Suppressors ..

[cstmwrks]

..

 

[Strickland]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

As long as you are present, nothing is wrong.

Just don't ever loan it out! That is the big No-No!! Has to stay with you.

 

[BDunn]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

Good idea to have the paperwork with you as well. Even some LEOs think suppressors are illegal.

 

[cstmwrks]

..

..

 

[GUNNER75]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

I am certain you will need two cards, two photo's, two form 4's, and compliance (maybe just one of those).

A checklist would be handy but I haven't found one I trust and or know 100% is accurate with current regs.

 

[cstmwrks]

..

..

 

[rbdub474]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

Suppressors made by an individual are still registered using a Form 1 same for SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

If you are buying a suppressor from a dealer, you will need to include the following when submitting to BATFE:

1.) 2 copies of ATF Form 4 each with original signatures. Include passport style photo on each copy. Have Chief Law Enforcement Officer sign both copies. (Photos and CLEO signature not necessary if purchasing with trust or corporation.)

2.) 2 sets of fingerprints on proper FBI FD-258 fingerprint card with NFA ORI. (Not necessary if using a trust or corp.)

3.) Signed Certification of Compliance

4.) Check or Money order for $200 for each item being registered.

Take all of these items and mail to address on top right of Form 4. Form 4s go to Atlanta address.

The same process is used to register an item that you will be making using a Form 1. But these will be mailed to the address in Martinsburg, WV.

If you go to a knowledgeable FFL/SOT, they should walk you through the process.

Also others are allowed to use your NFA items as long as you still have control of them. BATFE seems to have taken the stance that as long as you are within voice distance i.e. can tell the person what to do, you are good.

Also if you go the trust route, any trustee can possess the NFA item which is held by the trust provided they are not a prohibited person i.e. felon, drug user etc. etc. So if your son is old enough to be a trustee he would be good to go to use the items.

Hope that helps.

 

[cstmwrks]

..

..

 

[DustyJacket]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

correct.

To summarize:

Form 1 - to MAKE an NFA item
Form 3 - Dealer to dealer transfer
Form 4 - Taxable transfer
Form 5 - non-taxed transfer (govmt agenencies, inheritance, etc)

 

[cstmwrks]

..

..

 

[cstmwrks]

..

..

 

[rbdub474]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

All the forms we send in state for all lawful purposes which has always worked, and covers anything you legally do with the item.

 

[Killbox Alpha]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cstmwrks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I understand I can fill out a form 4 and do a sheriffs sign off to get a can. In all my reading though I find that it would not be legal to let anyone shoot the weapon with the can on as it is "stamped" or permitted only for me.

If I do an NFA trust and my son is in that trust it would then be legal for him to use the weapon but no one else unless they are listed on the trust?

Is this one of those gray areas that get overlooked?



</div></div>

You are correct on both accounts. If you go the law enforcement route, you will alone, will only be able to use it. The trust route, you can list people on the trust and they can possess the item while not in your presents. They will need a copy of the stamp tho.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kill Box ALPHA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cstmwrks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I understand I can fill out a form 4 and do a sheriffs sign off to get a can. In all my reading though I find that it would not be legal to let anyone shoot the weapon with the can on as it is "stamped" or permitted only for me.

If I do an NFA trust and my son is in that trust it would then be legal for him to use the weapon but no one else unless they are listed on the trust?

Is this one of those gray areas that get overlooked?



</div></div>

You are correct on both accounts. If you go the law enforcement route, you will alone, will only be able to use it. The trust route, you can list people on the trust and they can possess the item while not in your presents. They will need a copy of the stamp tho. </div></div>

Having talked to a very good lawyer who set up my trust and is into NFA items what you state is false. If you are present then someone else can shoot the NFA item (Think about knob creek and how you can shoot someone else's machine gun with the owner standing there.) If you do a trust as I have done when my daughter is 21 she will be able to take one of my suppressors as she wants, and since her name is on the trust she can let someone else shoot it in her presents without me being there. I have talked to ATF agents also and my lawyer has assured me that this is the case. Again think about "renting" a machine gun at the shooting range.

 

[Jackalope33B]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

They are illegal....... unless you have the proper paper work

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BDunn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good idea to have the paperwork with you as well. Even some LEOs think suppressors are illegal. </div></div>

 

[Ranb]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

So is driving on public highways without a license. Silencers are 100% legal, leave it at that.

Ranb

 

[rbdub474]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ranb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So is driving on public highways without a license. Silencers are 100% legal, leave it at that.

Ranb </div></div>

To a point you are correct. They are not legal in all states. And some states specifically state they are illegal, but an affirmative defense to illegal possession is they are correctly registered with the federal government.

 

[cstmwrks]

..

..

 

[dirtyname]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

Ignorance is bliss. ask for forgiveness rather than permission. its likely no one will hassle him unless your buddy acts or looks like a total d bag.

 

[corey4]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cstmwrks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I understand I can fill out a form 4 and do a sheriffs sign off to get a can. In all my reading though I find that it would not be legal to let anyone shoot the weapon with the can on as it is "stamped" or permitted only for me.

If I do an NFA trust and <span style="color: #FF0000">my son</span> is in that trust it would then be legal for him to use the weapon but no one else unless they are listed on the trust? Is this one of those gray areas that get overlooked?
</div></div>


i did a trust so if i die before my son is 18, he can have it with no paper work. he is only 2 right now. from my understanding, even tho there are pistol calibers owned by the trust, he can have them in his possession even tho he wont be 21 .

 

[Graham]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rbdub474</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And some states specifically state they are illegal, but an affirmative defense to illegal possession is they are correctly registered with the federal government. </div></div>Graham's Rule #1 applies.

If something is illegal under State law, how is compliance with a different law an affirmative defense?

 

[2ndamendfan]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

If you are present then anyone can use it. I would think that if you even went to the bathroom for 2 seconds you would be in deep shit though. I would think that you should probably be with in 20ft of it at all times (or someone in the trust or corp). But I have been told at this point in time (again by a lawyer that will defend me) that if you are present anyone (Except a felon i would think) can use it.

 

[Pat M]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2ndamendfan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kill Box ALPHA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cstmwrks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I understand I can fill out a form 4 and do a sheriffs sign off to get a can. In all my reading though I find that it would not be legal to let anyone shoot the weapon with the can on as it is "stamped" or permitted only for me.

If I do an NFA trust and my son is in that trust it would then be legal for him to use the weapon but no one else unless they are listed on the trust?

Is this one of those gray areas that get overlooked?



</div></div>

You are correct on both accounts. If you go the law enforcement route, you will alone, will only be able to use it. The trust route, you can list people on the trust and they can possess the item while not in your presents. They will need a copy of the stamp tho. </div></div>

Having talked to a very good lawyer who set up my trust and is into NFA items what you state is false. If you are present then someone else can shoot the NFA item (Think about knob creek and how you can shoot someone else's machine gun with the owner standing there.) If you do a trust as I have done when my daughter is 21 she will be able to take one of my suppressors as she wants, and since her name is on the trust she can let someone else shoot it in her presents without me being there. I have talked to ATF agents also and my lawyer has assured me that this is the case. Again think about "renting" a machine gun at the shooting range. </div></div>

correct, give the man a prize

 

[fdkay]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rbdub474</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And some states specifically state they are illegal, but an affirmative defense to illegal possession is they are correctly registered with the federal government. </div></div>Graham's Rule #1 applies.

If something is illegal under State law, how is compliance with a different law an affirmative defense? </div></div>

In Texas, it is an offense to knowingly possess, manufacture, repair, sell or transport a suppressor.

It is a defense to prosecution that you have your NFA approval stamp.

It is NOT an affirmative defense, only a defense. So, legally, they could arrest you, charge you, seize your SBR or suppressor and take it all the way to court where you would have to convince a jury of 12 that it is not illegal to own one.

FWIW, it is now LEGAL to hunt game with a suppressor, just technically illegal to own one.

 

[netranger6]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rbdub474</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And some states specifically state they are illegal, but an affirmative defense to illegal possession is they are correctly registered with the federal government. </div></div>Graham's Rule #1 applies.

If something is illegal under State law, how is compliance with a different law an affirmative defense? </div></div>

In Texas, it is an offense to knowingly possess, manufacture, repair, sell or transport a suppressor.

It is a defense to prosecution that you have your NFA approval stamp.

It is NOT an affirmative defense, only a defense. So, legally, they could arrest you, charge you, seize your SBR or suppressor and take it all the way to court where you would have to convince a jury of 12 that it is not illegal to own one.

FWIW, it is now LEGAL to hunt game with a suppressor, just technically illegal to own one. </div></div>

Yeah, something about this entire thought is disturbingly wrong.

 

[lazy21]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

wheres that face palm pic?

 

[Graham]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Texas, it is an offense to knowingly possess, manufacture, repair, sell or transport a suppressor.

It is a defense to prosecution that you have your NFA approval stamp.

It is NOT an affirmative defense, only a defense. So, legally, they could arrest you, charge you, seize your SBR or suppressor and take it all the way to court where you would have to convince a jury of 12 that it is not illegal to own one.</div></div>Not exactly. Graham's Rule #1 still applies.

First of all, there is no preemption issue in the Texas law. In Texas the defense is written into the statute - into the very same State law.

Second, it's a complete defense. You are always better off having a complete defense to something, and having it enumerated in the same law, than only an affirmative defense to a crime that you are otherwise guilty of.

Third, have a look at Section 46.05: It says that "(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor’s possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended." Therefore you won't get arrested, or charged. And if you do the prosecutor will drop the charges. That's why people all over Texas are NOT being arrested or charged or prosecuted.

Fourth, you won't ever have to convince a jury that it's legal to own one because that fact (the defense) is written into the law. Besides, assuming the defense is met, you will never see a jury. If you do then you will likely have a malicious prosecution claim.

 

[223ai]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Texas, it is an offense to knowingly possess, manufacture, repair, sell or transport a suppressor.

It is a defense to prosecution that you have your NFA approval stamp.

It is NOT an affirmative defense, only a defense. So, legally, they could arrest you, charge you, seize your SBR or suppressor and take it all the way to court where you would have to convince a jury of 12 that it is not illegal to own one.</div></div>Not exactly. Graham's Rule #1 still applies.

First of all, there is no preemption issue in the Texas law. In Texas the defense is written into the statute - into the very same State law.

Second, it's a complete defense. You are always better off having a complete defense to something, and having it enumerated in the same law, than only an affirmative defense to a crime that you are otherwise guilty of.

Third, have a look at Section 46.05: It says that "(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor’s possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended." Therefore you won't get arrested, or charged. And if you do the prosecutor will drop the charges. That's why people all over Texas are NOT being arrested or charged or prosecuted.

Fourth, you won't ever have to convince a jury that it's legal to own one because that fact (the defense) is written into the law. Besides, assuming the defense is met, you will never see a jury. If you do then you will likely have a malicious prosecution claim.</div></div>

I love it when the counselor drops knowledge. Nice job.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

I am certainly not a lawyer, and I would agree with your assertion, but that is not how I read the following:

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

<span style="color: #FF0000">(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.</span>

(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I am a simple man, I figure if the jury has to acquit on grounds of reasonable doubt, then it must have at least gone to a grand jury.
It is unlikely that a district attorney would pursue such charges. But that wouldn't stop someone from being arrested and charged.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

Additional paperwork is simply adding layers of protection against undue harassment and annoyance. It gives less leeway for uninformed law enforcement. If you stepped out to take a piss and they saw someone other than you shooting the can, they might look for an excuse to rain on your parade. However, nothing is really illegal about it and I've never had anyone in law enforcement approach me yet. As mentioned, machine gun rentals are normal. I've heard of SOT dealers letting customers shoot newly purchased NFA toys while waiting for the Form 4 to clear (on premises only, obviously).

On my trust, I have two additional layers of protection, even if they aren't really needed. When you're with the item, it's assumed that anyone else using it is doing it with your permission. The first layer is the trust itself has a beneficiary clause in the trust body that states in no uncertain terms that absolutely anyone I am engaged with in a firearms-related activity is automatically a lifetime beneficiary while engaged for the duration of such activities. A lifetime beneficiary is entitled to the benefits of the trust, but cannot manage the trust. This umbrella clause should theoretically cover anyone I'm shooting with.

The second layer of protection which is even stronger, are forms that designate a lifetime beneficiary by name. I can manually add folks for an arbitrary period of time of my chosing, so the lifetime beneficiary status expires at a set duration. This gives law enforcement a physical piece of paper that lists the individual by name. It's not really needed, but an inclusion for the paranoid.

Of course, we have co-trustee(s) which would be folks that have full powers to manage trust assets. These folks can transport and use your NFA assets without issue. This would be a spouse, sibling, or parent, etc. Someone close to you and not just friends or co-workers.

corey4, an NFA trust lawyer can set up everything for you. It's just like distribution of any assets in an estate, except an NFA trust lawyer makes sure your NFA assets are moved around without running afoul of any state or federal firearm laws.

 

[Graham]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

The Texas law is poorly written, as are most gun laws. Michigan has a similar structure, but it's clearer:

(1) Possession of a silencer is a felony under State law.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).

You're right: Unlike the Michigan law, the Texas law doesn't expressly state that the statute does not apply to people who comply with the NFA rules - only that doing so is a defense to prosecution. But the result is the same.

On the face of it, it looks like Texas can arrest you and charge you, and you have to go to trial. But have another look at what you posted about 'defense': Although not an element of the crime, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not possess the silencer according to NFA rules (and the jury gets an instruction to that effect). So, in practical terms, an arrest will likely go nowhere provided you can establish that you possess the item according the NFA rules.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

Graham, thanks for the clarification.

As you said, it is poorly written as are many things in the Penal Code.

 

[rbdub474]

Re: Letting some one else shoot your suppressed weapon

My error in the Affirmative part of the defense. I had been reading a lot of the different laws and read it wrong.