View Full Version : Sharing a suppressor at the range?
What is the law and can someone refer me to the documents regarding who can shoot a non-NFA firearm with a suppressor? I'm trying to see the official, legal standard on this. AFAIK, if you are not the person or the corp or the trust on the form 4, you cannot be in possession of a firearm with the suppressor.
I appreciate the help, tia!
odiesplace
12-29-09, 13:37
Are you asking who can shoot the weapon that has the suppressor on it at a range with the ower present ?
odiesplace
12-29-09, 13:49
I am at work and can't give you the the the word for word law, but anyone who can legally own a firearm can use a nfa weapon as long as the person listed on the stamp is there. I was told by my class 3 dealer and a BATFE agent, that this is the case. I'm sure that it can be found on the BATFE web site. I hope that helps
Mike
twodollarbill
12-29-09, 13:54
If the NFA owner is present, the shooter is good to go, as long as the shooter can legally possess a firearm.
The way that you addressed your question, you may want to contact your local ATF office and get it in writing.
If the NFA owner is present, the shooter is good to go, as long as the shooter can legally possess a firearm.
The way that you addressed your question, you may want to contact your local ATF office and get it in writing.
Thank you both for the help. My question was posed awkwardly! I think I understand now, the owner has to be present and the "loanee" has to be able to legally possess a firearm. (not a convicted felon, wife beater, etc...)
...you may want to contact your local ATF office and get it in writing.
Why would anyone want to give the ATF the ability to say, "Only the owner, officer, trustee, or other legal entity that is a party to the approved Form 4 can be in physical possession at any given time." ???
Do not write them, for God's sake. :(
...and the "loanee"...
I would never word it like that if officially asked. He is merely using it under my direct and indirect supervision. Physical possession does not necessarily apply as "in your possession". You can be in possession of your car, even if it were locked and in the parking lot.
You can also be in possession of a suppressor that is being used under indirect supervision by a friend or fellow shooter on the same range, with you in the general vicinity.
Some people should read and think things through (not overthink) before they start asking the BATFE silly questions.
I would never word it like that if officially asked. He is merely using it under my direct and indirect supervision. Physical possession does not necessarily apply as "in your possession". You can be in possession of your car, even if it were locked and in the parking lot.
You can also be in possession of a suppressor that is being used under indirect supervision by a friend or fellow shooter on the same range, with you in the general vicinity.
Thank you!
Some people should read and think things through (not overthink) before they start asking the BATFE silly questions.
Believe me, I have no intention of writing, phoning or emailing those guys. I get a creepy feeling just visiting the website! I do want to know the law, because failure to adhere can be very costly...
Shivan and Iraqgunsz-
While I 99% agree with the notion of not giving them the opportunity to tell you no, the ATF has demonstrated a propensity towards one office being cool with something and another not being so cool with it.
What might get an agent from one office swapping stories and asking if he/she can shoot your bang stick sometime might get you knocks on your door early in the morning from agents in another office.
They're notorious for each being on their own sheet of music and sometimes not even in the same song book.
The old adage "It's easier to get forgiveness than to receive permission" is one of my mantras, but I'd be CAREFUL with the ATF.
I understand what you are saying, but think about this. People have been buying and shooting SBR's, suppressors and the like for many years. There are even companies that allow you to rent machine guns and various NFA items for use on their range (while in the company of their employees.) If this was really an issue I believe that the BATFE would have addressed it already.
The BATFE has plenty to do without creating even more work by tracking down someone who let's a friend or someone at a range shoot their NFA item in their presence. Though we may disagree on the BATFE as a whole I do not believe that they are an evil entity and that any agency can get out of hand and do stupid stuff.
Shivan and Iraqgunsz-
While I 99% agree with the notion of not giving them the opportunity to tell you no, the ATF has demonstrated a propensity towards one office being cool with something and another not being so cool with it.
What might get an agent from one office swapping stories and asking if he/she can shoot your bang stick sometime might get you knocks on your door early in the morning from agents in another office.
They're notorious for each being on their own sheet of music and sometimes not even in the same song book.
The old adage "It's easier to get forgiveness than to receive permission" is one of my mantras, but I'd be CAREFUL with the ATF.
Again, about 99% agree with you but the ATF has in the past made it their business to root out people that have basically done things legally but made one little mistake.
My 2nd hand experiences with them deal with rocket motors, both commercial and home made, and they seem to like to stick their noses in where they don't need to be.
One friend of mine was/is making motors out of sugar and an oxidizer, neither of which were considered explosives nor was the mixture listed anywhere.
An agent got wind of it and decided on his own that the mix should be regulated.
Scott had a bitch of a time clearing up the problem.
While eventually someone at ATF got the agent to leave him alone, the agent was not in anyway disciplined for doing his own thing, which kind of implies that the ATF doesn't have a big problem with their people doing what they want.
They did end up allowing Scott to deal with an agent from an adjacent district rather than the original agent.
I'm just saying...
I agree that they have better things to do than mess with law abiding citizens trying to obey the law, but they have also demonstrated that they are willing to do exactly that, snoop around until they find some little thing they can turn into a big thing then run with it.
I do hear that the NFA and the Alcohol folks at ATF are pretty good to work with, but considering how much trouble the others have caused for good people, I'd just suggest caution.
I think what I'd do would be to float a question to ATF, not a local agent, asking for clarification, in the mean time, I'd let people I know and trust shoot the piss out of it.
ETA:
Bascially what I'm saying is be careful with them. I agree that most, probably by far, agents are not interested in screwing with you, but those few that are sure have caused folks some HUGE problems.
I have personally fired several supressed and select fire weapons belonging to others in the presence of ATF and FBI agents at one of the ranges I frequent with my friends some of them being agents themselves that are into NFA weapons.
It's never been an issue at all........................
Why poke at the hornets nest? Don't ask questions that common sense and a little caution will answer, as Shivan says don't give them the opportunity to say it's not ok in writing.
twodollarbill
12-30-09, 19:11
Looks like I took a spanking with my response to czydj question.
Probably should just smile and let the swelling go down. :D
Czydj was “trying to see (if any) the official, legal standard” to his question.
I didn’t have any doubts that anyone would of posted it, but it seemed that czydj wanted
an official answer in print to justify his personal concerns.
I was an C3 from 1979 through 1991 and with a private collection of about eighty NFA weapons,
I think I have a good relationship with my (local) BATFE and have never hesitated contacting them
or NFA Branch to make clear even the smallest issue I have with a weapons issue.
I totally understand what SHIVAN and Iraqgunz said and in hindsight, I do agree.
I take what SHIVAN and Iraqgunz say on M4carbine very seriously.
Looks like I took a spanking with my response to czydj question.
Probably should just smile and let the swelling go down. :D
Czydj was “trying to see (if any) the official, legal standard” to his question.
I didn’t have any doubts that anyone would of posted it, but it seemed that czydj wanted
an official answer in print to justify his personal concerns.
I was an C3 from 1979 through 1991 and with a private collection of about eighty NFA weapons,
I think I have a good relationship with my (local) BATFE and have never hesitated contacting them
or NFA Branch to make clear even the smallest issue I have with a weapons issue.
I totally understand what SHIVAN and Iraqgunz said and in hindsight, I do agree.
I take what SHIVAN and Iraqgunz say on M4carbine very seriously.
I didn't mean for it to come out on you, but this is one of those instances where it probably isn't outlined specifically, so the opinion of the ATF's NFA Director would become de facto enforceable interpretation, and a matter of official record.
I'd rather that it wasn't chanced at all. Call them and confirm to assuage personal fears, but writing on issues like this could be deadly to our hobby.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.