Transfer in and out of MA

[Lank]

Hi NES, I checked out the stickies for an answer but came up shy-

Can I EFA-10 transfer out firearms to free states, and bring them back in (new EFA10) as I wish?

I checked out the EFA10 "Transfer" option and couldn't get far as I didn't dare enter in my real information out of fear of, well, you know ..

Thanks!

 

[aerosaaber]

Hi NES, I checked out the stickies for an answer but came up shy-

Can I EFA-10 transfer out firearms to free states, and bring them back in (new EFA10) as I wish?

I checked out the EFA10 "Transfer" option and couldn't get far as I didn't dare enter in my real information out of fear of, well, you know ..

Thanks!

you can't transfer anything (to someone else) out of state without an FFL on at least one end (both end for hand guns)

Are you talking about taking a gun that's yours with you when you go somewhere and then bringing it back?
you're going to need to be more clear on what you want to do.

 

[drgrant]

What are you talking about? You don't fa10 anything unless ownership is changing....

ETA: also outbound sales to nonresidents must go through an FFL regardless, not sure what you are trying to do...

 

[noxin]

you can't transfer anything (to someone else) out of state without an FFL on at least one end (both end for hand guns)

Are you talking about taking a gun that's yours with you when you go somewhere and then bringing it back?
you're going to need to be more clear on what you want to do.

The statement in bold is false. Anyone can ship a firearm to an FFL in the receiver's state for transfer. Additionally, a person can physically transport the firearm to the receiver's FFL provided it's legal for them to possess the firearm in the state.

 

[Lank]

Thanks guys. I wanted to know that if I take a firearm out of DPRM and leave it with dad in a free state can I take it off the books until I bring it back to DPRM.

Based on your responses, it sounds like I don't so long as ownership changes.

 

[noxin]

Thanks guys. I wanted to know that if I take a firearm out of DPRM and leave it with dad in a free state can I take it off the books until I bring it back to DPRM.

Based on your responses, it sounds like I don't so long as ownership changes.

There really is no "taking things off the books". While it was a grand idea, the state will always have a record of what you own(ed).

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Thanks guys. I wanted to know that if I take a firearm out of DPRM and leave it with dad in a free state can I take it off the books until I bring it back to DPRM. Based on your responses, it sounds like I don't so long as ownership changes.

If you "give" the gun to your father who is the resident of another state, and you are transferring ownership, you need to do it at an FFL or you are violating Federal law. If you are leaving your own guns at his house, and they still belong to you, you are not.

If you are loaning them to him for "sporting purposes" you are ok as well.

The key words you used were ownership changing.

 

[drgrant]

Thanks guys. I wanted to know that if I take a firearm out of DPRM and leave it with dad in a free state can I take it off the books until I bring it back to DPRM.

Based on your responses, it sounds like I don't so long as ownership changes.

Don't **** with the FA 10. If he's just borrowing it from you just bring it and leave it there. There is no such thing as "taking it off the books" in MA anyways regardless of whatever fantasies the CJIS people want to tell folks.

-Mike

 

[Lank]

Don't **** with the FA 10. If he's just borrowing it from you just bring it and leave it there. There is no such thing as "taking it off the books" in MA anyways regardless of whatever fantasies the CJIS people want to tell folks.

-Mike

Ok thanks. Nothing nefarious going on here. Just want to stay above board and if possible jam up the system

 

[aerosaaber]

The statement in bold is false. Anyone can ship a firearm to an FFL in the receiver's state for transfer. Additionally, a person can physically transport the firearm to the receiver's FFL provided it's legal for them to possess the firearm in the state.

AH, I was only thinking about getting something in a shop, brain fart!

 

[dcmdon]

Ok thanks. Nothing nefarious going on here. Just want to stay above board and if possible jam up the system

Its always good to do whatever you can (legally) do to ruin the integrity of the database that the state keeps on firearms transfers. (not ownership)

I recently held firearms for someone in CT who was the victim of a pointless "protective order". Since I am not in CT, no paperwork was necessary with the state of CT.

The CT cops kept asking him for a DPS-3 showing a transfer out. Of course to submit a DPS-3 only applies to in-state transfer. Per my suggestion the person responded with the following simple statement. "I am in full compliance with the protective order".

It made them insane. But the database can not be counted on to reflect the ownership of firearms by someone, since there are so many ways for a gun to legally exist and be off list and also a way for a gun to legally leave the state and still be on the list. (pertains to both CT and MA which have basically the same transfer requirements although they are administered differently)

The funny thing was this person had several firearms the cop never asked about. He had several that were purchased in the 70s that weren't in any database and had acquired a couple of firearms about a month before the protective order. So while I was holding all of them, the police didn't know about them either because there were no record keeping requirements when the transfer occurred or because the DPS-3s had not yet been entered into the database. So my friend could have (illegally) held these guns and cops wouldn't have known.

One thing to remember is that all state legislation regarding firearms transfers can only legally apply to in state transfers. The states don't have any lawful right to regulate interstate commerce.

#operationchaos

 

[warwickben]

Its always good to do whatever you can (legally) do to ruin the integrity of the database that the state keeps on firearms transfers. (not ownership)

I recently held firearms for someone in CT who was the victim of a pointless "protective order". Since I am not in CT, no paperwork was necessary with the state of CT.

The CT cops kept asking him for a DPS-3 showing a transfer out. Of course to submit a DPS-3 only applies to in-state transfer. Per my suggestion the person responded with the following simple statement. "I am in full compliance with the protective order".

It made them insane. But the database can not be counted on to reflect the ownership of firearms by someone, since there are so many ways for a gun to legally exist and be off list and also a way for a gun to legally leave the state and still be on the list. (pertains to both CT and MA which have basically the same transfer requirements although they are administered differently)

The funny thing was this person had several firearms the cop never asked about. He had several that were purchased in the 70s that weren't in any database and had acquired a couple of firearms about a month before the protective order. So while I was holding all of them, the police didn't know about them either because there were no record keeping requirements when the transfer occurred or because the DPS-3s had not yet been entered into the database. So my friend could have (illegally) held these guns and cops wouldn't have known.

One thing to remember is that all state legislation regarding firearms transfers can only legally apply to in state transfers. The states don't have any lawful right to regulate interstate commerce.

#operationchaos

Lol I messed up doing a ef10 , my computer glitches out . I contacted and got a print out .
I transferred the same rifle 5 times to my self that day .

 

[Another_David]

Hi NES, I checked out the stickies for an answer but came up shy-

Can I EFA-10 transfer out firearms to free states, and bring them back in (new EFA10) as I wish?

I checked out the EFA10 "Transfer" option and couldn't get far as I didn't dare enter in my real information out of fear of, well, you know ..

Thanks!

Sounds like you have your answer already but I'd just like to point out that you can't understand the MA requirements by looking at the forms. You would THINK that there would be a logical correlation, but the Mass systems is so screwed up the forms are of little help as to what is actually required.

 

[DONALDG-HOG]

Welcome to Massachusetts. We have "common sense" gun laws.
Try to follow them, we dare you.

 

[Len-2A Training]

One thing to remember is that all state legislation regarding firearms transfers can only legally apply to in state transfers. The states don't have any lawful right to regulate interstate commerce.

#operationchaos

Would you please convince our AG of that (actually all that have sat in that chair since the mid-1990s)?

Sounds like you have your answer already but I'd just like to point out that you can't understand the MA requirements by looking at the forms. You would THINK that there would be a logical correlation, but the Mass systems is so screwed up the forms are of little help as to what is actually required.

The online options (forms) were INTENTIONALLY designed to imply that lots of entries/information is "required" when it is NOT required by MGL. When I teach I instruct students to use ONLY one of two options (carefully and why) . . . Personal Transfer and Registration regardless of the circumstances of the transfer.

 

[dcmdon]

Well Len,

The AG doesnt' really regulate. He/She threatens a suit. Then frightens the "offenders". If I get your point, this has always been applied to commercial interests trying to sell things like Ammo in MA.

But in the case of stuff going OUT of MA, there really isn't anything they can do.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well Len,

The AG doesnt' really regulate. He/She threatens a suit. Then frightens the "offenders". If I get your point, this has always been applied to commercial interests trying to sell things like Ammo in MA.

But in the case of stuff going OUT of MA, there really isn't anything they can do.

Contact me offline but I know of a prime example of this.

IIRC, MGL (or it could be the AG, unsure right now) prohibits a MA Dealer from selling/shipping ammo to a non-MA customer. Meaning nobody can order ammo mail-order from LGS to be shipped to said buyer who lives in another state.

 

[warwickben]

Contact me offline but I know of a prime example of this.

IIRC, MGL (or it could be the AG, unsure right now) prohibits a MA Dealer from selling/shipping ammo to a non-MA customer. Meaning nobody can order ammo mail-order from LGS to be shipped to said buyer who lives in another state.

Qammo would know those rules.


But wouldn't those laws be interfering with interstate commerce ?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Qammo would know those rules.


But wouldn't those laws be interfering with interstate commerce ?

Of course they interfere with interstate commerce which is exactly the point I was trying to make in refuting Don's contention that the AG "can't do anything about outgoing interstate commerce".

 

[dcmdon]

I'd like to see the citation to know whether its an AG reg or a statute.

An AG reg can be ignored in certain cases. What could she threaten a store with? Its not a criminal offense. And its clearly unconstitutional. Shoot, I'd hope that even a MA judge could see that its really easy to substitute "ammunition" for "book" then you'd have the liberals attention.

 

[drgrant]

I'd like to see the citation to know whether its an AG reg or a statute.

An AG reg can be ignored in certain cases. What could she threaten a store with? Its not a criminal offense. And its clearly unconstitutional. Shoot, I'd hope that even a MA judge could see that its really easy to substitute "ammunition" for "book" then you'd have the liberals attention.

It has nothing to do with any kind of regulation, it has to do with the AG throwing bologna in civil courts and getting a default judgement when the vendor doesn't show up. The amount of money it would cost to even blow off a bogus court case would destroy a lot of your profit, particularly in a pretty thin margin industry like this.

-Mike

 

[dcmdon]

But either way, its a CIVIL suit against an out of state commercial interest.

How does that apply to a MA citizen shipping something OUT of MA.

Don

 

[drgrant]

But either way, its a CIVIL suit against an out of state commercial interest.

How does that apply to a MA citizen shipping something OUT of MA.

Don

It applies when you get a nastygram in the mail from the AGs office and you have to call your lawyer to deal with it, that's how it "applies". The AG's office and this state in general tries to do ****y things where it has no jurisdiction. MDOR trying to shake down town fair tire in NH is a fine example of this. (over sales tax revenue, apparently MDOR is butthurt that MA residents save an average of $40+ in taxes by buying tires in NH instead. ) Eventually TFT won, but the suit was so shitty and baseless that NH retaliated and actually passed a law making it illegal for businesses to disclose sales information to DOR's from other states. (basically, setting it up so that TFT or other entities can say "well, we can't tell you who buys the tires because it would be against the law in this state to do so." )

I'm not even saying its "likely" but merely suggesting that anyone who says "impossible" is being mentally retarded given the AG's office track record in MA. The legal system in this state best resembles something coming out of a banana republic or the byzantine empire on its best days. I honestly think in some circumstances at least with the AGs office if someone called them out on their bullshit it would stop, but nobody wants to fork up the legal fees to attempt doing it.

-Mike

 

[dcmdon]

But all of the nastygrams I've ever heard of have said something to the effect of "stop or else . . .." I've never actually seen a MA one in the flesh. (or scanned)

So you do it (because its legal) until they send you the letter, then you make your decision. The reality is that if you are an individual lawfully buying and selling firearms and ammo in reasonable numbers via interstate commerce, you will never even end up on the radar screen.

Is it time for me to offer a reward? $100 for any first hand knowledge of anyone ever actually brought to trial for anything like this, who agreed to stop when notified the first time?

I'm getting off on a bit of a tangent. But this is how the ATF typically approaches people they think are doing a lot of volume. (I've seen these letters) They tell you to stop or get an FFL. Also, until Obama's EO, the ATF would not give you a FFL if you sold only at gun shows. Even if you wanted one. He never mentions that. (Question 18 a says Do You Intend To Sell Firearms Only at Gun Shows?. It then instructs that if you answer yes, do not subimt the application)

Don

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/f...ral-firearms-license-atf-form-531012/download