Federal &/or state laws regarding online activity?

Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
259
Likes
1
Location
The Free State
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Just figured I'd ask just in case someone here knows the facts regarding internet transactions.

What, if any, federal or state laws must one adhere to when faciliting online transactions involving firearms, such as classifieds & auctions?

Of course buyers/sellers always need to adhere to federal laws & state laws applicable to them when buying/selling anytime, but what laws govern/regulate someone who operates a website that allows classifieds & auctions. What kind of statements should one make to protect themselves to eliminate liability. Are there any liabilities involved for one who owns & operates a site allowing firearm transactions online?

Because I am still researching this, I decided that maybe it would be safe to only allow transactions on pre 1898 firearms & disallow anything involving ammunition.

What about gun parts? Edged weapons? Laws regarding shipping?
I figured I should research all the laws prior to allowing ads & auctions on my site that I'm building. My site is targeted to collectors & antiques, however, I need to be aware of any laws I may have to follow.

I see parts on ebay, so, is it safe to follow the same guidelines they have?
 
Probably the only thing worse than representing yourself in a court of law is soliciting legal advice from the general public.
You need to be familiar first with ATFE regs, then all state and local laws.
Not all states and towns view "antique firearms" the same way.
Is your forum a business or a hobby?
In either case, consider your personal liability for the misdeeds of guests or members of your forums.
Good luck
 
Antique:

If you unknowingly speed down a road, the worst that is likely to happen is that you get a minor traffic citation.

In dealing with firearms, a unknowing mistake can lead to time in state or federal prison.

Please contact competent legal counsel.
 
Not a "firearms" issue per-se, but MA takes the position that an FOB transaction does not take place at the location where the merchandise is handed over to the common carrier, but in the location of the recipient - and has been using the threat of legal fees to extort $5K settlements and restrictive consent decrees from mail order vendors selling ammo, as well as product with no federal restrictions such as double edged knives.
 
Not a "firearms" issue per-se, but MA takes the position that an FOB transaction does not take place at the location where the merchandise is handed over to the common carrier, but in the location of the recipient - and has been using the threat of legal fees to extort $5K settlements and restrictive consent decrees from mail order vendors selling ammo, as well as product with no federal restrictions such as double edged knives.

I am somewhat familar with certain knife restrictions for MA.
From my own buying experiences, when being told that certain items can not be shipped to MA, I can sum up what not to allow to take place, such as allowing the shipping of throwing knives, double edged blades, among other items. I already am committed to not allowing any ammo at all, due to the various laws of the states are each different. I am more familiar with MA state knife laws than I am gun laws because I started this hobby out initially as a knife & blade collector, so have a little more experience in that area, although am only a bit familiar on a MA state level.
 
Not a "firearms" issue per-se, but MA takes the position that an FOB transaction does not take place at the location where the merchandise is handed over to the common carrier, but in the location of the recipient - and has been using the threat of legal fees to extort $5K settlements and restrictive consent decrees from mail order vendors selling ammo, as well as product with no federal restrictions such as double edged knives.

Not exactly right. Presuming your reference is to the Attorney General's position that ch. 140, sec. 122B precludes persons from selling ammunition to Massachusetts purchasers without a license, I don't think it is accurate (or fair) to say that the Attorney General is trying to repeal the FOB rules of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Rather, his position (right or wrong) is that the legislature that enacted section 122B did not intend its reach to be coextensive with the passage of title and risk of loss rules of the UCC. That the two are not necessarily connected is certainly correct. Whether the rest of the AG's syllogism is a proper interpretation of section 122B only the Supreme Judicial Court can say.

One final observation: while commonly interpreted (or mis-interpreted) as "place of sale" rules, the FOB (and related) rules of the UCC are actually closer to time of sale rules. That is to say, their purpose is to establish a set of shorthand terms that, if included in a contract, define the point at which title to the goods and risk of loss to the goods (including but not limited to loss while in transit) passes from the seller to the buyer.

"FOB" (which stands for "free on board") is defined by the UCC to refer to a "shipment" contract, under which the seller's contractual obligation to the buyer is complete when the seller puts conforming goods in the hands of a common carrier, consigned to the buyer and free of any liens or claims, at a given location (usually in the seller's locale). This is to be contrasted with a "delivery" contract (such as you have with your oil company), under which the seller's contractual obligation to the buyer is not complete until the seller has put conforming goods, free of liens and claims, in the hands of the buyer at a given location (usually the buyer's locale).

The essence of the UCC, it must be understood, is to leave the choice of whether to enter into a shipment contract or a delivery contract up to the parties to the contract (the buyer and seller). They are not required to enter into an FOB contract; it is up to them.

Part of the AG's analysis is that, whatever the legislature intended by section 122B, the legislature probably did not intend that it be voluntary; that is to say, whatever the legislature intended, it probably did not intend to impose a licensing requirement on the sellers of ammunition that could be avoided by changing three letters in an acronym used in the contract documents. On this point, the AG is surely correct.

The real problem is that section 122B is unclear in its intent with respect to mail order sales, and this undoubtedly derives from the fact that when the predecessor of section 122B was first enacted, ammunition wasn't sold by mail order. So we have a statute that says what it says, and what it says does not readily adapt itself to a present situation. What do you do?

Answer: you ask the Court. Unless and until someone does, and the Court answers, everyone is just guessing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom