Cape Cod times 10-3-2008

[LoginName]

You think he's carrying when he makes his yearly rounds? It's a dangerous world out there...

It sure is...

 

[Half Cocked]

I'm still seeing a common word in both of those sentences.

You can call it fertilizer, I'll can still call it cow shit.

This is one of my pet peeves....There is no gun "registration" in Ma. Period

There is documentation of purchases and transfers and certain acquisitions but it is not "registration".

An argument can be made that it is a matter of semantics...and there is some truth to that but the point is there is no "registration".

Ma is more concerned with who is selling and buying firearms than the actual firearms that are being bought and or acquired.

 

[jdubois]

You can call it fertilizer, I'll can still call it cow shit.

Can you be prosecuted in MA for being in possession of an 'unregistered' handgun like you can in NY? Nope, not a chance. Can you be prosecuted for failing to document a transfer? Yup, you bet.

 

[C-pher]

This is one of my pet peeves....There is no gun "registration" in Ma. Period

There is documentation of purchases and transfers and certain acquisitions but it is not "registration".

An argument can be made that it is a matter of semantics...and there is some truth to that but the point is there is no "registration".

Ma is more concerned with who is selling and buying firearms than the actual firearms that are being bought and or acquired.

They why was it touted that if a crime was committed with a firearm...they could use the FA-10s to find out who it belonged to?

Again, call it "semantics," but if they said it was to track the firearm to the person...and it locates the person that bought it...or it was sold to...then call it what you want. They still know that the firearm belonged to that person that didn't "register" it.

 

[C-pher]

Can you be prosecuted in MA for being in possession of an 'unregistered' handgun like you can in NY? Nope, not a chance. Can you be prosecuted for failing to document a transfer? Yup, you bet.

So, you're saying that I can buy a the long guns that I want in other states and bring them home and not fill out an FA-10???

 

[terraformer]

So, you're saying that I can buy a the long guns that I want in other states and bring them home and not fill out an FA-10???

Yeah, if all they care about is the transfer, then they have no authority to mandate anything on a transfer occurring in another state, barring a federal law allowing it. Thereby no ability to enforce us to file an FA/10 on out of state transfers of any long guns, if all it is is about transfers.

 

[LoginName]

Can you be prosecuted in MA for being in possession of an 'unregistered' handgun like you can in NY? Nope, not a chance. Can you be prosecuted for failing to document a transfer? Yup, you bet.

So, why if one builds a handgun or rifle from a stripped receiver or frame, they're required to file an FA-10 once the build is completed?

 

[jdubois]

So, you're saying that I can buy a the long guns that I want in other states and bring them home and not fill out an FA-10???

Sure. If you move to the other state, wait 180 days, and then move back to MA, no FA-10 required when you bring the gun back.

So, why if one builds a handgun or rifle from a stripped receiver or frame, they're required to file an FA-10 once the build is completed?

The law doesn't actually specifically say that an FA-10 is required in this case. It's a safe interpretation of the word "obtain" in § 128B along with the $1000/10 year penalty that makes people do it.

 

[jdubois]

They why was it touted that if a crime was committed with a firearm...they could use the FA-10s to find out who it belonged to?

Because they live in a fairytale land of make believe? They may have wanted to implement a gun registration system. But they failed.

 

[Half Cocked]

They why was it touted that if a crime was committed with a firearm...they could use the FA-10s to find out who it belonged to?

Again, call it "semantics," but if they said it was to track the firearm to the person...and it locates the person that bought it...or it was sold to...then call it what you want. They still know that the firearm belonged to that person that didn't "register" it.

I am not saying that they don't use the information about the firearm from the FA-10. But it does not work.

If you look at the laws surrounding FA-10's they appear to be....IMO.....geared more towards identifying those who are buying and selling firearms. They appear to be more concerned with the who than the what.

Take for instance...multiple handgun sales....they just want to know who is buying multiple handguns. They do not care about the guns.

Look at out of state acquisitions...if you buy a long gun out of state and return to MA you need to file an FA-10 (I have arguments on this but that is for another day)....but if you move in to MA from another state with previously owned firearms you are not required to file an FA-10.

If there was "registration" you would have to file an FA-10...don't ya think?

Then why file when you buy one out of state and return to Ma? Because they want to know if there may be someone buying guns out of state and returning to Ma for any illegal purposes.

 

[jdubois]

if you buy a long gun out of state and return to MA you need to file an FA-10 (I have arguments on this but that is for another day)

Oh crap, let's not get into THAT again!

 

[Half Cocked]

Oh crap, let's not get into THAT again!

I have no intention of that!!!

 

[pdm]

Then why file when you buy one out of state and return to Ma? Because they want to know if there may be someone buying guns out of state and returning to Ma for any illegal purposes.

As if criminals file FA-10s, right?

 

[Half Cocked]

As if criminals file FA-10s, right?

Which is the problem with most firearms laws.........

 

[pipmaster1971]

Here is what I sent in this time around. It has gotten to be a cut n' paste job these days unfortunately.
By running the below quote from John Rosenthal a reasoned individual can only surmise that you completely failed to fact check his statement. These 2002-2003 stats here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state and before you say it, these numbers are backed up by the DOJ's site http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomOneYearofData.cfm) clearly show he is either outright lying or completely deluded. Also, the FBI's 2004 uniform crime report clearly lists Springfield MA as the 8th deadliest city in the nation. Although MA is no where near the top of the heap of deadly states, it is by no means at the bottom either. Additionally, the % of homicides with guns is far higher here, than the overall death rate would suggest MA to have. Additionally, MA is the most deadly of the states in the NE region, despite the oppressive and punitive guns laws law abiding citizens must endure.

As a result of the complete lack of accountability you held him to, John Rosenthal has yet again been able to cause people to believe that the gun laws in the Commonwealth are somehow making a positive difference when at best, they are making no difference at all.

If you listen to what he said it was "gun DEATHS". An important distinction. Most of the violence happens in Boston, which also has one of the highest concentrations of cutting-edge hospitals on the planet.

 

[pdm]

Which is the problem with most firearms laws.........

Exactly! So let's do away with FA-10s!

 

[C-pher]

Because they live in a fairytale land of make believe? They may have wanted to implement a gun registration system. But they failed.

Still, it smell of a half assed way to me.. And while it may not be true registration, it's awful damn close.

Take for instance...multiple handgun sales....they just want to know who is buying multiple handguns. They do not care about the guns.

There's already a federal form that a dealer has to fill out and send a copy to the ATF, the local Police Chief, and the Chief of the town the person lives in... It's done Everytime someone purchaces more than one gun in a 5 day period at a dealer.


So why need the FA-10 when everyone is already getting notified?

 

[pdm]

So why need the FA-10 when everyone is already getting notified?

To make it inconvenient and add a "gotcha!" point. I mean, just look at the penalty for not filing.

 

[drgrant]

There's already a federal form that a dealer has to fill out and send a copy to the ATF, the local Police Chief, and the Chief of the town the person lives in... It's done Everytime someone purchaces more than one gun in a 5 day period at a dealer.

So why need the FA-10 when everyone is already getting notified?

C-pher- one nit here.... That form only applies to HANDGUNS, unless it's changed recently. If I buy 3 rifles at once no MHP form is filed. The FFL just puts the list of rifles on the 4473, runs NICS, and that's it. (Well, then there's the usual FA-10/MIRCS dealer thing, but that's just processed as three entries in that system. )

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

If you listen to what he said it was "gun DEATHS". An important distinction. Most of the violence happens in Boston, which also has one of the highest concentrations of cutting-edge hospitals on the planet.

Still BS.
From those links:
Homicide rate per 100,000 population
Gun homicides per 100,000 population

Nothing about actual gun violence, only deaths. I would love to see gun violence stats without consideration of outcome but can't find them.

 

[Wildweasel]

Ok then why the Need for the Serial number and description of the gun?
Once that information is recorded it is registration.

I am not saying that they don't use the information about the firearm from the FA-10. But it does not work.

If you look at the laws surrounding FA-10's they appear to be....IMO.....geared more towards identifying those who are buying and selling firearms. They appear to be more concerned with the who than the what.

Take for instance...multiple handgun sales....they just want to know who is buying multiple handguns. They do not care about the guns.

Look at out of state acquisitions...if you buy a long gun out of state and return to MA you need to file an FA-10 (I have arguments on this but that is for another day)....but if you move in to MA from another state with previously owned firearms you are not required to file an FA-10.

If there was "registration" you would have to file an FA-10...don't ya think?

Then why file when you buy one out of state and return to Ma? Because they want to know if there may be someone buying guns out of state and returning to Ma for any illegal purposes.

 

[C-pher]

C-pher- one nit here.... That form only applies to HANDGUNS, unless it's changed recently. If I buy 3 rifles at once no MHP form is filed. The FFL just puts the list of rifles on the 4473, runs NICS, and that's it. (Well, then there's the usual FA-10/MIRCS dealer thing, but that's just processed as three entries in that system. )

-Mike

That's why I replied to his post...he was talking handguns. SO I brought up that point. He never mentioned long guns, so I didn't make a "but only if" distinction.

 

[jdubois]

Still, it smell of a half assed way to me.. And while it may not be true registration, it's awful damn close.

Yes, I'm not defending FA-10's when I say they're not a gun registration. I'm mostly pointing out their inanity. I would respect them more if they really DID effectively create a registration system. I certainly wouldn't like it, but at least it would do what the proponents wanted it to, create a legally owned gun registry. As they stand now, FA-10 forms do pretty much nothing for anybody.

 

[Half Cocked]

There's already a federal form that a dealer has to fill out and send a copy to the ATF, the local Police Chief, and the Chief of the town the person lives in... It's done Everytime someone purchaces more than one gun in a 5 day period at a dealer.

You are missing my point. My point was that the true purpose of the multiple handgun form was to inform authorities about who was making multiple handgun purchases.

My point to this argument is that the laws in MA appear..IMO...to be more aimed to let the state know who is buying and who is selling instead of what they are buying and selling.

If there was true "registration" in Ma then you would be required to have a FA-10 or other documentation for every gun you own regardless of how you obtained it.

There is no such requirement in Ma.

 

[Half Cocked]

Exactly! So let's do away with FA-10s!

You would get no argument here....

 

[jdubois]

My point to this argument is that the laws in MA appear..IMO...to be more aimed to let the state know who is buying and who is selling instead of what they are buying and selling.

Do we have any evidence that the data is actually used for that purpose? What you are saying does make sense, but how do we know it really was the intent of the lawmakers? I think it's just as likely that the reporting requirements just weren't thought through fully when they were drafted.

 

[drgrant]

You are missing my point. My point was that the true purpose of the multiple handgun form was to inform authorities about who was making multiple handgun purchases.

It's not just about the "who" it's also the "what" at least to some degree.

I will almost guarantee that if I buy 5 S+W Mod 41s at once, interaction from BATFE at least is unlikely.

On the same token if I bought 5 lorcin .380 shitpistols at an FFL at once, I'd be waiting for an BATFE agent to show up at my house in the near future after that transfer.

I've seen more than one reliable first hand report that MHP forms are profiled in this manner. Since tons of them probably come in the ATF every day, they have to profile them, otherwise they'd have to talk to every tom, dick. harry, and jane, that bought more than one handgun at a time.

-Mike

 

[Half Cocked]

Do we have any evidence that the data is actually used for that purpose? What you are saying does make sense, but how do we know it really was the intent of the lawmakers? I think it's just as likely that the reporting requirements just weren't thought through fully when they were drafted.

I have no evidence other than my personal observations of how the system is working. Which is why I have stated that these statements are my own opinion.

But look at the laws...if they were concerned with actual registration then they would require full documentation for any gun that you owned.

The requirement for out of state purchases to require an FA-10 to be brought into the state is simply a mechanism to give authorities a "heads-up" to someone who may be making an inordinate amount of purchases out of state which they may interpret as a indicator to illegal activity.

If they cared about the registration then they would require anyone who moves into Ma to "register" their firearms.

Same with the multiple handgun sales (I know it is fed law). This is simply a mechanis to alert authorities to someone who may be dealing firearms without proper licensing and/or one who is making straw transactions. It has nothing to do with the guns themselves.

Again just my opinion as to the intent.

 

[Half Cocked]

It's not just about the "who" it's also the "what" at least to some degree.

I will almost guarantee that if I buy 5 S+W Mod 41s at once, interaction from BATFE at least is unlikely.

On the same token if I bought 5 lorcin .380 shitpistols at an FFL at once, I'd be waiting for an BATFE agent to show up at my house in the near future after that transfer.

I've seen more than one reliable first hand report that MHP forms are profiled in this manner. Since tons of them probably come in the ATF every day, they have to profile them, otherwise they'd have to talk to every tom, dick. harry, and jane, that bought more than one handgun at a time.

-Mike

Mike,

I have an ATF agent in my unit. He receives all MHP forms that are filled out for our area. He is responsible to research each one regardless of the type of handgun.

Now....with that being said..this particular agent asks myself and others if we know the person and if they are a "gun guy". If we state that we know the person and they are a collector and/or hobbyist and is someone we know he does not visit. So I guess in a way they are profiled.

I have spared many a gun owner in my area a visit this way.

The point is that the who is the primary reason surrounding the MHP. But...the what determines if or when you get a knock on the door.

 

[terraformer]

Mike,

I have an ATF agent in my unit. He receives all MHP forms that are filled out for our area. He is responsible to research each one regardless of the type of handgun.

Now....with that being said..this particular agent asks myself and others if we know the person and if they are a "gun guy". If we state that we know the person and they are a collector and/or hobbyist and is someone we know he does not visit. So I guess in a way they are profiled.

I have spared many a gun owner in my area a visit this way.

The point is that the who is the primary reason surrounding the MHP. But...the what determines if or when you get a knock on the door.

Odd... Just 10 months ago I bought two handguns in the same day at the same time. Not even a phone call and I doubt I was on anyone's radar.