The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 21, 2008, 08:37 PM   #151
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
It's not that complicated to understand.
So, you are saying I should be able to buy a real Claymore, SAM missile etc. per this same exception since it makes all this stuff legal, kinda like letting your dog off it's leash in the park?
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 21, 2008, 08:53 PM   #152
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
I just bet my CLEO is going to let me have either.
I think you don't fully understand the implications of the CLEO signoff in relation to NFA items. The CLEO's signature represents the fact that the appicant is not known to the CLEO to be pursuing the transfer of the NFA item for illicit reasons. It is not a permission slip. IMHO, the CLEO signature is merely a formality because there are 2 legal ways around it. In some states, the CLEO is required to sign the forms when asked. The way the NC law reads to me is that if you can get your paws on a registered explosive DD, you can have it transfered to you. NC doesn't appear to restrict those above and beyond the NFA. In my state, however, explosive DD's (and SBS's) are explicitly restricted regardless of the NFA. I see no provisions in NC law for any of that.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old July 21, 2008, 09:00 PM   #153
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
I think you don't fully understand the implications of the CLEO signoff in relation to NFA items. The CLEO's signature represents the fact that the appicant is not known to the CLEO to be pursuing the transfer of the NFA item for illicit reasons. It is not a permission slip. IMHO, the CLEO signature is merely a formality because there are 2 legal ways around it. In some states, the CLEO is required to sign the forms when asked. The way the NC law reads to me is that if you can get your paws on a registered explosive DD, you can have it transfered to you. NC doesn't appear to restrict those above and beyond the NFA. In my state, however, explosive DD's (and SBS's) are explicitly restricted regardless of the NFA. I see no provisions in NC law for any of that.
Interesting.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 21, 2008, 09:01 PM   #154
PTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
Quote:
SAM missile
Civilians are prohibited from owning/possessing/using any sort of surface to air missile designed as a weapon.
PTK is offline  
Old July 21, 2008, 10:04 PM   #155
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
So, you are saying I should be able to buy a real Claymore, SAM missile etc. per this same exception since it makes all this stuff legal, kinda like letting your dog off it's leash in the park?
Some of those items are regulated under the NFA; some are not (but are regulated under other law). The NC law refers to the relevant laws for the particular items in question to determine its exemption status.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old July 21, 2008, 10:45 PM   #156
Conqueror
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 9
Quote:
If you ask NC LEO's " Are silencers legal?" with no coaching, the answer will be overwhelmingly "No".
I have to chuckle at anyone who uses "what LEOs think" as proof that silencers are illegal. If you ask LEOs in ANY state whether silencers are legal, the answer will usually be "No." Law Enforcement training rarely addresses the NFA except to tell officers to investigate with a high degree of suspicion anyone with a sawed-off shotgun, silencer, machine gun, etc.

Here is the full text of NC 14-288.8, so we can put this "selective quoting" to rest:

Quote:
§ 14 288.8. Manufacture, assembly, possession, storage, transportation, sale, purchase, delivery, or acquisition of weapon of mass death and destruction; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, assemble, possess, store, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, offer to purchase, deliver or give to another, or acquire any weapon of mass death and destruction.
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) Persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14 269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.
(2) Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors of firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses.
(3) Persons under contract with the United States, the State of North Carolina, or any agency of either government, with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in under their contracts.
(4) Inventors, designers, ordnance consultants and researchers, chemists, physicists, and other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge or to facilitate the creation, development, or manufacture of weapons of mass death and destruction intended for use in a manner consistent with the laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina.

(c) The term "weapon of mass death and destruction" includes:
(1) Any explosive or incendiary:
a. Bomb; or
b. Grenade; or
c. Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces; or
d. Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one quarter ounce; or
e. Mine; or
f. Device similar to any of the devices described above; or
(2) Any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell of a type particularly suitable for sporting purposes) which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one half inch in diameter; or
(3) Any firearm capable of fully automatic fire, any shotgun with a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, any rifle with a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is included within this definition. For the purposes of this section, rifle is defined as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; or
(4) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any weapon described above and from which a weapon of mass death and destruction may readily be assembled.
The term "weapon of mass death and destruction" does not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of Title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes, in accordance with Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(d) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class F felony. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1975, c. 718, ss. 6, 7; 1977, c. 810; 1983, c. 413, ss. 1, 2; 1993, c. 539, s. 1228; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001 470, s. 3.)
The law does not declare silencers illegal until AFTER it has given a long list of people, including "collectors of firearms," to whom the statute does NOT apply in any way shape or form.
Conqueror is offline  
Old July 21, 2008, 11:12 PM   #157
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
Quote:
Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with.
What like the special permit I have to drive my car? The one I had to pay a fee to get and fill out a few pages of paper work? My car is by far the most dangerous weapon I own. What if school shooters had just been witty enough to run through a crowded city crosswalk? I guess the guy in Japan figured it out. Maybe we should outlaw mufflers so mass murderers utilizing vehicles will be more easily sighted.

Really though, this is pretty out of control.

1.I hate being out doors with hearing protection on. At the range it is ok b/c it is a relatively controlled environment. Last year I was backpacking and a tree fell. I literally stepped between two branches as the 100' tree fell behind me. With hearing protection I may not have heard it as distinctly and been able to move out of the way. I am sure anyone who has been out in the woods much understands what I am saying. I also don't like to be around roads with my hearing impaired.
2.I don't like losing my hearing because I forgot to put my earplugs back in after taking them out to talk to someone for a minute. I wish the US would switch to Europes stance and decide it is impolite to shoot without a suppressor.
3.I don't like my neighbors to have to listen to me shoot. If they run a chainsaw all day it annoys me, i assume my shooting annoys them.
4.Cheap suppressors destroy accuracy. A well built one absolutely improves it. It also increases velocity.
5.I have no felonies, and only misdemeanor moving violations(speeding).

Like I said before, making an expedient suppressor is far too easy for me to think government restrictions on the item do anything in the first place. A few rolls of TP and some duct tape and you are in business.

Stop letting the TV think for you. Take up someones offer to shoot their gun. I was sold when shooting with the OSU pistol team and one of the guys had one on a Walther p22. Allowed him to practice at an indoor range without hearing protection and for us to have a reasonable conversation while we shot.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 05:40 AM   #158
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
What like the special permit I have to drive my car
John, we have been beating this for a while. I suspect most other than enthusiast would consider the comparison between a driving a car and owning something classified under weapons of mass destruction per NC law ludicrous.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 07:01 AM   #159
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
This thread is very strange indeed.
SR420 is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 09:12 AM   #160
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
This thread is very strange indeed.

It's what happens when you go over to another part of the forum and insult a gentleman there which most of us are not who adds a lot of value to the forum which most of us don't.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 09:43 AM   #161
Shempf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2006
Posts: 10
Way to crap on someones thread, bravo

If anyone thinks something is not legal, they should do the work and look up the laws. Ignorance can be bliss, but not with this subject.

I have to add, discussing law in the open shouldn't be considered 'bad'.
Find a forum for lawyers and tell them the corp. laws that give them breaks on finances for meeting certain criteria shouldn't be discussed on the Internet.
It's almost delusional to think that certain 'things' shouldn't be discussed when it is stated in law (more than 1) that we can discuss and are allowed to own.
Reminds me of some people to who live in a delusional world and choose not to ever look outside of their little 'bubble'. Look outside the box, it will enable you to do things better, maybe even your day job.

"It is better to thought to be a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"
Shempf is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 10:02 AM   #162
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
Quote:
This thread is very strange indeed.

Quote:
ZeroJunk


It's what happens when you go over to another part of the forum and insult a gentleman
there which most of us are not who adds a lot of value to the forum which most of us don't.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm now more confused than ever.
SR420 is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 10:04 AM   #163
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
There are 11 members on this thread with less than 8 posts. The only posts ever for most of them is on this thread. Most attacking a gentleman they know nothing about. I assume you think it was me that was crapping on the thread.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 10:12 AM   #164
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Thanks for the reply, but I'm now more confused than ever.
It started out in the Gunsmith Forum, which is the only reason I saw it to begin with, with John asking a legitimate question. One of the senior gunsmiths there, who we could all learn a great deal from, doesn't like silencers for whatever reason. Some of this bunch, rather than make a case for silencers and their legality decided to go on the attack, post it in some other forums and get all these new posters, most to just attack the senior gunsmith with whatever poor manners they could come up with.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 10:16 AM   #165
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
That clears it up - thanks

Zero, I didn't think you were the offender.
SR420 is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 10:37 AM   #166
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
This has to be some sort of record for the longest *heated* discussion thread that has not been locked....


ETA: I'm gonna go back to the NFA Guns & Gear forum and play there. If you want to come play, play nice, and you will be welcomed....
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 11:13 AM   #167
RAnb
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 447
So you agree that Harry Bonar insulted johnwilliamson062 when he said, “No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.”?

If someone is going to be so insulting as Harry Bonar is, then he needs to be prepared for the consequences. The other posters should not need to make a case for the legality of silencers. It is the person who objects to the legal use of silencers who needs to be making the case. It is un-American to suggest that a person prove something is legal. The right thing to do is prove something is illegal or inappropriate. “Innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell here?
RAnb is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 02:18 PM   #168
Shempf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2006
Posts: 10
"If someone is going to be so insulting as Harry Bonar is, then he needs to be prepared for the consequences."

I agree whole heartily. Coming into this thread I read the first few posts and Harry's came out of nowhere that I could tell (maybe threads where merged or modified?). Just seemed to slam someones post asking a question regarding a product they owned. Equal to me stating that no person needs a double barrel that can shoot both barrel at the same time, or no person needs more than a single shot, single barrel shotgun, etc, etc.

on an unrelated note, I'd think most assume what is said is opinion, unless verified through experience or a reference is provided. Just seems like it needs said.


(I am one of these people with few posts, mainly a lurker everywhere I 'lurk', I think the flamboyant remark(s) is what attracted so much attention)
Shempf is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 02:39 PM   #169
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
Well I definitely thought Harry B was calling me a criminal/poacher. Someone else threw in immature child. I just didn't care. Never met the guy, probably never will. Even if he said it to me face it probably wouldn't phase me. In my short 23 years I have been called a lot worse than an immature poacher. If he decides not to answer any more of my questions I am sure someone else on here will. Misterwilson and MGracer were kind enough to answer the question for me this time, so I was able to get along fine without the cooperation of Harry B.
I can come up with a lot more reasons to ban Semi-auto weapons than I can silencers. Start out with if you can't put the shot where it goes the first time or cycle a pump shotgun fast enough to keep a home intruder at bay you shouldn't be given the added firepower of a semi-auto. Of course I don't agree with a semi-auto ban b/c the second amendment is not about hunting or home defense against burglars.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 03:02 PM   #170
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
on an unrelated note, I'd think most assume what is said is opinion, unless verified through experience or a reference is provided. Just seems like it needs said.
Trust me, there is a whole bunch of that in this forum, to say the least.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 04:15 PM   #171
MOS11C
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
Quote:
John, we have been beating this for a while. I suspect most other than enthusiast would consider the comparison between a driving a car and owning something classified under weapons of mass destruction per NC law ludicrous.
It's a comparison between a very dangerous weapon (car) that can cause injury to a mass of people in one shot...and a piece of tubular metal.

If you're gonna base your entire common sense to some North Carolina Statute then you're in trouble.
MOS11C is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 05:00 PM   #172
TPAW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
This has to be some sort of record for the longest *heated* discussion thread that has not been locked....
I just hope that all the time and energy put into this thread is also put into the voting booth. If the wrong guy wins, we may loose many of our gun rights and be posting on subjects not to our liking. Lets not loose what we have. Focus in getting the right candidate in office or we're done for.......
TPAW is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 05:30 PM   #173
MisterWilson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
To clarify, they may try to take those rights, but we won't necessarily lose those right, if you catch my drift.
MisterWilson is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 05:41 PM   #174
MOS11C
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
TPAW, I really don't mind for the time and energy spent here.
This takes very little time off my advocacy for our gun rights.
Heck, this is only one of the many forums and blogs I participate in.
Most of my time is spent contacting and voicing my opinions to our US and State Reps and senators regarding 2A. And not necesarily, in my own State.

As I posted here, in another thread:

I would rather spend my votes and effort in what really matters: Congress.

Democrats possess a field advantage in 2008, needing to defend only 12 seats, while Republicans must defend 23. In addition, five Republicans, but no Democrats, have announced that they are retiring. The open seat gap between the parties is the biggest in 50 year.

And we are well awared of how the 2 Presidential candidates have voted regarding gun control.
These 2 voted hand in hand with folks like Reid, Schumer, Edwards and Feinstein...the craddle for anti-gun anti-2nd in America.

Many would be surprised to know (by the records from the Congressional reports) which of these 2 guys have voted for more gun control.
They would be surprised.....
MOS11C is offline  
Old July 22, 2008, 05:47 PM   #175
TPAW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
MOS11C
Excellent...Ditto..........
TPAW is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09470 seconds with 8 queries