The government was the victim since this is the worst crime anyone can commit, disrespecting the authoritay of the government. Even more severe than murder (since that doesn't usually disrespect the authoritay, it is just something they need to deal with).
-
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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Lowell Man Sentenced to Prison for Gun Trafficking
- Thread starter bruins2015
- Start date
The government was the victim since this is the worst crime anyone can commit, disrespecting the authoritay of the government. Even more severe than murder (since that doesn't usually disrespect the authoritay, it is just something they need to deal with).
nstassel
NES Member
So I looked into this a bit. He was a resident of Florida and had family in mass. Now he's a mechanic in Reading. It looks like he was selling them to unlicensed people. That's how the ATF got wind of him and then he cooperated with ATF.
Last edited:
Asaltweapon
NES Member
No worries. Nothing is going to happen.
bruins2015
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2016
- Messages
- 114
- Likes
- 53
There are dealers in MA that will sell new Glocks to non-LEOs
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,836
- Likes
- 12,161
JFC.....reporting fail as usual. Lets not divulge the real issue......which I noticed the article skipped over, which was who he was selling to......licensed or unlicensed? or just fedboi plant......
If he's selling pistols to unlicensed people in MA its got nothing to do with them being Glocks for christ sake.
Palladin
NES Member
so the Feds basically got him on 'selling w/o an FFL license AND making a false statement on the 4473'. The Glock bullshit was simply the Lowell Sun making up lies
That we can agree on it's just a poorly written pile of garbage.
There are plenty of people who legitimately buy multiples and dupes all the time. That activity by itself is not per se abnormal. At one of the places I worked at there was a well off dude who literally would buy one of each model of (gun X) and gift them to adults in his family, and hold onto guns as gifts for his grandkids. He wanted to make sure his family was well armed.
Straws are often more obvious and you stop the sale, no "ratting" necessary. In many cases these aren't even people trying to flip they just don't understand how the laws work. Once in awhile you get full retard, certifiable nippleheads EG:
SomeGuy: "i cant pass can muh wife come in and do the paperwork?"
nope....sry that's not how any of this works, bruh. - Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,836
- Likes
- 12,161
Not at all abnormal......the practice is flagged automatically anyway. Federal Gun Law requires the dealer to report said transaction paperwork to both the ATF, and to the local PD of sales of two or more HANDGUNS to the same person, within a 5 business day period.
So....the dealer must report that anyway........ so why would he seriously question it as long as the sales are proceed, and technically legal at the time of sale. He does not know the guy is selling them?
If said person NEVER sold those items after the fact....the whole thing is above board and legal. Dealer has no accountability for the actions of the new owners......
Simply, the dealer should have said to the guy........ "i hope you have all these pistols in your possession, because this is a big ATF red flag, and you may get a visit."
Last edited:
CrackPot
NES Member
If they were sold as pistols and not frames then yes, this would have been reported to ATF and local PD. But if these glocks were framed, which we all know is the only legal way for the dealer to sell them to non LEO, then there is no report.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,836
- Likes
- 12,161
Ummm......no. As bad as the reporting says it says he bought a dozen glock pistols at $500 each from a dealer.
But....you know more than I.....a frame is a firearm federally is it not? .....so why wouldn't multiple sales of frames be reported, or is that something exempt to handguns only? I can't remember if its handguns only or all firearms.
Last edited:
CrackPot
NES Member
Just handguns. There is another form for sale/transfer of multiple rifles which is used only by a few states adjacent to the Mexican boarder.
Buying a bunch of glocks may or may not have been done via frame transfer since the net result is walking out the door with glocks. The mechanics of a frame transfer will be lost on anyone not in the business or regulating the business since it is essentially a paper tiger. We will never know.
CrackPot
NES Member
1. The statement in the Sun article is "glock firearms are only allowed to be sold to active law enforcement officers". for a MA dealer this is true of any post 1998 glock while pre 1998 can be sold to anyone (exempt from 940CMR16 and on the roster). So the statement on the surface is almost completely accurate. It just gets read to mean more than it says.
2. Sure, and liberal justices will follow Bruen and the constitution. Sounds good.
3. you can buy as many guns from a dealer as you have money. I have a customer that LOVES consecutive serial numbers and will be 5 of the exact same gun with consecutives. A dealer should not sell if they have reason to believe the purchase is unlawful, but we can be an oblivious and unintuitive bunch. There is nothing illegal with a dealer selling guns when the background passed and the form is completed correctly. There is one exception. If you get on the naughty list, a too many trace requests on guns you have sold in the past 3 years, you can expect to be scrutinized, questioned, and ultimately lose your license for marginal issues.
When does it become a federal crime to sell your guns? I know there’s a MA law or used to be that was something like you could only privately transfer a certain number per yea without using an FFL. But that’s not what this charge is, is it? What is the federal law against selling your personal guns if you’re not a dealer?
CrackPot
NES Member
Purchasing guns with the intention of selling them constitutes being in the business w/o a FFL.
Purchasing a gun with the intent of selling it to a specific person already known at the time of purchase constitutes a straw purchase.
Not commenting on these from a personal perspective, just saying what the law says on the topic.
Pleading guilty is stupid. Especially with Bruen. You'll lose the MA case, but you can 100% appeal that FFLs are unconstitutional now because there is no history of "arms dealers" or licensing them when 2A was ratified.
Never plead guilty.
Never plead guilty.
CrackPot
NES Member
no one said glocks were illegal. the article said only allowed to be sold to leo. But people read that as "glocks are illegal" which is likely the intent.
Wait a sec... the "must report multiple purchases" stuff is a FEDERAL law, not state law. Under federal law, the frame is the handgun, right? Does the federal law actually only apply to complete handguns that can go "bang"?
I don’t see where it says he bought them in MA. I’m guessing he bought them in another state and brought them in to sell.
If someone can point out where it says he bought them from a dealer in MA, that would help me.
I’ve seen other stories where they get a person right off the bus or train in MA with a bag full of guns to sell.
If someone can point out where it says he bought them from a dealer in MA, that would help me.
I’ve seen other stories where they get a person right off the bus or train in MA with a bag full of guns to sell.
CrackPot
NES Member
multiple reporting is federal law and applies to FFLs. Reporting is only done on handguns (pistols and revolvers). A frame or receiver is a firearm, but not a handgun even if it can be assembled into a handgun. There are no "incomplete handguns" as a definition or thing. There are handguns and there are frames and there are receivers. They are all distinct things.
chris_1001
NES Member
No…? Really…?
I sold a gun recently that I acquired in 1996 at a slight loss via a FFL. So I’m 1000% ok. Phew.
FalArAk
NES Member
That would be illegal and against the law.
I can’t stand Glocks, while a good option for some I never liked them. Also since leaving the DA/SA error of law enforcement it’s always a yawn“Glocks are only allowed to be sold to active law enforcement officers".
That is not correct. “Only those forced to buy Glocks like active law enforcement officers actually buy them.”
I keed I keed.
in what is most law enforcements duty holsters now a days.Similar threads
