PDA

View Full Version : How do you register an unregistered firearm without getting in trouble?


Lavid2002
July 25, 2008, 02:32 PM
Say you have an unregistered firearm...how do you go about registering it with the police without them saying...YOU HAVE AN UNREGISTERED FIREARM?!
Thanks-Dave

Joat
July 25, 2008, 02:58 PM
Depends on location, type, and legal status. More info needed.

Joat

obiwan1
July 25, 2008, 05:47 PM
my question would by "why". Off the books can be a good thing. :cool:

hoytinak
July 25, 2008, 05:52 PM
What's this "registration" you speak of?

The only thing I have registered is my M16 lower. Gotta love Texas! :D

Stagger Lee
July 25, 2008, 05:52 PM
my question would by "why". Off the books can be a good thing.

Well some of us are mature and honorable enough to obey the laws regardless of whether or not we personally like them.It's one of those things that separates citizens from people who just live here. :cool:

sanzo87
July 25, 2008, 05:54 PM
the real question is do you have to or do you just want to for some odd reason?????

Lavid2002
July 25, 2008, 09:34 PM
I dont even know.
Lets "say" some guns were to sit in an attic like an arisaka and a carbine and some other old guns from grandpa. Now...well theyve arrived and should they be registered or shouldnt they? Also, What if a man from florida was to give his gun to someone up here...how would that work?
Im in NJ by the way. Not that I have unregistered firearms..
-Dave

sanzo87
July 25, 2008, 09:49 PM
i wouldnt unless you have to check state law i know that i dont have to

AK103K
July 25, 2008, 09:55 PM
Well some of us are mature and honorable enough to obey the laws regardless of whether or not we personally like them.
Are you one of "those" people who sits at a broken red light and wont go through it, even though its obvious that its broken?

I always though it was our duty to disobey a law that was invalid due to it violating our rights. Or was that the way it was before "new math" and the 60's? Or was it the 30's? All this stuff is so confusing anymore. I mean, I though I knew what "is" meant, but now I'm not sure about anything. :)

Oh, I myself go through the broken red light by the way. Just did it again this week too. Had to pass half a dozen people who wouldnt though, and you should have seen the looks I got! Boy, oh boy! I'm sure someone got my plate number and used their cell phone and turned me in too. You know how quick people are to use those cell phones these days and be the good little Nazi... I mean citizens and report any evil doings. :rolleyes:

Swampghost
July 25, 2008, 10:19 PM
IMHO, the less the gov't knows, the better. In my state they have no 'right' to know and I have lots of them. "Gun Control", however it's done, really tweaks me.

If I wanted to kill somebody, would I use one of my own weapons? No. I'd get something off of the street and dump it when I was done.

Did Prohibition work? How about the 'War on drugs'? If people really want something they will find a way to get it.

W. C. Quantrill
July 26, 2008, 08:36 AM
AK103K, I like the way you think.

We as American Citizens have a duty and an obligation to question and resist all laws passed by the Tyrants in Washington. We have a duty to avoid any and all taxes, and we have an obligation to avoid registering anything. Which in my book means that I never live in or near any state or municipality that has any registration laws.

The Government has no right to know anything about legal citizens. Notice I said 'LEGAL CITIZENS'. Illegals and terrorists should have no rights.

Buy guns, buy ammo, buy it face to face with cash and the Government be damned. Our system is breaking down rapidly, and I fear we have hard times coming. The Nazi's, Sheeple, Tattletales, and Loyalists will be the first to go.

If you live in Illinois or Noo Yolk then you are saddled with unreasonable and probably unconstitutional regulations, and if I were you, I would move. If you wont, then find a trusted ally in a safe place to store said guns for you. What ever you do, do not knuckle under and register them.

Ha, I live in one of the most remote parts of America. We have an annual gun show. The population of the town increases 5 fold for that weekend. All sorts of stuff trades hands. Cash only, and no papers. That is the only way to live.

SG, you dont have to do the dirty deed yourself, all you have to do is give a local $50 for drugs and he/she will do it for you....:)

MrClean
July 26, 2008, 09:55 AM
I had that very same hypothetical question myself!!! So when a different city I called from a pay phone and asked the ATF. Just extra precaution, even though it was a hypothetical question.

Suppose I inherit a WWII M-2 carbine one day from a relative that fought with it to defend our country. How do I go about registering and paying to have everything legal.

Answer: You can't. That's what they told me.

So much for trying to do the right thing in those type situations. It's a shame that if someone does have an heirloom of nostalgic representation like that, and wants to be a law abiding citizen..... there is no avenue to pursue that.

:mad:

Comes to a personal evaluation of risk assessment I guess. Just like I tell my kids..... weigh the consequences of your actions and make a conscious decision. If I get caught.... will it be worth it. :) Sometimes it is... Sometimes it isn't. I don't bash anyone for taking either side on this one.

I can defend my home and enjoy shooting with or without full auto, personally. Even if a 'civil uprising' takes place.... I got no reservations about my puny semi-autos. lol But suppressors?.... THAT is a different story!!!! LMAO One day when things stop breaking around the house I will get one more.

hoytinak
July 26, 2008, 10:02 AM
It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission. :)

AK103K
July 26, 2008, 11:43 AM
Answer: You can't. That's what they told me.
Figure that one out. Its "legal" to own NFA weapons under federal law, but since the amnesty was closed (and why was it?), you cant register one (machine gun) that isnt already in the registry. You'd think they would want to account for them all and get the tax money for the treasury to boot.

With all the WWII and Korean vets dying off, and all sorts of nice, well cared for, collectibles turning up every day, it realy is a sin. Actually, its a crime, and not by those who have the guns. Then again, I guess as law abiding citizens, we get what we're willing to put up with from our "servants".

It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission. :)
There ya go! :)

MrClean
July 26, 2008, 12:42 PM
It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission.

LOL.... unless you are asking for forgiveness facing time in a federal prison. :D

I agree AK.... it's a damn shame.

Lavid2002
July 26, 2008, 06:22 PM
It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission.
I agree...***? This goes against everything I was taught as a child haha. Why get locked up over an unregistered firearm.....and then ask for forgiveness when walking down to the station and registering it is no big deal. Why the hell do I care if the gov. knows I own an arisaka or some other dub dub two rifle?
Jeeze

I know people are against gun controll but whats the big whoop about letting the gov. know what you have? It just seems like everone now days has the same "THERE OUT TO GET US" attitude. Do I beleive we should defend our rights? Yes....but isnt it a tad extreme?
Red light-K turn and go around the block?

MrClean
July 26, 2008, 06:30 PM
My apologies. For some reason I totally misread the initial situation. :eek:

I thought he was talking about registering a Class III weapon. As in one from the war that paw-paw gave him.

No registration required here in MS..... so I can't speak to that situation. Only to the class III situation I referenced in my first post.

Sorry about that. :o

And I won't even comment on the obvious debate about to start here. haha :rolleyes:

copenhagen
July 26, 2008, 06:52 PM
I know people are against gun controll but whats the big whoop about letting the gov. know what you have? It just seems like everone now days has the same "THERE OUT TO GET US" attitude.

They are out to get us. Well said. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both" -Benjamin Franklin

AK103K
July 26, 2008, 06:55 PM
Red light-K turn and go around the block?
:rolleyes:

You made my point, we are lost! :D


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both" -Benjamin Franklin
That was well said, but I fear its lost on the new math generations. :)

hoytinak
July 26, 2008, 06:57 PM
That was a little sarcastic guys...guess it didn't show. ;)

Lavid2002
July 26, 2008, 07:28 PM
My apologies. For some reason I totally misread the initial situation.

I thought he was talking about registering a Class III weapon. As in one from the war that paw-paw gave him.

No registration required here in MS..... so I can't speak to that situation. Only to the class III situation I referenced in my first post.

Sorry about that.

And I won't even comment on the obvious debate about to start here. haha
.....
I wish!
hahahahaha:D
taptaptaptaptaptaptaptap :P I only shot a class three once, it was a full day of class threes. Fun stuff. Anyways back to the topic at hand.

phildinnj
August 1, 2008, 11:43 PM
you might check the state police website:

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/forms.html#firearms

note the "voluntary form of firearms registration" link.

Stagger Lee
August 2, 2008, 12:02 AM
I always though it was our duty to disobey a law that was invalid due to it violating our rights.

And who decides that, pray tell? You?

Can we all arbitrarily decide for ourselves what's valid and what's not? And if you really believe a law is "unconstitutional", do you have the stones necessary to violate it openly and welcome arrest so that you can challenge and defeat that law in court the way that real activists like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did? You'd have to, wouldn't you?

If you break the law and run away from the consequences, you're admitting that you're wrong and therefore the law was valid, aren't you?

AK103K
August 2, 2008, 07:28 AM
And who decides that, pray tell? You?
All of us, or at least thats how its supposed to work.

Here, maybe this will help.....

"16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."


Can we all arbitrarily decide for ourselves what's valid and what's not?
As a citizen, yes, its our duty to.

And if you really believe a law is "unconstitutional", do you have the stones necessary to violate it openly and welcome arrest so that you can challenge and defeat that law in court the way that real activists like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did? You'd have to, wouldn't you?
Sometimes thats what it takes, and to bad, more dont do it, but then again, most dont have a clue as to how our government is supposed to work, or what their responsibilities are as a citizen. Most dont even vote, or even know who their representatives are, (but I'll bet they can name the top ten sprots figures) and if you dont, you deserve what you get.

Even if a law is on the books, and no one seems to care to do anything about it,(or even knows that it exists these days) we as citizens on a jury can find it invalid and refuse to hold the person guilty, even if all the evidence proves otherwise, beyond any doubt.

The majority of people dont have a clue as to what jury nullification is, and how we, the people of the jury, are the most powerful force in the courtroom, not the judge, although dont tell them that. If you even bring it up in court, you'll either be dismissed, or held in contempt.

If you break the law and run away from the consequences, you're admitting that you're wrong and therefore the law was valid, aren't you?
Not at all. In the case of the red light, its simple common sense, and something that seems to be greatly lacking these days. Then again, your more than welcome to sit there with the rest of those who are afraid to go through it in case you might get in trouble. It will turn green eventually, I'm sure. Then again, you might get a cop who is a Bircher who gives you a ticket for being a retard and blocking traffic. ;)

Following blindly is a very dangerous thing. Works well for those who crave power and poorly for those who follow. Lead, follow, or go back to the game. Whos got the beer?

Stagger Lee
August 2, 2008, 08:52 AM
AK103,

You're missing the meaning of the stuff that you're cut-pasting. As so often happens when we try to use one paragraph of a lengthy document to justify a position, the context is lost.

Case in point: You don't even know the NAME of the case that you cribbed that from, do you? You don't know the judge who said that or what he was referring to when he said it, either. No, that particular paragraph is just cut-pasted from one internet anti-government site to another and cited blindly by all sorts of different extremists--from gun lovers anti-tax nuts to gay marriage advocates--and few if any of them even know what the case that they cite is really about. And when it comes to citing legal cases, the context of the case and the reason for the decision is everything. Without that, the actual words mean nothing.

So using that as a reference doesn't help you. In fact it makes you look misinformed.

But that aside, it doesn't change the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that every individual shall have the right to decide for himself whether or not a law is constitutional. That's a function of the courts. And until you take a law into court and challenge it and have it declared unconstitutional, then it's still valid and you're bound to obey. And you know who says so? Thomas Jefferson. He's the one who said that we're a nation of laws, and that in this country, laws can be obeyed or laws can be changed, but they cannot be ignored.

Bottom line: You're a member of society. You have rights, but so does everyone else, and a government was created to protect everyone's rights equally and everyone in society is under the authority of that government, like it or not. That's what the founders of this country intended and that's what they created. They gave everyone means to petition for change if they didn't like something but nowhere did they say that people are free to ignore whichever laws that they personally disagree with. Determining whether or not laws are constitutional is the job of the courts, not any one person.

But for the record, the day that you decide to challenge the laws on machine guns, and walk into the nearest federal building with a fully-automatic SKS that you just converted and demand to be arrested and tried, I will send you some money for your battle.

J.Smith
August 2, 2008, 10:06 AM
I believe the problem here is that america has become to diversified. Just bear with me on this. MY great great .... grandfather was one of the first physicians to land in Jamestown, and my family has lived in or around the colony since then. When those men and women came here they were of one make and model. WASPS founded the colony and WASPS comprised those that made up not only the Decleration of Independence but also the Constitution. These men did not have to plan for the rights of outsiders, their main goal was to secure the rights of settlers against the English monarchy that was so set on ruling them. The constitution at its heart was written to protect those people. I doubt our founding fathers could have forseen the weak spined approach to protecting those freedoms our government has taken. I also doubt they could have forseen a people so concrete in their belief of freedom, would allow a government to take them so far away from their core belief and value system. The US government is only doing what it was trained to do, it is trying to secure the rights of everyone of every background that has come here. The people my ancestors who founded this country refer to themselves as Americans, not African Americans, not European Americans, not Asian Americans, because we seperated ourselves from where we had come from because they has violated our rights as human beings. We became our own nation. We took a land inhabited by natives and created an entire civilization that now spands the length of an entire continent. The problem is that when people come to America to live, they do not cut their ties to their former homes, they bring with them the expectations and ideologies of those nations and expect our constitution to cover their needs instead of learning to live within the culture and society we have built. Millions of people have done this, and the Constitution has been broadened and reformed to encapsulate these needs. The constitution was made as a box to house our values and beliefs and freedoms. It was meant to withstand the test of time, and help form a nation free to be ruled by the people. Somewhere along the road someone found the key to the box and started stuffing new ideas that did not further the orginal articles, but rather broke their bonds and incorporated acts that would make it "easier" for others to deal with. This is where we stand now, our Constitution will eventually burst, because the box cannot hold every need and want of every individual that comes here with their own expectations of what america owes them. They did not fight for this land they merely come to reap what we have sewn. So now onto the point for the registering guns.

Under the constitution as it reads now, you should turn the weapons in and hope that the ATF is lenient on you, but that is not what an American should do. If you believe in the Constitution as it was originally written, and the beliefs this country was founded on, put it in a box and place it in your attic. One day the box is going to break open, and all the excess rules and laws that have been stuffed into it to form this more perfect union will be gone. The Constitution will have plenty of room to sit at the head of this country and once again will not provide as a "building block" for our laws, but it will stand as the keystone of america, and act as a mold for all americans. It is your right to bare arms, do so and know that your resistance to the monarchy of our times, will mark you as a leader in the fight for a true american democracy.

22-rimfire
August 2, 2008, 11:21 AM
Maybe I'm missing something in this thread, but I don't see a problem in most states with anything other than a full auto?? A full auto has to be cut up unfortunately unless you want to risk storing it until some future date when the masses rise up or there is another amnesty period.

I don't understand what the OP means by registration? It would help to know what state and I guess what city if it is DC or NYC or similar.

oberkommando
August 5, 2008, 07:12 PM
Stagger Lee, it is not just the courts that determine constitutionality of laws but juries that can and should judge the law itself.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789

There seems no need for additional 'context' or a legal treatise to decipher the above sentence.

CPTMurdoc30
August 6, 2008, 08:57 AM
I say don't worry about it. If you want move out of the communist state. The guberment doen't need to know what I have in my safe if anything. Does the guberment come to check how many tv's you have? what about sex toys? do they come into your home looking for them? A tv does more damage in 30 minutes that shoot a gun does in 30 minutes. But the guberment does not want to regulate how many tv you can own.


I would like to know when state laws can trump the constitution of the USA?

07ShelbyWanter
August 20, 2008, 12:21 PM
in NJ its completely legal to inherit firearms without registering them or having a Firearms ID card. I recently inherited some from my grandfather.


See 13:54-1.13 Firearms passing to heirs or legatees On the link below. But specific rules apply to acquiring machine guns and assault weapons (exact models are listed at top) upon death. See 13:54-5.2

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

ElectricHellfire
August 20, 2008, 04:05 PM
I'd say leave it unregistered. What they dont know doesnt hurt them and your asking to possibly open up a can O worms. Let it be.

jtdominate
August 21, 2008, 01:32 PM
This started out hilarious. I think AK said it best.

I grew up in DC and just watching what how they're trying to circumvent the SC ruling is downright sickening. Glad I got out when I did.

The govt has good intentions but waaaay too many liberals wonks with their hands in the pot. "Gun Control" just doesn't make sense. The "bad guys" are gonna find a way to get their paws on whatever they want. Even if it comes from our own govt attempting to make things better somewhere else an said banned weapons make it into said "bad guys" hands.....go figure.

Anyway I'm just glad I don't have to put up with that mess in the great state of FL.

I for one would not feel obligated to register them given the circumstances and the fact that you are within the realm of the law.

Jermtheory
August 21, 2008, 02:21 PM
all the mice know,is how to push the button for their pellet.:(

FyredUp
August 26, 2008, 05:53 PM
My advice. Keep quiet about it and don't register it.

In fact if it was me I would store it seperate from my other guns.

ringworm
August 27, 2008, 07:05 AM
wanna hear a story that will make you cry?
How about one that starts with a guy finding an MP44 WWII bringback wrapped in a quilt the corner of a halway closet of his dead grandfather?
now if that happened prior to the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act then the rifle would be worth around $20,000.
:(

NineInchNails
August 27, 2008, 11:22 AM
I don't know how it works in other states, but from what I understand about here in Indiana ... ya just walk into a store, run a background check, pay for the gun, and walk out with it.

There is NO "gun registration" that I am aware of here in Indiana. Obviously there's some sort of record that I purchased it at the store, but where the weapon goes after me ... it's nobody’s business as far as I'm concerned.

Cars are registered. Machine guns are registered. Class 3 items like suppressors, SBR (short barreled rifles), and grenades are registered.

If I want to sell any of my guns to someone ... I just sell it as though it were a toaster. Give me the $$$ and I give you the gun. Write a receipt with the serial # if you wish (to cover your own ass), but there's no such thing as a "registration" in Indiana.

The first thing that happens during Martial Law is disarming the public. This is precisely why we keep and bear arms ... to keep that very thing from happening. You know the term ... "FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS". Regardless what ANYONE else thinks about martial law, thinks that our government is not capable, or has no intention of instituting it … go ahead and be naïve as it is your right to be. As a matter of fact, our government, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve encourages naivety.

I’m sure the ‘Patriot Act’ is all in our best interests along with Bush’s executive orders, and the death of Habeas Corpus. If you do not know what any of these are, look it up.

Here’s what Habeas Corpus is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8BqvJO5t4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVoEtK-JD0

After watching at least the first video … ask yourself whether ya feel the nagging urge to ‘register’ a pistol at your local police station.

Brian Pfleuger
August 27, 2008, 12:06 PM
In NY there is a section on the pistol permit application that indicates you are in possession of an inherited gun that you would like put on your new permit. I've never known it to be a problem. With rifle in NY there is no need for registration, I can sell a rifle to my neighbor with no questions asked.
(All this applies only to areas outside NYC)