Kicked off range for not having NFA paperwork...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let clear something up. I DO understand how the law works as it is written. I understand I WILL be approached and asked about a NFA weapon, and when I am approached if I don't have my paperwork with me I WILL be arrested.

I do understand that.

I believe its WRONG. The reason the registry exists is listing weapons that I can LEGALLY own.

The reason I believe that is in all of the scenarios we have put forth, ONLY the scenario of gun ownership is a protected constitutional right. EVERTHING else mentioned is a privilege. Driving a car is a choice, its necessity is one that the owner of the car perceives. When you are exercising a privilege, you have made the choice to submit any information required. Since it is not a right you have the CHOICE not to provide information and not to take advantage of the privilege. My example. I went to buy a home a couple of years back. Part of the mortgage application is a from allowing the federal gov't to perform a background check on me. This is part of the Patriot Act. The gov't wants to determine if I will in fact use the money for the purchase of a home, or if I am going to send the money to finance terrorism. Since home ownership is NOT a constitutional right, but a privilege, I submitted to the check. I do not believe that there was anything wrong in doing so. As I said. If you take advantage of a privilege, you must be prepared to submit to the rules surrounding that privilege. However gun ownership is a constitutional right. Asking for information about that gun is wrong, unless you are in the act of committing a crime, or perceived as a threat to the general population.
I know this isn't how state laws are written, and I know that isn't how it works, but that is how it SHOULD work.
 
And it should be noted that this thread was started due to a RA who "knew" the law and stated that splashy was a felon for not having his paperwork with the firearm. Splash was concerned because for all he knew, it might be true.... And for some damn reason he didn't want to listen to his much smarter and better looking buddy.

Splashboy started this thread to get an answer to that question.... and he has.

The thread has drifted.... But that's not really bad, it was/is a fun discussion. And I am willing to bet someone has learned something that they didn't know before.... Such as not needing the original forms, it is not illegal to not have the forms...ect.

I think some people might have gotten the wrong idea.... I don't doubt how the current situation *IS*.... I just think it is a damn shame that most people seem to think the mere possession of a title II item is worthy of possible arrest.
 
The bottom line:

1. You are not breaking the law by not keeping keep the NFA paperwork with the NFA item.

2. It's a very good idea to keep the NFA paperwork with the NFA item to avoid problems

3. The range officer was justified in kicking someone off the range who doesn't have the proper NFA paperwork. Private organization, private rules - it could require more than a minimal compliance with NFA laws, i.e. you must have the NFA paperwork to bring NFA items to the range.
 
I think some people might have gotten the wrong idea.... I don't doubt how the current situation *IS*.... I just think it is a damn shame that most people seem to think the mere possession of a title II item is worthy of possible arrest.
Click to expand...
Well if its one thing I haven't figured, it's how you can make an argument supporting the statement that you shouldn't be arrested over possession of a title II item without the paperwork showings its legality...
First off, I'd agree that title II items should no longer be criminalized by getting rid of the NFA and all applicable state laws. Failing that, I totally agree that a searchable database could be used to check title II weapons on the spot as cptsplashdown mentioned. That's a very good idea. But failing that, there is nothing to prove that the title II would be legally owned other than your documentation. Not only is it probably cause for an arrest, but it should be probably cause for arrest until those misguided laws are taken off the books.
 
The NFA is really a stupid law. The problem with having a searchable data base is that the entire premise of NFA is to collect a simple transfer tax. It's nothing more than a stamp tax. I guess the legislators who drafted and voted on this POS law figured the only way it would pass contitutional scrutiny was by making it a transfer tax regulated by the treasury.
 
Taxing them was the only way it could pass the constitutional scrutiny at the time. I suppose later on, they figured, and seem to have been correct in their assumption, that the BS fed the general population from 34 on to 68, and then for sure in 86, would (and did) allow them to ignore it altogether.

If it were really about tax, it would be an open registry.
 
If it were really about tax, it would be an open registry.
Click to expand...

If it was really just about tax there would be no photographs, no fingerprints, no CLEO sign-off, no restrictions on transporting them between states - just a revenue stamp, like the ones they put on liquor bottles.
 
I think all 50 states have a statute stating the effect that SBS, SBR, MG, silencers, etc. are illegal to possess. As for the states that do allow one or more of those items, the statutes are usually written "it is illegal to possess UNLESS properly registered with ATF." So by the way the statute is worded, then someone can be assumed to be breaking the law UNLESS proof is given that they are not.
Click to expand...

Not all states say that. FL only mentions silencers to define them. WA only mentions them to ban use. TX bans possession, but makes registration an affirmative defense to prosecution. I have not read all of the states title 2 weapons laws, but they vary a lot.

Ranb
 
Pay a lawyer to create a Living Trust. No more CLEO, fingerprints or photos. Very fast form approvals.
Click to expand...

I know folks who have done this. It seems to work. But, I'm skeptical of it because in the back of my mind all it takes is one of BATFE's "special" rulings to nullify that.

BATFE is real good at ignoring the law and simply restating it in the form of rulings to make the law whatever it wants it to be. Examples: catagorizing ordinary 12 gauge shotguns as DD's in the 1990's; labling the Akins Accelerator as an "illegal machinegun" eventhough the gun fires one shot per trigger pull.

I never liked or trusted Janet Reno. How do you feel about Eric Holder?
 
Skans ... But, I'm skeptical of it because in the back of my mind all it takes is one of BATFE's "special" rulings to nullify that.
Click to expand...

And......somehow an individual registration NFA will never have a chance of a "special ruling"?

Federal law clearly allows the use of a trust in regard to NFA firearms.



Way too much BATF paranoia.
 
Federal law clearly allows the use of a trust in regard to NFA firearms.

Way too much BATF paranoia.
Click to expand...

Federal law also clearly defines a semi-automatic as one trigger pull per round fired. That didn't stop BATFE. Someone made a "trigger activator" type device that actually worked, and BATFE simply took the position that it was illegal, demanding that everyone who had them turn in their springs. I suspect that if someone came up with a gat trigger device that worked too good, then BATFE would outlaw those as well.

Regardless, State law could also prohibit the use of Trusts, or impose additional CLEO sign-off requirements even for Trusts, regardless of what NFA/GCA says.

I'd use a trust to purchase a can if I wanted one - not much to lose there. And, if I absolutely had to use one to get a machine gun, I'd probably do that as well. But, I can get a CLEO sign-off for machine guns - it's just a PITA, that's all. I'm not saying "don't use Trusts, LLC's, or Corps." All I'm saying is that if you can get a CLEO sigh-off, then there's no need to bother with this. And, there may be some reasons not to go the Trust route if you can get a CLEO sign-off.
 
Trustees or officers can be in control of NFA items held by the trust or corp.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this.

The advantage I see is if I have a heart attack at the range and am rushed to the hospital, my wife wont be committing multiple felonies by taking my(our, the trust's) silencers home.
 
I belive with a trust you can list "Officers" of the trust/corporation, and they can also be in possession of your Class 3's? Correct?
Click to expand...

Trusts have "Trustees" and Corporations have officers. It would be the Trustees that would have the right to possess the machinegun. I'm not entirely sure what would give a Trustee the right to shoot it, though. What purpose could it possibly serve the Trust for a Trustee to fire a machinegun owned by the Trust? If anything, it would devalue the gun, slightly, and Trustees are generally charged with the requirement of trying to enhance the value of the contents of the Trust.

Just saying - I don't really trust trusts.
 
Skans Quote:
Trusts have "Trustees" and Corporations have officers. It would be the Trustees that would have the right to possess the machinegun. I'm not entirely sure what would give a Trustee the right to shoot it, though. What purpose could it possibly serve the Trust for a Trustee to fire a machinegun owned by the Trust? If anything, it would devalue the gun, slightly, and Trustees are generally charged with the requirement of trying to enhance the value of the contents of the Trust.

Just saying - I don't really trust trusts.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have any idea of what a trust actually is or does.

You need to go here:http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/

excerpt from above link
Co-owners and Authorized Users

If an individual purchases Title II firearms then he or she is the only one permitted to use or have access the firearms. Many people incorrectly believe that it is ok to let others use their NFA firearms when in their presence. However, the NFA would consider this a transfer and be a violation of the law. When your spouse or someone else knows the combination to your firearms safe, you may be violating the restriction on letting others access or possess your firearms. Improper possession through constructive possession is a form of unauthorized possession, and a violation of the NFA.

If you use an NFA Firearms Trust to purchase Title II firearms, you can designate additional owners and authorized users. You can eliminate the risk associated with an improper constructive possession with a simple signature authorizing that person to be in legal possession of the items. This can help protect you and your family from the penalties of violating the NFA.
Click to expand...
 
But in any case, a trust doesn't have officers. A trust has trustees.

A trust is not an entity. It is a device for owning things (including money). In such an arrangement, there are one or more natural or artificial persons (a trustee can be a corporation, and a corporation has officers) called trustees who legally own things for the benefit of someone else, called a beneficiary. The rights and obligations of trustees and beneficiaries are written out in a document called a trust or a trust indenture or a trust document. The person who creates the trust is called a settlor, a trustor or a grantor.

Of course the trust document has to be carefully written to structure the trust in a manner appropriate for the type of things the trustees will own, the purposes and goals of the trust arrangement and applicable state and federal laws. And so an NFA firearms trust would need to be uniquely structured to properly serve its purposes and goals.
 
If an individual purchases Title II firearms then he or she is the only one permitted to use or have access the firearms. Many people incorrectly believe that it is ok to let others use their NFA firearms when in their presence. However, the NFA would consider this a transfer and be a violation of the law. When your spouse or someone else knows the combination to your firearms safe, you may be violating the restriction on letting others access or possess your firearms. Improper possession through constructive possession is a form of unauthorized possession, and a violation of the NFA.

If you use an NFA Firearms Trust to purchase Title II firearms, you can designate additional owners and authorized users. You can eliminate the risk associated with an improper constructive possession with a simple signature authorizing that person to be in legal possession of the items. This can help protect you and your family from the penalties of violating the NFA.
Click to expand...

Let me guess - this comes from some lawyer who sells trusts for NFA purchases. What a load of BS - if my wife knows the combination of my safe, which holds my registered machinegun, she and I are violating the NFA??? Or, if I let someone else shoot it in my presence, that's a violation of the NFA???

Yeah - I'm going to be buying one of those trusts from whatever lawyer said this crap over this kind of scare tactic BS!

Look, it's one thing if you need to use Trusts, etc. because your CLEO won't sign off on your Form 4, but I ain't buying this other stuff. Not one bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top