Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 1,265
- Reactions
- 1,253
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.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.
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.