-
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.
Confirmed instances of .pdf/paper FA-10 form rejection by MA FRB
- Thread starter JFR2
- Start date
The web portal will be a wholesale replacement for the FA-10 system.
namedpipes
NES Member
If the FRBbies have been doing their jobs, they scan the paper and the computer checks on scanning, then if the LTC doesn't "scan" or is rejected, they would manually verify the licensure.
More likely, they scan the form and those that work, work and those that don't, don't and get thrown away or stacked in underwater storage rooms, as in the past.
Either way, the result is a database that is horrifyingly dirty and corrupt. As I don't believe they have any right to that data, that is fine with me. Whether they have a right to screen transfers at all is another matter.
It also makes each and every one of us an agent of law enforcement. With a paper FA10, our responsibility is to view the other person's LTC and fill in some paperwork, then mail it in. If the other person is prohibited it is the State's duty to locate him and prosecute.
These transfers will take place in private homes, libraries or public wifis and if rejected, the hapless and innocent seller is expected to tell this person that turns out to be a felon that he can pound sand. Rather than completing the sale and safely leaving he tells this "dangerous" person the sale can't proceed and of course the felon will rob and murder him.
Lets say the seller does escape with his life and property intact. Who will go find the felon that tried to buy a gun? The FRBbies that can't even be bothered to mail out paper forms?
Society is harmed at least three ways by this: 1) exposing civilians to law enforcement risks. 2) doing so without compensating the civilian, and 3) by reducing the opportunity to capture the dangerous gun collecting felon.
While I took some artistic license in describing the possibilities, they are possibilities. We're being placed in danger against our will and the state is unlikely to follow up on these "infractions" since the transfer never actually took place.
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/frb/firearms-forms-and-applications.html
I'm pretty sure the law says nothing about only the *current* form furnished by the Commissioner being valid or in compliance with the law.
FRB website said:
I'm pretty sure the law says nothing about only the *current* form furnished by the Commissioner being valid or in compliance with the law.
Yes it will. However that waits on when CJIS re-does their webportal for our use . . . likely ~1 year away.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Why does it need to be redone? Can't this be accomplished now?
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
I doubt they'll do anything until they get a bigger budget. Government bureaucracies always whine and hollar when asked to do anything, even if it is essentially what they always do but in a different way.
AFAIK, 128B does not require a particular form.
It doesn't, so long as whatever you use was "furnished by said executive director"
The multipart forms and the PDF downloaded from their website count, even if you can't get paper ones anymore and the PDF is no longer on the website, because they *were* "furnished by said executive director"
- - - Updated - - -
Do you mean that "universal background checks" won't actually be a requirement if the state doesn't actually budget for setting up the website?
Good news/ bad news:
It appears the CHRB has started accepting (stopped rejecting and returning) PDF FA10 forms.
This is based on a few registrations and purchases that got returned to me, and then a few that haven't.
So, either they're throwing them away (so we don't have proof they got them) or scanning them and entering them into the system.
Not sure where that leaves us between now and when the "universal background check" system goes online.
It appears the CHRB has started accepting (stopped rejecting and returning) PDF FA10 forms.
This is based on a few registrations and purchases that got returned to me, and then a few that haven't.
So, either they're throwing them away (so we don't have proof they got them) or scanning them and entering them into the system.
Not sure where that leaves us between now and when the "universal background check" system goes online.
I think Michaela understands that paper forms just aren't available at almost any PD! It's not a question that I have asked recently however.
I know another who's had the same experience, recent printed pdfs submitted to register builds and CMP purchases not returned (yet) and presumed accepted, where similar registrations via pdf sent earlier in the year were returned with the boilerplate 128A rejection letter as proof of receipt.
Maybe she finally understands that there are numerous people who are basically taking the rejection letters and destroying/ignoring them. I'm not sure show they would expect people to act in good faith particularly given the fact that the rejection letters, at least as of recently, have not also included an accompanying FA-10 form.
-Mike
Aaaaand... they've un-stopped rejecting them.
I got in the mail today a new and improved threat letter and some FA10s I submitted back in October and November. The odd thing is that I got FA10s back from three separate transactions, so they held on to them for a while and returned them to me all at once.
There's something going on here, but I can't see what it is.
new letter:
Edit:
Actually, it looks like it's just "not a photocopy".
I got in the mail today a new and improved threat letter and some FA10s I submitted back in October and November. The odd thing is that I got FA10s back from three separate transactions, so they held on to them for a while and returned them to me all at once.
There's something going on here, but I can't see what it is.
new letter:
Edit:
Actually, it looks like it's just "not a photocopy".
Well, if it was anywhere else... should just be a few tweaks to the eFA-10 to fit the new law. But seeing as how it's a government operation,
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Well, if it was anywhere else... should just be a few tweaks to the eFA-10 to fit the new law. But seeing as how it's a government operation,
So, 9 months later, is this working for people or what?
Michaela has assured me that all the database changes were done on schedule by her org.
In 2+ years of doing eFA-10s, I have never had so much as a hiccup and I've done multiple registrations, transfers to dealers and transfers to individuals. Saved and printed the form at the end of each transaction too.
namedpipes
NES Member
I hear some programmers from Ashley Madison are looking for work.
That's the first complaint I remember about security, but tell me: who do you know that's running a system that's guaranteed to be absolutely secure right now? Even air-gapped systems have been compromised. Federal government sites and private financial, defense and commercial sites have all been hacked. I am not suggesting that we should be complacent about any of that, but it's worth keeping in perspective.
Similar threads
