Selling a gun from the AGs banned list

[Scott71]

Hi all, been lurking for a while and enjoy the infoinfoon the site. Been grinding my teeth waiting for my license to arrive. I thought for sure it was coming yesterday, as I was ready to purchase an AR. When the AG sent out her directive I lost hope. Well I got it today my LTC today and want to do my part to protect and promote our rights. I plan on going up on Saturday to show my support. In the mean time if it is legal for an FTF transfer please pm me. I am looking for an entry level such as an M&P sport. Thanks. Scott

 

[namedpipes]

The AG has promised not to prosecute private sales ...

That's not precisely what her own FAQ says:

From the AG FAQ section of the ban notice.
----------
Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?

If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. But, as a matter of her discretion as a prosecutor, the Attorney General will not enforce the assault weapons ban against those who possess or transfer a copy or duplicate of a listed Assault weapon, if the weapon was obtained prior to July 20, 2016, when she issued the guidance. ...

Does this mean that any weapon that was transferred between 1998 and 2016 is forever legal and can be transferred to anyone else (all other laws being observed) in the future, such as your heirs or future buyers? Or does it mean if you bought such a weapon during that time, cool beans just hang onto it until you die and your executor turns it in to the police?

I don't trust lawyers as a matter of principle and she is a particularly slimy specimen.

Case is correct, you can sell out of state, it just has to go through an FFL.

One can also retain ownership of these evil, illegal assault weapons but store them out of Mass. I foresee a business opportunity for someone in NH that owns a secure warehouse.

 

[jasons]

Does this mean that any weapon that was transferred between 1998 and 2016 is forever legal and can be transferred to anyone else (all other laws being observed) in the future, such as your heirs or future buyers?

Sure, keep it or transfer it to anyone who can legally buy it. AG says you can. (At this time.)

Of course rank and file MA gun owners can't legally obtain a newspeak pre-ban after 7/20, which will cut the market a bit.

 

[bigmule]

Read into the phrase before that line..."a matter of HER descreation as a prosecutor"....

Which means it could change...to her advantage.

Or

Read this like a bluff...like she won't pursue outright, as if the judgement stood on this charge solely, it would not stand the test of the appeal system, and the charge may not stick...2c..


Pre banban

 

[drgrant]

Trying to figure out what is truly legal at this point is just a maddening exercise in 110% guesswork absent more information.

 

[namedpipes]

Trying to figure out what is truly legal at this point is just a maddening exercise in 110% guesswork absent more information.

And that there is her plan in a nutshell.

 

[bigmule]

Yup.

 

[milktree]

From the AG FAQ section of the ban notice.
----------
Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?

If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. But, as a matter of her discretion as a prosecutor, the Attorney General will not enforce the assault weapons ban against those who possess or transfer a copy or duplicate of a listed Assault weapon, if the weapon was obtained prior to July 20, 2016, when she issued the guidance.
---------

Ban notice faq guidance link:http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html

Sure, keep it or transfer it to anyone who can legally buy it. AG says you can. (At this time.)

Of course rank and file MA gun owners can't legally obtain a newspeak pre-ban after 7/20, which will cut the market a bit.

That reads to me like you *cannot* sell it to another MA resident, (unless the transaction happens out of state, and the gun stays there [1]) because the buyer wouldn't have any documentation saying she owned it before 7/20/16. So, you can keep it, but nobody else in MA can own it (in MA), unless it's pre '94.


[1] Federal law allows two residents to transfer a firearm, it doesn't say they have to be in the same state when it happens. e.g. I could sell a gun to another MA resident, while we're both in VT. Federal law doesn't mention *location*, just residency.

 

[rudiewhitebwoy]

I planned on selling all my pre-ban stuff when I left the state, through an FFL. If I do it my self, I can only sell four per year. Shit if I start today, I'll have all my AR-15's sold in 5 years. Then there's all the other stuff. This is just stupid, I'm beyond sick of this fu**ing state.

 

[bigmule]

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugpg8XruhVk[/video]

 

[TLB]

Those of you who have not yet bought a safe should consider it - the value of your collection has probably doubled.

Why? If transferred in state, then the buyer is "obtaining" it illegally after July 20, 2016, right?

Out of state, these will have no increased value.

 

[TLB]

As of this writing, and quoted from the informational FAQ on the AG site: Yes.

We are allowed, and won't be persecuted, if we engage in a personal transfer today.

This missive from the AG office is written so porously and so open ended it could change at any time with the addition or deletion of a single word.

Scary crap this outfit came up with.

Edit to ad, I would think the rifle does NOT need to be or meet preban however. But it's certainly not made totally clear. The language gives a date of Prior to 7/20/16. that the rifle would have needed to be in your custody.

Snip from FAQ:[. Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?

If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. But, as a matter of her discretion as a prosecutor, the Attorney General will not enforce the assault weapons ban against those who possess or transfer a copy or duplicate of a listed Assault weapon, if the weapon was obtained prior to July 20, 2016, when she issued the guidance.]

Here: http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html




So maybe not pre-ban-ban

....I'm still not a lawyer...

But, she says obtained prior to July 20. Not manufactured, not built, not created, but obtained. To me the next buyer is "obtaining" it after July 20 and subject to prosecution. IANAL

 

[absolutlemur]

Trying to figure out what is truly legal at this point is just a maddening exercise in 110% guesswork absent more information.

Doesn't differ much from tax law, in that sense.

Not to hijack the thread, but:

Q: Why did the Attorney General take this action?

The Enforcement Notice explains how the AGO will enforce a law – the Assault weapons ban – that was enacted in 1998 to protect public safety. By issuing the notice, the Attorney General hopes and expects that non-compliant gun dealers will come into voluntary compliance with the law, to minimize the need for criminal or civil enforcement.

The Attorney General intends to give full effect to the Legislature’s mandate that Assault weapons, including copies or duplicates of the listed weapons, stay out of civilian hands

It's my opinion that that should be construed as a threat, meaning that the discretion of the prosecutor is entirely arbitrary and highly subject to change. Amazing how I can be law abiding one day, and suddenly a felon the next, with no action on my part.

 

[jasons]

Give her a call and ask. I'm sure she'd be happy to clarify her guidance for a fine upstanding citizen of MA who would like to obtain an evil baby killing assault gun which was designed for hunting humans and has no other purpose.

 

[M125X]

Trying to figure out what is truly legal at this point is just a maddening exercise in 110% guesswork absent more information.

Yep exactly. Give it a few days. Are you really trying to sell anything at this point? Hold onto it.

 

[Revelationechc]

What about all the folks that bought stuff the morning of this mess?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Why? If transferred in state, then the buyer is "obtaining" it illegally after July 20, 2016, right?

Out of state, these will have no increased value.

You answered your own question.

 

[Varmint]

But, she says obtained prior to July 20. Not manufactured, not built, not created, but obtained. To me the next buyer is "obtaining" it after July 20 and subject to prosecution. IANAL

Doesn't say who has to obtain it by July 20, so i think it's been obtained and is good to go.

 

[Varmint]

That reads to me like you *cannot* sell it to another MA resident, (unless the transaction happens out of state, and the gun stays there [1]) because the buyer wouldn't have any documentation saying she owned it before 7/20/16. So, you can keep it, but nobody else in MA can own it (in MA), unless it's pre '94.


[1] Federal law allows two residents to transfer a firearm, it doesn't say they have to be in the same state when it happens. e.g. I could sell a gun to another MA resident, while we're both in VT. Federal law doesn't mention *location*, just residency.

The FA-10 will show it's pre 7/20. Burden of proof is still on them, unless she's changed that too.

 

[namedpipes]

The FA-10 will show it's pre 7/20. Burden of proof is still on them, unless she's changed that too.

The MA AG just demonstrated that NO law necessarily means what the words in it say.

So she can tweak that little detail too. No biggie.

More interesting is, every single person ever convicted anywhere for any offense and anyone currently charged with a crime should file complaints, make movements, throw the judges keys on the roof if need be, claiming precedent that if one law was vague then all are open to interpretation.

 

[milktree]

The FA-10 will show it's pre 7/20. Burden of proof is still on them, unless she's changed that too.

No, any FA10 will show the transfer date, which is (unless you have a time machine) after 7/20/16. In theory I can still keep my extra-killy black guns, but I can't sell them in state, because it's already after 7/20/16

 

[bigmule]

I am in agreement there milktree. The more the missive reread the clearer it becomes.

She pulled a fast one when no who cared was looking.

 

[Varmint]

No, any FA10 will show the transfer date, which is (unless you have a time machine) after 7/20/16. In theory I can still keep my extra-killy black guns, but I can't sell them in state, because it's already after 7/20/16

But it says this doesn't apply to firearms obtained before 7/20.

She does not want court cases, that will attract negative attention to her actions. She wants to put FFLs out of business and do as much damage without law abiding citizens going to court and getting national attention and scrutiny or worse, legal challenge of her actions.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But it says this doesn't apply to firearms obtained before 7/20.

She does not want court cases, that will attract negative attention to her actions. She wants to put FFLs out of business and do as much damage without law abiding citizens going to court and getting national attention and scrutiny or worse, legal challenge of her actions.

Plus, the courts are going to be far more sympathetic to the AGs position on an action brought by a dealer to be allowed to sell EBRs that it would be to a defense brought by an individual where the standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "rule if leniency" come into play.

This action was all about shutting down sales; not going after individuals.