they need the SOT for any NFA items.
That's pretty much what I thought.... hence my original comment. An 07 without a SOT is sort of pointless unless you're only going to be working on/with Title 1 stuff.
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***
they need the SOT for any NFA items.
That's pretty much what I thought.... hence my original comment. An 07 without a SOT is sort of pointless unless you're only going to be working on/with Title 1 stuff.
Back in the day, it was thought that the Bronx had a big problem with juriesIf I was on a jury (never will get on one) I wouldn't trust any government agents word - hard evidence, produced by audio or video or I'm not buying.
“In October 2015, the Defendant transferred a Glock 17 pistol to a customer, despite knowing that the transfer of such a Glock firearm is prohibited in Massachusetts,” the Feb. 1 filing reads.
Incomplete information. He may have failed to record the transaction properly and mentioning glock is just for effect. Someone might have confused a cmr violation with mgl violation. Shoddy reporting only informs on shoddy reporting, not actual details.Isn't this statement, just as it stands, incorrect? As in not correct in all instances?
Or else every dealer who handles used Glocks is also guilty?
Incomplete information. He may have failed to record the transaction properly and mentioning glock is just for effect. Someone might have confused a cmr violation with mgl violation. Shoddy reporting only informs on shoddy reporting, not actual details.
I’d you read the actual plea agreement he pled to transfer in violation of state law which is a federal offense. Since he had dozens of transfers in violation of federal law for failure to record in his bound book its safe to assume he failed to fa10 said transfers also. So he broke state law which means he broke federal law again.
To be clear, if I as a ffl sell you a ma resident a gun and fail to record this with the state or feds, I have broken at least two federal and one state law. The state is failure to record in MIRCS. The federal are failure to record in bound book and violating state law. Yes it is a double dip on the state violation but following state law is a condition of your federal license so there it is.
I can only dream that the law was just as tough on illegal immigration and welfare fraud.
There is an interesting gray area here. MGL requires one to be a federally licensed manufacturer of firearms to possess a silencer, but does not mention one needs to be federally licensed to manufacture silencers. Excellent catch on your part ... assuming the commonwealth does not claim that the clear intent of this clause meant "silencer manufacturer". Thanks.An 07 can still possess NFA items without a SOT. They just have to pay the tax on each item.
Lets run through a very specific scenario that would apply to a MA person.
You have an 07 FFL and no SOT. You wish to buy a suppressor to keep in inventory. You buy it, pay your $200. you now get to own and use a suppressor without paying the $500 per year SOT.
Or lets say you pay the SOT and acquire a half dozen cans. You do not pay the SOT the following year. You are not suddenly in violation of the law.
Either way. One significant value of having an 07 without a SOT in MA is the ability to lawfully possess silencers without paying $500 per year.
What exemption?What is also interesting about this carve-out is that it hinges on federal licensure, not state (like the exemption to possess post ban AWs and normal cap mags does)
Chapter 140 Section 131M exempts persons licensed under Chapter 140 Section 122.What exemption?
Either way. One significant value of having an 07 without a SOT in MA is the ability to lawfully possess silencers without paying $500 per year.