Kicked off range for not having NFA paperwork...

[B. Lahey]

how can a local cop arrest me if I'm not breaking the law?

Well, he would slap handcuffs on you, say "you're under arrest, these things are illegal!" and haul you off. Then, days or months later, when somebody who knows the law (or knows enough to bother looking it up) looks at the case, they will say "you dolts arrested this guy for a legal gun!". Then the charges will go away and you will get your super awesome gun back.

You are right, they are wrong, but that won't always keep you out of trouble. Particularly if you have an attitude and try to preach/screech at dimwits who think your sweet sweet rifle is illegal/improper/needs a permission slip from the pope.

Find a range that is familiar with NFA items or go shoot in the swamp (or on the ocean, I think there's a bit of water down there).

 

[cptsplashdown]

Accoster, I think your response brings me back to the crux of the question. If I am not committing any type of crime just by being at the range with my legally owned weapon, why would any LEO be investigating the situation at all. Would you investigate every car in the parking lot of the range just to be sure that one of them wasn't stolen? There is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Isn't there some sort of necessity for probable cause in a case such as this (exempting BATF agents who are afforded the right by law.) Yes, I understand that most LEOs don't know the law or deal with these weapons on a regular basis, but it sort of scares me that you would then put the "burden of proof" on the citizen, rather than on the LEO to go and actually know the law he is accusing you of breaking. Just food for thought, I have all the respect in the world for the boys in blue, but it reeks of Big Brother to me.

 

[cptsplashdown]

And of course all who point out that police officers can arrest you even for a crime you didn't commit are correct, which is why I am hoping to find the specific legal citation. I don't imagine any LEO who was presented with a copy of the written law in lieu of a Form 4, upon seeing the error of his ways, would arrest you just out of spite. I also don't think that it needs to be a butting of heads, just a citizen explaining to a misinformed LEO or RSO that he or she is mistakenly applying their authority or misinterpreting the law.

 

[Lurch37]

I was informed to make a copy of my original Form 4 and carry it with me whenever I was in possession of my NFA item. The copy is in a ziplock bag and stays in my range bag so it's always there if by chance I get asked about it at any of the ranges I go to.

You may know that the SBR, Full Auto, or Suppressed weapon is totally legal. Your shooting buddy may know the same thing. But the range officer or local Policeman may not, or may think your supposed to have the Form 4 with you at all times.

I'm not sure what the actual "law" is regarding having the From 4 with you is, but to be honest, it's way too easy to make a copy and carry it with me than to cite legal statues to some concerned officer.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed....

Actually, I suspect that a judge would say that there is probable cause. Fully automatic firearms, short barrel rifles, suppressors, etc., are, in fact, illegal, UNLESS they have been properly registered under the NFA. Therefore it could easily be argued, that an LEO seeing you with an NFA firearm has reason to believe that you are in possession of contraband if you can't show that you have complied with the requirements of the NFA.

"Probable cause" is "sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime...." Possession of an NFA weapon or device without having satisfied the NFA formalities is a crime. An LEO seeing an individual with an NFA weapon or device has no way of knowing if the necessary formalities have been satisfied (unless the person in possession can produce the appropriate paperwork) and therefore has reason to believe a crime has been committed. (And no, he doesn't have to take your word for it.)

 

[cptsplashdown]

Once again, I think the logic is faulty. The fact is you need a license to drive a car, but that doesn't mean that being in possession of a car constitutes probable cause for an officer to start an investigation simply because driving a car is illegal without a license. Just doesn't add up to me. Being in possession of a legally owned weapon that would be illegal without a license would appear to be a similar situation. LEOs can't pull you over just for driving a car on the premise that not everyone has a license, so why would they rock up on you at the range and start investigating? The burden of proof is in fact usually on the LEO to prove that a crime has been committed, aka: the presumption of innocence. Yet many seem quite willing to subject themselves to what may be an illegal search and seizure with nary a thought to their constitutional rights, all to make their lives a bit less stressful. Sorry I just think differently.

 

[Sasquatch in MN]

strikes me as a bit easier to merely keep a copy of the NFA documentation in your range bag or gun case and avoid a sticky mess.

Don

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The fact is you need a license to drive a car, but that doesn't mean that being in possession of a car constitutes probable cause for an officer to start an investigation simply because driving a car is illegal without a license....

Bad analogy. The car itself isn't illegal without something else. But if the car doesn't have current registration tags, that's another matter.

In the case of, for example, a machine gun, you are openly holding an object which is inherently illegal to possess, unless certain non-obvious conditions have been satisfied. It is, effectively, presumptively illegal. You, and only you, can show that you are in lawful possession of this item, and only by showing the proper paperwork.

...The burden of proof is in fact usually on the LEO to prove that a crime has been committed, aka: the presumption of innocence....

No, an LEO doesn't need to prove that a crime has been committed, and that you did it, in order to legally arrest you. He only needs probable cause. The presumption of innocence arises in the court room.

...Yet many seem quite willing to subject themselves to what may be an illegal search and seizure with nary a thought to their constitutional rights,...

This is not about a search. You have in your possession, in plain sight, an object which is contraband unless you have some paperwork to show that you have gone through the hoops necessary to lawfully possess it. An LEO doesn't have to assume that you have gone through those hoops.

...Sorry I just think differently.

Perhaps, but how you think really doesn't matter. What matters is how judges think. I know something about that, because knowing such things is how I made my living for over 30 years.

 

[James K]

We have here an example of an argumentative person simply trying to impress us with his knowledge of the law. I suggest that if he tries out some of those arguments on a police officer, he just might be spending some time in jail. Maybe for telling a police officer that he has no authority to check the license of a person driving a car.

Jim

 

[cptsplashdown]

Thanks for your support Jim. In fact, I gave no argument at all to the gentleman that approached me at the range. I simply went out in search of an answer to why someone would attempt to accuse me of a "violation" that I didn't commit. In case you missed it, this is a forum where people make posts to discover answers, learn about issues, and make comments exactly like the ones being made here. I made no statements about any impressive knowledge I have about the law, and in fact none of the other comments with the exception of AK have actually attempted to even address my original question. All fine by me because I enjoy a good discussion (or in your vernacular "argument") about these very important issues that relate to all of our rights as citizens. I don't agree with the suggestion that I should have to submit to this search, and in fact reading AK's link appears to show that I am correct. However, if you don't enjoy the thread or have anything to contribute, feel free not to post at all. I for one have enjoyed and learned from every other post here except yours.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Maybe for telling a police officer that he has no authority to check the license of a person driving a car.

Just for the record, it wasn't I who suggested that a police office wouldn't have the authority to check the license of a person driving a car.

 

[cptsplashdown]

And Jim, I don't know you from Adam and certainly wouldn't go out of my way to "impress" you even if I did. Glad to know you think yourself worthy of the effort though. Amicalement.

 

[Atroxus]

I think what ppl are saying to the OP is that regardless of what the technical legality of it is, a range officer or police officer can still give you a bad day for not having the paperwork along for the ride. The range officer can kick you out regardless since most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Many well-intentioned police have and still do arrest people for things that technically are not illegal.

Some people have posted what the federal laws are, but how badly do you want to be right? Are you willing to take it to the mat and possibly shell out legal fees to defend yourself if you are wrongfully arrested? If so, more power to ya, though you should be consulting an attorney to make certain of your legal standing not an internet forum if thats the case. Me, I can't afford to make those kinds of stands, so I pick my battles a bit more carefully. I have a lot of respect though for those that can and do take that extra step to defend our rights.

 

[cptsplashdown]

Well thanks to all who contributed to the discussion. I am totally in agreement that there are ways to deal with the reality of the situation that can make your life a lot easier, however I also don't see a problem with engaging any range or law enforcement authority over the specific legal aspects of NFA laws. I think if I had been able to speak more clearly to the exact nature of the statute earlier today, I might have saved myself, the RSO, and many other customers from future unnecessary complications. Perhaps not only carrying copies of your NFA paperwork to satisfy authorities in that instance, along with a copy of the NFA law relating to the inspection of such weapons would be the best solution. Particular thanks to the LE guys who gave their personal perspectives and thoughts. Regards and happy hunting.

 

[Don H]

FWIW, this is what BATF has to say on the issue:

(M25) Does the owner of a registered NFA firearm have to have any evidence to show it is registered lawfully to him or her?

Yes. The approved application received from ATF serves as evidence of registration of the NFA firearm in the owner's name. This document must be kept available for inspection by ATF officers. It is suggested that a photocopy of the approved application be carried by the owner when the weapon is being transported.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m25

 

[Accoster]

The point is that it ultimately falls upon a citizen to prove that they are indeed legal. Most if not all states have a law that a person must present a drivers license if it is demanded by a police officer. I know your argument is that an officer can check it in the computer, but what happens if the computer is down? An officer now cannot check if you indeed have a license, but the law says you must have a license on you, guess who gets a ticket.

In Nevada, NRS 202.350 states in part: or expose for sale, or give, lend, possess or use a machine gun or a silencer, unless authorized by federal law. Short barreled weapons have a similar clause.

Now back to my point, without a system for an officer to check, it is up to the person to show they have permission by the feds. If you get caught with marijuana, do you really think an officer is going to assume you have a medical permit for it? It is a law of numbers; NFA weapons are rare when compared to the numerous illegal weapons out there.

I pull over alot of cars at work, but I rarely give people any tickets. I am a supervisor and have other things to worry about, but feel a duty to at least stop an offender for an obvious violation in front of a marked police vehicle. If the person cooperates and has no warrants, a clean record and a good attitude, they usually get a warning. But with a NFA weapon like yours, there is a ton of liability for an officer. If that weapon was used in a mass shooting and it was learned that it had been examined by the police earlier and it could not proven it was legal at the time and released anyways, that officers career and financial future are over.

Owning an NFA is a privilege, not a right. It is up to you to prove you are allowed to have it.

 

[sectshun8]

This was a great thread to read just waking up. To the OP, honestly, I feel you 100% and would be asking the same questions as you. I probably would have addressed those questions to the RO before leaving as well, but then, that could have very well escalated things and made it more an issue. In that respect he was doing you a favor by just asking you to leave.

In hindsight, and to anyone who reads this, it's in all our best interest just to keep a copy of the documents with the weapon, saves everyone a headache

 

[dogtown tom]

Willie Lowman: ...Technically only an ATF agent has the authority to hassle you over your NFA item ...

Not true.
Many states have their own laws regarding NFA firearms. Here in Texas, state law prohibits NFA firearms, BUT- it is "a defense to prosecution" to be in possession of a properly registered/taxed NFA firearm. It's a weird Texas thing, meaning you "could" be arrested, but not prosecuted. Most police officers know what "defense to prosecution" means, but I'm sure there are some who do not.

Remember the old saying: "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

I have an Inglis Hi Power with detachable shoulder stock/holster. It would be a SBR under the NFA, but was removed due to it's curio & relic status. I keep a copy of the C&R reference that exempts it from the NFA as well as a copy of the ATF Technical Branch letter authorizing the stock holster- both folded and stoed inside the stock.

 

[JohnKSa]

The fact is you need a license to drive a car, but that doesn't mean that being in possession of a car constitutes probable cause for an officer to start an investigation simply because driving a car is illegal without a license.

This is a poor analogy. You don't need a license to possess a car, only to drive one. So you are correct that it wouldn't be right for an officer to investigate you for possessing a car without a license. On the other hand you DO need paperwork to possess an NFA item, so if an officer thought you were in possession of an NFA item (as in he looks over and sees you with one) and you fail to present the documentation showing that you are in legal possession then he has every right to arrest you.

Bill, how can a local cop arrest me if I'm not breaking the law?

Ok, here's an analogous situation.

A guy attacks me with a pistol and I am left with absolutely no alternative but to shoot him to prevent him from seriously injuring or killing me. When he falls, dead, from my shot, his pistol slips from his hand and into a storm drain. There are no witnesses.

When the officer arrives he asks me what happened but I exercise my legal right to remain silent and I do not speak to him at all.

Now, I have not broken the law, (just as you haven't broken the law) but still any law enforcement officer with jurisdiction has every right to arrest me.

He can arrest me for the same reason he can arrest you--because in both your case and mine all the evidence points toward the fact that a crime has been committed. In my case murder, in your case illegal posession of an NFA item without the proper paperwork.

In both cases we can prove our innocence and probably avoid arrest, but in both cases we're shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot by withholding the pertinent evidence from the officer.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

There is an old saying in LE- "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
I'm not saying it's illegal for you to not have a copy of your paperwork. I don't know if it is or not. I AM saying to not have it is imprudent, at best.