View Full Version : 5320.20 - what am I missing?
The law does not mention (that I could find) transportation other than “interstate or foreign commerce.”
Why do people submit these forms/requests for personal transportation?
If I have a machinegun I want to take access state lines, where is it mentioned, in law that it is illegal?
Because people are scared of the G man boogeyman swooping down in a black helicopters the moment they cross the line.
5320s are a joke.
Prove me wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 5320.20 uses verbiage different than anything in either of the two statutes the form itself references. The back side of the 5320.20 states “to transport interstate or in foreign commerce” whereas the consistent verbiage of the laws themselves are “in interstate or foreign commerce.”
My guess is that by a plain reading, you are correct, but I don’t know if any court decisions have clarified. Clearly, the ATF is taking the position we all need permission, whether or not any “commerce” is involved.
I’d love this to go to court, if it hasn’t already, but I won’t be paying for it.
Because people are scared of the G man boogeyman swooping down in a black helicopters the moment they cross the line.
Not defending the form, or the law, I agree they are a joke. Just explaining why I fill a few out annually
I visit my father in MS throughout the year and we go to his range. It's a beautiful state run immaculate range in the southern part of the state. I fill out one form that I will be there time period 1 year, fill out every year for all my SBR's.....He loves to shoot them.
The why is sort of what I quoted. In the event someone at the range goes full retard (NFA isn't legal blah blah), the form could well save me some aggravation.
At my local range people love to go to the podium hard with their thoughts, beliefs, ideas, instructions, etc. about firearms, life, politics, how-to's and the like. Locally, I just leave the range and I'm home. In MS, I'm at a hotel, so the form may well save me aggravation should someone believe I am not legal visiting with my SBR's.
In actual practice, I may be delusional, but makes me feel better. I also stay in the South, where SBR's and suppressors aren't unusual. Your milage may vary in the northern part of the US for sure.
Because people are scared of the G man boogeyman swooping down in a black helicopters the moment they cross the line.
5320s are a joke.
Prove me wrong.
Turn in your G-man badge and say that again. :p
Doesn’t mean I’m not absolutely and unequivocally correct though lol.
The reality is mass non-compliance is the only way any of these regulations have a chance of being rolled back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CleverNickname
12-08-19, 12:51
If I have a machinegun I want to take access state lines, where is it mentioned, in law that it is illegal?
The 5320.20 references the laws itself, right on the form, under "Instructions", page 2, section A.
It shall be unlawful ... (4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922)
The 5320.20 references the laws itself, right on the form, under "Instructions", page 2, section A.
Right. So if Im transporting interstate for personal use- no need for the form.
It is not being transported in interstate commerce.
Thats how Im reading it- just want to know if Im missing something. If not, where did the “you need to fill out the form” thing come from?
Time to write the ATF for a clarifying opinion.
I'm kidding!! [emoji854][emoji4]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CleverNickname
12-09-19, 18:30
Right. So if Im transporting interstate for personal use- no need for the form.
It is not being transported in interstate commerce.
Thats how Im reading it- just want to know if Im missing something. If not, where did the “you need to fill out the form” thing come from?
But you are affecting interstate commerce, at least according to how the federal courts currently define "interstate commerce." The 5320.20 is not required for LE, and not required for SOT's. So who do you think the 5320.20 is for, and if you're not included in that group, who is?
If you don't fill out a 5320.20 and travel to another state, it's no skin off my back. But the ATF will probably see differently. Also, it seems pretty weird to follow the law and do the whole form 1/form 4 process, but then all of a sudden go into "F the man" mode and say you're not going to fill out a 5320.20. If you're going to do that, why not just make a suppressor or chop down your barrel or drill a sear hole and not worry about the form 1? I mean, when you think about it, how is that really "affecting interstate commerce"?
Clever...
How do the courts define “interstate commerce?”
You may be missing his point. But, if you have some clarifying info on definitions perhaps it would be helpful for us.
As it stands, he has not suggesting anyone “f the man.” He is asking if the man is f-ing us.
Also, it seems pretty weird to follow the law and do the whole form 1/form 4 process, but then all of a sudden go into "F the man" mode and say you're not going to fill out a 5320.20. If you're going to do that, why not just make a suppressor or chop down your barrel or drill a sear hole and not worry about the form 1?
Yeah and it's easy for the badge-boi in this thread to tout breaking the law when the first thing he would do is pull the badge the man gave him and get a 'pass', or worst case a talking to from his boss. A really brave one there, LMFAO...
But you are affecting interstate commerce, at least according to how the federal courts currently define "interstate commerce." The 5320.20 is not required for LE, and not required for SOT's. So who do you think the 5320.20 is for, and if you're not included in that group, who is?
How do the courts (more importantly the law) define interstate commerce as it applies here?
If you don't fill out a 5320.20 and travel to another state, it's no skin off my back. But the ATF will probably see differently. Also, it seems pretty weird to follow the law and do the whole form 1/form 4 process, but then all of a sudden go into "F the man" mode and say you're not going to fill out a 5320.20. If you're going to do that, why not just make a suppressor or chop down your barrel or drill a sear hole and not worry about the form 1? I mean, when you think about it, how is that really "affecting interstate commerce"?
This entire paragraph hinges on filling out a 5320.20 being legally required, which Im trying to understand why people believe it is. As for the rest of the paragraph, Thats not what I said.
Time to write the ATF for a clarifying opinion.
I'm kidding!! [emoji854][emoji4]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Haha- I’m not going to be ‘that guy’.
Yeah and it's easy for the badge-boi in this thread to tout breaking the law
I thought that the OP’s point is that it’s not breaking the law which is why he doesn’t understand the regulation existing.
How do the courts (more importantly the law) define interstate commerce as it applies here?
The Constitution is pretty narrow with the powers that it provides. Not to be dissuaded by said document, Congress has over the years decided that pretty much anything it wants to do falls under Article 1, Section 8 (3) which provides Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. It’s a total abuse of the original intent. Until the Supreme Court and lower courts get stacked full of judges that go by the original intent of what’s written, we can pretty much forget about putting limits on Congressional power. This goes way beyond guns to the vast majority of the laws and regulations that exist.
I thought that the OP’s point is that it’s not breaking the law which is why he doesn’t understand the regulation existing.
Maybe he should write a letter to BATFE for clarification <sarcasm>:p
Or he could just be confident in his assessment and do whatever he pleases - it's not like the non-legal assessment from interwebz people is going to give him protection if he is proven wrong at some point, nor is muscle-boi going to show up with his badge to protect him...
:jester:
Yeah and it's easy for the badge-boi in this thread to tout breaking the law when the first thing he would do is pull the badge the man gave him and get a 'pass', or worst case a talking to from his boss. A really brave one there, LMFAO...
You’re cute.
Not on the level of baby yoda cute though. More like the Blurrg kinda cute.
It’s not my fault Euro won’t love you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
is asking if the man is f-ing us.
Yes of course the man is F-ing us, well documented.
This entire paragraph hinges on filling out a 5320.20 being legally required, which Im trying to understand why people believe it is.
I believe it is, because the lawyer who put together my trust, living wills, and will told me to fill out 5320.20 when traveling out of state with my SBR (Suppressor not needed, but check laws of where I go) and keep them with my trust. His opinion when I presented the same it's not legal argument was "unless I had a 3+ months I could take off work to fight an unlawful arrest, fill out the stupid form dumbass, it's once a year." He finished with "if you're such a good lawyer, why didn't you do all this yourself?", mumbling if he had a $1 for each ignorant client with a stupid constitutional based legal opinions.
I paid him for a good bit of legal work and accept his guidance, that's why.
CleverNickname
12-10-19, 21:56
Clever...
How do the courts define “interstate commerce?”
"Interstate commerce" is pretty much anything Congress says it is. I'm unaware of any laws which Congress has passed with "interstate commerce" as the justification being overturned, other than the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act.
The ATF's argument would be that any firearm affects interstate commerce by its mere existence. If you don't like that interpretation of the commerce clause, you'll need to go back and have Wickard v. Filburn overturned, along with a couple other earlier cases. This also would put a multitude of other laws in jeopardy, and so that's not happening anytime soon.
Note that I'm not saying I agree with the current interpretation; I'm just telling you what it is.
But to get back to my point: the constitutionality of NFA rests, in total, on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. If you don't believe that they have the power to regulate where someone can take their NFA firearms due to the Commerce Clause, then I don't understand why you believe that Congress has the power to regulate the making or possession of NFA firearms.
"Interstate commerce" is pretty much anything Congress says it is. I'm unaware of any laws which Congress has passed with "interstate commerce" as the justification being overturned, other than the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act.
The ATF's argument would be that any firearm affects interstate commerce by its mere existence. If you don't like that interpretation of the commerce clause, you'll need to go back and have Wickard v. Filburn overturned, along with a couple other earlier cases. This also would put a multitude of other laws in jeopardy, and so that's not happening anytime soon.
Note that I'm not saying I agree with the current interpretation; I'm just telling you what it is.
But to get back to my point: the constitutionality of NFA rests, in total, on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. If you don't believe that they have the power to regulate where someone can take their NFA firearms due to the Commerce Clause, then I don't understand why you believe that Congress has the power to regulate the making or possession of NFA firearms.
My question was not about the constitutionality of NFA. Its specifically about what makes the 5320.20 applicable to non-commercial interstate travel.
Im reading that private transport affects commerce, so falls under purview of nfa( although i fail to see how it affects commerce at all). Am I tracking correctly?
CleverNickname
12-11-19, 19:55
My question was not about the constitutionality of NFA. Its specifically about what makes the 5320.20 applicable to non-commercial interstate travel.
Im reading that private transport affects commerce, so falls under purview of nfa( although i fail to see how it affects commerce at all). Am I tracking correctly?
Correct. The fact that you're (I presume) not making money while using the gun doesn't mean that it doesn't affect interstate commerce. The fact that you bought the gun means it affected interstate commerce, and that gun is affected in perpetuity. Even if you made a gun solely from metal ore that you mined on your own property, smelted yourself, and then forged and milled into a firearm, it would still affect interstate commerce according to the current interpretation of what interstate commerce is, because you affected the firearms market by not buying a firearm that was on the commercial market.
Steve Shannon
12-12-19, 06:18
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Title 49 CFR, Part 390.5 defines interstate commerce as trade, traffic or transportation in the U.S. :
Between a place in a state and a place outside of such state (including a place outside of the United States; or
Between two places in a state through another state or a place outside of the United States; or
Between two places in a state as a part of trade, traffic or transportation originating or terminating outside the state or the United States.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Title 49 CFR, Part 390.5 defines interstate commerce as trade, traffic or transportation in the U.S. :
Between a place in a state and a place outside of such state (including a place outside of the United States; or
Between two places in a state through another state or a place outside of the United States; or
Between two places in a state as a part of trade, traffic or transportation originating or terminating outside the state or the United States.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And that answers my question. Thank you.
Steve Shannon
12-12-19, 10:09
And that answers my question. Thank you.
You’re welcome! Merry Christmas!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.