View Full Version : Showing form 4 on request/demand
I've been searching but couldn't find anything. I was wondering who can ask to see your form 4? Say for instance if I go to a range can the staff ask to see my form 4? Or would a simple acknowledgment of saying "yes I have a form 4" suffice? I'm sure since it's their range they can do as they please but legally can they request my form 4 and hold it temporarily while I shoot? I'm just worried of showing my form 4 and they take my information down for whatever reason...
CleverNickname
09-15-09, 20:38
Of course they can legally request it. And you can legally refuse. And they can legally tell you you're not welcome in their establishment. There's no law requiring that they look at it and no law requiring that you let them if they ask.
shooter521
09-15-09, 20:42
I've been searching but couldn't find anything. I was wondering who can ask to see your form 4? Say for instance if I go to a range can the staff ask to see my form 4? Or would a simple acknowledgment of saying "yes I have a form 4" suffice? I'm sure since it's their range they can do as they please but legally can they request my form 4 and hold it temporarily while I shoot? I'm just worried of showing my form 4 and they take my information down for whatever reason...
Anyone can ask. Who gets to see it may be something else entirely...
I have always been told that because the Form 4 is nominally a tax return, the information contained therein is privileged, and can/should only be shared with the BATFE.
That said, I wouldn't hesitate to show it to a police officer upon request. Also, if you send your NFA device in for repairs, some SOTs or gunsmiths ask that you send a copy of your form along with it.
I probably would NOT show a copy of my Form to a random range officer. If they're asking me to show proof that MY gun is legal, why aren't they asking everyone else for sales receipts or whatever to make sure their guns are legal? Besides which, most range officers wouldn't even know what they were looking at, or for on an ATF form, or even whether or not the form was valid.
Anyone can ask. Who gets to see it may be something else entirely...
. . . random range officer. If they're asking me to show proof that MY gun is legal, why aren't they asking everyone else for sales receipts or whatever to make sure their guns are legal? Besides which, most range officers wouldn't even know what they were looking at, or for on an ATF form, or even whether or not the form was valid.
Exactly. Not trying to be combative, but the NFA owning community needs to nip this stuff in the bud.
If asked at a range, tell the Range Officer:
"Sure, I have my paperwork with me, but first, I'll need to see proof that you own your firearms lawfully."
(you will probably get a confused look and maybe a 'huh??'"
Tell the "RO":
"Look, I obey the laws and I give you my word that my NFA items are lawfully owned. You are obviously aware that there are legal ways for civilians like me to own and use suppressors/SBRs. Beyond my word, you do not have any right to ask for proof of that, any more than I have a right to demand you show me some sort of proof that your non-NFA guns are lawfully owned. I'll assume your guns are lawfully owned and I expect the same courtesy from you. If not, then can you give me some reason why you believe my NFA firearms might not be lawfully owned?"
If they persist, offer to dial the BATFE for them & let them use your phone to explain the "problem" they have created.
Seriously, this crap needs to stop.
The NRA HQ Range does this NFA form check BS...or at least they used to...
I haven't been asked the last two times for SBR's, but they always ask for suppressors, and it's not like I am shooting a "maglite" looking can either.
The coup de grace was the range officer looking at my Form 4 intently, then asking me if that was an AAC Cyclone. :rolleyes: So I told him it was a YHM Phantom, and he should have known after just looking at the F4. :p
Of course they can legally request it. And you can legally refuse. And they can legally tell you you're not welcome in their establishment. There's no law requiring that they look at it and no law requiring that you let them if they ask.
Exactly right.
I have been asked, and produced it when asked. I have also been asked "you have a form for that?" and upon answering in the affirmative they haven't bothered to ask to see it.
Business_Casual
09-16-09, 18:33
I have always been told that because the Form 4 is nominally a tax return, the information contained therein is privileged, and can/should only be shared with the BATFE.
I would caution you to rethink that. Not to mention that it doesn't even apply to an actual tax return, let alone a BATFE form (which isn't).
M_P
Just make a copy and shrink it down real small then laminate it so old RO's can barely read it.
From the NFA Handbook (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/nfa_handbook/):
Section 12.1 Maintaining proof of registration. The NFA requires that a person possessing a firearm registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) retain proof of registration which must be made available to the Attorney General, specifically an ATF agent or investigator, upon request. Proof of registration would be on a Form 1 registering a firearm to its maker, Form 2 registering a firearm to an importer or manufacturer, or a Form 3, 4, or 5 showing registration of a firearm to a transferee.
Section 6.4 Approval of Form 1. Non-FFL/SOT’s may seek approval to manufacture an NFA firearm (e.g., short-barreled rifles, short-barreled, shotguns, wallet guns, etc.) via submission of an ATF Form 1. Upon receipt of the completed Form 1, ATF will process the application and, if approved, a tax stamp will be affixed to the original of the form and the approved application will be returned to the applicant. Approval by ATF will effect registration of the firearm to the applicant. Upon receipt of the approved application, the applicant may make the firearm described on the approved Form 1. The approved form must be retained by the applicant and made available at all times for inspection by ATF officers or investigators.
If you run into an ATF agent, you must be able to show proof of legal registration. A photocopy is acceptable. The big question, however, is how they define "investigator" since this likely includes LE, any Federal agent with the power to arrest, and could include other groups as well. Unfortunately I don't know how "investigator" is specifically defined.
variablebinary
09-20-09, 00:55
I always keep a copy.
Though, you better have a badge and the ability to arrest me if you expect to see it.
I do always keep a copy with me just in case I run into an ATF agent. If it's Law enforcement I'll show but I was just wondering about the Village Idiot who works at the gun range. I just don't want people knowing where I live, especially if I have cool toys you know?
Though, you better have a badge and the ability to arrest me if you expect to see it.
I realize from other pictures you have posted that you don't appear to have to deal with this, but would you leave the range or present and get to shoot if asked by the range employees?
If you run into an ATF agent, you must be able to show proof of legal registration. A photocopy is acceptable. The big question, however, is how they define "investigator" since this likely includes LE, any Federal agent with the power to arrest, and could include other groups as well. Unfortunately I don't know how "investigator" is specifically defined.
Many states have their own laws that make it a crime to possess a SBR, SBS, suppressor, etc. unless it is properly registered via the NFA. If you live in one of those states, a state or local LE officer could very well demand to see your form and arrest you under the state law if you don't have it.
RogerinTPA
09-20-09, 11:18
My range has a rule that the customer must show they have their paper work for NFA firearms. They RO's ( most are retired or reserve LEOs and armed) will ask, as was the case last Sunday, when an RO asked a guy on 3 separate occasions to see it. 1st he said he'll dig it out, 2nd, it's in here some where, digging around in his range bag and gun case, then the 3rd, "It's probably in my car" while packing up his gear and leaving, never to return... The owner said that although he allows full auto fire and rents FA weapons, there has been quite a few instances where the weapon has been illegally modified by the local Good Ole boys.
On another range where full auto isn't allowed, one guy's AR went full auto, in what he claimed was a semi auto AR. When the ROs swarmed his position and asked WTF, he claimed the sear must have broken :rolleyes:, he then packed up and left in a hurry.
Many states have their own laws that make it a crime to possess a SBR, SBS, suppressor, etc. unless it is properly registered via the NFA. If you live in one of those states, a state or local LE officer could very well demand to see your form and arrest you under the state law if you don't have it.
Name a state where it isn't a crime to own an unregistered NFA item. After all, it's the National Firearms Act and is covered by Federal law under all 50 States. If Local and State LEOs know their stuff, they can arrest based on suspicion, jam you up in the system, and work out the details later. ;)
The safest practice is to have a copy of your stamped paperwork and be prepared to show it when asked by LEOs or anyone with reasonable authority in your current location (such as range officials).
Name a state where it isn't a crime to own an unregistered NFA item. After all, it's the National Firearms Act and is covered by Federal law under all 50 States. If Local and State LEOs know their stuff, they can arrest based on suspicion, jam you up in the system, and work out the details later. ;)
The safest practice is to have a copy of your stamped paperwork and be prepared to show it when asked by LEOs or anyone with reasonable authority in your current location (such as range officials).
Range officials don't qualify as someone with reasonable authority in my book. I went shooting at a range a few weeks back down in Tucson and no one asked me about my toys at all. Another option may be a photocopy which is redacted that only shows what someone needs to see.
Range operators and the like may require you to produce paperwork as a condition of use. Other regs (NFA handbook reference) may specify that it must be shown to BATFE personnel on demand, but that doesn't bar others from requesting it. This is analogous to a sporting venue searching your bag on entry. You can assert your rights, but be denied use.
Such a procedure isn't necessarily a bad idea for the range operator. There may be an insurance or RM requirement to do so.
State and local governments may demand that you produce your NFA forms under applicable state statutes. You should expect that failure to do so will most likely result in confiscation of that arm until such time as you do. A PC arrest may or may not occur as well. For those inclined to post something about litigation that would follow, save it.
Keep your paperwork with you. Produce it upon demand of a legal officical. Determine in advance if you will do so to use facilities that may require it.
From the NFA Handbook (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/nfa_handbook/):
Section 12.1 Maintaining proof of registration. The NFA requires that a person possessing a firearm registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) retain proof of registration which must be made available to the Attorney General, specifically an ATF agent or investigator, upon request. Proof of registration would be on a Form 1 registering a firearm to its maker, Form 2 registering a firearm to an importer or manufacturer, or a Form 3, 4, or 5 showing registration of a firearm to a transferee.
Section 6.4 Approval of Form 1. Non-FFL/SOT’s may seek approval to manufacture an NFA firearm (e.g., short-barreled rifles, short-barreled, shotguns, wallet guns, etc.) via submission of an ATF Form 1. Upon receipt of the completed Form 1, ATF will process the application and, if approved, a tax stamp will be affixed to the original of the form and the approved application will be returned to the applicant. Approval by ATF will effect registration of the firearm to the applicant. Upon receipt of the approved application, the applicant may make the firearm described on the approved Form 1. The approved form must be retained by the applicant and made available at all times for inspection by ATF officers or investigators.
If you run into an ATF agent, you must be able to show proof of legal registration. A photocopy is acceptable. The big question, however, is how they define "investigator" since this likely includes LE, any Federal agent with the power to arrest, and could include other groups as well. Unfortunately I don't know how "investigator" is specifically defined.
The ATF's investigator's handle a lot of the "busy" work like doing FFL inspections, FFL/SOT interviews, etc.
I would be SHOCKED if you ran into one at a range and they asked to see your FORM 4.
Since you are shooting at a private range, they can ask to see just about anything. You have the right to not show it to them, but they also have the right to tell you to leave. ;)
C4
ST,
I agree with your post. If any LEO state, local or otherwise who has the ability to slap cuffs on me asks for my paperwork he/she will see it.
Range operators and the like may require you to produce paperwork as a condition of use. Other regs (NFA handbook reference) may specify that it must be shown to BATFE personnel on demand, but that doesn't bar others from requesting it. This is analogous to a sporting venue searching your bag on entry. You can assert your rights, but be denied use.
Such a procedure isn't necessarily a bad idea for the range operator. There may be an insurance or RM requirement to do so.
State and local governments may demand that you produce your NFA forms under applicable state statutes. You should expect that failure to do so will most likely result in confiscation of that arm until such time as you do. A PC arrest may or may not occur as well. For those inclined to post something about litigation that would follow, save it.
Keep your paperwork with you. Produce it upon demand of a legal officical. Determine in advance if you will do so to use facilities that may require it.
LockenLoad
09-21-09, 19:58
Range operators and the like may require you to produce paperwork as a condition of use. Other regs (NFA handbook reference) may specify that it must be shown to BATFE personnel on demand, but that doesn't bar others from requesting it. This is analogous to a sporting venue searching your bag on entry. You can assert your rights, but be denied use.
Such a procedure isn't necessarily a bad idea for the range operator. There may be an insurance or RM requirement to do so.
State and local governments may demand that you produce your NFA forms under applicable state statutes. You should expect that failure to do so will most likely result in confiscation of that arm until such time as you do. A PC arrest may or may not occur as well. For those inclined to post something about litigation that would follow, save it.
Keep your paperwork with you. Produce it upon demand of a legal officical. Determine in advance if you will do so to use facilities that may require it.
Well said I agree
The ATF's investigator's handle a lot of the "busy" work like doing FFL inspections, FFL/SOT interviews, etc.
I would be SHOCKED if you ran into one at a range and they asked to see your FORM 4.
Since you are shooting at a private range, they can ask to see just about anything. You have the right to not show it to them, but they also have the right to tell you to leave. ;)
C4
If "investigators" are nothing more than ATF agents then it's odd that they essentially list them twice in the handbook. But, I digress. Uncle Sugar doesn't always make sense when it comes to nomenclature and definitions. :p
For the record, I'm personally not worried about this topic. I simply brought up points of discussion and quoted the handbook where applicable. If my credentials aren't good enough, I always have a copy of my stamped paperwork ready to go. ;)
I don't even think about my forms at all anymore. I should get them all shrunk down and laminated and put on a ring some time.
PRGGodfather
10-02-09, 16:11
When it comes to having to "show my papers," compliance with LE is often part of the licensing or permitting scheme. Accordingly, any important papers (like firearms registrations or permits on letterhead) can be shrunk down to 25% and laminated at Kinko's.
With all 4 copies cut from an 8.5 x11" piece of paper, I put a laminated copy in the hard case, the soft case, the range bag and the briefcase...
QuietShootr
10-02-09, 16:58
Just make a copy and shrink it down real small then laminate it so old RO's can barely read it.
This is what I do. Mine are all wallet-size and laminated. Anyone over 40 isn't going to be able to read the thing without a magnifying class.
Name a state where it isn't a crime to own an unregistered NFA item. After all, it's the National Firearms Act and is covered by Federal law under all 50 States. If Local and State LEOs know their stuff, they can arrest based on suspicion, jam you up in the system, and work out the details later. ;)
The safest practice is to have a copy of your stamped paperwork and be prepared to show it when asked by LEOs or anyone with reasonable authority in your current location (such as range officials).
Yes, no shit it's a NFA violation in every state. :rolleyes: You've completely missed my point, however. There is a commonly held view that only ATF agents (or other federal agents) may demand to see it, whereas state/local LE cannot because it's a federal law that they don't enforce.
My point - if you actually read my post in response to yours - is that there are separate state laws that say a SBR/SBS/Suppressor/etc. are unlawful to possess unless the possessor has properly registered it under the NFA. That is the source of authority for the state/local LEO to demand to see the Form. If you don't produce it, they'll arrest you and charge you under the state law, just as they do for things like drug charges that are also federal crimes.
I understand that some states have their own laws on these items. My point was that one should produce a copy of their NFA paperwork regardless of state laws. City/state LEOs have every right to ask for paperwork on any questionable firearms, even if their city/state doesn't have specific ordinances/laws on NFA items.
With that said, if someone lives in city/state that has specific ordinances/laws on NFA items then the individual has even more reason to carry a copy of their NFA paperwork.
LockenLoad
10-02-09, 21:50
yes sir officer, I have my paper work right here, comply with the law 43 years old, never heard of anything productive coming from arguing with any LEO our refusing their demands unless they are violating your rights, not the case here.
We run a practical rifle match locally and allow suppressed and FA firearms to be used. We do however request to see a copy of their form prior to allowing it in the match. We don't hold copies and so long as the person's name, serial # of the item and the stamp are visible, we don't care if the rest is redacted. Once you've shown it, we don't ask for it each time.
It has nothing at all to do with knowing what you have or not being friendly to NFA toys. It has everything to do with the protection of the match and it's venue. As has been pointed out, not every NFA regulated item brought to ranges is registered. We should police our own ranks so that Uncle Sugar doesn't get wind of illegal activity and do it for us. While I have no doubt that some ranges have a beef with NFA stuff, not all of them do.
I'll show my forms to any Commissioned LEO or any range official. I will not allow anyone to hold copies while I shoot. That's over the line IMO. YMMV
Back when I had my M-11 we were shooting on private property in NH (with permission but the property owner was not there). Someone calls in the machine gun fire in the woods and up pulls a cruiser. Guy asked what we were doing. I showed him the Form 4. He apologized and said someone had phoned it in and started asking all sorts of questions about the M-11 and other stuff we had there -- all legal of course.
My poor M-11 had to be sold though to pay rent after the dot-com crash :-(
yes sir officer, I have my paper work right here, comply with the law 43 years old, never heard of anything productive coming from arguing with any LEO our refusing their demands unless they are violating your rights, not the case here.
Not arguing tends to work out best in almost every case. I have given people breaks that you would swear no cop would ever do, and they certainly weren't for people who wanted to argue.
When it comes to NFA, most LEO who ask aren't going to be up to date on everything. LEO in general, myself included, tend to deal with a certain group of calls, and be most familiar with them. For the area I work, bank robbery, assault, stolen vehicle, stabbing, drive by shooting, dope, domestics, and similar calls are all routine, and none of the guys who have been on for very long think of these as a big deal.
The amount of times spent on real crime is MUCH MUCH higher than it is on firearm or possible firearm violations. Taking a weapon off a gang member isn't a firearm violation in my point of view, its a stolen firearm, and shouldn't be confused with regular firearm or NFA items. LEO are good with stolen firearms, we see those on a regular basis as well.
The same LEO that handles the above calls on a regular basis isn't going to see NFA very often, and most of the laws for the feds, state, county, city or town are going to restrict NFA weapons without the proper paperwork. What the LEO is going to remember is that these are restricted items, and will investigate from there.
Something else to think about, the vast majority of the time that cops are stopping someone, its because somebody has called in a complaint. There is a high percentage of calls that are embellished by the caller, and some that are flat out lies. Keep in the back of your mind that someone may have called you in because they don't like you, are ignorant, or are afraid of all firearms.
I don't see a reason to not show the forms. You would show your drivers licence if asked by a LEO. Same goes for an RO. Really, what does it matter?
Jeremy
I don't see a reason to not show the forms. You would show your drivers licence if asked by a LEO. Same goes for an RO. Really, what does it matter?
Jeremy
A range officer request is not on par with a request from a sworn officer, deputy sheriff or trooper.
Steelblitz
11-08-09, 23:06
I don't see a reason to not show the forms. You would show your drivers licence if asked by a LEO.
That's one of the initial questions I've always asked the local ranges when I inquired before joining.... if they demand to see NFA papers everytime an NFA weapon is brought to the range. I just do not join those types of clubs.
And to answer your last sentence, no I wouldnt unless I'm in my vehicle. Since you're also from PA, to let you know, if you are just walking about in our state, you do not have to show ID to police in PA if being questioned. You're drivers license only needs to be produced if you are in a vehicle. That's like a cop asking to see my LTCF when I am open carrying...they arent going to see it.
I've never been asked to present a Form 4 to anyone. I have all of my Form 4s shrunken down to about 1/3 side, double sided and laminated. I stick them in my range bag just in case, but I really don't expect anyone to ask me for them.
A range officer request is not on par with a request from a sworn officer, deputy sheriff or trooper.
I realise that, but what is the harm in just showing it to them? Giving it to someone is a different story. Would a range be held responsible if an illegal MG was being used at their range? (Serious question) I'm not trying to be combative here, I just really don't see why you would not show your forms. I'm not talking about showing it to someone off the street, I'm just talking about a LEO or someone incharge of a range. I would rather be shooting than arguing about my weapons.
Jeremy
I realise that, but what is the harm in just showing it to them? Giving it to someone is a different story. Would a range be held responsible if an illegal MG was being used at their range? (Serious question) I'm not trying to be combative here, I just really don't see why you would not show your forms. I'm not talking about showing it to someone off the street, I'm just talking about a LEO or someone incharge of a range. I would rather be shooting than arguing about my weapons.
Jeremy
I doubt a range could be held responsible for the acts of another in court, unless the range could be shown to know that they were aware that the MG was illegal. They could however wind up spending considerable legal fees in doing so though.
In my area there are probably a half dozen ranges. Only 2 of the allow FA shooting. If illegal use were discovered at those ranges, I could see where they might decide to eliminate FA privileges. That would be a bad for all of us who legally own them. That's why I made the comment that it would be better for us to police our own ranks, rather than wait for something negative to happen. JMO, YMMV
I have no prob. showing it to LE or a RO that is just keeping the range on the up and up and/or complying with range rules: as in no NFA items.. Having a RO that wanted a copy, diff. story, but I can't see that happening.
LE, no brainer, unless it's SWATcop1911.:D
flanntastic
11-09-09, 21:04
my local range has four rangemasters, only one asked to see my paperwork, i whipped out about 10 tax stamps (copies), he never asked again.
flanntastic
11-09-09, 21:06
BTW....i am proud of my stamp collection, i whip them out and show them off when i can
Would a range be held responsible if an illegal MG was being used at their range? (Serious question)
This is a flip answer, and I'm sorry up-front, but would they be held responsible for stolen guns, illegal conceal carry, cars without insurance in their lot, shorter than legal rifles due to stock lengths, foregrips on pistols, etc?
The ranges can certainly publish their rules of use, if they request you show your forms or your DL, or your conceal carry permit or whatever, then do so if you want to shoot there.
My biggest problem is most of these jokers don't know at what they are looking, see my example above.
If LE asked, it would be shown without hesitation. Range officers need to show me the rule board, or the rules -- otherwise it could just be some busybody Fudd who wants to know "What ya' have that fer?? You got yer license fer it??"
The Dumb Gun Collector
11-10-09, 19:51
I would show our range-officer's just because he would get all butt-hurt if I blatantly disrespected him. It probably wouldn't come to anything, but I can't stand whiney old farts.
I don't see any harm in handling it either way.
spankaveli
11-10-09, 20:59
There was a thread about this on arfcom. There were two schools of thought. Those that don't want any trouble and would rather show proof and be done with it and then there are those who would rather show their ass and say that the "burden of proof" is on the LEO (or range owner in this situation).
Which one is more sensible? Which makes more sense?
I always wonder if these guys who say they'd tell an LEO to "pound sand" when asked to produce a stamp would do the same when asked to produce paperwork in a traffic stop. What's the difference?
Prove your legitimacy and be on your way. It saves everyone the trouble.
Prove your legitimacy and be on your way.
A very large problem with this slippery slope is that SBR's are legal, in most states, so mere possession of them is not tantamount to a crime there or otherwise visible proof of any wrongdoing. In the case of LE, I believe they would need to articulate probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc in order to demand your forms.
It is really akin to stopping a driver who has done nothing wrong simply to check and see if they actually have a valid DL or insurance. It is illegal in many/most places to drive without a license, but the traffic stops where those are found typically involve some other observable behavior by the officer doing their job -- (e.g. lights out at night, weaving, reckless driving, failure to stop, failure to signal, etc)
Other than you shooting a rifle at a designated range, what is the probably cause or reasonable suspicion?
So I support other's right to refuse a simply formal inquiry by LE, if they so choose. Just like I support other's in their refusal when a police officer asks to come in their house without a warrant, or search their car without PC. It doesn't mean they are wrong or bad people, just exercise their rights differently than I might.
I also respect the officer who responds to this by using all their legal facilities to investigate if he honestly believes there is wrongdoing or law breaking going on, or about to go on.
spankaveli
11-10-09, 21:13
A very large problem with this slippery slope is that SBR's are legal, in most states, so mere possession of them is not tantamount to a crime there or otherwise visible proof of any wrongdoing. In the case of LE, I believe they would need to articulate probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc in order to demand your forms.
It is really akin to stopping a driver who has done nothing wrong simply to check and see if they actually have a valid DL or insurance. It is illegal in many/most places to drive without a license, but the traffic stops where those are found typically involve some other observable behavior by the officer doing their job -- (e.g. lights out at night, weaving, reckless driving, failure to stop, failure to signal, etc)
Other than you shooting a rifle at a designated range, what is the probably cause or reasonable suspicion?
So I support other's right to refuse a simply formal inquiry by LE, if they so choose. Just like I support other's in their refusal when a police officer asks to come in their house without a warrant, or search their car without PC. It doesn't mean they are wrong or bad people, just exercise their rights differently than I might.
How about possession of a firearm that, probably, less than 1/10 of 1% of citizens own?
How about possession of a firearm that, probably, less than 1/10 of 1% of citizens own?
Again, LE knows their operative directives, and what is required of them to "make contact" and if someone is acting in a manner that gives them PC or RS, then they should roll with it.
If someone is at a formal range shooting, and not acting like a douche, I suspect that most of our fine LE officers would leave them alone.
I carry my original paperwork with me because on two different occasions, one last weekend, I've had to spend about 1/2 of the time I alloted to shooting, explaining to a sheriffs deputy that what I had was indeed not illegal to own.
I think there's a rather large disconnect sometimes between their job and their personal knowledge of firearms. Not knocking LEO's at all, I have a lot of respect for them, but sometimes, they only know how to use their gun enough to qualify.
For instance, this weekend I had the Krinkov out and was doing some work on a 10" circle (thanks for that drill btw MPD folks). The deputy rolls up (its an outdoor open range) so I stopped shooting and made safe. He asked that I put the rifle down. So, even though I didn't want to set it in the mud, I did. He told me that the rifle I was shooting was illegal for me to own. When I asked why, he said because civies can't own machine guns. This particular rifle isn't even SBR'd, but he thought it was full auto and proceeded to search my car. In the car was my SBR'd PS90 and G5 suppressor. After several radio calls and a cell phone call, he started listening to what I had to say. One of the local detectives whom I'm friends with heard the conversations and knew exactly where I was shooting at as we go there all the time. He rolled out to see what was going on.
At that point, after having shown the deputy the paperwork and trying to explain how to tell if a weapon is full auto (without ammo), the deputy confirmed what I was saying and I was allowed to go on my way. (home, because the sun was setting, lost about 45 minutes to the ordeal).
I sometimes wonder if they'd be open to the idea of some classroom time to actually see and touch different weapons (small area here, so no big weapons room). I wouldn't wanna teach 'em, but sometimes I wish someone would, but its probably not that high on their priority list, understandably.
Anyways, I carry the original paperwork in a plastic sleeve in my range book just in case.
A very large problem with this slippery slope is that SBR's are legal, in most states, so mere possession of them is not tantamount to a crime there or otherwise visible proof of any wrongdoing. In the case of LE, I believe they would need to articulate probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc in order to demand your forms.
Other than you shooting a rifle at a designated range, what is the probably cause or reasonable suspicion?
So I support other's right to refuse a simply formal inquiry by LE, if they so choose.
Shivan,
Be cautious with what you recommend. Each state has its own laws, so you must be familiar with them. In Arizona, it is a felony to possess a SBR or SBS (defined exactly as they are in Federal law), UNLESS the weapon is properly registered through the NFA. This law is a state crime in the Arizona Revised Statutes. Therefore, if a law officer sees someone with a SBR, I'd argue that there certainly is reasonable suspicion that a crime may be being committed. The defense to this state crime is to show your NFA paperwork! It would be similiar to saying that if an officer notices that you are CCW, you do not have to show him your CCW permit. Yes, you do not 'have to', but you'll get arrested.
By refusing to show your paperwork, you'd almost certainly get arrested and booked on a felony (although it would obviously be dismissed once the paperwork was shown).
A very large problem with this slippery slope is that SBR's are legal, in most states, so mere possession of them is not tantamount to a crime there or otherwise visible proof of any wrongdoing.
Actually, they are explicitly illegal in many states unless you have complied with the NFA registration requirements. That is certainly the case in the state in which both you and I live.
In other words, the mere sight of a SBR is in fact PC to stop and question you, and the burden is on you to show that you fall under the exception. Sort of like carrying a concealed handgun - normally illegal unless you have the permit.
This is why the people who blab about not showing stamps to state/local authorities (and only showing them to ATF agents) are in for a real treat if they ever actually test their policy. They'll very likely get arrested and charged under state law until they pony up the stamped form.
Actually, they are explicitly illegal in many states unless you have complied with the NFA registration requirements. That is certainly the case in the state in which both you and I live.
In other words, the mere sight of a SBR is in fact PC to stop and question you, and the burden is on you to show that you fall under the exception. Sort of like carrying a concealed handgun - normally illegal unless you have the permit.
Ok, the possesion of a firearm by a convicted felon is expressly illegal. Are the ranges and/or LE officers conducting NICS checks on each person they come across with a firearm otherwise legally engaged in shooting?
If not, why not? The presumption is the same...guilty of not complying with the law.
ETA: I've never been questioned about SBR's or machine guns, it's always the suppressors that get the attention.
Jay Cunningham
11-11-09, 17:04
My personal feeling is that unless you can prove to me that you are a BATFE Agent you have no business asking. However, I would probably comply with a request from any LEO.
Actually, they are explicitly illegal in many states unless you have complied with the NFA registration requirements. That is certainly the case in the state in which both you and I live.
Seems like a rather statist interpretation of the statutes....and a simple presumption that you have not complied with federal law.
In order to articulate that sight of an SBR is PC, you have to say, "My presumption was that this person had not complied with federal law, so I asked to check the forms."
The follow-up question should be, "What specific behavior(s), or words, gave any indication that this person had not complied with Federal law?"
§ 18.2-299. Definitions.
When used in this article:
"Sawed-off shotgun" means any weapon, loaded or unloaded, originally designed as a shoulder weapon, utilizing a self-contained cartridge from which a number of ball shot pellets or projectiles may be fired simultaneously from a smooth or rifled bore by a single function of the firing device and which has a barrel length of less than 18 inches for smooth bore weapons and 16 inches for rifled weapons. Weapons of less than .225 caliber shall not be included.
"Sawed-off rifle" means a rifle of any caliber, loaded or unloaded, which expels a projectile by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is designed as a shoulder weapon with a barrel or barrels length of less than 16 inches or which has been modified to an overall length of less than 26 inches.
"Crime of violence" applies to and includes any of the following crimes or an attempt to commit any of the same, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, mayhem, assault with intent to maim, disable, disfigure or kill, robbery, burglary, housebreaking, breaking and entering and larceny.
"Person" applies to and includes firm, partnership, association or corporation.
§ 18.2-300. Possession or use of "sawed-off" shotgun or rifle.
A. Possession or use of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime of violence is a Class 2 felony.
B. Possession or use of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle for any other purpose, except as permitted by this article and official use by those persons permitted possession by § 18.2-303, is a Class 4 felony.
§ 18.2-303.1. What article does not prohibit.
Nothing contained in this article shall prohibit or interfere with the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle for scientific purposes, the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle possessed in compliance with federal law or the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle not usable as a firing weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament, or keepsake.
Shivan,
Be cautious with what you recommend.
I gave no one any recommendations of courses of action. My statement was too generalized though.
Seems like a rather statist interpretation of the statutes....and a simple presumption that you have not complied with federal law.
In order to articulate that sight of an SBR is PC, you have to say, "My presumption was that this person had not complied with federal law, so I asked to check the forms."
The follow-up question should be, "What specific behavior(s), or words, gave any indication that this person had not complied with Federal law?"
§ 18.2-299. Definitions.
When used in this article:
"Sawed-off shotgun" means any weapon, loaded or unloaded, originally designed as a shoulder weapon, utilizing a self-contained cartridge from which a number of ball shot pellets or projectiles may be fired simultaneously from a smooth or rifled bore by a single function of the firing device and which has a barrel length of less than 18 inches for smooth bore weapons and 16 inches for rifled weapons. Weapons of less than .225 caliber shall not be included.
"Sawed-off rifle" means a rifle of any caliber, loaded or unloaded, which expels a projectile by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is designed as a shoulder weapon with a barrel or barrels length of less than 16 inches or which has been modified to an overall length of less than 26 inches.
"Crime of violence" applies to and includes any of the following crimes or an attempt to commit any of the same, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, mayhem, assault with intent to maim, disable, disfigure or kill, robbery, burglary, housebreaking, breaking and entering and larceny.
"Person" applies to and includes firm, partnership, association or corporation.
§ 18.2-300. Possession or use of "sawed-off" shotgun or rifle.
A. Possession or use of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime of violence is a Class 2 felony.
B. Possession or use of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle for any other purpose, except as permitted by this article and official use by those persons permitted possession by § 18.2-303, is a Class 4 felony.
§ 18.2-303.1. What article does not prohibit.
Nothing contained in this article shall prohibit or interfere with the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle for scientific purposes, the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle possessed in compliance with federal law or the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle not usable as a firing weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament, or keepsake.
How is my interpretation "statist?" It's actually pretty simple. The Code says they're illegal unless possessed in compliance with federal law. That means that if a state or local cop see your SBR and asks to see your form, and you don't have one or you tell him to piss off, you're getting the bracelets. It's really not very difficult.
Aside from that practical assessment, I don't think you really understand how minimal and flexible a standard you are dealing with in "probable cause." They don't need to sit there and analytically dissect exactly how much suspicion or proof they have or philosophically consider whether possession of the SBR, or lack of federal paperwork, is the crime. It's a totality of the circumstances analysis that would certainly take into account the nature of the firearm which, I can tell you, most any judge is going to view differently that a "normal" gun.
Finally, in the context of a "stop and ask you about your SBR" encounter, you're not even at the point where probable cause is needed. That's basically a Terry stop, where the standard is the even more easily satisfied "reasonable, articulable suspicion."
For further reading on just how easy it is for a Virginia LEO to just walk up, see your sawed-off gun, start asking questions, and be upheld in doing so, see Taylor v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 260 (1990).
Also see Commonwealth v. Bryant, 16 Va. Cir. 302 (1989):
Related to the last point is one not mentioned by counsel .By Code § 18.2-300(B) possession of a sawed-off shotgun is made a felony. By § 19.2-81 law officers "may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits any crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has reasonable grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in his presence." On the basis of the knowledge of the police officers in this case probable caused existed for the defendant's arrest without a warrant under either of these alternatives.
decodeddiesel
11-11-09, 18:48
I carry my original paperwork with me because on two different occasions, one last weekend, I've had to spend about 1/2 of the time I alloted to shooting, explaining to a sheriffs deputy that what I had was indeed not illegal to own.
I think there's a rather large disconnect sometimes between their job and their personal knowledge of firearms. Not knocking LEO's at all, I have a lot of respect for them, but sometimes, they only know how to use their gun enough to qualify.
For instance, this weekend I had the Krinkov out and was doing some work on a 10" circle (thanks for that drill btw MPD folks). The deputy rolls up (its an outdoor open range) so I stopped shooting and made safe. He asked that I put the rifle down. So, even though I didn't want to set it in the mud, I did. He told me that the rifle I was shooting was illegal for me to own. When I asked why, he said because civies can't own machine guns. This particular rifle isn't even SBR'd, but he thought it was full auto and proceeded to search my car. In the car was my SBR'd PS90 and G5 suppressor. After several radio calls and a cell phone call, he started listening to what I had to say. One of the local detectives whom I'm friends with heard the conversations and knew exactly where I was shooting at as we go there all the time. He rolled out to see what was going on.
At that point, after having shown the deputy the paperwork and trying to explain how to tell if a weapon is full auto (without ammo), the deputy confirmed what I was saying and I was allowed to go on my way. (home, because the sun was setting, lost about 45 minutes to the ordeal).
I sometimes wonder if they'd be open to the idea of some classroom time to actually see and touch different weapons (small area here, so no big weapons room). I wouldn't wanna teach 'em, but sometimes I wish someone would, but its probably not that high on their priority list, understandably.
Anyways, I carry the original paperwork in a plastic sleeve in my range book just in case.
That is just plain ignorant and ridiculous on that Deputies part. No offense to LEOs out there, but ignorance is never an excuse, especially if knowledge of the a given subject (in this case the law) is part of your job.
I would have shown him the paperwork for my SBR had I been in this situation, that much is reasonable, but that should have been the end of it. If he was too ignorant of the law to realize that a form 1 with the affixed tax stamp along with my ID was enough to prove that I was legally in possession of said weapon then I'm sorry but that's his problem. I would file a formal complaint with the municipality which that deputy serves under for harassment.
Also any further demands of that LEO to invade my privacy would have been met with "I do not consent to the search of myself or my property. If you want to go and get a warrant, and perhaps brush up on your knowledge of NFA law then I will stand here and wait. But you're not searching my vehicle or my person by my consent."
I am an upstanding citizen and I have the right to own what I own. I don't need some over zealous police officer who is ignorant of the law to infringe my freedom.
How is my interpretation "statist?" It's actually pretty simple. The Code says they're illegal unless possessed in compliance with federal law. That means that if a state or local cop see your SBR and asks to see your form, and you don't have one or you tell him to piss off, you're getting the bracelets. It's really not very difficult.
They are, in fact possessed in compliance with federal law, at least in all of our cases listed here. :) Again, stretching the offered interpretation a motor vehicle must be operated by a licensed driver, can an officer stop that vehicle just to do a license check?
Further, please apply the same logic with observed possession of Schedule III prescription drugs, does the same apply? Will you "get the bracelets" if you don't have your prescription with you when someone in an LE position decides for whatever reason to question you on it? Even though you offer him WHAT HE FEELS ON SCENE is a reasonable explanation?
I happen to believe, based on my many meetings and observances of LE, that not copping an attitude, and explaining that they are legally registered with the ATF on a Form 1 or Form 4, etc that the officers are most likely to cease the inquiries and a form display probably won't be necessary.
If you give them the belief that further clarification is needed, I can see why they might escalate it, but the law does not state that forms need to be produced for VA LE, even though that could be the most expeditious route if the officer did not believe you. Or do you see that the production of the forms are required in 18.2-299 through 18.2-301.1?? :confused:
ETA: Nevermind, I already see that case law gives examples of LE observing SBS and making a case of it. I suspect there was quite a bit more to it than that though, wouldn't you agree? Probably not the only thing that made LE pursue it?
Further, please apply the same logic with observed possession of Schedule III prescription drugs, does the same apply? Will you "get the bracelets" if you don't have your prescription with you when someone in an LE position decides for whatever reason to question you on it? Even though you offer him WHAT HE FEELS ON SCENE is a reasonable explanation?
Yes, though it's less likely to get found/discovered than an openly carried/used firearm. Try bringing narcotic Rx drugs back in from out of the country and see how much fun you have with CBP if they find them in an unmarked pill bottle and you don't have a Rx with you.
I happen to believe, based on my many meetings and observances of LE, that not copping an attitude, and explaining that they are legally registered with the ATF on a Form 1 or Form 4, etc that the officers are most likely to cease the inquiries and a form display probably won't be necessary.
I don't know many cops who just take somebody's word for it on ... well, just about anything. I can tell them all sorts of things, but by their training and nature they're going to want to verify it. At a minimum they're going to take your gun from you until they verify that it's in the NFA registry, then charge you later if it's not, which is what happened in the Taylor case above.
If you give them the belief that further clarification is needed, I can see why they might escalate it, but the law does not state that forms need to be produced for VA LE, even though that could be the most expeditious route if the officer did not believe you. Or do you see that the production of the forms are required in 18.2-299 through 18.2-301.1?? :confused:
ETA: Nevermind, I already see that case law gives examples of LE observing SBS and making a case of it. I suspect there was quite a bit more to it than that though, wouldn't you agree? Probably not the only thing that made LE pursue it?
I'm not even going to bother arguing anymore. You're a mod here and I'm just a guy with a law degree and practicing trial attorney in Virginia, so you obviously know better than I do.
I'm not even going to bother arguing anymore. You're a mod here and I'm just a guy with a law degree and practicing trial attorney in Virginia, so you obviously know better than I do.
This is a common fallback position for you here. Suffice to say that due to lawyers' and politicians' favorable interpretation of their position we have a lot of statutes and case law that doesn't make much sense -- all over this country.
You seem very comfortable with the notion that otherwise law abiding NFA owners should be checked out. It's my experience with seeing Virginia LE officers at machinegun shoots, informal meetings & gatherings, as well as formal training that the law does not require that they check everyone out, and that even though Terry may allow a "papers please" check for NFA, our fine officers use more common sense than the lawyers and politicians who wrote VA §18.2-299 - §18.2-301.1.
I've even shot MG's, SBR's, SBS's, Suppressors and DD's side-by-side with US Marshals, Secret Service, FBI, and NJ/NC/VA/SC/FL/NM/AZ/MD/DE/CO/CA cops -- none have ever felt the need to check my forms or any of the forms of anyone in attendance. I think they exercise far more common sense and judgement than you are giving them credit.
I choose to offer my forms to LE, if asked, but to date the more interested parties always seem to be some nosy-hole at the range who doesn't really know why they are checking the forms to begin with - nor what is contained therein.
SBR's and SBS's are mostly legal throughout the country, and I'd argue that now more are owned legally than illegally. It might be time for people who are practicing trial lawyers with law degrees to argue for some more specificity into statutes that may otherwise hassle generally good, and honest, people. Since case law seems to be "writing" and "re-writing" our laws, you guys have some unique power to make a difference.
Or, alternately, you can stick with the notion that everyone can, and probably should be checked, as a matter of course. That will help us all greatly.
Jay Cunningham
11-12-09, 11:28
dbrowne1,
Real quick - you come across as a busybody and Jr. ATF Agent Wanna-Be.
We have our own lawyer - Greg Bell - who moderates the NFA forum!! - and we don't get the same hysterics out of him.
Excuse me - where did I ever say that the mere sight of a SBR or SBS required that somebody be checked out, or that the law required a LEO to demand to see the forms, or required that somebody be arrested if they didn't produce a form? I also expressed no opinion on when anybody should be checked out.
I'm not telling you or anyone else what should happen or what will happen in any given scenario. I'm just telling you what the law allows for and what could happen if you don't have or refuse to produce your form to a state/local LEO who questions you about a NFA item. Your personal experience or opinion is irrelevant.
Your entire argument and attack on me - despite my having explained both the statutory framework, the standards that apply, and having 2 cases (versus the none you've cited and your clearly ingrained and subjective belief about how things should be) - is based on the false premise that I am arguing about what must be done in any given situation. Very rarely are there "musts" in these situations.
Obviously if you're at an organized event, one attended by a lot of LE who by their very presence there are gun geeks to begin with, nobody is going to give a crap about looking at forms. That's their discretion at work. If you're with your buddies in the woods and a LEO wanders up and sees the NFA item, you're in exactly the same situation as Taylor. What do you think that cop is going to do if you can't or won't produce a form? Let you and the gun go just because you verbally claim it's registered?
Once again, I don't personally give a crap what anybody does in these situations or what your personal experience has been. I'm just telling you that the gun itself because of its unusual character is enough to Terry stop you, and if you don't have a form, there's a good chance that cop isn't just going to take your word for it. If that were the standard, then any crackhead could walk through any part of Virginia openly carrying a SBR and be free and clear just by claiming it was registered.
dbrowne1,
Real quick - you come across as a busybody and Jr. ATF Agent Wanna-Be.
We have our own lawyer - Greg Bell - who moderates the NFA forum!! - and we don't get the same hysterics out of him.
Believe me, I have no particular love for the ATF or the NFA. I'm not sure why you've gotten that impression.
I'd love to hear Greg Bell's input - please ask him to participate in this thread.
To reiterate, I'm not posting my own philosophical views here, and if your personal experience is that LEOs don't ask to see forms, that's great. All I'm trying to convey is that if you're in a situation where a LEO who doesn't know you and isn't a "gun guy" sees what he (quite reaonably) thinks is a sawed-off rifle/shotgun, the law says he can question you about it, and your refusal to provide proof of NFA registration could get you and/or your gun a ride downtown.
This isn't my personal endorsement of such actions - it's just what could happen.
That means that if a state or local cop see your SBR and asks to see your form, and you don't have one or you tell him to piss off, you're getting the bracelets. It's really not very difficult.
There's the quote. In fact, in many cases for things much more serious than seeing an NFA item, I have personally witnessed a common sense approach by LE officers. They took things at face value that were offered to them in a genuine manner by a law abiding citizen.
If you meant to clarify this further, maybe you should have prior to your last post. As it looks now you've given no credit to the officers who might interact with an NFA owner and take it at face value that "Yes, it's on a Form 1, but I forgot the copy at home in the safe." Officers who aren't "gun guys" analyze a lot of people every year, and in some cases they make judgment calls on the street that "pass the smell" test.
You're statement quoted above says that if you don't have the form per the officer's request, "you're getting the bracelets". Or was the plain language you used hiding some other meaning that we couldn't decipher?
It's not a coincidence that several people seem to be misunderstanding your position on this matter.
There's the quote. In fact, in many cases for things much more serious than seeing an NFA item, I have personally witnessed a common sense approach by LE officers. They took things at face value that were offered to them in a genuine manner by a law abiding citizen.
So your advice, then, is to rely on the benevolent common sense of all LEOs in dealing with your possession of an item that is a felony but for its registration? Also, if a cop has already asked to see your form, it probably means - using the "common sense" standard you espouse - that he isn't interested in hearing your stories about how it's registered but your dog ate the form or you left it at your aunt's house.
What exactly is your belief or point here that's at odds with what I've said? If all you're saying is that some LEOs won't bust your balls over a NFA item, then I don't disagree at all. Just like some of them won't care about minor speeding, rolling stops, tiny amounts of marijuana, etc.
All of my responses in this thread are directed toward the few people who seem to think they can withhold that information from a state/local cop just because he's not an ATF agent. If you never get asked for forms because every LEO you ever deal with is as reasonable as you describe, then none my my advice will ever pertain to you.
All of my responses in this thread are directed toward the few people who seem to think they can withhold that information from a state/local cop just because he's not an ATF agent.
That's fair, and as with the other threads where we've interacted, your responses make some good sense. We certainly don't agree point for point, but I can tell by the softening of your stance that "you'll get the bracelets", that you also don't believe that every person should be checked for mere possession of the SBR, despite them being illegal without the forms.
I do wish you'd drop the "I'm a lawyer, therefore I must be right." schtick though, you are much more compelling when you are using articulated opinions.
That's fair, and as with the other threads where we've interacted, your responses make some good sense. We certainly don't agree point for point, but I can tell by the softening of your stance that "you'll get the bracelets", that you also don't believe that every person should be checked for mere possession of the SBR, despite them being illegal without the forms.
No, I don't think that everyone needs to be checked out. In my perfect, imaginary world, there wouldn't be an NFA in the first place.
My quote about "getting the bracelets" was in reference to a situation where the cop has already stopped you and already demanded to see a form, and where the owner refuses to produce one. It wasn't a statement that all cops act that way or that they should.
I do wish you'd drop the "I'm a lawyer, therefore I must be right." schtick though, you are much more compelling when you are using articulated opinions.
I'll keep that in mind. I'm not interested in dick measuring contests, I simply want people reading these threads to understand my background, basis for my opinions, and where I'm coming from. It's no different than somebody identifying their engineering/manufacturing background in a technical thread or their medical background in a wound ballistics thread.
As far as "smell tests" go. I think if virtually any cop rolls up on the guys who participate on this forum we would all pass that test. Simply by virtue of the value of our firearms.
As far as cops rolling up on you in the woods, (or desert in my case). If I have my $3200 custom AR or my $1500 custom AK with another $1000 can on it and my full kit of multicam web gear, they are less likely to question it than say the obviously hacksawed side by side shotgun, or jennings 25 with a pop bottle duct taped to the muzzle.
Can we agree on that?
Chris
Further, please apply the same logic with observed possession of Schedule III prescription drugs, does the same apply? Will you "get the bracelets" if you don't have your prescription with you when someone in an LE position decides for whatever reason to question you on it? Even though you offer him WHAT HE FEELS ON SCENE is a reasonable explanation?
Not having your prescription would mean you have drugs in an unmarked container, which is illegal and is a felony in certain states even if you have a prescription. I really doubt any explanation for having a bag of Vicodin with no prescription will be believed and you will be arrested.
As far as "smell tests" go. I think if virtually any cop rolls up on the guys who participate on this forum we would all pass that test. Simply by virtue of the value of our firearms. As far as cops rolling up on you in the woods, (or desert in my case). If I have my $3200 custom AR or my $1500 custom AK with another $1000 can on it and my full kit of multicam web gear, they are less likely to question it than say the obviously hacksawed side by side shotgun, or jennings 25 with a pop bottle duct taped to the muzzle. Can we agree on that?
Chris
Smell test, and initial impression, are of some value. Then again, I know more than a few clowns with big money collections that have pried their ser# plates off their Glocks, "accidentally" shortened barrels, and done some other things that run them afoul of state and federal law. Having GTG gear with big investment might get you less scrutiny, but it might not.
I've encountered people with NFA items. I listen careful to the first things they say...and don't say...and proceed accordingly. Sometimes, I ask for paperwork anyway. Depends.
As for "getting the bracelets", it depends. Failure to produce paperwork would subject you to further scrutiny. Most likely detention and temporary confiscation of your firearm. PC arrest? Depends. Charging? Unlikely.
Depends a lot on the cop. Many don't know jack about the gun in their holster, much less NFA. Those that know something will have varying amounts of knowledge, and the quality of what they do know will vary too. As will their motivation in enforcing the law.
Too many variables.
Not having your prescription would mean you have drugs in an unmarked container, which is illegal and is a felony in certain states even if you have a prescription. I really doubt any explanation for having a bag of Vicodin with no prescription will be believed and you will be arrested.
Do you have a pointer to the statutes of those states? Folks carry meds in many ways, use pill reminders, etc. Usually, the elements of the offense are possession of a controlled substance without a prescription.
This type of incident would be resolved like above. Depending on the person, and the cop involved, it might be resolved with a phone call to the doc of or pharmacy.
Traveling abroad, I recommend folks carry meds in the bottles prescribed, with redundant paperword. If you have narcs, it might be a good idea to have your pharmacy generate your med data sheet in the language of the country you're traveling too.
Interesting sideline.
I listen careful to the first things they say...and don't say...and proceed accordingly. Sometimes, I ask for paperwork anyway. Depends.
Glad to see a common sense approach. It seems like I've seen and interacted more with guys like you, than guys of the "other type". :D
As far as "smell tests" go. I think if virtually any cop rolls up on the guys who participate on this forum we would all pass that test. Simply by virtue of the value of our firearms.
As far as cops rolling up on you in the woods, (or desert in my case). If I have my $3200 custom AR or my $1500 custom AK with another $1000 can on it and my full kit of multicam web gear, they are less likely to question it than say the obviously hacksawed side by side shotgun, or jennings 25 with a pop bottle duct taped to the muzzle.
Can we agree on that?
Chris
Nobody other than an enthusiast - which likely does not include the cop who rolls up on you - is going to have any clue about your guns and gear, let alone the value of your guns. He's going to see what looks to him like a war wagon that just rolled in from Kabul. If you're anywhere near a "soccer mom" community or that is his background, you'll probably have a lot of talking to do to explain your "machineguns" and "paramilitary equipment."
Of course, you may also get somebody who either knows a bit about guns or isn't a bedwetter and knows the law, and you won't be bothered at all. You just can't predict it or rely on it.
Good thing that I don't get stopped driving out to "Superstitition" to meet with markm for a shoot session. I would be be getting raped in Maricopa county. :p
Nobody other than an enthusiast - which likely does not include the cop who rolls up on you - is going to have any clue about your guns and gear, let alone the value of your guns. He's going to see what looks to him like a war wagon that just rolled in from Kabul. If you're anywhere near a "soccer mom" community or that is his background, you'll probably have a lot of talking to do to explain your "machineguns" and "paramilitary equipment."
Of course, you may also get somebody who either knows a bit about guns or isn't a bedwetter and knows the law, and you won't be bothered at all. You just can't predict it or rely on it.
That's fair, and as with the other threads where we've interacted, your responses make some good sense. We certainly don't agree point for point, but I can tell by the softening of your stance that "you'll get the bracelets", that you also don't believe that every person should be checked for mere possession of the SBR, despite them being illegal without the forms.
I do wish you'd drop the "I'm a lawyer, therefore I must be right." schtick though, you are much more compelling when you are using articulated opinions.
Sage advice, because aren't 50% of attorneys that participate in criminal trials always wrong?
Sorry.
I would always cooperate with LE. I'm not hiding anything, if I'm not at fault in the end, why not cooperate.? That being said, if there was an issue my 50% attorney could help me out on the back end.
decodeddiesel
11-21-09, 10:06
Sage advice, because aren't 50% of attorneys that participate in criminal trials always wrong?
Sorry.
I would always cooperate with LE. I'm not hiding anything, if I'm not at fault in the end, why not cooperate.? That being said, if there was an issue my 50% attorney could help me out on the back end.
Watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
Watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
Thank you. I watched the video, and did learn something. I knew that "anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law." but I didn't know the converse was true as well, that anything told to the police that could help your case can not be used. I apologize for my attempt at humor a couple posts up. I still would cooperate with LE however. Only in the instance of being involved in a crime would I not cooperate, and then it still would depend. Look at the recent cases involving Plaxico Burress, and Mike Vick. If they had cooperated fully, their sentences would not have been as severe. I realize they are famous and rich and I am not, but I still believe in cooperating with LE. They perform a dangerous, tough and often thankless job, I'm not going to intentionally make it tougher. If I can help I will. If they ask to see my ID, forms, or anything else, I have nothing to hide.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.