How do you register an unregistered firearm without getting in trouble?

[Lavid2002]

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]

Depends on location, type, and legal status. More info needed.

Joat

[obiwan1]

my question would by "why". Off the books can be a good thing.

[hoytinak]

What's this "registration" you speak of?

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

[Stagger Lee]

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.

[sanzo87]

the real question is do you have to or do you just want to for some odd reason?????

[Lavid2002]

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]

i wouldnt unless you have to check state law i know that i dont have to

[AK103K]

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.

[Swampghost]

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]

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]

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.



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]

It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission.

[AK103K]

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]

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.

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

[Lavid2002]

It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission.

I agree...[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]? 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]

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

[copenhagen]

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]

Red light-K turn and go around the block?

You made my point, we are lost!

"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]

That was a little sarcastic guys...guess it didn't show.

[Lavid2002]

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
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]

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]

Originally Posted by ak103

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]

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]

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.