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

[nehalemguy]

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".

Ok, so what is your next step if Johnny Law doesn't accept your "no"?

Again, I get what you are saying. Just because I am in possession of a NFA item, it should not put the burden on me to prove the legality of said item. It would be akin to getting randomly pulled over and asked to prove that the car I am driving isn't stolen.

However, we are not talking cars. The reality is many LEOs are not entirely up to speed on NFA rules and allowances, and can get uptight when the discussions involve machine guns and silencers.

Now, I could take the stance of "no", which no matter how calmly or politely you say it, is likely going to raise blood pressures and escalate the situation, or I could simply produce the paperwork, which ATF recommends you carry for this very reason.

I would choose the second option. I would much rather have a friendly interaction where everyone goes away happy as opposed to an argument over rights, rules, and procedures which you may or may not win in the short term. I fight enough battles in my life already.

Now you can call that "lying down" if you want, but I will take that type of lying down as opposed to the face-down-in-the-asphalt type lying down any day.

-E-

 

[Stomper]

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

LOL, no worries…. I do the same thing to my wife when she says that….. 'cuz it's so rare! LMAO!

 

[PiratePast40]

The same affirmative defense applies to standard magazines under 114, or any shotgun that can hold over 10 mini-shells. You can be arrested until and unless you can prove that you possessed the magazines prior to the effective date of 114. It's a Class A misdemeanor with up to 364 days in jail, fines up to $6,250, or both.

Since most magazines don't have serial numbers, you could also be arrested the following week for the very same magazine. As with an NFA item, they can arrest you and charge you as many times as they want for the same item. You are presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence.

 

[MichaelH]

The same affirmative defense applies to standard magazines under 114, or any shotgun that can hold over 10 mini-shells. You can be arrested until and unless you can prove that you possessed the magazines prior to the effective date of 114. It's a Class A misdemeanor with up to 364 days in jail, fines up to $6,250, or both.

Since most magazines don't have serial numbers, you could also be arrested the following week for the very same magazine. As with an NFA item, they can arrest you and charge you as many times as they want for the same item. You are presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence.

What are people doing to prove they owned the magazine(s) prior to the law going into effect? What the process in WA. I have a pile of magazines that might be illegal in OR soon. My thought is a a date stamped photo? I guess we'll have to rread the dumb law carefully if it passes. I'm not optimistic— every third ad I'm seeing on youtube is pro measure 114–I haven't seen one ad against, and I don't want to be the test case on the legality of the magazine capacity ban.

Sorry, I recognize this is off topic.

 

[Kolat]

I typed out a few replies but all were against the rules.

Please stop giving legal advice about that in which you don't know or understand.

 

[ScatPackLife]

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.

So I have only gotten through some of these replies and this right here proves my point. He could arrest you also if he so chose to. They don't have to ask for the paperwork, you have to show it to them so they don't take your property or arrest you. The way OREGON law is written, YOU have to prove to the officer you have paperwork for it. I'm not saying that happens, I'm saying it could.

 

[ScatPackLife]

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.

.

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.

 

[ScatPackLife]

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.

Local PD doesn't have to ask for your paper work, they can just arrest you. But if you show them your paper work they can't arrest you. It's dumb.

 

[ScatPackLife]

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.

(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.

That says it's unlawful if you own any of those.

 

[BrandonQuixote]

(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.

That says it's unlawful if you own any of those.

It also implies if I unknowingly own one, I'm fine.

 

[ScatPackLife]

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.

I disagree.

 

[ScatPackLife]

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.

Im just going to add that I didn't come up with the "affirmative action". It's part of the statute. They wrote it into the law.

 

[Stomper]

I disagree.

It's OK if you disagree with me, I can't force you to be right.

 

[Lazyfaire]

I really do not understand what this thread title even means. Suppressors ARE LEGAL in Oregon. To own and to use for practice or hunting. Like any other NFA item to get one you must go through the ATF and pay the $200 tax (fee). If you are denied you get your money back, eventually.
The federal law says you must carry a stamp, or a copy of the stamp, with you to prove that you have jumped thru the hoops. The law also states that only the ATF can ask for your paperwork. But if you choose to do so it is not illegal for you to show anyone you want.
This thread is just all too complicated and filled with misleading statements, such as the thread title.

 

[asiparks]

I really do not understand what this thread title even means. Suppressors ARE LEGAL in Oregon. To own and to use for practice or hunting. Like any other NFA item to get one you must go through the ATF and pay the $200 tax (fee). If you are denied you get your money back, eventually.
The federal law says you must carry a stamp, or a copy of the stamp, with you to prove that you have jumped thru the hoops. The law also states that only the ATF can ask for your paperwork. But if you choose to do so it is not illegal for you to show anyone you want.
This thread is just all too complicated and filled with misleading statements, such as the thread title.

^^ this^^

OP is full of "I thinks", "I'm pretty sure" and "I believes" and "I asked people opinions" with an almost intentional misreading of the law.

There are enough impending, actual real BS laws to contend with, let's not start inventing new ones just to see some internet drama....

I keep copies of my stamps in my shooting bags. If an RO or LE wants to see them, ( none has in 15 years ), I'm not going to start a who's is bigger argument, I will cheerfully show them simply because I don't have to be a dick and start a scene with everyone I meet.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

.

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.

Doesn't that simply mean to use in defense or offense purposes i.e. on any living creature.. Rather than mere documented, stamped possession as listed by the OP?

I was also under the impression that any NFA items were not to be used in self defense.. admittedly its something I recall hearing/reading but Ive never cited any of the law for it so of course I could be wildly mistaken.

 

[MichaelH]

It also implies if I unknowingly own one, I'm fine.

Most crimes have a mens rea component, meaning you have to intend to do the illegal act (but not knowing if the act is illegal is not a defense). Here they use knowingly to signal intent. So if your buddy left his can in your car, you're in possession of a supressor, but didn't know. Once my convicted felon stepfather—gun rights revoked—purchased a car and we found an old S&W .38 under the seat. If found with it he didn't have intent to possess a firearm that was illegal for him to possess. That doesn't mean you won't be arrested, but the prosecution meeds to prove intent beyond a reasonable.

Yes there are a pile of exceptions and "knew or should have known" crimes. Statutory rape being one, and man slaughter another.

 

[sparky923]

OSP has wandered past me onto the range to set up, barely glancing at my NFA toys, and not caring that they didn't even give me time to clear my weapons. Never thought LEOs wouldn't care that there was an armed Civi standing behind them. I'm very particular who's armed behind me.

NO ONE HAS EVER ASKED TO SEE MY PAPERS. Once you start talking Form1s and Form4s, eyes glass over anyways.

 

[Hueco]

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.

IANAL - but on the advice of lawyers I've spoken to: think twice about storing documents on your phone. Give LEO no reason or excuse to be on your phone.

Everything on that phone is protected…until you hand it over to show the photo of your NFA stamp…at which point it's no different than allowing the search of your car in a traffic stop.

Just my 2c.

 

[Lazyfaire]

Doesn't that simply mean to use in defense or offense purposes i.e. on any living creature.. Rather than mere documented, stamped possession as listed by the OP?

I was also under the impression that any NFA items were not to be used in self defense.. admittedly its something I recall hearing/reading but Ive never cited any of the law for it so of course I could be wildly mistaken.

I agree that its probably not a good idea to CC w/ a can on it. Might be construed that you intended to use it.

Plus, if you think a bathroom stop with a pistol is a pain, imagine it being 6" longer (the pistol I mean!).