Kicked off range for not having NFA paperwork...

[cptsplashdown]

There is an old saying in LE- "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Exactly what my friend told me as we left the range Bill. Excellent points gents, and well taken. Of course in the future I will be carrying copies of these docs with me. I'm glad to see and hope that all understood my interest in the finer points of the law in terms of what the law actually requires vs. what you may run into out in the real world. I can certainly understand any LEOs concern with illegal weapons on the field of play. I suppose we could all forget to bring our paperwork with us at one time or another and I think it worth exploring the potential consequences as well as understanding what your actual obligations are under the law. My question about "how can an officer arrest you..." should probably have read "why would an officer arrest you...", assuming he understood that you were not in fact in violation of any law. Certainly any officer CAN arrest you, I more specifically was thinking of whether or not you SHOULD be arrested given this particular set of circumstances (having a legally registered weapon at the range, but having the paperwork at home.) I would liken this to the fact that some states that allow CCWs require that you have the license on your person, and some do not, and not having your CCW is not always a violation. It is my belief from reading AK's link and other info (http://www.titleii.com/BardwellOLD/nfa_faq.txt) that in fact simply not having the paperwork on you does not put you in violation of any federal or state law (in FL anyway.) I have not seen or read anything that would contradict my conclusion. Does that mean that I would get into a protracted argument with a LEO or RSO over this issue without any supporting documentation. Certainly not. I would however be happy to carry both my NFA paperwork, as well as a copy of several of these references, and perhaps be able to clarify the issue amidst a situation that might otherwise escalate to a confiscation and/or arrest. Great discussion and cheers again to all.

 

[pichon]

I'm sure medicinal pot smokers would agree with you when they can't produce a prescription for an observant LEO who sees them getting high in the park. Would they get away with it? I seriously doubt it.

In my experience most LEO's don't want to be jerks but I would rather they hassle everyone about it than let the local hooligans run around with sbr's.

You have to admit that there is a preponderance of evidence that you are doing something wrong when you are in possession of a restricted weapon and you are unable to produce proof of its legality. I am also sure you would agree that you would rather resolve the misunderstanding with the LEO than have the ATF called. I doubt they are very tolerant of noncompliance.

Remember, when enough people think that they can justify crappy behavior by hiding behind the second amendment all gun owners suffer in the court of public opinion. You can poo poo that as much as you want but I believe we are on thin ice with the current administration as it is. You can play the martyr as much as you want but it will end up hurting us all in the end.

 

[cptsplashdown]

I think you miss my point pichon. You are basically suggesting that you consider it acceptable to submit yourself to the whims of a non existent law because you believe that to resist a government agent who (for perhaps innocent reasons) is imposing an illegal restriction on you is being a "martyr." You then go on to suggest that it would be better for me to submit myself to this non existent law in order to preserve my second amendment rights. What about if an agent decides to come into your home and search it whenever he wants. This is simply an extension of your attitude. You would submit to such a search, even though there is no law permitting it, because in the end you would rather the LEO or whomever catch one or two criminals rather than respect the rights of the other 90% of the population. All well and good, and I think it just comes down to your personal philosophy. Some people are willing to sacrifice more of their personal freedoms for the security that society provides. I on the other had would rather keep my personal freedoms and provide for my own security to a certain degree. In either case, I will not be submitting myself to any illegal searches just to make life easier on anyone, yourself included (sorry,) and if that makes me a martyr so be it. I don't really believe it does, but your opinion is respected none the less, even though I respectfully see things differently.

 

[cptsplashdown]

On the medicinal marijuana issue, I don't know the laws, but I would expect that the LEO that arrests someone for using drugs illegally would know the law, just as I expect anyone who would arrest me for violation of the NFA to know the respective laws relating to these weapons. The whole point of my post was that I have not been able to find any part of the NFA that would have put me in violation during my encounter at the range. Everyone has been expressing some very well thought out opinions, but no one has pointed to one word of the NFA that has made my actions illegal in any way shape or form. There is simply nothing in the NFA, or any other body of law that I have been able to find or that has been shown to me, that says unequivocally that I need to have my NFA paperwork with me at the range. So I just don't get the attitude that it is okay to be detained, arrested, or kicked off of a firing line because a law enforcement officer or civilian RSO thinks he knows the law and doesn't. To me that is a violation of my liberties, which are somewhat important to me. I'm not gang-banging in the hood mind you, I'm just at the range plinking away, and I don't believe it to be fair or legal to arrest me for forgetting a few pieces of paper.

 

[JohnKSa]

In either case, I will not be submitting myself to any illegal searches...

What is this/these illegal search(es) you keep referring to?

Since you are openly displaying the NFA item at the range, no search is necessary to discover it.

If you're saying that being asked to present your NFA paperwork is a search, then you're under no obligation to submit to it. But if you don't you're subject to arrest--just as I am in my analogy above. NOT for failing to submit to the search but rather because if you do not present your NFA paperwork you are, in the view of the arresting officer, committing a felony by illegally possessing NFA items. Just as in my analogy I am not subject to arrest for failing to talk to the officer but rather because if I do not present any evidence to justify shooting my attacker I am, in the view of the arresting officer, guilty of committing murder.

It is my belief from reading AK's link and other info (http://www.titleii.com/BardwellOLD/nfa_faq.txt) that in fact simply not having the paperwork on you does not put you in violation of any federal or state law (in FL anyway.)

Ok, for the sake of argument let's say this is true. That doesn't mean that you aren't still subject to arrest if you are found with an NFA item in your possession and can't/won't prove that you possess it legally.

Again, as demonstrated by my analogy, it is clearly possible and reasonable for an innocent person to be subject to arrest if the evidence points toward their being guilty and they decide to present nothing concrete in their defense.

What you're essentially saying is that anyone found to be carrying a handgun should be allowed to go free if they merely tell the officer that they are carrying the handgun legally. That the officer's asking them to see their permit constitutes an illegal search and that arresting them is unreasonable unless there is a law that states that they must have their permit in their possession at all times when carrying.

I'm saying that if there's no law that thay must have their permit on them at all times while carrying then they are under no obligation to present the permit. BUT if they don't they are clearly subject to arrest and such an arrest would be perfectly reasonable given that they were found apparently committing a crime and refused to present any real evidence that they were, in fact, innocent.

If that happens, they are not being arrested for failing to present their permit upon request, they're being arrested for illegally carrying a handgun.

You are basically suggesting that you consider it acceptable to submit yourself to the whims of a non existent law...

The agent isn't enforcing a non-existent law, he's merely asking you if you have any concrete evidence that you're innocent of the crime of illegally possessing NFA items.

If you won't or can't present the evidence then he's not arresting you for failing to present your papers, (for failing to submit to a non-existent law, if you will), he's arresting you for illegally possessing NFA items.

 

[p99guy]

splashdown, You are failing to take state law into account, it is what the officer will be approaching you will be basing his actions on( not federal).
I have been a NFA dealer, NFA owner, AND a Peace Officer.

Knowing full well the ins and outs....I too would take a Person in, if the situation warrented it. (based on State Law, which is what Peace Officers enforce for the most part) A registered machinegun or suppressor can be stolen, and in the wrong hands( my father had a couple of MG's stolen and were recovered after 6 years) Or in the hands of a person other than the registered owner.

That form 4 may endeed be a tax document, but if its the only thing showing
that you arent commiting a felony under state law...you might want to show it.
A gun range, being private property...and you being there is at the owners descression, you also must conform with thier policy.


A registered MG looks much the same as a unregistered one.....a stolen one, looks much the same as when shouldered by its registered owner, just as medical marijuana looks much like the illegal kind( and when you have either your MG or your doobie in public, you are probley going to have to show you can legally possess that item at some point, or prove it to a judge after your strip search) If its misery you wish to cause yourself because your beliefs dont match the legal system, Misery you shall end up with.

 

[pichon]

I am not saying I disagree with your principals, just your methods. Anti-gun nuts already think we are all anti-authoritarian. Arguing the law with range officers and LEO's just affirms that belief.

What I am trying to say, and perhaps not very well, is that the range officer and the policeman are convenient if you want to debate the law with someone at the range but aside from making you feel better it wont do you any good.

Present your paperwork and then go home and make a phone call or send an email to the appropriate official or range manager saying that their employees are overstepping their bounds if you feel you must.

In my opinion, when the line between legal and illegal is so unclear, make sure that you are unquestionably on the correct side, especially if it is as simple as making a photocopy.

 

[AK103K]

Owning an NFA is a privilege, not a right.

I disagree. While they would have preferred to relieve us of that right, I believe the NFA was the only way that they could "legally" try to ban the weapons in question. But that pesky Constitution and the 2nd Amendment got in the way.

The NFA was basically an end run around it, and "tax" was how it was accomplished. They never said you couldnt own one, you simply have to pay the tax on the item. The fact that the tax was $200, at the time a new car cost $500, and most people only made a few dollars a week, has been lost in these times, where $200 isnt that big a deal.

 

[Dragon55]

Whoa... didn't Don H answer this quite well????

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

 

[musicmatty]

I dont think you are going to find that one piece of definitive language that states You Do Not have to carry your paper work with you at all times.

The fact is this, not every Lawyer, Law Officer or Judge is totally versed in every article of every law ever written...especially on the spot of the momemt without any reference material and legal book searching.

You may be in the right 100% to carry your firearm without any paperwork, but in reality where there is a Lot of Gray area, you may be confronted and challenged on this. You being in the right, will not win you any lawsuites in my opinion if your rights are violated. Too many killings and sympathy would be enough for the Courtroom to vendicate someone for violating your rights on the side of caution. Sure, you could fight this and take this to a new level, but it would take more money than anyone combined on this forum for such a fight in this new age USA that we live in.

 

[olddav]

cptsplashdown,

I know this is not going to answer your question but, here it is anyway.

You may not be required by law to show the range officer any paperwork regarding your weapon, but as a priviately owned business they have the right to refuse entry to anyone. So you can either stand up for your rights and find another place to shot, or offer a small peace offering and provide them with what they ask for. I'm not big on compromises, but is this battle realy worth your time?

Hope you find the answer to your question and good luck.

 

[cptsplashdown]

Wow, so many good pointe being made by all. Perhaps the scope of the thread has gone a bit haywire, but to be honest I have enjoyed the discussion more anyway. The original question was about what the law requires. I think it a specious argument to say that you can't do something because the law doesn't say you can do it musicmatty. The law doesn't specifically give you permission to do a lot of things, and those things are generally considered to be legal. Maybe not correct to do, but legal none the less. It is the nature of our laws that they are put in place to stop specific behaviors, not dictate what behaviors are unacceptable through omission of giving you permission. In any case, I think that we have really gone away from the legal answer into what could better be described as a discussion of personal freedoms and responsibility. Great move in my opinion and far more interesting.

My basic premise here is that although the police are a vital and critical part of our society, I don't want to live in a police state where a LEO can violate my rights simply because HE doesn't know the law. I served our country in the military, and I have the utmost respect for all who serve, but that doesn't mean I want to live under a military dictatorship. It seems as though some are taking my questions about whether or not a LEO or RSO is legally correct in behaving in a certain way as proof that I am some type of anarchist who would prefer we have no laws at all. Not the case, though I do believe that the government should be as unintrusive as possible. The line should certainly be drawn at enforcing a law or code which in fact does not exist (I'm speaking generally gents, not referring to this specific incident about which our opinions so widely vary.)

I worry about the state of things when so many seem quite happy to "make things easier" on themselves by submitting to a violation of their rights and perhaps the law (again speaking generally,) rather than at least engage the authorities in a discussion of whether what they are doing is "right," if not illegal. Someone posted earlier that it doesn't matter what YOU think, only what a judge thinks. I've seen some cynical responses, but man... I would submit that what YOU think is exactly what matters. It may not get you out of jail, but this is where men need to decide what matters more, spending some time in the clink, or your principles and values. Some of the posts I've seen have answered that question quite clearly. Thanks again to all who posted, whether you're a wolf, or a sheep.

 

[ssmdive]

I was there as well when this happened.

Federal: Legally, you don't have to show the form to anyone but the DoJ and the ATF. Captslashdown.... I was wrong about the IRS.... The form *IS* a tax form, but in 2002 the authority to persecute was turned over to the DoJ.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/nfa_handbook/appendix_a.pdf

Relevant section:
The National Firearms Act (NFA) is part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Internal Revenue Code, with the exception of the NFA, is administered and enforced by the Secretary of the Treasury. When ATF transferred to the Department of Justice under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, all its authorities, including the authority to administer and enforce the NFA, were transferred to the Attorney General In order to keep all the references throughout the Internal Revenue Code consistent, references to the Secretary of the Treasury in the NFA were left unchanged by the Homeland Security Act.

And this issue in particular:
§ 479.71 Proof of registration. The approval by the Director of an application, Form 1 (Firearms), to make a firearm under this subpart shall effectuate registration of the firearm described in the Form 1 (Firearms) to the person making the firearm. *****The original Form 1 (Firearms) showing approval by the Director shall be retained by the maker to establish proof of his registration of the firearm described therein, and shall be made available to any ATF officer on request****.

So, according to FEDERAL LAW... The only person you need to show the Forms to is an ATF agent.

Local: Well, most local jurisdictions have laws that say that the possession of such weapons are illegal UNLESS you are following federal law.

For example Florida:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...TM&Title=->2000->Ch0790->Section 221#0790.221

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.--

The relevant portion is the third section:

(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

So, it could be argued that Jim Bob local Po-Po can ask to see your Form....

Long story short.... Really only the ATF can ask by Federal Law....

But the locals could cuff and stuff you and it would be up to YOU to prove you own the weapon legally.

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

The RO can ask anyone to leave whenever.... He was ate up like a soup sandwich saying it was "illegal to have the weapon without the paperwork", but he could ask you to leave for any reason.

So a best practice is to carry a COPY of the forms with you. You ARE NOT required to carry the originals AT ANY TIME. And to do that would be stupid since if you lose it, you will have a hard time getting another from VA.

 

[ssmdive]

Accoster


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

Respectfully disagree. While it has to be registered (which if you have read up on the Miller case they should not be, but critical evidence was not presented due to not having representation) it is still a firearm and it is still under the 2nd.... The SC has said that we have to jump through more hoops to own them (reasonable restrictions), but that does not make ownership a "privilege" IMO.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

I have to have my paperwork with me wherever I take the weapon

 

[Rollin Thunder]

For a view to broaden the perspective, Markham Park is a county (Broward) owned park. It's in South Florida, west of Fort Lauderdale and a couple of miles north of the(Miami) Dade/ Broward county lines.
The Range Officer's are current or retired Broward County Sheriff Deputies. They have a training area for the Sheriff's dept. and other local, perhaps Federal LEO's.

I personally don't know the specific law. I do know there could very well have been a ATF agent there, that particular day.
What I will say is, if the op has a firearm that requires BATF documentation/stamps, he should know what is required of him before he takes the firearm anywhere.
As many people have posted, it could have made for a very long day..... regardless of who is right or wrong.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't want to live in a police state where a LEO can violate my rights simply because HE doesn't know the law....

It is not a question of the LEO not knowing the law. It is a simple fact that possession of an NFA weapon is illegal, under federal and most state laws, at least unless the federal requirements have been satisfied. If you're standing there in broad daylight, in front of God and everyone, with a SBR in your hand, you are, prima facie, in violation of the law. That is probable cause for your arrest. The fact that you have your valid NFA paperwork back at your house isn't tattooed on your forehead, nor is it apparent from the gun or anything else in plain sight. The LEO doesn't have to assume that you've got the proper documentation, nor does he have to take your unsupported word for it. On the face of things, you're in violation of the law, and that's good enough to support your arrest.

You of course can defend the charge because you do have the paperwork. That is what is called an affirmative defense. Not the LEO, nor anyone else, has to prove that you don't have the paperwork (among other things, one can't prove a negative). You have to affirmatively show that you are legal. That's why it's called an affirmative defense.

...I worry about the state of things when so many seem quite happy to "make things easier" on themselves by submitting to a violation of their rights and perhaps the law (again speaking generally,) rather than at least engage the authorities in a discussion of whether what they are doing is "right," if not illegal....

This has nothing to do with just making things easier. It's a matter of how things are in real life.

This has nothing to do with submitting to a violation of your rights. On the face of things you are publicly possessing something that in general is illegal. An LEO has no way of knowing that in your case your possession is legal unless you can show him your documents.

...Someone posted earlier that it doesn't matter what YOU think, only what a judge thinks. I've seen some cynical responses, but man... I would submit that what YOU think is exactly what matters....

On the other hand, some of us live in the real world.

...It may not get you out of jail, but this is where men need to decide what matters more, spending some time in the clink, or your principles and values....

If you really want to go to jail rather than carry around a copy of your NFA paperwork, be my guest. But if you are arrested for possession of an NFA weapon, you will ultimately have to produce your paperwork to successfully defend the charges against you. If that's your idea of being a "wolf", knock yourself out.

 

[NESHOOTER]

Willie Lowman
Senior Member


Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Behind a gun
Posts: 699 Have a color copy, front/back of your form 4. Keep it with the gun.

Technically only an ATF agent has the authority to hassle you over your NFA item but that won't stop cops and rangemasters.

Keep a copy with the gun.

sectshun8
Senior Member


Join Date: July 23, 2007
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 206
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






My seller stated for the sake of complications do get a color copy front and back of NFA and mini it 3x5 keep a copy with each of the guns the can will fit on so when you go out you will not have to worry about if you got you paperwork or not. As stated you only want info what the law requires but to best keep it as an dutiful owner why would I want to express to the LEO I know more than he in this matter. What I want is to enjoy my ownership of said rifle,srb.can.c&r, so required or not I want best to be prepared for any and all questions from RO, OR LEO...regardless and once I make them feel at ease then they know I'm not a knucklehead just being an A$$ because I CAN because I am in the right.... I desire the next time the RO OR LEO request infor and paperwork from another person he/she will be better prepared with knowledge of crossing this street before and When I'm civil about it.... it may go better for the next guy that owns something like my toys....

 

[hknut]

Willie that is not completely true. You can mount the suppressor to a weapon in Wa. You just can't shoot it.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't want to live in a police state where a LEO can violate my rights simply because HE doesn't know the law.

Being asked to show proof that you are in legal possession of NFA items doesn't violate your rights because you are under no obligation to comply. Of course, if you don't comply then there is no evidence to refute the charge and you will be arrested and prosecuted.

Being arrested for possessing NFA items (in the absence of any paperwork showing that you have them legally) doesn't violate your rights because possessing NFA items (in the absence of any paperwork showing that you have them legally) is sufficient evidence for a legal arrest and prosecution.