Suppressors are illegal in Oregon! Keep your form 4 (or form 1) with your suppressor when you take it out shooting.

[ScatPackLife]

EDIT: remember, this is NWF and NOT legal advice. If you don't know that, now you do. If you need legal advice please consult a lawyer. If you feel the need to tell people they aren't lawyers and not to give legal advice, get off your soap box. (I like the ignore button).

I got into suppressors and decided to do research on the laws. This is how I read and understood the language (this is me paraphrasing):

Suppressors, and other NFA items, are 100% illegal in Oregon. However, if you can prove the suppressor is legally federally registered you cannot be arrested, charged, or prosecuted with a crime. You do that by showing your paperwork to LE if asked. So even though we are breaking state law we aren't liable for the offense (breaking a law but not being charged with it).

That's some grade A garbage politics. Our politicians suck.

It's called affirmative defense:
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense). It's sort of like self defense shootings: you murdered someone and murder is illegal, but since it was self defense you won't be charged. But the suppressor law here is more asinine than the NFA, IMO.

The reason I bring this up is because I kept finding threads about if people should show their tax stamp paperwork to LE or ROs when asked. From what I gathered, federally, we are only required to show the paperwork to ATF or the IRS (this might be incorrect or missing something) and there is no state law forcing us to show LE, but it makes it so they can't arrest you, it's your burden to prove. Keep a copy of the paperwork handy and just show it to them.

Opinions were split and I think where you live and who asked makes a big difference. My opinion of the people who said LE can kick rocks talk big online but probably have never even seen a suppressor in real life and probably only own a Hipoint. They have probably never been harassed by police either. IMO, if LE asks, especially if you're in Oregon, you show them. If you're in a truly free state and the cop is harassing you I would say don't comply, immediately ask to talk to their supervisor. If the cop just wants to be sure your legit and he's being cool, there is no harm and no reason to be a jerk. But if the wad is harassing you, you got other problems, to hell with them.

Talking specifically about Oregon, legally you don't have to show paperwork I think (I could be wrong), but they will [likely] arrest you and you will be showing that paperwork to a judge to stay out of jail and keep your gun rights, Class B felony, and you will be fighting to get your property back, and it might not be in the same condition as when they took it. Just not worth the hassle.

As for a RO: I'm pretty sure you need permission from the property owner to bring NFA items on private property. The RO makes that decision for the range owner. If you want to shoot there show it to them. Otherwise they can, and will, kick you out. If you don't want to give business to a range that asks to make sure people don't bring illegal items to their range, you have every right to not go there. But I think that's just being hard headed because you have a legal obligation to ask them first (you're supposed to ask permission from a property owner before bringing NFA items into their property I believe), The RO is just trying to protect themselves from criminals. Are some ROs just abusing power, maybe but not really in this case, IMO.

Talking about taking your suppressor places, I think that when we go shooting in the woods we are supposed to get permission from the authority runs that particular forest. In Tillamook it's the ODF. I'm not 100% sure about this though. If they have a policy that doesn't require permission that should cover it. Does anyone know if we are supposed to let them know we are bringing NFA items into the forest? I'm really curious. (Legality and what's practiced are different things, I would be no one tells the ODF they are bringing suppressors even if we are supposed to). And reading something on a blog that some guy wrote doesn't count, I'm talking knowing law from reputable sources, lawyer for example.

I'm curious as to others opinions. Let's try to not fight though. We can disagree and be civilized, I think, maybe . If you voice your opinion and someone disagrees, just let them have their opinion even if it's wrong

If you don't believe me about suppressors being completely illegal, read it for yourself.

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.

(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.

(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person's immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.

(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]

ORS 166.272 – Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms & firearms silencers

A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person…

oregon.public.law

(This might belong in the legal section but I thought it would be better suited here so people know why they should show LE paperwork.)

Read More

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I thought you always needed to carry your NFA paperwork with you when in possession of an NFA item anyway in the event of a leo stop.. At least thats what the dude I learned from told me. I havent looked into the laws since then but Ive just always carried a laminated copy with me in the hard shell case Ive got.

The text to me reads more as if you knowingly have an unregistered Suppressor, SBR, AOW, SBS in your possession or commit a crime with it more so than it simply being illegal to own.
My local leo signed off on my SBR.

 

[kmk1012]

Very interesting

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

I have never had anyone ask even LE at the range do not ask I suppose if you act sketch maybe but when you are legit pretty sure it shows. I was shooting a Tikka TX1 suppressed with subs and a LE at the range asked me what kind of Co2 rifle it was lol.

 

[Helocat]

I just scanned copies on Google Drive accessible anytime by me. I also have a photo folder on my phone called "Stamps" with shots of each and every stamp in high res. The originals live in a file in a safe.

 

[Lazyfaire]

I thought you always needed to carry your NFA paperwork with you when in possession of an NFA item anyway in the event of a leo stop.. At least thats what the dude I learned from told me. I havent looked into the laws since then but Ive just always carried a laminated copy with me in the hard shell case Ive got.

The text to me reads more as if you knowingly have an unregistered Suppressor, SBR, AOW, SBS in your possession or commit a crime with it more so than it simply being illegal to own.
My local leo signed off on my SBR.

Take the first page of your approved stamp to a Kinko's. They can reduce the form down to about 3.5" x 3.5". And have them laminate them. I put them on a ring and carry a set in my rifle bag.
You could also scan them into your phone, put them into an album and keep a copy there.

By law, only a federal officer can ask to see your paperwork. An RO? I wouldn't, and tell him that he is breaking a federal law. Lets see if he really wants to see it.
An LEO? I doubt they would ask. A can would probably elicet a normal conversation than trouble.
Frankly, you can show it to anyone you want, but they can't legally ask for paperwork.

 

[kmk1012]

Is a copy of the stamp truly sufficient in the state of OR?

 

[BrandonQuixote]

It says UNLAWFUL possession which alludes to LAWFUL POSESSION.

What this reads like is; You must have the proper documentation for this federally regulated item or you can be charged by state agents.

Under the Annotations tab, you'll find the precedent:
"Nonregistration of weapon is element of crime to be affirmatively proven by state. State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 134 Or App 646, 897 P2d 324 (1995), aff'd 323 Or 275, 917 P2d 494 (1996)"

This gives clarity and context to the state level UNLAWFUL, unregistered possession v.s LAWFUL, documented possession distinction this law its trying to make.

 

[MichaelH]

That's not so controversial given that anyone with a metal lathe, cnc machine, drill press or Amazon account can make an illegal supressor. If you look at the annotations, case law doesn't say having proper registration isn an affirmative defense, rather the failure to have the supressor registered is an ELEMENT of the crime the prosecution has to prove. It's a legal nuance with little impact on whether you're arrested because the police can't verify your legal possession, but a little different than an affirmative defense, which is more like you've actually broken the law but you have a legally recognized good reason to not be convicted (an example is you shoot someone in self-defense you've either committed a crime of assault, manslaughter, or perhaps murder, but public policy says that's ok if you, the defendant can prove your life was being threatened by the "victim" at the time of the shooting). So it's the prosecution's burden to show the can/ machine gun, etc. in your possession is NOT registered regardless of whether you had the paperwork on you at the time of arrest. However, as a practical matter if you've been arrested and charged a prosecutor could argue your failure to produce the paperwork is evidence you aren't in compliance with the law. At the same time I expect the prosecutor would at least need to at least check with the ATF to confirm your can/ machine gun/ etc. isn't registered to actually get a conviction or avoid dismissal pre-trial if, for example, you claimed that you lost your paperwork or it was somehow destroyed. I suspect the language of the statute is intended to provide LEO's with guidance that says "hey, if the possessor has paperwork showing registration that's enough for you to confirm no crime was committed so don't arrest the possessor just because YOU don't like the fact that they have a supressor."

Obviously not having the paperwork on your person might be a federal offense or be a violation of the NFA, but I suspect non-registration is the crime not a lack of having proper paperwork, again because the crime is possession of an unregistered NFA item rather than failing to have one's documents in order.

Off topic, what I think is insane is that people with certain convictions aren't allowed to own body armor. There's no express constitutional right to have body armor, but that seems like something completely unrelated to crime. A felon can get their gun rights restored, but that same felon can't own body armor? Insane!

 

[washagonian]

I think @BrandonQuixote hits the essence of the issue.

It says UNLAWFUL possession which alludes to LAWFUL POSESSION.

I am not an attorney.

My understanding of an "Affirmative Defense" when charged with a crime, is that it differs from a standard defense, in that you ADMIT (i.e., "affirm") to the facts of the situation INSTEAD OF denying some or all of those facts as you would in a standard defense. But then you provide additional facts which, under the law, justify your action.

In the case of NFA items, it is illegal to own them UNLESS you have completed the registration process and paid the appropriate tax, etc. So, if charged with unlawful possession of an NFA item, it is your registration/license that is the "affirmative defense".

"Yes, I was in possession of an NFA regulated firearm. Here is my license/registration that shows that I was in LAWFUL possession of that item."

An affirmative defense has the possible advantage of stopping the legal action from continuing - i.e., you don't have to prove your innocence through a court battle. Instead, you present the additional facts up front (your license/registration) in a situation like this and it (hopefully) stops the process.

By the way, I think that is how a self-defense shooting case would have to proceed. In order to claim "self-defense" in a shooting, you have to ADMIT that you shot someone intentionally. (You can't ACCIDENTIALLY shoot someone in self-defense.) So, you affirm the facts - "I shot that person." But then you have to present evidence that makes the action of shooting that person, legally justified. (This is where attorney Andrew Branca's training is really helpful.).

In a self-defense shooting situation IF YOU ARE CHARGED, then plan on a pretty intense and expensive legal battle. And in western Oregon or Washington, I would anticipate that even if the situation was totally obvious that it was self-defense, you are STILL going to be charged.

In summary: It is NOT illegal to own NFA items in Oregon.

The "affirmative defense" logic is just how the legalese is worded / stated in laws like that.

Anyway, that's my take and I may be 0%, 50% or 100% wrong. But it is an interesting discussion.

Cheers.

 

[jbett98]

"The ATF notes on the ATF Form 1, ATF Form 4 and the ATF Form 5 that, "Proof of Registration: A person possessing a firearm registered as required by the NFA shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to any ATF officer upon request."

 

[Lazyfaire]

Is a copy of the stamp truly sufficient in the state of OR?

Yes a copy suffices as proof of ownership

 

[kmk1012]

Yes a copy suffices as proof of ownership

I'll get my camera out tomorrow, get some mini's ordered too

 

[titsonritz]

Bullchit

 

[MichaelH]

"The ATF notes on the ATF Form 1, ATF Form 4 and the ATF Form 5 that, "Proof of Registration: A person possessing a firearm registered as required by the NFA shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to any ATF officer upon request."

That doesn't seem to mean "retain on your person at all times" and is applicable only to ATF officers, but also don't trust the form for comprehensive legal advice.

 

[Stomper]

I got into suppressors and decided to do research on the laws. This is how I read and understood the language (this is me paraphrasing):

Suppressors, and other NFA items, are 100% illegal in Oregon. However, if you can prove the suppressor is legally federally registered you cannot be arrested, charged, or prosecuted with a crime. You do that by showing your paperwork to LE if asked. So even though we are breaking state law we aren't liable for the offense (breaking a law but not being charged with it).

That's some grade A garbage politics. Our politicians suck.

It's called affirmative defense:
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense). It's sort of like self defense shootings: you murdered someone and murder is illegal, but since it was self defense you won't be charged. But the suppressor law here is more asinine than the NFA, IMO.

The reason I bring this up is because I kept finding threads about if people should show their tax stamp paperwork to LE or ROs when asked. From what I gathered, federally, we are only required to show the paperwork to ATF or the IRS (this might be incorrect or missing something) and there is no state law forcing us to show LE, but it makes it so they can't arrest you, it's your burden to prove. Keep a copy of the paperwork handy and just show it to them.

Opinions were split and I think where you live and who asked makes a big difference. My opinion of the people who said LE can kick rocks talk big online but probably have never even seen a suppressor in real life and probably only own a Hipoint. They have probably never been harassed by police either. IMO, if LE asks, especially if you're in Oregon, you show them. If you're in a truly free state and the cop is harassing you I would say don't comply, immediately ask to talk to their supervisor. If the cop just wants to be sure your legit and he's being cool, there is no harm and no reason to be a jerk. But if the wad is harassing you, you got other problems, to hell with them.

Talking specifically about Oregon, legally you don't have to show paperwork I think (I could be wrong), but they will [likely] arrest you and you will be showing that paperwork to a judge to stay out of jail and keep your gun rights, Class B felony, and you will be fighting to get your property back, and it might not be in the same condition as when they took it. Just not worth the hassle.

As for a RO: I'm pretty sure you need permission from the property owner to bring NFA items on private property. The RO makes that decision for the range owner. If you want to shoot there show it to them. Otherwise they can, and will, kick you out. If you don't want to give business to a range that asks to make sure people don't bring illegal items to their range, you have every right to not go there. But I think that's just being hard headed because you have a legal obligation to ask them first (you're supposed to ask permission from a property owner before bringing NFA items into their property I believe), The RO is just trying to protect themselves from criminals. Are some ROs just abusing power, maybe but not really in this case, IMO.

Talking about taking your suppressor places, I think that when we go shooting in the woods we are supposed to get permission from the authority runs that particular forest. In Tillamook it's the ODF. I'm not 100% sure about this though. If they have a policy that doesn't require permission that should cover it. Does anyone know if we are supposed to let them know we are bringing NFA items into the forest? I'm really curious. (Legality and what's practiced are different things, I would be no one tells the ODF they are bringing suppressors even if we are supposed to). And reading something on a blog that some guy wrote doesn't count, I'm talking knowing law from reputable sources, lawyer for example.

I'm curious as to others opinions. Let's try to not fight though. We can disagree and be civilized, I think, maybe . If you voice your opinion and someone disagrees, just let them have their opinion even if it's wrong

If you don't believe me about suppressors being completely illegal, read it for yourself.

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.

(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.

(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person's immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.

(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]

ORS 166.272 – Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms & firearms silencers

A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person…

oregon.public.law

(This might belong in the legal section but I thought it would be better suited here so people know why they should show LE paperwork.)

If your perceived interpretation were true, the AFT would not issue you a stamp. WA state used to prohibit SBR's and only (relatively) recently made them legal, prior to that WA residents could not get an SBR stamp.

 

[jbett98]

That doesn't seem to mean "retain on your person at all times" and is applicable only to ATF officers, but also don't trust the form for comprehensive legal advice.

Theoretically, only an ATF agent can demand to see your tax stamps, as they're private documents like your IRS tax returns.

 

[MichaelH]

Theoretically, only an ATF agent can demand to see your tax stamps, as they're private documents like your IRS tax returns.

Yeah, ot appears you're correct, owning a registered suppressor in OR isn't illegal, and not providing proof or registration isn't illegal. If you don't show the docs to an OR LEO to show legal possession via registration that LEO has probable cause to arrest you and the DA to charge you. Some police might opt to not arrest, but it wouldn't be unlawful if they did. You won't be convicted because you'll provide proof later as a defense, or the LEA will check registration status, but it will waste a couple days if arrested on the weekend, tie up free funds and keep your can in the authorities hands until the case is resolved. It's your choice to show proof of registration to negate an element of the crime you're being arrested for beforehand, to avoid arrest, but it's not a crime if you can't /don't. Stupidity isn't a crime (not directed at the quoted poster).

Your tax returns are private, but in litigation they aren't if they are relevant to the litigation.

 

[Hawaiian]

I asked the Public Safety Training Center gun range in Clackamas County if NFA firearms, including suppressors were allowed. The Sheriff working the counter advised they were, however he would ask to see the tax stamp to insure it was legally owned. He also said if you did not have the tax stamp with you he would take the item and hold it pending your going home to retrieve the tax stamp.

 

[jbett98]

I asked the Public Safety Training Center gun range in Clackamas County if NFA firearms, including suppressors were allowed. The Sheriff working the counter advised they were, however he would ask to see the tax stamp to insure it was legally owned. He also said if you did not have the tax stamp with you he would take the item and hold it pending your going home to retrieve the tax stamp.

If you handed over your tax stamped item to hold for you while you drive away to retrieve your paperwork, wouldn't that be a violation of NFA laws?