|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/
Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/
M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141
Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com
On a semi-unrelated note: Thank you for a PERFECT illustration of a situation that explains WHY you should NEVER consent to a search of your vehicle. EVER. I'll be using this one again the next time the WWW Boy Scouts tell me I should roll over for a search whenever a police officer wants to perform one.
Scenario: You're driving to a carbine class from Ohio to, let's say....Montana. You have a select-fire M4 and a suppressor, both on Form 4s registered to you, and valid 5320.20s for your destination for both of them. You get pulled over in Illinois, where FA and suppressors are both verboten for the serfs. The police see a ruck and some gear in your back seat (you are driving an SUV), including a padlocked Pelican case (which contains your carbine and suppressor, along with the papers for such). The officer says he wants to perform a search "For your safety". (Nevermind how YOU looking through MY vehicle could possibly make ME safer, but that's for another day).
REFUSE. Use the following verbiage: "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle. Am I free to go?"
This will likely trigger a bunch of "You aren't hiding anything are you?" and that sort of thing. Repeat your initial statement, and nothing else. Don't admit there is a weapon in that case, don't try to explain yourself. Shut the **** up!
They may pull you out of your vehicle for a Terry search. This is a search for weapons in your 'grabbable area' that could be used to attack the police officer. A weapon in a locked case in the back seat is NOT covered under a Terry search. A warrant is required to open that case, so if they ask you to open it, you again repeat "I do not consent to any search of my vehicle or property. Am I free to go?" As your lawyer can explain, later, this starts a clock running that will work to your advantage when it comes to getting things thrown out of court.
If you do not consent to a search, and the police see your locked case in an inaccessible area of your vehicle, they have no reasonable articulable suspicion for a search that includes that case, and you won't have to go to court in some enemy state like Illinois or New Jersey to get FOPA invoked in your case. '
OTOH, if you want to be a good little sheeple and spread your legs for them, EVEN THOUGH YOU AREN'T BREAKING THE LAW, you're going to get 'The Ride' they're so fond of talking about, and it's going to cost you a shitload of money to get your LEGAL stuff back, if you manage to get it before they run it through the smelter.
Ymmv, of course.
(THIS POST IS NOT COP BASHING, AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS SUCH.)
Very good points QuietShootr. FWIW some of my best friends are LEOs and they've told me repeatedly told me to never give consent to a search. Just be polite and professional.
Nothing about the 1934 GCA/NFA reads anything about nullifying your 4th Amendment rights. Sure the ATF can knock on your door and ask to see your NFA item. They could also do this for Title 1 (non-NFA) gun. You don't have to let them in, what you could do is have them meet you outside or at their field office if they need to inspect something. I know a lot of people who own a lot of guns to include millions of dollars worth of NFA stuff and I have yet to hear a story where the ATF just showed up for random inspections.
Last edited by Robb Jensen; 05-16-10 at 10:53.
Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)
The ATF can't keep up with their mandated inspections. Without some provocation or information to imply something illegal is going on the chances of you being inspected in your home is somewhere between slim and none. In all seriousness if they come to your home they will have paperwork and losing your NFA items will be the least of your problems.
The ATF can only inspect FFLs once a year and they are engaged in the sale and distribution of firearms.
Peace, Jerry
I don't drink the koolaid
It probably does (I'm not familiar with that law and won't pretend to be) but you're still protected by the FOPA and your form 5320.20.
That's what I was trying to illustrate in that above quote. Just because you're not walking/driving/riding a bus through a state but flying over it, doesn't mean you're not physically in it and subject to it's laws.I mean... technically you fly over states that sometimes restrict that type of weapon from civilian usage... just because you're in a car driving down the street, instead of in a plane at 35,000 feet, doesn't mean you're not passing through a state that restricts it.
Now you will be subject to whatever constraints the air liner you select chooses to subject you to as far as what you're able to bring aboard, but as far as the state law and prosecution, you're in the clear.
+1
I've never heard it called a "Terry search". If you define it as a limited search for weapons, its called a "Frisk". Regardless of whether its done on a person or a vehicle doesn't change the name.
In fact, in order for this to happen (its technically a Frisk of a vehicle, not a search), the investigating officer has to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver has a weapon within reaching distance. So, there even a certain legal threshold for this, just like frisking a person. You don't get it automatically.
Courts have ruled that trunks are generally out of bounds, with VERY few exceptions, as are properly cased firearms (should be locked, with ammo separate). However, at least in my state, locked glove compartments are considered fair game.
Edit to stay on topic. One downside is that you might find yourself explaining yourself to the Fudds at the range more often.
Last edited by Chameleox; 05-16-10 at 15:31. Reason: back to topic
The advice above is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Just FYI, as you may or may not know, he's referring to SCOTUS case Terry v. Ohio, 1968.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
In the CJ world, and in layman's terms, it's referred to as a "Terry Search."
Hang up and drive.
Luke 22:35-38
I don't go to public ranges much, but I don't explain any more. I used to be a semi-nice person, but over the years I've heard "Whut the hell you huntin' with that thing, boy" and "Them's ill-eagle!" from some flannel-clad dipshit, I just roll my eyes and go back to what I was doing. It's only happened once that one won't **** off since I adopted my 'turn-my-back-and-ignore policy, and I offered to call the police and have them sort out what's "ill-eagle". He backed off and left.
**** the Fudds. You don't have to explain yourself.
ETA. IANAL, but I am a criminologist and a law librarian by education, and an asshole by choice.
Last edited by QuietShootr; 05-16-10 at 16:34.
Having been a layman, and now working in the CJ world, I have to disagree.
Its a Terry STOP, not a Terry SEARCH, and Terry v. Ohio added in the ability to conduct a limited pat down search for weapons.
In layman's terms, thats called a frisk. Call it what you want, but it is what it is. A frisk is a very specific and limited search. If I write a report saying:
"I frisked him for weapons," it has a different meaning than, "I searched him for weapons". The terms "frisk" and "search" are not interchangeable in the "CJ world", as those terms denote two different legal thresholds that need to be met. and if you use the wrong word in a report, or in court, you're opening yourself up a big can of worms.
From the same page:Reading through the rest of the entry, and some of the links, its clear that the SCOTUS and other contributors are trying to draw a line between "stop and frisks", and "searches". I see Terry Stop mentioned a couple of times, but not Terry Search.This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.
I agree Quietshootr, at some point you can't educate people any more than they're willing, and you just have to shut up and do your own thing. Its sometimes bothersome, but not a deal breaker.
ADDED: The Frisk is supposed to be limited to a pat down of the waistband area or anywhere else that the officer reasonably believes that a weapon might be concealed, again based on reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Last edited by Chameleox; 05-16-10 at 18:56. Reason: clarification
The advice above is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Bookmarks