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

[MichaelH]

I think @BrandonQuixote hits the essence of the issue.


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.

You're mostly correct, but you can be arrested for anything the LEO wants to say, true or not. If there is a crime the prosecution has the burden of proving each element of the crime. If the defendant has an affirmative defense—and proof wasn't sufficient to get the police to not arrest and the prosecutor to not charge or dismiss then the defendant has the burden of proof to show he/she is entitled to the defense. What showing NFA registration documents does is show the LEO that an element of the crime was not/is not being committed and therefore there is no crime. Same effect potentially, just that Oregon law dictates to LEOs that proof of registration (assuming name and registerd item match and LEO isn't worried about fake docs) shows that no crime occurred.

What's messy about this is that LEOs have alot of discretion on whether to arrest and charge someone that they think may be committing a crime. If you're some funny city kid wearing vans and having tattoos or a mohawk out in the woods with a gun and a supressor a local Sheriff's Deputy might treat you differently if you don't have the proper paperwork than a guy s/he knows from the community who doesn't have registration docs. That might be practical in that if the Deputy lets the outsider go it might be harder to then investigate if a crime has occurred and should be charged, but s/he can follow up with a local later and charge if necessary.

 

[MichaelH]

I 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?

The range he's discussing is run by the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office and staffed by LEOs (of some capacity), so that probably doesn't count as a transfer. My guess is it's preliminary investigation of a crime and seizure of an (potentially) illegal item by law enforcement, rather than an illegal transfer.

 

[salmon creek gary]

How quickly affirmative defense stops "the process" can depend mostly on the official attitude of the state (which will be reflected, of course, by the officers you might encounter). I can't speak to NFA items, but I can go off-topic to use a parallel example. LEOSA (stop here if not interested).

LEOSA credentials/certification covers nationwide concealed carry by active & retired LEOs, but it is not really a "permit" or a "license". Instead, it is an affirmative defense. In some (hopefully most) states, officers will - once shown LEOSA creds - allow you & your firearm on your way if you haven't done something so stupid it can't be ignored. A few other states, it is commonly known, will invariably & obtusely push the issue to the court for a decision (the on-scene officer has no official latitude, so discretion would be at the officer's personal risk). In those states, LEOSA creds may ultimately prevent a lengthy stay in the iron hotel, but - meanwhile - they do nothing to protect you from the expense of bond & legal representation and the personal inconvenience of court appearance(s).

That issue doesn't worry me when I travel in free states, but I do not and will not, visit NY and NJ. Although I go to HI occasionally, it's always been sans firearm (hate to fly with one, and it's a prohibitively long & wet automobile trip). I even feel like I'm pushing my luck a bit when bumming around in OR and CA, so I carefully adhere to 'concealed means really, really concealed'.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

I 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?

I don't see how anyone would be exempt except for Jesus and maybe the pope because he is in good with Jesus lol.

 

[BrandonQuixote]

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 think I'm handing over my can and going home to get my permission slip, you're out of your fcking mind. If they found crack on me, they'd say it's mine because it's under my care, custody and control. Somehow the suppressor isn't?

 

[Stomper]

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 the officer 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.

It's called an, "affirmative defense".

 

[Stomper]

I don't see how anyone would be exempt except for Jesus and maybe the pope because he is in good with Jesus lol.

Not if either of them owe the $200 tax stamp, they aren't!

 

[SCARed]

Tell me you're new to the NFA game without telling me you're new to the NFA game.

 

[MichaelH]

It's called an, "affirmative defense".

If you say so. I say it's disproving an element of the crime. There's a difference but for practical purposes it's the same result.

 

[MichaelH]

It's called an, "affirmative defense".

Know what? I'm wrong. You're right. The fact of registration is the affirmative defense (though it's odd to be called that IMO) regardless of possession of NFA paperwork.

My careless reading, and getting distracted with the caselaw which calls the registration an element of the crime. Apologies!

 

[Hawaiian]

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?

If you think I'm handing over my can and going home to get my permission slip, you're out of your fcking mind. If they found crack on me, they'd say it's mine because it's under my care, custody and control. Somehow the suppressor isn't?

As an LEO, would he not be allowed to confiscate the suppressor since you were not in possession of the required tax stamp? Also, could he place you under arrest?

 

[Stomper]

Know what? I'm wrong. You're right. The fact of registration is the affirmative defense (though it's odd to be called that IMO) regardless of possession of NFA paperwork.

My careless reading, and getting distracted with the caselaw which calls the registration an element of the crime. Apologies!

Say that first part again!!

 

[BrandonQuixote]

As an LEO, would he not be allowed to confiscate the suppressor since you were not in possession of the required tax stamp? Also, could he place you under arrest?

Why would you let them?

 

[RedneckRampage]

Why would you let them?

I would love to watch you NOT let them, once they decided they were gunna do what they were gunna do.

 

[BrandonQuixote]

Im here for a good time, not a long time.

I like the implication that they would force their will on me at gun point for not producing the paperwork that they, for a fact, have access to. mUh tHiN bLuE LiNe.

 

[Lazyfaire]

The range he's discussing is run by the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office and staffed by LEOs (of some capacity), so that probably doesn't count as a transfer. My guess is it's preliminary investigation of a crime and seizure of an (potentially) illegal item by law enforcement, rather than an illegal transfer.

Im not sure that that would be OK, as you say its yours and you leave it with a stranger??? If he wants to arrest you in order to take possession of your weapon, then there is that. But he would have to have probable cause to just take the weapon. At a minimum I'd take the lower with me.

 

[nehalemguy]

Why would you let them?

I get what you are saying, but it also seems like a fast track to a taser.

Myself, I keep reduced size copies stuffed in the pistol grip compartment that HK so conveniently provides.

 

[BrandonQuixote]

I get what you are saying, but it also seems like a fast track to a taser.

Myself, I keep reduced size copies stuffed in the pistol grip compartment that HK so conveniently provides.

View attachment 1302444

In order to be walked on, you must first be lying down. I don't see it as escalating or combative. Just a simple "no".

 

[MichaelH]

Im not sure that that would be OK, as you say its yours and you leave it with a stranger??? If he wants to arrest you in order to take possession of your weapon, then there is that. But he would have to have probable cause to just take the weapon. At a minimum I'd take the lower with me.

Not having the paperwork and having a can IS probable cause under the OR law—possession of a scilencer is illegal, unless…I'd view it as LEO assuming you're not lying that you have your tax stamp but not with you, and doing you a favor by NOT arresting you and agreeing to give it back to you once you can verify registration. We can argue about how dumb it is that supressors are subject to the NFA, but owning one without registration is illegal under federal and state law. Of course they're going to take it, and if you demand they return it or arrest you, I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige. It'd make sense to ask for a receipt with model and serial number though and have all officer contact info just in case.

 

[MichaelH]

Say that first part again!!

If I'm wrong I have no problem saying it.