NH to MA purchase

[irishfan]

I have tried searching with various titles, but cannot find the exact info I am looking for. I know this has been convered many times, so hopefully I can get a quick answer and this can disappear.

I live in beautiful MA...I have found a MA compliant gun in NH. Complaint along the lines of a mosin/sks type, so no issue whatsoever having here. If I wanted to purchase it, I would buy in NH then they would ship to a FFL in MA where I would do the transfer, correct?

Sorry to ask again, but I do not trust the word of shop owners and the members here will surely know the answer. Thank you

 

[FrugalFannie]

You can take possession of a long gun direct from an FFL in NH. Bring it back. You are than required by MA law to file an FA10.

 

[Asaltweapon]

+1

 

[soam]

You can take possession of a long gun direct from an FFL in NH. Bring it back. You are than required by MA law to file an FA10.

Good info here. For additional clarification, Federal law states that all inter-state transfers have to be done through an FFL. Long guns can be transferred at an FFL in either state, whereas handguns (and "Others" such as stripped AR-15 lowers) have to be done through an FFL in the recipient's state of residence.

Since you're getting a long gun, it can be transferred at the NH FFL. Since NH FFLs don't file any of the MA-specific paperwork, you are responsible for filing an FA-10 "Registration" within 7 days of bringing the gun into MA.

 

[aznbigdawg]

Here is an older thread about long guns.

Thread: What constitutes a long gun?
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/44743-What-constitutes-a-long-gun

 

[atilla]

You can take possession of a long gun direct from an FFL in NH. Bring it back. You are than required by MA law to file an FA10.

this, but keep in mind the MA AWB--rifle/shotgun must be compliant, mags as well (if any). otherwise you're fine, OP.

 

[Lcstyle]

you are responsible for filing an FA-10 "Registration" within 7 days of bringing the gun into MA.

There is no gun "registry" or registration requirement in mass.

 

[soam]

There is no gun "registry" or registration requirement in mass.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section128B

 

[Lcstyle]

Then clearly this is wrong:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/massachusetts.aspx#

[h=2]Important/Relevant Gun Laws[/h]

	RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS	HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase	FID Required	Yes
Registration of Firearms*	No	No
Licensing of Owner	Yes	Yes
Permit to Carry	FID Required	Yes

* Police recordation made of transfers.

 

[RedSoxandAKs]

I live in NH and just sold an SKS to a friend in MA. Met him at 4 Seasons in Woburn, he did his paperwork and we were on our was in about 20 minutes.

 

[soam]

Then clearly this is wrong:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/massachusetts.aspx#

[h=2]Important/Relevant Gun Laws[/h]

	RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS	HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase	FID Required	Yes
Registration of Firearms*	No	No
Licensing of Owner	Yes	Yes
Permit to Carry	FID Required	Yes

* Police recordation made of transfers.

The NRA has interpreted the laws in a way that is misleading at best with that chart. Sure, MA doesn't technically have a "Registration" scheme, it just requires all transfers to be reported (as noted by the asterisk). While the transfer reporting does not provide a comprehensive list of who owns what, it's certainly contains a lot of information about who has been sold what. It might as well be called "non-comprehensive registration"

 

[Len-2A Training]

Then clearly this is wrong:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/massachusetts.aspx#

Important/Relevant Gun Laws

	RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS	HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase	FID Required	Yes
Registration of Firearms*	No	No
Licensing of Owner	Yes	Yes
Permit to Carry	FID Required	Yes

* Police recordation made of transfers.

Yup, as noted above. Additionally the POLICE don't record ANY transfers! It is FRB that maintains the database and they aren't the police.

 

[GO-FOR-IT]

this, but keep in mind the MA AWB--rifle/shotgun must be compliant, mags as well (if any). otherwise you're fine, OP.

Are you saying i can't buy a military style lookalike from a NH dealer and bring it back to MA to be Ma compliant ?

 

[soam]

Are you saying i can't buy a military style lookalike from a NH dealer and bring it back to MA to be Ma compliant ?

Yes. Federal law says that it had to be legal in the buyer's state of residence before it's transferred. You could have the NH FFL make it legal before transferring it to you, or they can send it to an FFL in MA to do the work.

 

[TOM1960]

The NRA has interpreted the laws in a way that is misleading at best with that chart. Sure, MA doesn't technically have a "Registration" scheme, it just requires all transfers to be reported (as noted by the asterisk). While the transfer reporting does not provide a comprehensive list of who owns what, it's certainly contains a lot of information about who has been sold what. It might as well be called "non-comprehensive registration"

Problem is that the FA-10 system has no provision for removing a firearm from someone's name after the firearm was transferred to someone else, either in state or out of state. You could have purchased 30 firearms, sold 29 of them to an out of state dealer and only kept one. As far as MA is concerned, you still own 30 firearms. During a confiscation action, such as a 209A, they could potentially use such a list against you in court, especially if it is a particularly acrimonious divorce. I chose not to use the FA-10 route for that very reason and I was correct. My ex's lawyer tried to find any firearms under my name and she was unable to, because I never filed FA-10s and purchased all firearms out of state. Again, I can only speak for myself. Other situations may vary. If you file FA-10s and do not file a MA "use tax" of 6.25% on your out-of-state firearms purchases, you could potentially be subject to tax-evasion charges. A long shot, true, but still a possibility. Food for thought.

 

[WWII_Collector]

Problem is that the FA-10 system has no provision for removing a firearm from someone's name after the firearm was transferred to someone else, either in state or out of state. You could have purchased 30 firearms, sold 29 of them to an out of state dealer and only kept one. As far as MA is concerned, you still own 30 firearms. During a confiscation action, such as a 209A, they could potentially use such a list against you in court, especially if it is a particularly acrimonious divorce. I chose not to use the FA-10 route for that very reason and I was correct. My ex's lawyer tried to find any firearms under my name and she was unable to, because I never filed FA-10s and purchased all firearms out of state. Again, I can only speak for myself. Other situations may vary. If you file FA-10s and do not file a MA "use tax" of 6.25% on your out-of-state firearms purchases, you could potentially be subject to tax-evasion charges. A long shot, true, but still a possibility. Food for thought.

Never thought about the whole divorce concept in regards to FA10. It's scarey to think a lawyer could try to grab you on firearms that were already sold out of state.

go figure, the MA firearms registry has another flaw

And the sales tax comment above is brilliant, they actually could get you for not paying that 6.25 percent on your new mosin from NH... I wish I could leave this state [sad2]

 

[Len-2A Training]

Problem is that the FA-10 system has no provision for removing a firearm from someone's name after the firearm was transferred to someone else, either in state or out of state. You could have purchased 30 firearms, sold 29 of them to an out of state dealer and only kept one. As far as MA is concerned, you still own 30 firearms. During a confiscation action, such as a 209A, they could potentially use such a list against you in court, especially if it is a particularly acrimonious divorce. I chose not to use the FA-10 route for that very reason and I was correct. My ex's lawyer tried to find any firearms under my name and she was unable to, because I never filed FA-10s and purchased all firearms out of state. Again, I can only speak for myself. Other situations may vary. If you file FA-10s and do not file a MA "use tax" of 6.25% on your out-of-state firearms purchases, you could potentially be subject to tax-evasion charges. A long shot, true, but still a possibility. Food for thought.

OK, there are some flaws in this argument.

In court they will use a "Certified List" from FRB. If you filed FA-10s when you sold in-state to a dealer or out-of-state, those guns won't be on that list. YES, I know that nobody does this, but that is the one advantage of doing so. HOWEVER, when they come to confiscate they merely run a local listing which will show everything you ever had (that FRB knows about) and yes, they will expect to find every last one of them and if the officers at your door aren't gun people (who understand that the "registry" is fatally flawed), they probably won't take "no" for an answer.

As for the tax situation. MGL C. 66 S. 10 (d) makes it illegal (even for the state) for FRB to share that info with DOR. I'll never tell you that it can't happen but from historical data, when the AG demanded FA-10s on a bunch of guns to go after dealers, FRB (and this was before Jason Guida's time) redacted the personal info so that the AG had no idea who bought which gun. Also worth noting: If you fill out the FA-10 PROPERLY (and do NOT follow the online instructions) you do NOT give them any info on where you got the gun, so there would be no evidence of tax evasion. For instance, you could have moved the gun (which you owned for many years) from a relative's house in another state or from a Summer/Winter home somewhere else. Filing the form is not a true indicator of a purchase.

 

[TOM1960]

OK, there are some flaws in this argument.

In court they will use a "Certified List" from FRB. If you filed FA-10s when you sold in-state to a dealer or out-of-state, those guns won't be on that list. YES, I know that nobody does this, but that is the one advantage of doing so. HOWEVER, when they come to confiscate they merely run a local listing which will show everything you ever had (that FRB knows about) and yes, they will expect to find every last one of them and if the officers at your door aren't gun people (who understand that the "registry" is fatally flawed), they probably won't take "no" for an answer.

As for the tax situation. MGL C. 66 S. 10 (d) makes it illegal (even for the state) for FRB to share that info with DOR. I'll never tell you that it can't happen but from historical data, when the AG demanded FA-10s on a bunch of guns to go after dealers, FRB (and this was before Jason Guida's time) redacted the personal info so that the AG had no idea who bought which gun. Also worth noting: If you fill out the FA-10 PROPERLY (and do NOT follow the online instructions) you do NOT give them any info on where you got the gun, so there would be no evidence of tax evasion. For instance, you could have moved the gun (which you owned for many years) from a relative's house in another state or from a Summer/Winter home somewhere else. Filing the form is not a true indicator of a purchase.

Filling out and submitting an FA-10, with your signature, is basically admitting under the penalties of perjury that you do, in fact, own a particular firearm. It is discoverable evidence in an (acrimonious) divorce. True, the ex's attorney might not have direct access to the records, unless they are also a police officer (highly unlikely), but remember that the courts have the same computers that cops have. All the attorney has to do is ask the judge for a copy of all FA-10 records that are in the defendant's name. If there are no FA-10s in the system because the defendant purchased/acquired all firearms out of state and did not use FA-10s, there will be no "hits". It will be strictly plaintiff wife's word against defendant husband's word; classic "he said, she said", with absolutely no basis. Sure, you should comply with the court order to turn in the LTC or FID (which I did; FID was getting ready to expire anyways), but my ex and her dirtbag attorney could show no proof that I actually owned firearms. Trusts and other legal matters always leave a paper trail. The PVC route might be a rather primitive way to accomplish the goal, but it does work well if done correctly. Just remember to locate the burial site in a remote area out of state, sit back and wait for the divorce to be completed and RO expire and renew FID like I did.

 

[calsdad]

You can take possession of a long gun direct from an FFL in NH. Bring it back. You are than required by MA law to file an FA10.

Exactly. I've done this a number of times. Gun dealers in NH that are close to the border of MA are probably very familiar with this - go further up and I suppose it's possible you could run into some issues.

I've bought a number of rifles from State Line in Mason - and they were fully familiar with selling to MA residents.

 

[calsdad]

The NRA has interpreted the laws in a way that is misleading at best with that chart. Sure, MA doesn't technically have a "Registration" scheme, it just requires all transfers to be reported (as noted by the asterisk). While the transfer reporting does not provide a comprehensive list of who owns what, it's certainly contains a lot of information about who has been sold what. It might as well be called "non-comprehensive registration"

Technically speaking - I don't think MA requires *ALL* transfers be reported. It's only transfers into the state, or within the state. Sell a rifle out of the state - and you don't need to file the FA-10 recording the transfer. At least that's what I've been told - numerous times.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Federal law says that it had to be legal in the buyer's state of residence before it's transferred. You could have the NH FFL make it legal before transferring it to you, or they can send it to an FFL in MA to do the work.

Or you can have the NH dealer do the work before it's transferred to you. That's what I had State Line do when I've bought rifles from them that were not MA compliant in their original configuration.