

The upside is that first offense is just civil.

.There are many perfectly legal reasons to have ownership of a gun in MA that is not in the database.
We have no duty to register something you own, Only something you transfer, so to to entertain you argument of obtain if you choose to think of it the way you do, I owned the upper, I owned the lower, after assembly I obtained a rifle, but it never was transferred, I owned it the entire time so there is no duty to report it ,
 
Last edited:
For out of state purchases a transfer has clearly occurred, there is no duty to register anything you already own the reason why you do not when moving into the state with guns,

my personal experience was vetted by detective and their council from one of the largest police department in the state, involving a recovered glock that was not in the database, that was sold within that year as a frame. I won't go into in it any more than that, as the story has been told here before
no courts no charges, and same conclusions I state here where arrived at

Interesting, thanks for the additional detail. I’ll read around and see if I can find the story you’re referencing too.
 
you are thinking on the federal level not the state level


for out of state purchases a transfer has clearly occurred, there is no duty to register anything you already own the reason why you do not when moving into the state with guns,

my personal experience was vetted by detective and their council from one of the largest police department in the state, involving a recovered glock that was not in the database, that was sold within that year as a frame. I won't go into in it any more than that, as the story has been told here before
no courts no charges, and same conclusions I state here where arrived at


.There are many perfectly legal reasons to have ownership of a gun in MA that is not in the database.
We have no duty to register something you own, Only something you transfer, so to to entertain you argument of obtain if you choose to think of it the way you do, I owned the upper, I owned the lower, after assembly I obtained a rifle, but it never was transferred, I owned it the entire time so there is no duty to report it ,

Well that's encouraging at least. Sounds like you were fortunate in your situation to be dealing with a dept with no agenda and possibly some common sense, seems it could easily have gone another way under slightly different circumstances. I wouldn't have the same confidence if it had gone as far as the court system with maybe a prosecutor trying to prove something. Hopefully it's a can o worms they don't want to open, like the maura press release...

Believe me, I'm not pant shitting over this stuff and realize there are plenty of circumstances where fa10 isn't necessary. I'm just not convinced that, given the wording of the law, assembling from parts is automagically a free pass...
 
Well that's encouraging at least. Sounds like you were fortunate in your situation to be dealing with a dept with no agenda and possibly some common sense, seems it could easily have gone another way under slightly different circumstances. I wouldn't have the same confidence if it had gone as far as the court system with maybe a prosecutor trying to prove something. Hopefully it's a can o worms they don't want to open, like the maura press release...

Believe me, I'm not pant shitting over this stuff and realize there are plenty of circumstances where fa10 isn't necessary. I'm just not convinced that, given the wording of the law, assembling from parts is automagically a free pass...
It was boston PD....... Not sure if you still feel the same way ,

It would be an awful big agenda for a prosecutor to go as far as the courts, If you are properly licenced and no other crimes were committed... for a $500 -$1,000 fine
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom