Should gun modifications be illegal? Are Police Jack-Booted thugs?

[Eric F]

No you can't. That is a myth that people unfimiliar with NFA items continue to pass around.

I don't know where your information comes from but this was emailed to me by a class 3 dealer just last month.

As to surrendering your 4th amendment (search and seizure)
rights, this is definitely true when one gets a Federal Firearms
License. The law allows the ATF to inspect your records and
inventory once every 12 months without any cause, and at any
point during the course of a bona fide criminal investigation (18
USC sec. 923(g)). They may inspect without warning during
business hours. (non-C&R and non-FFL holders do not have business hours) ATF may look around the
licensed premises for other weapons not on your records. This
means they take the position that if your licensed premises are
your home they may search it, as part of the annual compliance
inspection. The constitutionality of the warrantless
"administrative search" of licensees provided for in the Gun
Control Act has been upheld by the US Supreme Court, see U.S. v.
Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972).

I would think a class 3 dealer is fairly familiar with nfa items

 

[JohnBT]

"As for JBT..."

"Why is everybody always picking on me?" - Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller

JBT

 

[Ithaca37]

laws are laws right wrong or indiffrent.

Are you suggesting that no law should ever be intentionally defied? How then do you reconcile the American Revolution? Or do you see the founders as criminals?

Certainly most of us would agree that legal slavery was unjust.

Then what would you do about it? Turn a blind eye and say "well, at least I don't support it"?

I know people up here who believe it's wrong to deny a man the right to beat his wife if she gets out of line. That doesn't sound like an unjust law to me regardless of the opinions of some of the "men" up here. It pisses me off that it happens so much out here and nobody does anything about it because it's considered to be socially acceptable.

Wait a minute, are you now that these laws that are the only fabric of society are not universally enforced? Are you suggesting that people don't have to follow the law?

You believe that laws are the only thing holding society together. This simply can't work. Laws are an optional set of rules. You either obey or don't. Their are consequences for either choice. But laws do not prevent me from killing someone in cold blood. My moral compass and conscience does that. If laws are that prevents you from beating your wife or raping or murdering, then you are a time bomb waiting to go off.

 

[Catherine]

Quote:
laws are laws right wrong or indiffrent.
Are you suggesting that no law should ever be intentionally defied? How then do you reconcile the American Revolution? Or do you see the founders as criminals?

~~~~~

Thank you! Some gun owners and authority figures would see them as criminals. Of course, I do NOT agree with them so therefore I must be a criminal in THOUGHT.

Respectfully yours,

Catherine

 

[JasperST5]

Are you suggesting that no law should ever be intentionally defied? How then do you reconcile the American Revolution? Or do you see the founders as criminals?

I see this kind of mentality used to justify disregarding a wide range of laws. I'm guilty of it myself by twisting the throttle of my bike a bit too much on occasion. But if I get caught, I'll pay the fine. I won't consider it an unjust law because I can ride more proficiently than the lowest common denominator on the road that the speed limit was designed for.

The founders didn't act individually against their favorite pet peeves. They were an organized body that acted in unison for the right to establish their own boundaries and the systems to establish them. The way you change laws
isn't done by disregarding them and challenging them in court when you get caught, unless you are real lucky, have a good cause and your lawyers can run it all the way up the flag pole to the Supreme Court.

If you want a law changed, get people together and lobby your congress critters. Pretending that you are Thomas Jefferson and doing what you want will more than likely serve to empower your opposition.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

The founding fathers and their supporters were a minority. 2/3 either supported the chains of George or didn't care either way (also supported the chains.)

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Werewolf]

laws are laws right wrong or indiffrent. Breaking them results in even more loss of freedom...

There were quite a few folks in a land called Germany who believed this and used the excuse that they were just obeying lawful authority to justify their actions. Between 1946 and 1948 quite a few of their necks were stretched at the end of a rope as a result.

Law and justice, law and right, law and moral are not necessarilythe same thing. It would be great if they were but history shows that sometimes, maybe most of the time they are not.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"I would think a class 3 dealer is fairly familiar with nfa items"

if you read the posts you'll find the comment vis a vis house getting inspected anytime was made in relation to the 200 dollar tax stamp one needs to legally own a full auto or other exotic toy. as opposed to having a ffl.

 

[Ithaca37]

The founders didn't act individually against their favorite pet peeves.

In fact, they did. They didn't like the taxes they were forced to pay, which were actually no worse than those of people in England. That said, I have no issue with what they did.

Pretending that you are Thomas Jefferson and doing what you want will more than likely serve to empower your opposition.

Never said I was TJ and I agree that you should first seek redress of your grievances through the established channels first. But the issue at hand is whether or not it is morally justifiable to ever disregard an unjust law or set of laws. The OP said it was not. That has very serious implications.

 

[pbearperry]

The main problem with people is that they always want cops to arrest people who break laws,but when they are approached by Leos they want to get a break.It's the old get them but show me mercy.
I was sent to a neighborhood because a bunch of folks there signed a petition to have the Police help with speeders and motorists that were flying through a particular stop sign.My CO sent me there and before I could even set the radar up,a lady blew through that stop sign.I stopped her and asked for her license and registration.Right off the bat I got a tirade from her about "Why don't you get the real criminals instead of bothering me crap". I go back to write a ticket for the stop sign violation and shes still screaming at me.Guess what,she signed the very petition that got me there in the first place.My point is,cops do what they are told to do.If you don't you ,will be looking for another job real soon.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I would think a class 3 dealer is fairly familiar with nfa items

Well, your class three dealer is Wrong. I've owned NFA items AND been a C&R collector for over 20 years.

First, owning NFA items does not give ATF any rights to enter your property without first obtaining a search warrant. If for some reason ATF determines they need to review your paperwork, the most they can do is stand at your front door and ask to see your appoved forms. NFA owners are still considered non-licensees, not required to keep "records" and therefore not subject to annual inspections.

Second, C&R licensees are subject to an annual inspection of their records. ATF MAY NOT enter your home. At YOUR option, you can elect to have the inspection at the nearest ATF OFFICE. For ATF to enter you house, they still need to obtain a search warrant.

In all the years I have done this, I have NEVER been checked by ATF.

 

[Eric F]

First, owning NFA items does not give ATF any rights to enter your property without first obtaining a search warrant.

you contardict your self sir

If for some reason ATF determines they need to review your paperwork, the most they can do is stand at your front door and ask to see your appoved forms

in by standing on your front porch they have entered your property unless your porch in off your property then ...its not your porch, Any way I do not know you I do know my class 3 dealer he has refrenced thin information from atf files can you refrence somthing diffrent from a atf file? please do I am very interested in getting to the bottom of this

 

[Eric F]

Are you suggesting that no law should ever be intentionally defied? How then do you reconcile the American Revolution? Or do you see the founders as criminals?

and this applies to all others who question my statement.

Hey if you want to revolt and take over the government and enact some diffrent rules then fine do so please. However I beleive I will be reading about you in the news paper ans a radical protester. What I ment by this is that if you break the rules and get caught especialy where weapons are involved you will likely go to jail. Did you read the rest of my post. please quoth the whole thing not just fragments it makes far more sense what I was saying. If we want to get rid of these taxes which I see as unjust then we should rally suport and elect officials who can change the laws in our favor. please dont be a stuge and half quote and twist my meaning. Of course I do not agree with some of the rules we have however with out rules there is just chaos. if you dont like something then change it.

 

[wdlsguy]

Eric F, Hkmp5sd is correct. Here is a more relevant quote from the same document your Class 3 dealer quoted:

As to one who is neither a FFL nor SOT, but only owns weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act, ATF may only compel you to show an agent upon request the registration paperwork, that is the Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever else might have been used to register the weapon. See 26 U.S.C. sec. 5841(e). They do not have any right to compel you to produce the weapon. As always the Fourth amendment applies, and ATF may not enter your home or other place of storage of the NFA weapon, nor seize the weapon, without a warrant, or without falling under an exception the Supreme Court has created to the operation of the Fourth amendment, or without your consent.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

 

[Eric F]

or without falling under an exception the Supreme Court has created to the operation of the Fourth amendment

I am cool with that but what does this quote mean? What execptions have already been made?

 

[R127]

Dammaging or destroying a person's life over some malum prohibitum law is wrong. There are no if's, and's or but's about it. Trying to cast certain types of government employees as superheroes does not change that. I don't believe many people who choose a career in law enforcement ever really consider this and though some are aware of the problem not much is ever actually done about it because people will always tend to follow the path of least resistance. This is why LEO's find themselves at odds with other citizens. Once you consider other factors such as how LEO's are very selective about which laws they will enforce, there has never ever in the history of the country that I am aware of ever been an LEO who held anyone accountable to the supreme law of the land for instance, it's all over.

The main problem with people is that they always want cops to arrest people who break laws,

In the interest of better officer/citizen relations I will inform you this isn't really the case. A huge number of us do not want you to bother people over malum prohibitum nonsense. As an individual officer you are an important link in the chain of our legal system and carry an enormous ethical burden to act as an effective check and balance to other abuses in the system.

but when they are approached by Leos they want to get a break.It's the old get them but show me mercy.

What do you expect though? A person you're after over a malum prohibitum law is being wronged and justifiably deserves mercy. A person you're after about a malum in se law is an actual criminal and their whole world view is centered on trying to get away with doing wrong.

I was sent to a neighborhood because a bunch of folks there signed a petition to have the Police help with speeders and motorists that were flying through a particular stop sign.My CO sent me there and before I could even set the radar up,a lady blew through that stop sign.I stopped her and asked for her license and registration.Right off the bat I got a tirade from her about "Why don't you get the real criminals instead of bothering me crap". I go back to write a ticket for the stop sign violation and shes still screaming at me.Guess what,she signed the very petition that got me there in the first place.

This is actually very clear cut. Wreckless driving, especially in a residential neighborhood, is malum in se and you are completely right in taking action against that woman blowing through a stop sign. In fact this is exactly the type of thing that cops do that is good and right and a benefit to society. That was a good stop.

My point is,cops do what they are told to do.If you don't you ,will be looking for another job real soon.

That is really the bottom line, isn't it? The trouble is "I was just following orders" has never been an acceptable excuse for anybody whether they work for the government or private sectory.

 

[JesseL]

I've always though this quote was apropos to this sort of debate:

Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

Laws these days are not necessarily enacted or enforced at the will of the people or even for the benefit of the people. As far as I'm concerned, when this happens the government has failed to uphold it's end of the Social Contract and I no longer feel any moral obligation to honor that law.

 

[Catherine]

I liked Ayn Rand and agreed with her in many issues.

Respectfully yours,

Catherine

 

[alaskanativeson]

But the issue at hand is whether or not it is morally justifiable to ever disregard an unjust law or set of laws. The OP said it was not. That has very serious implications.

That is not what I said. What I said was:

Willfully choosing to break laws is not acceptable to my way of thinking until it becomes a grossly unjust law.

There's a HUGE difference between an UNJUST law and one that I simply disagree with. I think having a silencer for my gun would be nice. Our system of government has ruled that I have to pass certain requirements to be able to have one. If I disobey those laws I will get punished. However just because I disagree with that law doesn't make it an unjust law. My human rights aren't being trampled on because I have to pay a fee and have a background check done on me so I can shoot in silence. This law is not causing great suffering among sections of our population. I am not actually being hurt by this law, merely inconvenienced. Since I want to take advantage of the other aspects of our society I have to abide by the laws even if I don't like them.

That's not to say that there aren't unjust laws. The discrimination laws in the South 50 years ago were unjust. The taxes on our Forefathers, the housing of British Troops in unwilling American homes, that was unjust. Some may consider the crackdown we see in Tibet as being unjust. If your conscience moves you to disobey a law on moral principles I believe you have that right. I also believe that there may be consequences for that. If it is truly an unjust law then there will be others to join you in your cause, maybe you'll get the law changed. Dr. Martin Luther King did that. If, however, you're just putting yourself above a law you don't want to follow, then you're being selfish and I say yes, let the punishment fit the crime.

 

[dmazur]

Since I think that all TOOLS/OBJECTS = firearms or anything else should be legal - THAT may make me an extremist in my VIEWS. However I obey the stupid laws and voice my OPINION. Personally... there are NOT many things that I want/need to own in firearms since I LOVE what I own/shoot. However if Jane or John Doe wants to buy/own any TOOL including a gun... I think that he/she should be ALLOWED to own it.

I agree with this, and I hope that by quoting it out of context I haven't missed something essential in the original post.

Most of the laws which attempt to regulate what kind of firearm you have, including <16" rifle barrels, adding stocks to a pistol, magazine capacity (historical, we hope), and similar seem to be based on the presumption of guilt before action. (If I can get away with that phrase...)

In other words, why should you be guilty of a crime by mere ownership? Certainly I'm in favor of hard and certain punishment for criminal use of a firearm, but not for just owning something.

While it's a little off-thread, there are present concerns being voiced over laws which regulate carrying firearms in various National Parks. The debate is whether possession of the firearm means there will be more poaching, or whether the visitor has the right to carry it as long as it isn't misused. This is a similar example of what I termed "guilt before action" above.

So yes, I have to go along with following present laws. However, I do believe that many of them, including those that are related to modifying firearms, are just so much nonsense. And therefore, if given the chance to change or eliminate some of this stupidity, I would support that with some enthusiasm!

 

[waterhouse]

I am cool with that but what does this quote mean? What execptions have already been made?

The Supreme Court has allowed certain exceptions to the warrant requirement.

See here, and use the links on the left to navigate:
http://www.quizlaw.com/criminal_law/what_are_exceptions_to_the_war.php

As for NFA items, the quote you posted from your Dealer friend is in reference to dealers of firearms, not to people who merely own a title II item (an SBR, suppressor, etc.) A person may own a suppressor without being a dealer, and this person would not be subject to annual inspection like in the paragraph you posted.

 

[Big45]

If your cost is that you are willing to break the laws that the majority agree on then it shouldn't come as a surprise that you'll lose some freedoms.

The U.S. Fed Gov could round up 299,999,999 votes to outlaw all ownership of firearms tomorrow. I am going to break that law.

And I wouldn't care what I lost after that point.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

laws are laws right wrong or indifferent. Breaking them results in even more loss of freedom. If you want to change something vote for some one that can change the laws.

I prefer to "become" someone who can change the laws. I don't have to run for office but I can become so strong in the RKBA community that others respect my opinion enough to follow my lead creating strength in numbers.

Most of the people on this forum can probably juggle firearms in their back yard. I live in New York, NY can I own a weapon on my premises yes can I walk around with it for protection no.

Regardless I still created Small Armz to speak for me. I respect law enforcement but you can't endanger my life because you chose the profession. At times when I've entered NYC police precincts on business non crime related these people walk right past you like you're invisible. Then when they acknowledge you it feels like you're on trial they act like that guy from the Matrix with the shades on. What the hell is that you took a test passed a physical. You're not from Krypton.

​