Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:28 am


Rules Brads Guns Rainier Arms McCallen Killer Innovations Fessleman Firearms
WGO Chat Room Rehv Arms Vantage Reloading
Gear Fortis WCA 2A Ind. Pintos WAC
Calendar




Reply to topic  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 Who can demand to see your stamps and under what conditions? 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Olympia, WA
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 34003
Real Name: Dan
CommTillItHtz wrote:
...if a LEO asks for you document and you refuse.


This here is the root of the discussion. Since you are a LEO, does a person at a range shooting an SBR constitute RAS for you to investigate if it is illegal? If the person just doesn't have paperwork on them, what's the SOP? Are you able/willing to detain a person with an SBR just because a person has an SBR to investigate if it's a legal SBR?

How is this any different than a person who refuses to identify during an FI? Yes, in most cases you need to identify yourself to the LEO, but you are in no obligation to provide ID. Like if a person is walking down the street OC'ing. Sure, you'll get a MWAG call, and some departments will respond and make contact... but in reality, in WA, there is no requirement for the person to ID themselves.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:21 pm
Profile WWW
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 4717
Massivedesign wrote:
CommTillItHtz wrote:
...if a LEO asks for you document and you refuse.


This here is the root of the discussion...


+1

You're not legally entitled to see those documents. It's not like a drivers license while someone is driving

If you hold someone for not providing those documents then you are illegally detaining them

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: West Richland
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012
Posts: 23
Real Name: Thomas
Massivedesign wrote:
CommTillItHtz wrote:
...if a LEO asks for you document and you refuse.


This here is the root of the discussion. Since you are a LEO, does a person at a range shooting an SBR constitute RAS for you to investigate if it is illegal? If the person just doesn't have paperwork on them, what's the SOP? Are you able/willing to detain a person with an SBR just because a person has an SBR to investigate if it's a legal SBR?

How is this any different than a person who refuses to identify during an FI? Yes, in most cases you need to identify yourself to the LEO, but you are in no obligation to provide ID. Like if a person is walking down the street OC'ing. Sure, you'll get a MWAG call, and some departments will respond and make contact... but in reality, in WA, there is no requirement for the person to ID themselves.


In a bubble, I'm sure most cops wont care that you have and SBR if you are acting rationally. In my experience, any call we get involving an NFA item, there is more to it that just possessing, IE the example about the non-engraved lower.

If you are asking about me personally, I cannot give you a specific answer based on a general question. If I feel everything is on the up-and-up, then there is no need for me to look any further. I'm a small government kind of guy, I don't think .gov should get into business it doesn't need to be in. However, if it rises to my attention, it gets all of my attention, if that makes sense.

The initial question was, I believe, who can demand. Any LEO with reasonable suspicion can demand, based on the RCW that LC cited, as it is written that NFA items are illegal unless they have written documentation. As I cited, this is written in a consistent manner as Schedule II narcotics. I have little experience with NFA-approved item negative contacts, mainly, I think, cause im in Easter WA. I have pulled plenty of illegal SBR and SBS's off the street from gang-type individuals, with prior felony convictions, and no paperwork. Comparatively, Ive had tons of experience with illegal narcotics, which I only refer to because the laws are written similarly. I think it would would be easy for an LEO, who felt he needed to, to articulate that based on training and experience, that refusal to display required paperwork that make an otherwise illegal item legal, would constitute probable cause. Again, same as a baggie of Schedule II narcotics.

As far as refusing a FI? Usually there is not the baseline illegal item involved. I had a kid who matched a description of a shoplifter the other week, in the area, who was contacted. I didn't even asked for his ID, but had he refused, no big deal, because I only had reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. We brought the witness over, confirmed he was not involved, and thanked him for his time.

Open carry is different, as the way it is written in law is that carrying is illegal ONLY under certain circumstances, IE concealed, school grounds.....I open carry all the time off duty, even when I lived in Tacoma. Never been hassled by coppers, just antis. On patrol, I keep driving by. Our department has a policy that we respond to call calls, MWG, barking dog, it doesn't matter. Response depends on observation. Known felon is gonna be responded to differently, than Joe Shmoe open carrying while grocery shopping.

The difficult thing with a question like this is it is asked vaguely, and then everyone has specifics in their mind that are not answered by the response, and therefore are justified incorrectly. Should a LEO randomly be at the range doing NFA checks? No, that doesn't sound right. However, if one is at can he demand your papers? Sure, they are just words. Do you have to provide them? No. Can you be detained if said officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, deems there is reasonable suspicion? Yep. Might your firearm be seized and you placed in handcuffs? Yep. And, if, though investigation, having been done because the possessor didn't want to show paperwork which apparently they had, it is determined that the possessor legally possessed the firearm, would one be successful in a civil lawsuit? Likely not.

I hope I don't come off like a jerk, but I would feel terrible if someone with an NFA item thought they could get away in a gray area based on responses of this forum, thinking they would be simply ignored if they refused to provide documentation to Law Enforcement. I don't feel that would be the case.

I have plenty of experiences, which I'm happy to share through PM or phone call, which lead me to believe this would stand.

Bottom line, I think LC has the right read on the RCW. LE can ask, you don't have to provide, but they could have the legal authority to detain and seized items depending on the situation.

Again, not a lawyer, just a schmuck who tries his best.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:32 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Seattle
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016
Posts: 692
Real Name: Eric
CommTillItHtz wrote:
Bottom line, I think LC has the right read on the RCW. LE can ask, you don't have to provide, but they could have the legal authority to detain and seized items depending on the situation.

Again, not a lawyer, just a schmuck who tries his best.


In such a situation where an LEO wants to escalate to detain and seize. What would be the charge? Possession of an illegal weapon?


Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:17 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma, WA
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 6308
CommTillItHtz wrote:
...if one is at can he demand your papers? Sure, they are just words. Do you have to provide them? No. Can you be detained if said officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, deems there is reasonable suspicion? Yep. Might your firearm be seized and you placed in handcuffs? Yep. And, if, though investigation, having been done because the possessor didn't want to show paperwork which apparently they had, it is determined that the possessor legally possessed the firearm, would one be successful in a civil lawsuit? Likely not....

Bottom line, I think LC has the right read on the RCW. LE can ask, you don't have to provide, but they could have the legal authority to detain and seized items depending on the situation.

[/quote]

Thank you.
:bow: :thumbsup2:

_________________
I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:39 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: RENTON
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011
Posts: 10990
Real Name: John
So....we have no "Cite", but we have the input of two LEO's and an Attorney.
Less an ATF agents input, I'm good with that.
YMMV

_________________
Mr. Q wrote: so basically, if you have to smoke some asshole, make sure they become fertilizer and then Bounce? got it.

NRA Member/RSO
SAF 5 Year Donor
GOA Member


Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Renton, WA
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011
Posts: 38223
Real Name: Steve
I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.

Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?

I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.

_________________
Steve

Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition
Please support the organizations that support all of us.

Leave it cleaner than you found it.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Deckerville
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016
Posts: 1493
Real Name: Rob
Let's hear from a defense atty.

The whole situation is ripe for abuse. It all hinges on how LEO feels that day and such arbitrary selective enforcement should be plenty of grounds to invalidate any charges. Federal matters get dismissive attention in terms of pot and immigration enforcement outright defiance - yet another example of capricious selective enforcement.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:52 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 6158
Real Name: Curtis
Of course LE is going to argue that LE has legitimate RAS just at the mere sighting of what they believe is a firearm in a highly controlled class of weapons. Why would they voluntarily limit their own power? But that is EXACTLY what this thread is about...what, exactly, grants LE (and which departments/levels) the ability to detain until stamps and paperwork are produced? No offense to the LE members on this board (in fact, I found your contributions insightful, so thank you for that and for your service), but the fact that LE says mere possession is RAS to detain and investigate (demand to see stamps) is not good enough for me. I am still holding out for something more official.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:09 am
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma, WA
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 6308
Guns4Liberty wrote:
Of course LE is going to argue that LE has legitimate RAS just at the mere sighting of what they believe is a firearm in a highly controlled class of weapons. Why would they voluntarily limit their own power? But that is EXACTLY what this thread is about...what, exactly, grants LE (and which departments/levels) the ability to detain until stamps and paperwork are produced? No offense to the LE members on this board (in fact, I found your contributions insightful, so thank you for that and for your service), but the fact that LE says mere possession is RAS to detain and investigate (demand to see stamps) is not good enough for me. I am still holding out for something more official.


The enumerated NFA items are expressly illegal under 2+ RCWs. The only exception is paperwork/stamp, which the officer would need to inquire to determine if the exception exists for a particular gun/person. LEO is expressly tasked with enforcing the law. This is a simple equation 1+1+1=3, unless you have a (-3) to offset it. Not difficult stuff folks.

I also have YET to hear a clear minded articulate reason why it's not RAS or PC and why a cop should NOT have authority to ask... just a lot of pissing and moaning.

And I've already said it and I'll repeat it. These laws suck and fully disagree with them, but they are the law and it's a felony to break it.

_________________
I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:44 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Tue May 8, 2012
Posts: 3805
Real Name: Larry
MadPick wrote:
I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.

Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?

I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.

I read the law like an outline. That is how I read it, I am not a lawyer or expert, just a person reading the law in the order it is laid out in...
  • Basic WA law interpetation: Everything is legal unless made illegal law.
  • The following devices are illegal: SBS, SBR, CAN, etc (See 9.41.190, sec 1a)
    Basically this makes it illegal 1st.
    • SBR, Can are legal IF you comply with fed law... (See 9.41.190, sec 2)
So they are illegal before the exclusion for fed compliance. That imho is what give LE the ability to ask for paperwork. Notice the LEO that have responded did not say demand, but ask. I think the Demand component is a bit of a waste, anyone can demand anything, but if you must comply is a completely different question.

Quote:
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.


Powederman and CommTillItHtz Thank you for your interpretation on this.

_________________
Image

Talons wrote:
it's too plastic, even for me.
it's like old, overworked, plastic everywhere old pornwhore amounts of plastic.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:47 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Gig Harbor
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011
Posts: 746
Real Name: Nick
lamrith wrote:
MadPick wrote:
I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.

Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?

I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.

I read the law like an outline. That is how I read it, I am not a lawyer or expert, just a person reading the law in the order it is laid out in...
  • Basic WA law interpetation: Everything is legal unless made illegal law.
  • The following devices are illegal: SBS, SBR, CAN, etc (See 9.41.190, sec 1a)
    Basically this makes it illegal 1st.
    • SBR, Can are legal IF you comply with fed law... (See 9.41.190, sec 2)
So they are illegal before the exclusion for fed compliance. That imho is what give LE the ability to ask for paperwork. Notice the LEO that have responded did not say demand, but ask. I think the Demand component is a bit of a waste, anyone can demand anything, but if you must comply is a completely different question.

Quote:
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.


POWDERED and CommTillItHtz Thank you for your interpretation on this.


The part that I still get hung up on is that the RCWs basically contradict one another.

"These are illegal"

then

"These are legal IF you follow federal law"

So does Federal Law state that I must present the tax stamp to anyone/local LEO/RSO or does it not? I would argue that it doesn't, so I can still be in compliance with Federal Law without sharing my paperwork with local LEO. At that point, what reasonable suspicion is there? How is that any different than saying "he was driving a car, so I pulled him over to see if he had a driver's license, and he refused to show it" or "MWG Call - the person was open carrying. Stopped to ask for ID, MWG refused to provide ID" The MWG would be free to go. LEO can't detain him at that point to make sure it isn't stolen, he isn't a felon etc.

If I am in compliance with Federal Law there is no PC. Federal Law does not say I can't possess my suppressor in WA state and WA state law explicitly says I can if I follow Federal Law.

_________________
Armed insurance broker. ObamaCare, life, health, medicare.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:59 am
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma, WA
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 6308
Kgbsucka wrote:
lamrith wrote:
MadPick wrote:
I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.

Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?

I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.

I read the law like an outline. That is how I read it, I am not a lawyer or expert, just a person reading the law in the order it is laid out in...
  • Basic WA law interpetation: Everything is legal unless made illegal law.
  • The following devices are illegal: SBS, SBR, CAN, etc (See 9.41.190, sec 1a)
    Basically this makes it illegal 1st.
    • SBR, Can are legal IF you comply with fed law... (See 9.41.190, sec 2)
So they are illegal before the exclusion for fed compliance. That imho is what give LE the ability to ask for paperwork. Notice the LEO that have responded did not say demand, but ask. I think the Demand component is a bit of a waste, anyone can demand anything, but if you must comply is a completely different question.

Quote:
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.


POWDERED and CommTillItHtz Thank you for your interpretation on this.


The part that I still get hung up on is that the RCWs basically contradict one another.

"These are illegal"

then

"These are legal IF you follow federal law"

So does Federal Law state that I must present the tax stamp to anyone/local LEO/RSO or does it not? I would argue that it doesn't, so I can still be in compliance with Federal Law without sharing my paperwork with local LEO. At that point, what reasonable suspicion is there? How is that any different than saying "he was driving a car, so I pulled him over to see if he had a driver's license, and he refused to show it" or "MWG Call - the person was open carrying. Stopped to ask for ID, MWG refused to provide ID" The MWG would be free to go. LEO can't detain him at that point to make sure it isn't stolen, he isn't a felon etc.

If I am in compliance with Federal Law there is no PC. Federal Law does not say I can't possess my suppressor in WA state and WA state law explicitly says I can if I follow Federal Law.


It's evident you're not understanding because your analogy is wrong. There's nothing inherently illegal about driving a car so such a stop would be wrong.

A better analogy is that if Washington had a law that quad cab pickups were illegal, unless you have special permission. A cop seeing a quad cab would immediately have RAS or PC of illegal behavior and justified stopping to ask. At that point, the driver either has permission or not.

Taking this one step further, we haven't talked at all about "plain view" versus "search." These do not appear to grant blanket searches (i.e. no house-to-house, no opening containers like gun bags, etc.). They appear to occur once the items are in plain view. For instance, you are using it at the range, and LEO sees it or someone else does and reports it. Plain view.

_________________
I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:22 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Gig Harbor
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011
Posts: 746
Real Name: Nick
leadcounsel wrote:
Kgbsucka wrote:
lamrith wrote:
MadPick wrote:
I’m still hoping to be educated on “presumptively illegal” and whether that’s an established legal concept.

Does it really make a difference whether the law says, “You may possess an SBR if you have a tax stamp” or “You may not possess an SBR unless you have a tax stamp”? Does the difference between those two sentences give law enforcement different powers?

I’d like to see a reference on that, just to educate myself.

I read the law like an outline. That is how I read it, I am not a lawyer or expert, just a person reading the law in the order it is laid out in...
  • Basic WA law interpetation: Everything is legal unless made illegal law.
  • The following devices are illegal: SBS, SBR, CAN, etc (See 9.41.190, sec 1a)
    Basically this makes it illegal 1st.
    • SBR, Can are legal IF you comply with fed law... (See 9.41.190, sec 2)
So they are illegal before the exclusion for fed compliance. That imho is what give LE the ability to ask for paperwork. Notice the LEO that have responded did not say demand, but ask. I think the Demand component is a bit of a waste, anyone can demand anything, but if you must comply is a completely different question.

Quote:
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.


POWDERED and CommTillItHtz Thank you for your interpretation on this.


The part that I still get hung up on is that the RCWs basically contradict one another.

"These are illegal"

then

"These are legal IF you follow federal law"

So does Federal Law state that I must present the tax stamp to anyone/local LEO/RSO or does it not? I would argue that it doesn't, so I can still be in compliance with Federal Law without sharing my paperwork with local LEO. At that point, what reasonable suspicion is there? How is that any different than saying "he was driving a car, so I pulled him over to see if he had a driver's license, and he refused to show it" or "MWG Call - the person was open carrying. Stopped to ask for ID, MWG refused to provide ID" The MWG would be free to go. LEO can't detain him at that point to make sure it isn't stolen, he isn't a felon etc.

If I am in compliance with Federal Law there is no PC. Federal Law does not say I can't possess my suppressor in WA state and WA state law explicitly says I can if I follow Federal Law.


It's evident you're not understanding because your analogy is wrong. There's nothing inherently illegal about driving a car so such a stop would be wrong.

A better analogy is that if Washington had a law that quad cab pickups were illegal, unless you have special permission. A cop seeing a quad cab would immediately have RAS or PC of illegal behavior and justified stopping to ask. At that point, the driver either has permission or not.

Taking this one step further, we haven't talked at all about "plain view" versus "search." These do not appear to grant blanket searches (i.e. no house-to-house, no opening containers like gun bags, etc.). They appear to occur once the items are in plain view. For instance, you are using it at the range, and LEO sees it or someone else does and reports it. Plain view.


It actually IS illegal to drive, unless you have a driver's license that says you have permission to do so along with insurance and a registration. How do we know you have all of those things?

_________________
Armed insurance broker. ObamaCare, life, health, medicare.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:34 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma :(
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011
Posts: 1856
Oh, here's another thought.

"Show me the engraving."

*engraving says XYZTrust*

"Show me your tax stamp."

*Tax stamp says XYZTrust*

"Show me you have authorization to possess this NFA item."

*Your ID says Joe Bobb, not XYZTrust*

Moral of the story, carry both stamps and trusts. Because if it belongs to the trust, that dosen't mean you have authorization to possess it.

Food for thought.

_________________
"A nation grown free in a single day is a child born with the limbs and the vigour of a man, who would take a drawn sword for his rattle, and set the house in a blaze that he might chuckle over the splendour." Sydney Smith (1771-1845)
Spoiler: show
NOW YOU DID IT...
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage


Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:34 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rent Me Pintos NRA SAF CCKRBA
Aldersons e-arms.com


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.691s | 17 Queries | GZIP : On ]