 |
 |
It is currently Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:18 pm |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page 9 of 10 |
[ 138 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Who can demand to see your stamps and under what conditions?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Site Supporter   Location: Lynnwood/Bothell Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 Posts: 8565 Real Name: Curtis 
|
A.O. wrote: 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. Precisely why I carry both. |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:57 am |
|
|
|
 Site Supporter  Location: Snohomish, WA Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 Posts: 1369 Real Name: Bo
|
The Name and Title of Authorized Official or Corporation (if applicable) is listed in Box 8. In my case (Form 1), trust name is in box 3a and my name is in Box 8. Now if someone else on my trust has possession then they should carry a copy of the trust.
_________________ "I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life." ~ Four Leaf Tayback |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Nampa, Idaho Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 19471 Real Name: Rick
|
I have a simpler way... I don't have any NFA stuff.
 _________________ ‘What’s the point of being a citizen if an illegal gets all the benefits’ |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:40 pm |
|
|
|
 Location: Puyallup Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 Posts: 9065 Real Name: Richard Fitzwelliner
|
AR15L wrote: I have a simpler way... I don't have any NFA stuff. LLLLLAAAMEEEEE!!!!! _________________ If she sits on your face and you can still hear, SHE'S NOT FAT. I'm going to type out 3 paragraphs and wax eloquently about a similar story in my life. Pm me if you figured it out. |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Moderator   Location: Marysville Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 Posts: 13507 Real Name: Mike
|
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. Kgbsucka wrote: 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...
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?   to both_________________ Licensed/Bonded/Insured Hardwood Floor Installer/Finisher http://www.hardwoodfloorsnw.com/ |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Lynnwood/Bothell Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 Posts: 8565 Real Name: Curtis
|
The car driving analogy, despite LC's inability to recognize the obvious parallels, is an excellent analogy. And since it is well-established that you can't be pulled over JUST for driving (there must be another reason for the stop), it logically follows that you can't be detained JUST for possession of a similarly-controlled items (in this case, a NFA firearm). If there are other circumstances that provide legitimate RAS, that's one thing. But mere possession in a normal setting (i.e. at an established shooting range) does not rise to that level. We all agree the NFA is a major 2A infringement, so why don't we draw the lines where they should be drawn instead of constantly ceding ground out of fear? That is EXACTLY how we end up in a police state.
|
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:53 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
Um, yeah, jaywalking too.
 Yet not many cops wasting their time stopping jaywalkers. Please post the similar RCW language for driving akin to NFA items. I'm open to learning and having an honest dialogue but I need to see the analogous terminology in the statutes... First, one is a citation (a fine) or misdemeanor (being defined as max incarceration 364 days) while the other is a felony (being defined as incarceration over a year, and other penalties). So that's a big difference. With limited resources, cops are going to prioritize like any human would. I'm not spending my evening doing research, but I suspect there's other material differences... _________________ 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 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Admin   Location: Renton, WA Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 Posts: 52068 Real Name: Steve
|
Regarding driving: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.001
Quote: RCW 46.20.001 License required—Rights and restriction. (1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. The only exceptions to this requirement are those expressly allowed by RCW 46.20.025. (2) A person licensed as a driver under this chapter: (a) May exercise the privilege upon all highways in this state; (b) May not be required by a political subdivision to obtain any other license to exercise the privilege; and (c) May not have more than one valid driver's license at any time. _________________ Steve Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation Patriot & Life Member, Gun Owners of America Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition Member, NAGR/NFGR Please support the organizations that support all of us. Leave it cleaner than you found it. |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
 Location: WA State Joined: Fri Feb 8, 2013 Posts: 658
|
CommTillItHtz wrote: Guns4Liberty wrote: leadcounsel wrote: How can you read the text of the RCWs and conclude that NFAs aren't illegal? They most certainly are. The ONLY reason it's not illegal is the narrow construct of having permission. It states it in no uncertain terms. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand? Possession of a firearm - NFA or otherwise - in and of itself does not constitute probable cause for LE to investigate the legality of its possession. It really is that simple. So, probable cause is needed to make an arrest, reasonable suspicion is all that is needed to detain and investigate. Much lower threshold. An example might be, I see an base illegal item in open view, and upon contact, the individual refused to show documentation to corroborate his/her legal ownership. The way I see it, NFA items are similar to Schedule II narcotics. Baseline, they are illegal, unless you have a prescription. If I were to see an individual walking down the sidewalk with a ziplock bag full of Oxys, I might stop to ask if they have a prescription. If they tell me to pound sand, they are getting detained while I investigate. Pretty strait forward. RCW 69.50.401 is written similarly to the above cited RCW on NFA items. I'm not a lawyer, I am a cop, and I hate the NFA. I also get a lot of search warrants approved under similar circumstances   _________________ I hunt the things that go bump in the night.... |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:39 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Can't say Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014 Posts: 8134
|
MadPick wrote: Regarding driving: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.001 Quote: RCW 46.20.001 License required—Rights and restriction. (1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. The only exceptions to this requirement are those expressly allowed by RCW 46.20.025. (2) A person licensed as a driver under this chapter: (a) May exercise the privilege upon all highways in this state; (b) May not be required by a political subdivision to obtain any other license to exercise the privilege; and (c) May not have more than one valid driver's license at any time. That's actually an interesting and pretty excellent analogy then. It certainly gives me pause to consider. Or look deeper into for key differences, other than of course the severity and nature of the issue (felony v. lesser crime, and cars vs. guns, etc.). An excellent point to whomever raised it. Certainly a worthy issue to reflect on. _________________ 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 8:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
Location: WA State Joined: Fri Feb 8, 2013 Posts: 658
|
Massivedesign wrote: Powderman wrote: Oh, boy..... Where to start? Powderman, thank for chiming in, as a LEO your input is needed in this discussion. I see that you used an analogy from observing a person as an RSO at the range. So your input seemed to be both an RSO observation as well as LEO. My question(s) to you fall on the LEO side. (Answers interspersed.) 1) Do you have the legal ability to demand to see / inspect / verify a tax stamp? One of the big watchwords we live by is known as the "A" word...which is "articulation". I can articulate, based on my training (both military and civilian) and experience (certified armorer, former military armorer and gunsmith) that I can recognize, even from a distance, that a rifle may well be an SBR, and thus warrant a closer look. If I take a closer look and can state (again, based on training and experience) that it IS an SBR, then I can check for compliance with the law. 2) If I remember right, you are a LEO but also with some Federal bonus powers, does this help #1 at all? The "Federal" powers are only those of any Tribal LEO on a Federally recognized reservation. However, we are cross-commissioned, and recognized by the State of Washington as general authority peace officers. 3) If joe-shmoe has an SBR, but it's a nice looking SBR (not some obvious home made job), what is your LEA procedure to verify that it is a legal firearm in a casual encounter. Easiest way is to ask for a copy of the Form 4. Hint: If you own an SBR and it leaves your safe without a copy of that Form 4, you're a moron. Period. Full stop. If I glance at it and see engraving, depending on the totality of the circumstance I might dig deeper--but by casual conversation. If a man or woman is standing there, talking about a Trijicon sight, BUIS, Criterion barrel and a KAK flash can with a Seekins lower and a Hiperfire trigger, I will more than likely postulate that the person did indeed build the rifle. 4) Above, a member stated that just possessing an NFA item was RAC/PC for needing to prove via volunteering papers that it's a legal NFA item. Is this your, or your departments interpretation as well? Well, possession of a prohibited item under the law, when it can be identified as such by a "reasonable person" (in this case, a trained, cautious and prudent peace officer) or the commission of actions that may communicate that the actor is about to/has/will commit a criminal act is enough to trigger "reasonable suspicion", which (based on the totality of the actions or items observed) can lead to an "investigative detention", as noted in Terry v. Ohio. _________________ I hunt the things that go bump in the night.... |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:32 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: RENTON Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 Posts: 20771 Real Name: John
|
Thanks for the reply Powderman, much appreciated.
 While it's not "Cite" as to what the OP was looking for it further explains why it would be in a persons best interest to produce Paperwork when asked by an LEO. I would mention that a lack of engraving is not necessarily RAS for an "illegal" SBR. If you Form 1 an SBR it doesn't need to be engraved until if and when you were to sell it. The other point about engraving would be it may be very unobtrusive. It's only required to be 1/16" in height and can be hard to see especially when located purposely to not be obvious. _________________ Mr. Q wrote: so basically, if you have to smoke some asshole, make sure they become fertilizer and then Bounce? got it. Guntrader wrote: Huh, maybe I was an asshole. NRA Member/RSO SAF 5 Year Donor GOA Member Last edited by usrifle on Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total. |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:17 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Kirkland Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 Posts: 820 Real Name: Shawn
|
usrifle wrote: Thanks for the reply Powderman, much appreciated and while it's not "Cite" it further explains why it would be in a persons best interest to produce Paperwork when asked by an LEO. I would mention that a lack of engraving is not necessarily RAS for an "illegal" SBR. If you Form 1 an SBR it doesn't need to be engraved until if and when you were to sell it. That is bad information you have there. It must be engraved before you manufacture the sbr. 27 CFR 478.92 and 27 CFR 479.102 both lay out the requirements for placing identifying markings on items you ‘manufacture’. Also attached is a picture of instructions off of an approved form 1 I have that states the same.  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:26 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Kirkland Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 Posts: 820 Real Name: Shawn
|
Heres the atf handbook
The serial number must be engraved or stamped on the receiver of the firearm and the caliber, model, and identification of the maker must be engraved on the barrel or frame or receiver of the weapon. marking and identification requirements for a maker are the same as for a manufacturer. Refer to section 7.4 for a detailed discussion of the requirements. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: RENTON Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 Posts: 20771 Real Name: John
|
My bad, not only did you quote me while i was cleaning up and adding to my post....i am wrong after more digging.
I stand by stating an apparent lack of engraving is RAS for asking for Paperwork for the reason i stated in my edited reply above though, most of mine are engraved on the Mag well inner "Lips" and are not easily visible. Having said that, i stand by my prior replies in this thread that i would produce my Stamps anytime i was asked by LEO. That's easy, and beats the heck out of the alternative by saying "no". _________________ Mr. Q wrote: so basically, if you have to smoke some asshole, make sure they become fertilizer and then Bounce? got it. Guntrader wrote: Huh, maybe I was an asshole. NRA Member/RSO SAF 5 Year Donor GOA Member |
| Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:46 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 9 of 10 |
[ 138 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Rottenryan and 78 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|