No ATF form, no shooting?

[308]

Holy crapola...is it really that difficult to just bring a copy of your paperwork for the sole purpose of offsetting a question by someone who may be in authority?

Talk about beating a dead horse....I own plenty of NFA items and never had a problem because I'm prepared to NOT be a problem.

It ain't about 'show me your paperz'....and we aren't living in Nazi Germany unless you are an Alex Jones follower

 

[Tornado-Technologies]

Exactly what I said earlier.

Not exactly, what you actually said was:

You'd definitely need to show the papers to LEO if you are in Oregon. Range officer too if it's private property and requested, you may be tresspassing if you don't show. Private/membership club -- you might have a valid argument if you have a contract with them. It would depend on the details.

The statements in bold are incorrect. You can not be arrested for not showing your paperwork to a range officer. You do not need to show your paperwork to a LEO (though it's considered advisable to do so). You were correct on some points, but you need to stop stating that silencers are illegal. The affirmative defense text is legal jargon. Unlike normally when you innocent until proven guilty, with the NFA items in Oregon, the burden of proof lies with you rather than with the State. Basically you're guilty of the crime until you show otherwise. It doesn't mean they're illegal.

 

[telero]

Not exactly, what you actually said was:
The statements in bold are incorrect. You can not be arrested for not showing your paperwork to a range officer. You do not need to show your paperwork to a LEO (though it's considered advisable to do so).

I did make an assumption there, that you didn't want to get arrested (by not showing your proof of federal registration to the LEO) or possibly to be asked to leave the range (if asked to by someone with the authority to do so if you don't want to show them your registration papers).

You were correct on some points, but you need to stop stating that silencers are illegal. The affirmative defense text is legal jargon. Unlike normally when you innocent until proven guilty, with the NFA items in Oregon, the burden of proof lies with you rather than with the State.

Silencers are illegal (in Oregon) for those that don't have the proof of federal registration. That is a fact, that is what I stated. Just because the state gives you an opportunity to provide an affirmative defense doesn't make subsection 1 not exist.

There may be states where there is no actual law restricting the legality of a silencer whatsoever. In that case you wouldn't be required to provide any evidence of them being legal due to any sort of exception because there is no restricting law to begin with.

Basically you're guilty of the crime until you show otherwise. It doesn't mean they're illegal.

You may just think it's semantics, but it's a very important distinction. I would hate for someone to read or be told told by someone that silencers are outright legal in Oregon (maybe because they read it on a forum or heard it from a dealer), and that there would never be any reason (not obligation) to show proof of registration to anyone other than the ATF (such as local LEO) only to find out the hard way that they should have kept their paperwork with them.

 

[Burt Gummer]

It ain't about 'show me your paperz'....and we aren't living in Nazi Germany

Give it time.

I just carry all copies in my glovebox and range bag. I didn't pay $200 for each item and wait seven months not to show off my little stamp! lol

Been everywhere with SBRs, suppressors, around LEOs at TCGC, etc and no one gives a damn; never hassled, never asked. That could be because I don't appear to be an idiot, or because I am so handsome, who knows.

 

[adipose]

You are making this way to complicated; especially in the wording. Silencers are legal in oregon; as long as you apply and are approved on the correct NFA form before possession.

Having people saying that silencers and machine are illegal; leads to a bad perception not needed.

In fact; if you go to the chart which shows the states that you are allowed to own them; Oregon is one of them.

Quote:
Silencers are illegal (in Oregon) for those that don't have the proof of federal registration. That is a fact, that is what I stated. Just because the state gives you an opportunity to provide an affirmative defense doesn't make subsection 1 not exist.

There may be states where there is no actual law restricting the legality of a silencer whatsoever. In that case you wouldn't be required to provide any evidence of them being legal due to any sort of exception because there is no restricting law to begin with.



You may just think it's semantics, but it's a very important distinction. I would hate for someone to read or be told told by someone that silencers are outright legal in Oregon (maybe because they read it on a forum or heard it from a dealer), and that there would never be any reason (not obligation) to show proof of registration to anyone other than the ATF (such as local LEO) only to find out the hard way that they should have kept their paperwork with them.[/QUOTE]

You are making this way to complicated; especially in the wording. Silencers are legal in oregon; as long as you apply and are approved on the correct NFA form before possession.

Having people saying that silencers and machine are illegal; leads to a bad perception not needed.

In fact; if you go to the NFA chart which shows the states that you are allowed to own them; Oregon is one of them.

 

[telero]

You are making this way to complicated; especially in the wording. Silencers are legal in oregon; as long as you apply and are approved on the correct NFA form before possession.

Having people saying that silencers and machine are illegal; leads to a bad perception not needed.

In fact; if you go to the chart which shows the states that you are allowed to own them; Oregon is one of them.

The wording is what matters when it comes to the law. There is a difference between something being legal (no law exists making it illegal), and a law existing making something illegal, even if there are exceptions to that law.

Also, please link to the chart you're refering to. I've cited my sources (Oregon Revised Statutes), please cite yours.

 

[Burt Gummer]

To live in the 1800s when life was simple.

 

[308]

To live in the 1800s when life was simple.

Unless your kid got polio, etc.

 

[dunes450r]

Telero, get a life.

that is all

 

[phatdoughnut]

wow this thread really took off after I left. Basically you are a criminal until you can prove that you are not.

 

[The B]

wow this thread really took off after I left. Basically you are a criminal until you can prove that you are not.

The best explanation yet in this whole thread.

 

[Nwcid]

Since apparently the people that deal in NFA items and that ones that own them know less them then a guy that read a little online I sent an email to OFF. I believe they have "in house" legal folks that should be able to clear some of this up.

Last time I checked the US which OR is part of still worked under innocent until proven guilty but I guess I could be wrong.........

But I am a French model.......

 

[The B]

Since apparently the people that deal in NFA items and that ones that own them know less them then a guy that read a little online I sent an email to OFF. I believe they have "in house" legal folks that should be able to clear some of this up.

Last time I checked the US which OR is part of still worked under innocent until proven guilty but I guess I could be wrong.........

But I am a French model.......

It's exactly what the law says, dude. No interpretation needed....

Illegal, unless you have documentation. Can arrest you for possession, unless you have documentation.



It's the green key, bro. Press it.

 

[The B]

Owning NFA items doesn't qualify you any kind of authority on the topic.

 

[Swedish K]

OK - here is the dummied down version - the law says that it is A FELONY to be in illegal possession of an NFA item or to possess an illegal NFA item - clear as mud? Lets face it - laws are written as confusing as possible to keep attorneys in business.

Lets face it - the wording of section one is just asking for lawsuits against departments for wrongful arrest when an uneducated officer reads section one and doesn't bother with the rest of the law. I must say I did get a kick out of the "knowingly possesses" part - Um no officer I thought that was a barrel weight to reduce muzzle rise.... technically by the word of the law you have to knowingly possess said item...

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Back during the Flintstone Era, when I was in my first year of Criminal Justice patrol procedures class, a wise old central precinct Captian of the Portland Police Bureau leaned over the podium and asked us, "If you come to a four-way stop and the guy on your left isn't stopping, should you go ahead and pull into the intersection?"

One of my classmates thought it'd be OK, since he'd legally have the right-of-way.

"Then you could be dead right, couldn't you?"

Taking a page from the Boy Scouts, Be Prepared. Think of the difficulty of patiently showing a laminate of your NFA form to some Little Tin God (or uninformed person) vs. the hassle of going before a judge with those same forms the day after you bond out of jail, or are released after several wasted hours.

We can be technically correct but lose in the end because of the hassle and cost of the choices we make. Carry your laminated NFA Form on a lanyard with your club badge and have about 5 others strategically located (range bag, car, wallet, gun case, etc.). A little prep and a few bucks at Kunkos or Office Wax and they can read 'em and move on.

 

[Hank1215]

I always tell people that suppressors and fully automatic weapons are legal to possess in Oregon as long as someone has the federal paperwork with tax stamp stating that a person may possess said item. Saying that they are illegal in Oregon may lead someone to believe they could not own a NFA item even with the appropriate paperwork

 

[The B]

I always tell people that suppressors and fully automatic weapons are legal to possess in Oregon as long as someone has the federal paperwork with tax stamp stating that a person may possess said item. Saying that they are illegal in Oregon may lead someone to believe they could not own a NFA item even with the appropriate paperwork

Do you think anyone would ever just say "Yea, those are illegal," and not explain further? People, especially people that would be talking about NFA guns in the first place, love to impart knowledge.

 

[captqc]

Lets face it folks, all of this paperwork and tax stamp stuff is a big pain in the caboose! Case in point, I have a AR-15 with a 10.5" barrel $200 to the feds, 8 weeks wait for the paperwork, copy rolled up and on-board. Next I get a wild hair and buy a 9mm upper and a 9mm can, another $$200 to the feds and this time a 4 month wait for the paperwork, copy of that one rolled up and on-board. Finally I get a can for the 5.56mm for another $$$200 to the feds, this time its five months wait and once again a copy of the paperwork rolled up and on-board. Dang rifle now weights 10 pounds from all of the paperwork just in case someone feels the need to see if I'm stupid enough to pay the feds $$$$600 extra dollars for my special toys.

 

[korntera]

I have had multiple LEO stop by when firing my suppressed MG and other toys and I have always told them(state/county LEO only) that if they would like to see my paperwork I will gladly show them. Yes I know that only the ATF can legally ask but I would rather not have the issue and to date, NOT ONCE have I had to show paperwork, even the time I was held at gunpoint by the sherrifs office after they heard MG fire and then I drove up the road(has its own thread you can search for it) once I told them yes I have an MG yes that was me firing they didn't ask for paperwork they just let us go on by(they were also up investigating some car theft and this was why they claimed they were on alert when they heard my 30 round mag dumps)