The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

View Poll Results: Would you inquire about a NFA Weapon
I would ask for a Form 4 2 2.11%
I would inform authorities 2 2.11%
Just let them be 91 95.79%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 14, 2010, 07:41 PM   #51
Drummer101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 943
I think it should be the RO's responsibility and or the range itself. If I were to own a range and anyone with NFA came in I would ask to verify paper work at the door and leave it at that. Liability would be the biggest thing.
Drummer101 is offline  
Old January 15, 2010, 12:12 AM   #52
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
O-kay, here's this mindset again...

Quote:
An LEO doesn't even have the authority to request a Form 4. By ATF regs, you are only required to show your paperwork to an ATF agent.
Uh huh.

I guarantee that if you are at a range in the State of Washington, and you have a SBS/SBR, AOW, full auto or a suppressor, you had better fall into one of the following classes:

1. Active law enforcement, with credentials;
2. SOT, with dealer's samples; or
3. Active duty military, with documentation showing that it is an issued weapon.

Here's why...

Quote:
It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.
Revised Code of Washington, 9.41.190

There are exceptions, of course:

Quote:
(2) This section shall not apply to:

(a) Any peace officer in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty; or

(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles:

(i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States;

(ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or

(iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations.
And, if you were lucky enough to get IBTL , you have an out...

Quote:
It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.
And if you still think I don't have the authority to ask about your paperwork if you're in the State of Washington, here's something to chew on...

Quote:
All machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles, or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, illegally held or illegally possessed are hereby declared to be contraband, and it shall be the duty of all peace officers, and/or any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, to seize said machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or parts thereof, wherever and whenever found.
So, if you're on a range in this State with any neat stuff with the go-faster switches, PLEASE have your paperwork with you.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old January 15, 2010, 12:54 AM   #53
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
According to that, Powderman, NFA happy-switch stuff is flat out illegal unless you are an SOT or LEO/Mil.

In free states that don't care, it's none of anyone's business what tax documents say.

And in your state, WA, my tax paperwork wouldn't do any good anyways. Even if I have an NFA stamp for my (theoretical) 1984 manufactured, automatic Uzi that I acquired in 2007... according to the law you cited I'm not allowed to own it in the state of WA.

I'm not familiar with WA state law and don't pretend to be other than the snippet you provided.

But, in AZ... it is a matter of a private contract with a range you participate at whether you submit to any request to show paperwork. RSO's and such have no legal grounds to go chasing folks for tax paperwork.

I'm not 100% familiar whether any state laws in AZ allow for NFA-based inquiry by local law enforcement here. I'd be inclined to give him my driver's license and refer the matter to the ATF if I have the weapons and appropriate paperwork, but I wouldn't hand them over without a warrant. And I would contest the warrant... depending on if the state of AZ has any law enforcement grounds to be looking at Federal tax documents. Not sure if there is a case history of states subpoenaing federal 1040 forms or other non-state revenue tax documents.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old January 15, 2010, 12:58 AM   #54
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
Quote:
It shall be an affirmative defense
This phrase should be illegal.

It is a presumption of guilt until proof of innocence.

But... it screams out in whatever section of law it's located in that "hey you! If you participate in this, keep your papers ready to prove you're legit!"

To my knowledge, that phrase does not exist in regards to NFA in AZ.

As such, there is no duty of officers to presume illegality of posession without other mitigating/incriminating circumstances or behavior.

"Showing up at the range with a cool gun" isn't enough.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old January 15, 2010, 02:12 AM   #55
noyes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2008
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
So, if you're on a range in this State with any neat stuff with the go-faster switches, PLEASE have your paperwork with you.
How can anyone argue with this ?

Nice ,friendly to the point with PLEASE.

Thank you very much for the information and I most definitely will.
noyes is offline  
Old January 15, 2010, 04:41 AM   #56
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
@azredhawk44:

You are correct. IMHO, we (Washington State) should be working all-out to remove this law from the books. Owners of full auto have to jump through far more hoops than normal to exercise their rights.

Personally, my point of view is that if want to own a firearm of ANY type, you should be able to walk into the durned store and buy it!

Wouldn't that be just too cool:
_______________________________________________
"Hi. Can I help you?"
"Yes. I'd like to take a look at that 1928A1, please."
"Here you go. Thompson/Kahr just made a new run of these. See the quality of that bluing? And, take a look at this model--same one, with a nice high polish blue and extra-fancy walnut stock and forearm."
"I like it! How much for the extra fancy model?"
"Well, Kahr has a promotion on for the rest of the month--$1350 for the SMG, plus they throw in 2 stick mags and an L-drum. This month only--if you want, you can put it on layaway. We do 120 days net on layaways."
"Layaway? I don't think so. I'll take the extra fancy model with the special--and while you're at it, how about 500 rounds of Magtech ball ammo to go with it? I wanna heat it up today!"
"You got it!"
_____________________________________

I still do like the idea of the NICS check, though.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old January 15, 2010, 03:41 PM   #57
richmondtx
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2009
Location: The Lone Star State
Posts: 39
not in our lifetimes powerman...what you're talking about is nirvana!! Its a bad few apples that have historically ruined it for the rest of us law abiding citizens.
richmondtx is offline  
Old January 15, 2010, 11:31 PM   #58
flight954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Location: Cypress, Texas
Posts: 933
Unless your LEO, BATFE or following range rules, it's no ones business.
flight954 is offline  
Old January 16, 2010, 04:21 AM   #59
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
Quote:
not in our lifetimes powerman...what you're talking about is nirvana!! Its a bad few apples that have historically ruined it for the rest of us law abiding citizens.
Yes, I agree--but let me wax political for a second...

To us, a situation like that would be nirvana--BUT IT IS ACHIEVEABLE!!!

How? Here's how...

1. Coming up this year, we have the opportunity to fire a good deal of the Senate and the House. Let's USE that opportunity! Get out and VOTE!

2. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...pick a candidate who actually (a) comes as close as possible to our views and beliefs, and (b) WHO ACTUALLY HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING!!!

Obama barely beat McCain--getting a little over 50% of the vote. Can you imagine if everyone who voted for candidates who didn't have a snowball's change of winning, voted for McCain? Second, how about those of you who actually VOTED :barf::barf::barf: for Obama? UNIFY the vote, like the Democrats did in the last election. VOTE for a good Conservative candidate!

3. There are an estimated 85-90 million gun owners in the United States--a powerful force to be reckoned with. Can you imagine what would happen if ALL OF US drafted a letter--not a form letter, but one written in your own words--DEMANDING the repeal of the NFA, and GCA 68?

I would, however, like to see the following things kept:

a. If you are a convicted felon, no guns. Period. You should have kept your hand out of the cookie jar.
b. Keep the NICS check. It is a valuable means to tell if a prohibited person is buying guns.
c. Keep the DV disqualification. If you want to beat up your spouse, children, relatives or domestic partners, why should YOU have access to firearms?

Other than that, NO RESTRICTIONS for private ownership of ANY FIREARM.

Just my take on it...
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old January 16, 2010, 08:42 PM   #60
PTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
Powderman, if you're in law enforcement (as a previous post of yours would suggest), you're the kind of police officer we need more of.
PTK is offline  
Old January 16, 2010, 10:07 PM   #61
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
Yes, I am one of the folks who activate the "blue light special" in your rearview mirror when you don't pay attention to your speed. Also known as tail-light chaser, road nazi, JBT, butthead, #%&!!, and other savory terms of endearment.

You would be surprised, though...

The VAST majority of LEO feel EXACTLY the same way. As in, "Why the heck should I have to interfere with someone exercising their rights?"

My first reaction when I hear the cheerful sound of automatic weapons is to drool profusely.

Unfortunately, in this State, it's something we don't hear too often. And, when we do, we have to ask (tactfully) the hard questions.

I had an experience a while back...I was on the firing line at my gun club, when someone walked up and asked me if it was OK to shoot full auto. (I was also the club president at the time.) I asked about calibers, and they said, "9mm". I told them that it was fine.

The guys started breaking out the goodies--one full sized MP5, an MP5K, and a Savage 110 with a Gemtech suppressor.

I remarked, mildly, "Getting the stamps for all that must have been expensive."

Turned out that the guy is a SOT/Class 7 manufacturer, and wanted to test out some recent work. Of course, being the club president, I was offered the chance to (ahem) sample the goods.

The guy had a C-Mag for the MP-5; I got to shoot the MP5K with a full drum. Sweet!

And the suppressed Savage (in .30-06) had almost no recoil and a report like a .22. It must have improved the harmonics, too--sub MOA with hunting loads at 100 yards.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old January 17, 2010, 12:02 AM   #62
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,205
Harassing someone with a loaded firearm for no good reason doesn't sound like very sound judgement to me. Unless they're behaving in such a way as to make me think they're doing something unsafe/illegal/against the rules of the range, I'd leave them alone or perhaps compliment them on their neat gun.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 21, 2010, 09:21 AM   #63
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
This would be as rude as asking a young driver to see their license IMO.

"Hey, you look too young to be driving, let me see your license or I am calling the police"
Hey, you look like a criminal, let me see your form 4 or I am calling the police."

None of my business.
The only way I would possibly become involved is if they were being blatantly dangerous could not control the full auto then I might think about it.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 22, 2010, 12:51 AM   #64
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
Quote:
a. If you are a convicted felon, no guns. Period. You should have kept your hand out of the cookie jar.
b. Keep the NICS check. It is a valuable means to tell if a prohibited person is buying guns.
c. Keep the DV disqualification. If you want to beat up your spouse, children, relatives or domestic partners, why should YOU have access to firearms?
Unfortunately, these can open up a can of worms.

I agree with them in the spirit in which they were intended, but, due to many perversions of the law, they have come to be widely abused.

(a) To wit: Parents' "A's" 18 year old son takes Parents' "B's" 17 year old daughter to the prom. They have sex after. Parents "B" find out, and are highly incensed that their innocent angel of a daughter (who, in all likelihood, has been having sex since she was 14) has been "violated" and press charges against Parents "A's " 18 year old son. (Don't scoff; It's happened.) Boy "A" is found guilty and is convicted of statutory rape, a FELONY.

Now, should HE be denied the ownership of a gun because of some slutty little tramp and naive, overzealous parents?

(By the way, that's just one example; There are many things that so many of us do each day that are felonies that we're not even aware of. And just to make it even more convoluted, if we have knowledge of someone that has committed a felony and don't report it, that's "misprision," also a felony. Get the point?)

(b) NICS checks are a good idea SO LONG AS ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS ARE KEPT ONCE A PERSON HAS BEEN CLEARED. There have to be foolproof safeguards installed to prevent abuse of NICS checks. This one is waaaay to easy for susceptibility to governmental abuse.

(c) Once again, too many states have enacted DV laws that make an arrest mandatory of at least one person if they respond to a DV call. And too many of these have occurred when a spiteful spouse self inflicts a wound to make it look like an assault has occurred. (And I would tend to think it's usually the woman who does this, but I don't have any statistics for obvious reasons.)

Now: Let the flaming begin.

[Edit: I am not including true cases of DV in this post. There is NO excuse for a man hitting a women, EVER, or vice versa.}

Last edited by gyvel; January 22, 2010 at 06:27 AM.
gyvel is offline  
Old January 22, 2010, 07:41 AM   #65
jughead2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2008
Location: tenn.
Posts: 263
nfa

this old man would like for anyone that saw me with a weapon that the feds frown upon would tell me immediately so it could be corrected before any trouble with those guys started. have never owned one mainly because finances will not permit it.
jughead2 is offline  
Old January 22, 2010, 12:28 PM   #66
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
gyvel:

Response inbound via PM, so that I don't jack the thread.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old January 22, 2010, 01:09 PM   #67
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
Quote:
And I would contest the warrant... depending on if the state of AZ has any law enforcement grounds to be looking at Federal tax documents. Not sure if there is a case history of states subpoenaing federal 1040 forms or other non-state revenue tax documents.
I worked for a state tax commission until a few years ago. We did have access to IRS databases of filed income tax returns and information returns (1099's, w-2's, etc.). Such access was restricted to those working on certain projects dealing with income tax and previous federal assessments. The feds seemed pretty uptight about even the state tax agency having free reign with their info. BTW, i found their database far from infallible.

I have never been so happy to quit a job in my life.
orangello is offline  
Old January 28, 2010, 06:01 AM   #68
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
The bottom line remains thus: You do not have to show your NFA paperwork to anyone but an agent of the ATF.

I am not citing the wisdom of refusing to cooperate with your local LEO as ther are many other trumped up charges that can be leveled against you, but the fact remains that, if you are arrested for refusing to show paperwork, you have a great lawsuit for false arrest.
gyvel is offline  
Old January 28, 2010, 07:19 AM   #69
hoytinak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,719
We was out at our private range yesterday shooting the M16 and the local police SWAT team had their MP5's out playing as well (off duty off course). Next thing we see is red/blue lights coming out to the range, we stopped shooting to see what was going on, turned out to be a couple Sheriff's deputies....someone called them cause they heard full-auto fire coming from the field. Once they got there and realized it was the city police we all had a good laugh.

BTW: When I pulled the M16 out, none of the SWAT guys said anything about it other than "nice M16".
__________________
"Four wheels move the body. Two wheels move the soul."
hoytinak is offline  
Old January 28, 2010, 02:05 PM   #70
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Surprise! In the state of Florida, NFA items are illegal unless properly registered with ATF. Therefore a LEO may request to see proof of your documentation. You can show him at the range or ATF can show him at the station, while you and your NFA items are "detained
Sorta like my perspective on the Conversation with LEO thread.


Quote:
The VAST majority of LEO feel EXACTLY the same way. As in, "Why the heck should I have to interfere with someone exercising their rights?"

My first reaction when I hear the cheerful sound of automatic weapons is to drool profusely.

Unfortunately, in this State, it's something we don't hear too often. And, when we do, we have to ask (tactfully) the hard questions.
Exactly

Quote:
The bottom line remains thus: You do not have to show your NFA paperwork to anyone but an agent of the ATF.

I am not citing the wisdom of refusing to cooperate with your local LEO as ther are many other trumped up charges that can be leveled against you, but the fact remains that, if you are arrested for refusing to show paperwork, you have a great lawsuit for false arrest.

I would put it more in the vein of more bees with honey than vinegar. Plus, it seems that there isn't a epidemic of harrassment of NFA possessors

Last edited by Wagonman; January 28, 2010 at 02:10 PM.
Wagonman is offline  
Old January 28, 2010, 02:17 PM   #71
moccassins
Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Location: Kennesaw, Georgia
Posts: 76
people ask me all kinds of questions when I shoot one at the range, it just goes with the territory
__________________
"Sometimes the will of the people is stronger than the will of their chief" Cochise

"One does not go to the top of a mountain for water or to a white man for the truth" tribal proverb
moccassins is offline  
Old January 28, 2010, 04:22 PM   #72
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
Quote:
I am not citing the wisdom of refusing to cooperate with your local LEO as ther are many other trumped up charges that can be leveled against you, but the fact remains that, if you are arrested for refusing to show paperwork, you have a great lawsuit for false arrest.
I think you're missing the point.

You would not be arrested at this junction. You would be DETAINED, pending further investigation. The presence of a fully automatic firearm without documentation of any type would lead a reasonable person to believe that the firearm MIGHT be illegally possessed. Thus, you would be detained until the proper documentation turned up.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old January 28, 2010, 04:44 PM   #73
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Quote:
It shall be an affirmative defense
This phrase should be illegal.

It is a presumption of guilt until proof of innocence.

But... it screams out in whatever section of law it's located in that "hey you! If you participate in this, keep your papers ready to prove you're legit!"

To my knowledge, that phrase does not exist in regards to NFA in AZ.

As such, there is no duty of officers to presume illegality of posession without other mitigating/incriminating circumstances or behavior.

"Showing up at the range with a cool gun" isn't enough.

You keep willfully missing the point. Having something out of the ordinary is cause for INVESTIGATION not ARREST. If you have your paperwork in order then the encounter should be concluded. If you don't then expect to be inconvienced fir a length of time.

What don't you understand about Affirmative defense? An affimative defense just means you are authorized to do something that in some cases would be illegal. I.E. An ad for driving without a license is producing said license.
Wagonman is offline  
Old January 28, 2010, 04:59 PM   #74
Bohica6284
Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 25
Not to be rude or anything 1911, but who cares? What difference does it make or what business is it of anyone else? Like I said, I don't mean that in a rude way towards you, just posing a question. I have owned and still own a few NFA items. The first time I ever took my first NFA gun ( a MAC-11 9mm) to a public range it drew more attention than I wanted. I mean that in the sense where, people just wouldn't leave me alone about it. Everyone wanted to ask if they could fire it, was it expensive, can own those legally, blah blah blah. I never was questioned about paperwork or anything. Since then I have owned a Ruger AC-556, several suppressors (still have 2) and an SBR (semi-auto Krinkov, still have that one also). I've just never been questioned and to be truthful, most cops don't know what to ask you anyway. Believe it or not, the only time I was ever questioned was when I got pulled for speeding and the trooper could see in the back of my Tahoe. He asked me what I had in the back and I told him.....guns. When he took a look at them he kinda freaked out and called for another officer. They just assumed I had illegal guns and even when I gave them my papers they were still skeptical. Held me up for an hour, but it went fine.
Bohica6284 is offline  
Old January 30, 2010, 09:09 AM   #75
lockedcj7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2007
Posts: 1,208
I was asked very discreetly about my can yesterday. I took it into my local gunshop to make sure that it would fit on the pistol I was picking up. The counter man asked how much it set me back and I responded that it was $250 for the can and $200 for the tax. That told him that I was legit. Then we had a conversation about what hoops I had to jump through, wait time, etc.

I didn't mind for several reasons. First, I love teaching people stuff. Even if it's just educating a stranger about NFA legality and how they can exercise their rights. Second, he was doing his job. The store has a right to know if people are bringing illegal items into their store so that they can avoid any accusations about illegal activity going on there.
__________________
To a much greater extent than most mechanical devices, firearms are terribly unforgiving of any overconfidence, complacency or negligence.
lockedcj7 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14068 seconds with 9 queries