? Negative NFA ownership Consequences?

[kayak-man]

Quick question: are there any negative impacts of owning a supressor or other NFA item?

I've always heard water cooler talk that says things like "the ATFE will be able to search you or your house any time they want without a warrant" and "you're legally required to own a gun safe that meets _____ specifications (and is usually extremely expensive."

Is there any truth to that? Or is the actual ownership (other than notifying law enforcement when crossing state lines and inheritance issues) no different than owning what would be considered a "normal" gun?

If it makes any difference, I'm especially interested in how it pertains to Suppressors.

Sorry if this has already been hashed out to death,nbtu my Jui-jits-search is week this morning.

 

[kanook]

If ATF is at your door, you got problems. I have never heard of anyone having ATF show up.

If crossing state lines you need permission from ATF, not local LEO.

If you go with suppressors only, there is no need to ask ATF. All other NFA need permission, just make sure you stay in NFA friendly states.

No need for a special safe, although if you can afford NFA, you can affrord a good safe, Im going to protect my investment the best way I can. A good safe also helps with the access thing which will be argued shortly.

 

[Elkins45]

The biggest negative I have found is that you can't own just one.

 

[pjeski]

"Permission" (ATF form 5320.20) is not required for suppressors or AOWs, but is for Machine Guns, SBR/SBS and Destructive Devices.

Owning NFA weapons does not give anyone the right to search without a warrant.

 

[kayak-man]

Kanook, by "the access thing" I assume you are referring to the fact that I can't just lend a supressor to my buddy for the weekend, right?

 

[pjeski]

Kanook, by "the access thing" I assume you are referring to the fact that I can't just lend a supressor to my buddy for the weekend, right?

It's more than that. If it's not locked up and you aren't home, anyone present could be illegally in "possession" of the item. Even if it is locked up, and they know the combination.

This gets argued alot, as in:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=777377

starting around post 16.

 

[HRnightmare]

You absolutely do not lose any rights by owning a class 3 item THEREFORE you can't have your home searched without a warrant.

Having someone in your house without your presence is constructive possession? You may want to re read the definition as defined by NFA,not by bloggers and forum members!

 

[joem1945]

Only downside for me was all the ammo I burned. Needed a Dillon 650 to keep up.

 

[Telekinesis]

You don't loose any rights or have a legal requirement to buy a safe (it is a good idea though).

My only problems have been that suppressors multiply and unless you're careful, you start branching into other areas of NFA weapons because, well - that 16" rifle with an 8" can is just too long, so you need a SBR which leads to another, and another...

You'll also notice that a lot of your guns start getting threads, and you gain what some would call an unhealthy compulsion to find and buy subsonic ammo. Also if you're the tinkering type, you may try some odd ball things like suppressing a compact .380 blowback with a micro suppressor

I think my most recent struggle was finding a AWC Abraxis (demo can) for a pretty good price and trying to talk myself out of it because I don't really need another micro/wet can.

You also get to be that cool guy at the range with the fun toys. I routinely let people try my cans at the range if they express an interest, which is a great way to make friends and introduce people to how much fun NFA weapons can be.

Also inheritance isn't too much of an issue. You can use a trust which makes it pretty easy, but even if you do an individual transfer, after your death the NFA weapon will transfer on a tax free Form 5, which also gets priority/a shorter transfer time than the form 1 and 4s. If you want to make it even easier, fill out the form 5 yourself and just leave instructions in your will that they are to be mailed to the ATF.

 

[Liquidring]

Everyone used to say that the ATF can just show up, unannounced and demand to see your stuff, thats not true, and if i remember correctly, i was told some years back by one of them that they now have to give a 7 day notice, which may or may not be correct, but I've never had anyone show up at my house, and as was stated above, the "toys" are very addictive.

 

[kayak-man]

Awesome! Thanks for the info guys!

I think I know what I'll be getting to celebrate earning my paramedic patch in September

 

[Aaron Baker]

Having someone in your house without your presence is constructive possession? You may want to re read the definition as defined by NFA,not by bloggers and forum members!

Maybe you could provide a link to the relevant part of the NFA, for all our benefit?

Aaron

 

[Swing]

"the ATFE will be able to search you or your house any time they want without a warrant"

I won't rehash why it is incorrect, but I am amazed how this myth simply will not die. I actually read it in print not to long ago.

I think I know what I'll be getting to celebrate earning my paramedic patch in September

Congradz on the training. That is a great career field. Alas, once you go NFA, there no going back. It is an addiction man!

 

[MCMXI]

One possible negative aspect of owning suppressors is when a person's expectations are significantly different from the reality of using and owning them. Movies give the wrong impression for many. In movies there's no oily gas hitting the shooter in the face, no point of impact shift, no cleaning, no cost, no waiting and certainly no noise shooting supersonic rifle loads. The disconnect between expectation and reality when it comes to SBRs can be similar.

 

[plodder]

from MCMXI:

One possible negative aspect of owning suppressors is when a person's expectations are significantly different from the reality of using and owning them. Movies give the wrong impression for many. In movies there's no oily gas hitting the shooter in the face, no point of impact shift, no cleaning, no cost, no waiting and certainly no noise shooting supersonic rifle loads. The disconnect between expectation and reality when it comes to SBRs can be similar.

While I have found some truth in this statement, so far it has not applied to machine gunning. Full mag dumps at 1200 rpm never cease to amuse me.

 

[HRnightmare]

You also get to be that cool guy at the range with the fun toys.

Yeah isn't that the truth. Everyone stars at you and asks a billion questions. Once I even had a guy try and convince me that only special forces can have suppressors and if I want one I could go to jail. I politely explained to him the military doesn't make it a practice of giving take home weapons and he was completely backwards. My favorite is listening to people tell their buddies it's a fake suppressor on my .223 and I'm just shooting a .22lr.

 

[HRnightmare]

Having someone in your house without your presence is constructive possession? You may want to re read the definition as defined by NFA,not by bloggers and forum members!

Maybe you could provide a link to the relevant part of the NFA, for all our benefit?

Admittedly I admittedly left out a very significant part of my post, using this on a cell phone clearly want meant to be.

I asked the very question in writing and received a letter back staying so long as the guns weapons are not useable or easily removable. So in a safe or even locked to a permanent sturdy structure would suffice. So I side the question is what is "sturdy" kitchen sink pipe? Stair case railing?

I believe the letter states a statute or law that defines this and provides is number. I would have to pull it it to look.

 

[HRnightmare]

Like others have said though. If you have NFA items you know there a bit pricey. It's best to secure them in a safe! If you can afford several hundred if not thousand in these items you should be able to buy a safe.

 

[Aaron Baker]

Admittedly I admittedly left out a very significant part of my post, using this on a cell phone clearly want meant to be.

I asked the very question in writing and received a letter back staying so long as the guns weapons are not useable or easily removable. So in a safe or even locked to a permanent sturdy structure would suffice. So I side the question is what is "sturdy" kitchen sink pipe? Stair case railing?

Okay, fair enough.

I think there was just some confusion about wording. What pjeski posted was:

If it's not locked up and you aren't home, anyone present could be illegally in "possession" of the item. Even if it is locked up, and they know the combination.

...and that completely jives with what you're saying. Basically, if you don't have a way to lock up or secure your NFA items while you're not home, and someone else who isn't on a trust is left in the house with them, there's a constructive possession argument that the ATF could make. That's because that person has the power to exercise dominion and control over something that they can't legally possess.

As you point out, a safe (which is a great investment) or having them chained to an "immovable" object is good enough if you want to leave them home alone with someone else.

As was hashed out in the thread that was previously linked, there's not a long history of the ATF actually prosecuting people for this stuff. There's probably not a single case of a wife being prosecuted because her husband owned a suppressor as an individual and left her home alone with it.

But that doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Different people have different levels of comfort with breaking laws that they don't think will be enforced. Most people speed on the highway, but there's some folks that never will, because they just refuse to take the risk.

The risk of prosecution for illegal possession of an NFA firearm is low if you're otherwise law-abiding people. But it's there. And a trust is a great way to mitigate that risk while having tons of other, more important benefits.

Aaron

 

[medalguy]

I'll just add that I acquired my first machine gun back in 1963 and I have yet to have an ATF agent knock on my door unless I called first and requested a visit.

 

[Theohazard]

i was told some years back by one of them that they now have to give a 7 day notice, which may or may not be correct

It's not correct. The ATF can show up at your door after a 7 day notice (or a 700 day notice) if they want, but they have no more right to enter your house than any other house.

 

[oneounceload]

I have never heard of anyone having ATF show up.

Randy Weaver

 

[pjeski]

Randy Weaver

I don't think they were there to inspect his registered transferables.

 

[Glock_10mm]

Issues with owning nfa:
1. Wait time to pick up from dealer.
2. Spending every $ you have on more NFA items.
3. Not able to loan to friends for weekend.
4. Not being able to easily transport out of state without prior permission.
5. Being on "the list".

Reality is those with NFA will tell you its not as scary as those without NFA seem to shout from the roof tops.

The rules are pretty easy, stay on the right side and all is well.

Also the positive side is owning NFA may protect your gun rights, if an all out ban comes in retroactively, my opinion is they will have to grandfather the NFA toys as tax was paid. Maybe its just my opinion but hey, its one list i dont mind being on.

 

[AlexanderA]

Also the positive side is owning NFA may protect your gun rights, if an all out ban comes in retroactively, my opinion is they will have to grandfather the NFA toys as tax was paid. Maybe its just my opinion but hey, its one list i dont mind being on.

The NFA tax is on a transactional basis, that is, it applies to a "transfer" or to a "making" and not to possession. Once the transaction is completed, there is no further tax liability. Therefore, this tax could not be used to cement some sort of inviolate right. The 1986 FOPA ban (Hughes Amendment) could, if Congress had wanted, have applied to all MG's without a grandfather provision. Whether this would have amounted to a 5th Amendment "taking" without compensation is another issue altogether.

Remember that Justice Scalia, in the Heller case, went out of his way to list machine guns as items that would not be protected under the 2nd Amendment. This was one of the consequences of his rationale to treat the "militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment essentially as a nullity. What Heller confirmed is simply the right to keep "common use" guns (e.g. ordinary handguns) in the home for self-defense. The gun community is reading way too much into Heller.