-
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.
Personal sales now under the new law
- Thread starter bdb
- Start date
As of a month ago, yes
I disagree. I think them new registration system will go live eventually. It will be a POS, but that is true for most every government IT system.
I assume that they will populate with the old data.
Picton
NES Member
Lol, no. I meant the pantshitters, not the state.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
It could; I used "unlikely" for a reason. And agreed that it won't work. I would think it would just be the same FA10 system, rebranded and with a few updates missing by then.
Yes, I assume it will be an update of the existing system.
pdm
NES Member
They'll change the logo on it. Boom, job's done.
Amputee Marksman
NES Member
In which case the new system won't be any better than the old system as far as data integrity. I like many others have firearms that were legally sold out of state. If those are imported into the new system is the state going to provide a mechanism to get the firearm removed and what proof would the state want. I've sold a few rifles to people in NH and there is no paper trail. What would my recourse be to get these firearms removed ... nothing. The state in all likely hood won't do it and you'll be stuck with them listed as owned by you.
nstassel
NES Member
Yes
nstassel
NES Member
That's how it happens. Guns get inventoried and one isn't in the FA10 system.
Mark from ?
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,007
- Likes
- 16,514
You mean like the state does? I mean how can any decent lawyer not poke holes in that mess?
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 42,526
- Likes
- 38,229
I heard, based on the programming problems they had last time, they're going to build a stand-alone system run on MS-DOS 3.1.
Mark from ?
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,007
- Likes
- 16,514
So......anyone with old guns not in the FA10 system can be charged? What?
It's always been that way. Whether or not the charges can actually stick or not is a whole other thing. Remember it costs them nothing to file a charge even if it's completely bogus.
So charges completely incongruent with the text of law? Even before Ch135 there were many legal ways for that(no matching FA10) to happen.
Sounds about right for this state. Write overbearing anti-2A laws and then not even follow them as written, just make stuff up as you go.
EJFudd
NES Member
Sounds like NES 'wishful thinking' regarding the abandonment of the old transfers database may be a bit overstated.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 42,526
- Likes
- 38,229
And didn't the Commie-wealth CHARGE you to get a list of what you had FA-10'd in your name???? Not that anyone did it b/c it was silly. Still is. But. . . . .
Mark from ?
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,007
- Likes
- 16,514
So....this was always the old law...but everyone here said there was no law to register old guns not in the system? I guess I missed that.
MGL Ch. 140, s 121B still says:
(e) Whoever fails to register a firearm in violation of subsection (a), or fails to report a transaction, loss or theft in violation of subsections (b) or (c) shall be punished as follows: (i) by a fine of not more than $1,000 for a first offense;
There was no compulsory registration but that didn't mean that some shitty police wouldn't fling charges for failure to report a transfer. Nothing stops them from falsely charging anyone.
While we are all fine, upstanding citizens here in NES, stuff happens.
Let’s say Bill NESr, who bought a $10,000 Gen 5 Glock 19 from me (hey…I know what I got), has to add to the stink of the Hudson Cabelas poop n scoot, and in the excitement of discharging his canon, leaves said piece on the back of the commode. In his rush to escape the methane haze that overwhelms his senses (including the common one), he forgets all about the plastic fantastic, and Fud Bob discovers it. Hudson bomb squad is called in and they send the robot in to make sure it doesn’t spontaneously blow a hole through the middle of the state. After the press conference and the medal from the Gub-ner, they are gonna look on their computer to see who owns the piece. And my name WILL come up. Hopefully, Bill’s will to, and as the latest owner, they’ll send the 3am SWAT raid to his house (sorry Bill’s dog - you’ll be missed).
But maybe I’ll get a knock on my door. And in that case, “I’ll be happy to show that I sold that fine firearm to Bill last month, detective. Here’s the FA10 that I completed to show the transfer of ownership. Oh, I know the big beautiful new gun law says in its masterful prose, that I don’t have to do that anymore, but I just keep myself up at nights trying to find ways to make the police’s job easier!”
When there’s a new “notaregistry” system in place, I’ll use that one. But in the meantime, I still use an FA10 to cover my own butt. Too easy to lose suitability in this state.
Let’s say Bill NESr, who bought a $10,000 Gen 5 Glock 19 from me (hey…I know what I got), has to add to the stink of the Hudson Cabelas poop n scoot, and in the excitement of discharging his canon, leaves said piece on the back of the commode. In his rush to escape the methane haze that overwhelms his senses (including the common one), he forgets all about the plastic fantastic, and Fud Bob discovers it. Hudson bomb squad is called in and they send the robot in to make sure it doesn’t spontaneously blow a hole through the middle of the state. After the press conference and the medal from the Gub-ner, they are gonna look on their computer to see who owns the piece. And my name WILL come up. Hopefully, Bill’s will to, and as the latest owner, they’ll send the 3am SWAT raid to his house (sorry Bill’s dog - you’ll be missed).
But maybe I’ll get a knock on my door. And in that case, “I’ll be happy to show that I sold that fine firearm to Bill last month, detective. Here’s the FA10 that I completed to show the transfer of ownership. Oh, I know the big beautiful new gun law says in its masterful prose, that I don’t have to do that anymore, but I just keep myself up at nights trying to find ways to make the police’s job easier!”
When there’s a new “notaregistry” system in place, I’ll use that one. But in the meantime, I still use an FA10 to cover my own butt. Too easy to lose suitability in this state.
I know suitability is arbitrary...I mean, you could lose suitability in this state, by flipping the chief's wife the bird if she cuts you off in traffic...but I'm still going to take every measure I can to try to cover my butt as much as I can. If I have to get an attorney involved, I want to have as much paper as possible.
I live in a very green town. Two friends have had their guns removed while I've lived here. One friend was the victim of a bad relationship, and his guns were taken when his heavily medicated (now ex) wife filed a restraining order against him and made the claim that he was a danger to himself. The other had his guns taken when he accidentally sent a round through a non-vital part of his body. Both friends asked me to take possession of the guns to avoid bonded warehouse fees. In neither case was I penalized for being their friend. The PD was very courteous and professional in transferring the guns to me...via an FA10.
Domestic friend moved out of state, so I transferred his guns back to him through an FFL in his new state. ND friends' guns are still in my safe....though I shot all of his ammo as a rental fee! PD has said he can have his LTC back as soon as he takes another safety class. His wife is less forgiving...
Mark from ?
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,007
- Likes
- 16,514
Failure to report a transfer is and always was a violation of MGL 140 121B........that is NOT a false charge as nstassel stated correctly.
But then He mentioned charges for guns not in the system.... i.e which could be construed as old guns bought before the FA10 system.
That is not in the old law....and I know some douche PD's would try and throw bullshit at the wall with that, and/or make people register.
That is two different issues and I get that the latter is a bullshit charge.
It's not really two different issues because the police have no way of knowing whether or not your gun activity was required to be reported just by looking at a gun, absent other evidence. I doubt many of them bring that up front.
@Mark from ? Most of these assertions are probably bogus like they don't even know that you might have brought the thing into the state yesterday and just didn't get around to registering it yet. There are all kinds of elements that they really should have to prove, but when bringing charges they just do the bologna throwing instead of actually bringing evidence.
My guess is that if they inventory the guns of Mr. I M Effed because of a restraining order, that they will run them in MIRCS. If they find that one of his guns was previously purchased by Mr. I M Screwed just two years ago, and Mr. Effed has been in the state for the past 5 years, well, they are probably both going to be effed and screwed.
Last edited:
That would just be more garbage police work because there isn't any consistency/linking between the events. Most dealers don't even file FA10s when they take shit in they just put it in their books and then it goes out to somebody else. So more charges based on "assumptions" vs facts.
Similar threads
- Locked
