Thread: Read this! Silencer rights imposed!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by clearconscience

I'm thinking it would have been better for you to demand going with your property. If I'm doing something that illegal you should arrest me too. Then you would have further cause for a civil suit against the Law Enforcement Agency.

No. That would have been talking oneself into jail and that is not better. It just would have made things more difficult for him.

Right now, he's the aggrieved party dealing with an officer (giving the benefit of the doubt) who didn't know the law or have the presence of mind to call the BATFE and verify the Form 4. If he had insisted on going with the suppressors, he could have had the trouble of trying to get himself out of jail when booked in on a weapons charge.

Additionally, it could have opened him up to more problems. The more non-compliant you are at the scene, the more the police can ramp it up against you. Your word against several sworn LEOs, the story writes itself. -The side of the road, at night, with an armed individual carrying a badge is not the time or place to demonstrate your expertise in Constitutional law. While the time and place of his encounter with local LE was different, it's not like he was in a position to start strongly asserting his rights without it going terribly wrong for him.

Presently, he's free to roam and make calls and get people moving on his behalf. It's a little bit different when you can't go to work (to earn money) because you're an inmate at the county jail / detention center.

This would make a good test case provided all things said were true and I never take that for granite, nothing personal to the OP.

Originally Posted by clearconscience

Did you ever use the suppressors and would there be evidence of that on them?

He could have used them in a place where they are legal to use or bought them used so evidence of past use is not dispositive.

Originally Posted by clearconscience

Did you ever tell the guys you were speaking with you had planned to use them/ had fired them?

I would hope that he didn't, but I believe his lawyer's advice would be to not answer these types of questions in a public forum. It does not advance his cause at all.

If he never mentioned that kind of thing, it means nothing about what he had done or was going to do. It doesn't exonerate him.

And if he did mention something of the sort, it's damning.

In Washington the police have to witness the silencer being used. Its not enough to have them in proximity to a weapon or even that they have residue in them. They have no case. He MAY get his stuff back intact but he won't be successfully charged with a gross misdemeanor.

you and your friends were just asking to have this happen. bringing silencers that are illegal to use on a firearm to a public shooting spot in the presence of firearms(some of which are threaded to accept said silencers i would ASSUME) is just redundant.

I fixed that one for ya...o' course you what that makes the assumer..

do you expect the cops to believe that you were just going to hold the silencer up by itself and make quiet pew pew noises?

Why not

seriously.....i know the law is ridiculous but its there none the less. this is just a prime example of what can happen When a law enforcement officer doesn't know the law.

I fixed that one too.

next time i would just leave the state to shoot them, or just leave them at home since you are openly inviting arrest, and confiscation of them by bringing them shooting.

Next time you are free to do that....

......even if you're "not" going to actually use them. of course we all know you were never going to break the law by using them. you just brought them along because you could right? sure

I am not quite sure what upsets me more..

The cops that don't know the law

Or..
The shooters that had to call the cops...

Or..
The quote that I fixed.......

If the quoter carries concealed, I hope that they only carry in their own home....not a bank....or a church....or anywhere near a school...or Heaven forbid, a tall building with a vantage point....or a mall....because that would be "redundant"???????

Originally Posted by Wheeler44

I fixed that one for ya...o' course you what that makes the assumer.. Why not I fixed that one too. Next time you are free to do that.... I am not quite sure what upsets me more..

The cops that don't know the law

Or..
The shooters that had to call the cops...

Or..
The quote that I fixed.......

If the quoter carries concealed, I hope that they only carry in their own home....not a bank....or a church....or anywhere near a school...or Heaven forbid, a tall building with a vantage point....or a mall....because that would be "redundant"???????

in order of your responses:
#1: if you own a suppressor and not a threaded firearm, or a QD type that attaches to the muzzle you are an absolute moron. therefore i put good faith in the OP owning both

#2: Why not? WHY NOT? you take a suppressor to a shooting spot and after the cops supposedly confiscate it you keep shooting and you expect someone to believe he was going to hold it up and make fake shooting noises? PUHHHLLLEASE, not even bad cops are that stupid

#3: since you infer that LEO's don't know the law it simply reinforces my point of not taking unnecessary risks that give no actual chance to gain
anything

#4: i live in state that graciously allows us to have our cake and eat it too(legally)

#5: comparing to this to carrying concealed legally is just a redundant comparison. now comparing this to CC'ing on a university campus is a much better comparison. while it is clearly written(at least in the state of oregon) that no state funded organization will interfere with the legalities of CC'ing. most(if not all) universities have there own codes that violate oregon law and restrict a CCW on their campus. now you can CC on campus and risk getting caught, arrested, expelled, and having you firearm confiscated even though the state laws make what you were doing legal, or you can just leave the gun at home and save yourself a headache and a whole load of potential problems that gain you absolutely nothing.



to the OP: for what reason, or what were you going to gain from taking your suppressors shooting with you even if you weren't going to actually shoot them?

Originally Posted by dunes450r

to the OP: for what reason, or what were you going to gain from taking your suppressors shooting with you even if you weren't going to actually shoot them?

Your'e questioning his intent. Intent doesnt matter for this specific infraction. What does matter is that to further a successful prosecution the police officer has to actually witness the crime in action. Since that is not what happened he will not be prosecuted. Since no crime was committed it is also likely he will get his cans back especially since he has retained a lawyer. When the ATF does finally get involved it won't be on the side of the police.

Originally Posted by wired

Your'e questioning his intent. Intent doesnt matter for this specific infraction. What does matter is that to further a successful prosecution the police officer has to actually witness the crime in action. Since that is not what happened he will not be prosecuted. Since no crime was committed it is also likely he will get his cans back especially since he has retained a lawyer. When the ATF does finally get involved it won't be on the side of the police.

i'm not going for intent, or to point a finger at his response to say that he was going to break the, i'm really just curious why he brought them. nothing more nothing less

Originally Posted by dunes450r

i'm not going for intent, or to point a finger at his response to say that he was going to break the, i'm really just curious why he brought them. nothing more nothing less

His intent was to use them. Just like its my intent to use mine when i go shooting. His problem was going to a crowded public shooting area. This is what clear cut and forest service roads are for.

Originally Posted by dunes450r

i'm not going for intent, or to point a finger at his response to say that he was going to break the, i'm really just curious why he brought them. nothing more nothing less

Maybe they live in his range bag and he just threw it in the truck with everything else. I know lots of people want to assume that the OP was going to use them, but how hard is it to imagine a bunch of stuff that gets taken along shooting every time whether it is in Oregon to legally use the suppressors or in Washington where he can't. Have a bag with suppressors, cleaning kits, sight adjustment tools, eyes and ears, targets etc. throw it in the truck along with the guns for the day and go...

Originally Posted by cwegga

Maybe they live in his range bag and he just threw it in the truck with everything else. I know lots of people want to assume that the OP was going to use them, but how hard is it to imagine a bunch of stuff that gets taken along shooting every time whether it is in Oregon to legally use the suppressors or in Washington where he can't. Have a bag with suppressors, cleaning kits, sight adjustment tools, eyes and ears, targets etc. throw it in the truck along with the guns for the day and go...

this makes sense and there isn't anything wrong with it. it just doesn't seem like thats the case, so instead of just thinking he was going to use them i asked how they ended up there, either consciously bringing them along, or as you described

if you own a suppressor and not a threaded firearm, or a QD type that attaches to the muzzle you are an absolute moron.

Again an assumption....there are many good reasons why one could possess one and not the other...

therefore i put good faith in the OP owning both

But not in his intentions.....
I could answer each point with logic.......but I can't make anyone logical.. or less cynical...

About the concealed carry thing........there have been laws broken with firearms in each of the establishments I mentioned.....Why would you carry in a bank, liquor store, mall, university or tall building if you weren't going to shoot someone?....

I know that it is hard to see someone else's point of view....but that don't automatically make yours right....

I'm sure the OP drives to Idaho or Oregon to shoot them... Like I do!

there's multiple reasons for owning a suppressor and not owning a firearm capable of accepting them. same reason a person might own an SBR upper but doesn't yet have an SBR lower- his buddy DOES have an SBR lower. you can assume he's gonna run the upper on his title I lower, but if he's a law-abiding citizen (which most of us are) then no, he wont.

or he might have blown his load on the cans and has to save up a while longer to get an aftermarket threaded barrel. or maybe he's a stickler for barrels and is waiting for availability for the one he wants. or maybe he got broke and SOLD his threaded-barrel pistol, because NFA items are the LAST things you sell when you're broke.

etc, etc, etc. non LEO-civilians make assumptions like this- but cops know better. cops run into waaaay too many situations that might seem like too much of a coincidence, but in fact actually are just coincidence, to make assumptions. so unless this deputy only had 3 months service under his belt, he didn't make any assumptions about the OP's intent... he didn't care. he was just wrong about the law and his level authority on the matter.

I got an idea.. rather than speculate how about the original poster go and get a copy of the report, scan it, and post it? If this happened, there is definitely paper... and the party involved most definitely can get a copy.

Originally Posted by jonathon

I got an idea.. rather than speculate how about the original poster go and get a copy of the report, scan it, and post it? If this happened, there is definitely paper... and the party involved most definitely can get a copy.

I filed for a Public Record Request last week.

Originally Posted by dunes450r

this makes sense and there isn't anything wrong with it. it just doesn't seem like thats the case, so instead of just thinking he was going to use them i asked how they ended up there, either consciously bringing them along, or as you described

I'm not sure any of that matters. I have been reassured by just about everyone except a judge at this point (and a couple of Sheriff's Deupties) that no laws have been broken and there is no grounds to hold our property.

Does't matter why you have them or where. There is no law that says they have to stay at home, or only be taken with you to an out of state event, or even not have them with you in the general area shooting is taking place.

Really shouldn't even matter if we did intend to use them or not or even if they had been used (which was never the issue, some of them have had thousands of rounds through them and).

Still.

Enquiring minds want to know...

WHY did you have your suppressors with you?

From this thread at another forum;

Relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts
have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
legitimate reason. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Fuerschbach,439 F.3d at 1204-6 (holding that a
seizure without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity "would violate the most minimal
Fourth Amendment standard"); Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d at 1228 ("Where no legitimate basis
exists for detaining [an individual], a seizure is plainly unreasonable.");

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=501435&page=2

and this;

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Originally Posted by clearconscience

Before I called a lawyer I would call the ATF they would be more help and get it done faster. Especially if you inquire about the legality and violation of your constitutional rights.

Always call a lawyer first, remember your miranda rights which in part say "anything you say can and will be used against you". Had it been me I would have been on the phone with a lawyer the second the cops let me go but wait I digress. As soon as you were pulled over and the sheriff started asking questions, I would be civil, I would ask if I was under arrest, if not under arrest I'd politely refuse to answer any more questions until I was with legal counsel and get in my car and leave. Let him confiscate anything he wants, ask for a receipt, offer to follow him to the station better yet call a lawyer and have the lawyer meet you at the station. You have rights, exercise your rights or loose them.