Being a lawyer

Yup, I yield. Cops can't inquire about your NFAs. Ignore them if they ask.

They'll probably just go away.

Carry on.

If an LEO asks to see may Paperwork, I'm going to show them the Paperwork and address the legality of it later.
It's much more enjoyable going home with my shit them going to Lockup with some bracelets and having to fight to get my Shit back.
YMMV

That's just standard legal code language; not to be read too much into.

The key point is that it's illegal... unless...

And how do you honestly suppose "unless" is determined. "Papers please."

Dude. There has been many upon many times when you've had a strong feeling towards something and everyone else was totally against what you said. EVERYONE. If you'd pay attention and lost your arrogant attitude, you would realize that if a whole group of people dont agree with you, and no one agrees with you, they are stupid and you're smarter than them and a lawyer and I'm an authority on this.

Same old same old with you. OPEN YOUR EYES , maybe its obvious that you're the one with the odd thinking

Thanks for the responses guys. I think we all agree that a local LEO has nothing exceptional granted to them with respect to the NFA and such paper work. That if they want to see the papers, it would have to be under probable cause.

Which raises really the second part of the question, conditions?

eg. what if I left the paper work at home. I haven't broken any laws. It's only failing to provide an ATF officer that is an offence, not local LEO. The firearm is legal or illegal based on the registration of the NFA item not the presence of specific paper work.

And... how does an officer even know such a thing is an NFA item to begin with? eg. they don't know my shockwave was never a shotgun, they don't know my pistol didn't start life out as a rifle, they see a pistol with a foregrip but can't tell if it's short enough to be an AOW because he can't see the muzzle device is pinned and welded?

I don't believe we have any compulsion to cooperate so that they can develop a crime per se.

P.S. with respect to probable cause. Every SBR or silencer I see, I assume they have the paper work for that. I'd be surprised if basically all I've ever seen were not registered.

It’s a ridiculous gray area, isn’t it? I have a couple sbr’s with no good place to store the printed tax stamp and worry what might happen if I’m asked to produce paperwork

This is just like hunting......I can do things and ride vehicles in places and modify my firearms in way that others can not because I have an orange placard and a notation on my hunting license but and officer in the field can not legally ask me why I have the placard and I sure do not have to tell them.

Oh, I agree, it's a absurd gray area for which should not exist. The arbitrary nonsense of some/most of the rules are totally asinine.

At this point of this thread all i can say is this. Yes, there is no "Cite". No, LEO doesn't have a Legal right to ask for Paperwork.
If they ask and you won't produce? You will suffer the consequences.
Is that right? No, but address the legalities after you Walk away from the encounter.
I am all about Firearms rights, but i'm not stupid either.
If you want to be the test subject? by all means go for it. It won't be me though.

Take your form 1 or 4 to a copy center. Ask them to print it, "4-up, 2-sided, color." Then cut each of the 4 out and packing tape "laminate" them. Then put one in the gun (grip or other storage), one in your range bag, and one in each case you may transport it in. Then forget about it.

I have a storage grip for my Scorpion, but not for my krinkov. I had to buy one of those rifle dynamics triangular stock pouches for it, and now it has a couple tools and a mini form 4 in it.

This isnt rocket science guys. Some random dude asks if you have papers, just say, yup I do, and it was a pain in the ass. If some cop asks, say the same. Form-4 guns don't require engraving, so if they push the issue, just flash your mini-stamp and go on with your life. (Redact your address on the copies if you're paranoid like me.) But, if they don't have a badge, who cares; tell them you don't share that info with out a warrant? (Maybe flash it fast to annoy them) If they do have a badge, just be polite and friendly. They either are just trying to do their job or just don't know that much about it. Maybe educate and make a new buddy.

Some of the grandstanding and extremism in this thread is almost amusing if not creepy in the escalations..

First off, Machine guns are illegal for non LEO/SOT here in WA the last time I looked, so yeah I would fully expect LEO to be asking for documentation if they see one being used not at a demo for them. That one in particular I think is a poor example to use for if Leo can/would/should approach and ask for documentation.


Not agreeing with either side in this quoted argument.
Just because everyone disagrees with someone does not make the single person wrong. Sorry I just can't let that one go, we in the 2A hobby of all people should know this with how public/MSM sentiment against us. If mob rule was law we would have no guns, mob view is NOT LAW. This line of argument just rubs me the wrong way and it should all of us.

Nobody here works for ATF to know what the actual requirements are, with all the energy wasted bashing each other on this I am surprised none of you have bothered to just call ATF and ask. A great number of people in this thread have NFA items, it is in their best interest to have actual facts. But why get a factual answer when you can beat up and bash your fellow gun owners, hell Anti's should jut sit back and let us implode with they way we fight each other at times.


Probably the best answer to the whole thing. Are you REQUIRED, I honestly do not know, but a smart person that is not looking to start a fight would provide if asked. There may not be a specific RCW or even ATF reg that spells out exactly who can require to see proof. It may be implied (which I agree is a shitty way of doing things) that all Leo can and here we sit. Question is, do we really want to kick that hornets nest and demand more laws/rules iron clad and inflexible, would it really help us in the end versus just making LEO job that much more difficult?

I'm still bewildered how folks can even 1% think that a police officer who sees someone with a SBS, SBR, or anything else listed - which are ILLEGAL unless you have paperwork (and they'd only know if they ask and you produce it) - has no authority to inquire. Having the paperwork is akin to an affirmative defense. You think the cops are just going to ignore the guy with the SBS at the range or ask and after being told to buzz off they'll just shrug their shoulders and leave?

Similar to self defense. The starting point is that murder or homicide is illegal. You shoot and kill someone, you've broken the law. Now, you get an exception if it's justifiable self defense. That is an affirmative defense. But you can BET the cops are going to ask some questions because when you shoot someone and he's laying there dead, the cops have PC to disarm you and ask you questions. Detain you until there's some finding of probable cause to arrest or instead release you, depending on a host of facts irrelevant to this dialogue. You are considered innocent, but you're still detained until it's sorted out and then possibly arrested.

In such a case, it's to your benefit to take certain measures to assist the police in coming to a fast resolution that you didn't break the law. "Officer, he broke into my house and came at me with a knife. See his shoe print on the front door, the broken hinges and deadbolt, the big hunting knife in his hand, and he's wearing a ski mask..." etc.

Or, let's get back into traffic violations. Cops see you speeding, going 110 mph on the freeway. That's PC for breaking the law. Cops pull you over. You explain you've lost your hand in a bad table saw accident and are bleeding to death and racing to the hospital. That exigency is an affirmative defense to the traffic ticket, and he's not going to write you up.

Same here. Cops see you with an illegal item and ask you questions. It's to your benefit to instantly produce the papers to demonstrate it's not illegal. Everyone goes on with their day without incident.

How is this an argument, or up for debate, I am still scratching my head.

I think the confusion comes from this RCW, section 2:

"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.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(a) Any peace officer in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty; or
(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, bump-fire stocks, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles:
(i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States;
(ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or
(iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations.
(4) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun or short-barreled shotgun was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.
(5) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony."

I see the legal side of this as sort of a chicken or the egg scenario. It's not illegal and therefore there is no PC if there is no violation of federal law, but we can't be sure there isn't a federal violation until we see your papers. Clear as mud, but you know how a liberal judge here would see it.

At the end of the day, I don't think there are many (any?) cops "patrolling" ranges, so that argument is sort of far fetched. They're usually private property after all. The most probable scenario would be shooting in the woods and an officer asking there. I'd probably just give it to them, but I'd be annoyed.

"...if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law."

Goes back to the fundamental question. Like other presumptively illegal stuff (e.g. murder), how would a cop know if you're in compliance?