Suppressors So, I was at the range today....

[insectguy]

.....and a guy had a YHM on a Ruger MkII. It was very quiet, surprisingly so, so we struck up a conversation. I told him I was probably going to go with a trust this time around when he said something quite astonishing-- "You can loan anyone your can as long as they have a copy of your tax stamp."

I did my best to try to convince him this was not in accordance with, but he was overconfident. Our conversation somewhat abruptly ended and we went back to shooting.

Never spoken to anyone who had gone to all the trouble to get a can, then have such a dramatic misunderstanding of the laws.

 

[insectguy]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

He also didn't know about Form 5 transfers in the event of a death.

 

[Elnino31]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

As much useless information as there is on the Internet, there's plenty of good info. Especially on nfa items. I learned quite a bit in the various sites about the subject. So... If you're getting false statements from your dealer it can be easy to find yourself in that scenario. (Im guessing that's where it oiginated)

Fortunately, sites like this exist that can educate people.

 

[KYS]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

He can loan you his can. And you both go to prison....

 

[ORD]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: insectguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....and a guy had a YHM on a Ruger MkII. It was very quiet, surprisingly so, so we struck up a conversation. I told him I was probably going to go with a trust this time around when he said something quite astonishing-- "You can loan anyone your can as long as they have a copy of your tax stamp."</div></div>

Ah...the misinformed masses and the habitually stupid. Bless you all for keeping food on my table, clothes on my back and the roof over my family's head trying to get your dumb asses out of trouble!

I'm getting to the point that I do my damnedest to keep to myself at the range and to not engage anyone in conversation or to have anyone engage me in one (unless its someone I know/trust that is). I get so much more shooting done and leave the range as smart, if not smarter, than when I arrived!

 

[346ci]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

Sooner or later he is going to meet up with another shooter that will take him up on his deal.

I want to know how the hell he got the can to begin with...

 

[GlockandRoll]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

Maybe an undercover agent?

 

[2ndamendfan]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

What was his/yours definition of "loan"? If he was with you, he could allow you to shoot it. He could not give it to you and allow you to bring it back at a latter time.

Do some more research and I am 100% sure this is the case. Having talked to a couple of ATF agents. Also the lawyer that set up my trust and owns NFA items himself.

I here this bogus idea all the time that you CAN NOT allow anyone else to use the NFA item. And every time I refer to the Knob Creek machine gun shoot (as well as my local range that you can rent NFA items at). During the knob creek shot you can try out (for a small fee, determined by the owner) all kinds of NFA items. Perfectly legal if the owner is there with you.

 

[insectguy]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

This guy was definitely under the impression he did not have to be with the item. Hopefully he takes my advice and looks up the law.

I would be amazed if he were an undercover agent. But I guess that's what undercover means.....

 

[GSRswapandslow]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

now...if you have another trustee they can take it with them and shoot all they want

 

[insectguy]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GSRswapandslow</div><div class="ubbcode-body">now...if you have another trustee they can take it with them and shoot all they want</div></div>

Which is why I'm getting my trust as we speak.... Er, text.....

 

[300WSM]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

uhh good luck with that!

guess i'd suggest a call to nfa just to make sure ...to be nice about it.

 

[leadbullet]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

phone call conversations do not hold up in court, if you want to really cover your ass, send your questions in a letter to the legal branch of the ATF and you'll get a response in writing, go from there to the letter of the writen word.

 

[Graham]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: attherange</div><div class="ubbcode-body">phone call conversations do not hold up in court, if you want to really cover your ass, send your questions in a letter to the legal branch of the ATF and you'll get a response in writing, go from there to the letter of the writen word. </div></div>Graham's Rule #1 applies.

What is the difference, in terms of whether it 'holds-up in court' (whatever that means), between being told something verbally and having the same thing in writing from a government functionary? Are you saying that he would have a defense to breaking the law if a clerk at the ATF told him that it was OK to break the law?

 

[KYS]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<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: attherange</div><div class="ubbcode-body">phone call conversations do not hold up in court, if you want to really cover your ass, send your questions in a letter to the legal branch of the ATF and you'll get a response in writing, go from there to the letter of the writen word. </div></div>Graham's Rule #1 applies.

What is the difference, in terms of whether it 'holds-up in court' (whatever that means), between being told something verbally and having the same thing in writing from a government functionary? Are you saying that he would have a defense to breaking the law if a clerk at the ATF told him that it was OK to break the law? </div></div>

What are you talking about?! How can you prove what you were told over the phone unless you were recoding that conversation, which is against the law unless you have their consent and that would need to go up the chain at the ATF/NFA.

Written word on ATF letterhead would suffice with no argument in a court should something go wrong. But the chances of you ending up in court over this are slim to none. As it is done by hundreds of people each day.

Have them written into your trust as an active trustee and they can use what the trust holds.

 

[Graham]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

I was not talking specifically about whether a trust can have more than one trustee, because that has nothing to do with the ATF anyway.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are you talking about?! How can you prove what you were told over the phone unless you were recoding that conversation, which is against the law unless you have their consent and that would need to go up the chain at the ATF/NFA.</div></div>I was talking about relevance, not methods of proof. And Graham's Rule #1 also applies with regard to the legality of recording a conversation. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Written word on ATF letterhead would suffice with no argument in a court should something go wrong.</div></div>ATF legal doesn't exist to draft legal opinions for people at their request. My point was for him not to bother asking the ATF to draft him a legal opinion, and not to rely as a defense on anything a functionary tells him about whether what he is doing is legal.

But if you want to ask the ATF in writing for their policy on the enforcement of something, then go ahead.

 

[Jim Buck]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

Unbelievable!!!! Seems like during the 6 month wait one might be able to research the laws pertaining to the suppressor.

 

[MattDamnit]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

You can't fix stupid

 

[DP425]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</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: attherange</div><div class="ubbcode-body">phone call conversations do not hold up in court, if you want to really cover your ass, send your questions in a letter to the legal branch of the ATF and you'll get a response in writing, go from there to the letter of the writen word. </div></div>Graham's Rule #1 applies.

What is the difference, in terms of whether it 'holds-up in court' (whatever that means), between being told something verbally and having the same thing in writing from a government functionary? Are you saying that he would have a defense to breaking the law if a clerk at the ATF told him that it was OK to break the law? </div></div>

What are you talking about?! How can you prove what you were told over the phone unless you were recoding that conversation, which is against the law unless you have their consent and that would need to go up the chain at the ATF/NFA.
</div></div>

That may not be accurate information

Depends on the call origin and destination. For example, if I call the field office in detroit or the HQ in DC from my home in the lansing area (michigan to michigan/michigan to DC), I can record to my heart's content.

 

[KYS]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</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: attherange</div><div class="ubbcode-body">phone call conversations do not hold up in court, if you want to really cover your ass, send your questions in a letter to the legal branch of the ATF and you'll get a response in writing, go from there to the letter of the writen word. </div></div>Graham's Rule #1 applies.

What is the difference, in terms of whether it 'holds-up in court' (whatever that means), between being told something verbally and having the same thing in writing from a government functionary? Are you saying that he would have a defense to breaking the law if a clerk at the ATF told him that it was OK to break the law? </div></div>

What are you talking about?! How can you prove what you were told over the phone unless you were recoding that conversation, which is against the law unless you have their consent and that would need to go up the chain at the ATF/NFA.
</div></div>

That may not be accurate information

<span style="color: #CC0000">Depends on the call origin and destination.</span> For example, if I call the field office in detroit or the HQ in DC from my home in the lansing area (michigan to michigan/michigan to DC), I can record to my heart's content. </div></div>

That has no bearing on anything. The origin does not matter, I can call from my cell phone, home, office, or a pay phone. You cannot record a federal office without consent.

 

[KYS]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was not talking specifically about whether a trust can have more than one trustee, because that has nothing to do with the ATF anyway.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are you talking about?! How can you prove what you were told over the phone unless you were recoding that conversation, which is against the law unless you have their consent and that would need to go up the chain at the ATF/NFA.</div></div>I was talking about relevance, not methods of proof. And Graham's Rule #1 also applies with regard to the legality of recording a conversation. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Written word on ATF letterhead would suffice with no argument in a court should something go wrong.</div></div>ATF legal doesn't exist to draft legal opinions for people at their request. My point was for him not to bother asking the ATF to draft him a legal opinion, and not to rely as a defense on anything a functionary tells him about whether what he is doing is legal.

But if you want to ask the ATF in writing for their policy on the enforcement of something, then go ahead. </div></div>

For those of us that have been thru asking for written clarification on an ATF law.... it's really not that bad. Write them a specific letter and wait for the written response back.

We had a local guy buy an AR15 pistol and wanted to put a Magpul AFG on it. At first we told him not to do it, it was against the laws. He wrote the ATF a letter and about 2 weeks later had a reply that it was OK to use that specific grip on an AR15 pistol.

 

[PGG]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He can loan you his can. And you both go to prison.... </div></div>

what he said...

 

[Jhnmdahl]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That has no bearing on anything. The origin does not matter, I can call from my cell phone, home, office, or a pay phone. You cannot record a federal office without consent. </div></div>

That's a new one to me. It's illegal under something other than 18 U.S.C. §2511?

 

[g22rmr]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

Last I checked as long as your part of the conversation your good to go. But hey this is the internet right!

 

[THE MGD]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

Last I checked as long as your part of the conversation your good to go. But hey this is the internet right!

Helpful link; http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/tape-recording-laws-glance

 

[piglatinhater]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: insectguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....and a guy had a YHM on a Ruger MkII. It was very quiet, surprisingly so, so we struck up a conversation. I told him I was probably going to go with a trust this time around when he said something quite astonishing-- "You can loan anyone your can as long as they have a copy of your tax stamp."

I did my best to try to convince him this was not in accordance with, but he was overconfident. Our conversation somewhat abruptly ended and we went back to shooting.

Never spoken to anyone who had gone to all the trouble to get a can, then have such a dramatic misunderstanding of the laws. </div></div>

Having spent 5 years in the Chattanooga region and dealt extensively with local gun folk, this is on par with the region. dumb f$@@s.

 

[Helter]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was not talking specifically about whether a trust can have more than one trustee, because that has nothing to do with the ATF anyway.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are you talking about?! How can you prove what you were told over the phone unless you were recoding that conversation, which is against the law unless you have their consent and that would need to go up the chain at the ATF/NFA.</div></div>I was talking about relevance, not methods of proof. And Graham's Rule #1 also applies with regard to the legality of recording a conversation. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Written word on ATF letterhead would suffice with no argument in a court should something go wrong.</div></div>ATF legal doesn't exist to draft legal opinions for people at their request. My point was for him not to bother asking the ATF to draft him a legal opinion, and not to rely as a defense on anything a functionary tells him about whether what he is doing is legal.

But if you want to ask the ATF in writing for their policy on the enforcement of something, then go ahead. </div></div>

Not being a lawyer, I can still see three advantages to having something in writing.
1) if someone from the ATF decides to hassle you, you have something to show them that confirms that yes, another ATF agent told you that it was ok. That could buy you a "ok, but that's not valid anymore, don't do it again", or even a "sorry to bother you".
2) if you do face charges, a Jury will have a hard time convicting you of something that the ATF told you in writing was legal.
3) It provides you a defense of entrapment by estoppel.

Entrapment by estoppel: "As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th Cir. 1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#Entrapment_by_estoppel

 

[DP425]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

That has no bearing on anything. The origin does not matter, I can call from my cell phone, home, office, or a pay phone. You cannot record a federal office without consent. </div></div>


You are incorrect

 

[BusterB]

Re: So, I was at the range today....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Elnino31</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #CC0000">Fortunately, sites like this exist that can educate people</span>. </div></div>

Unfortunately sites like this can also mis-educate quite often also.

Simply look at the debates this fairly simple question has started, there tends to be many opinions in this subject area concerning interpretation of the law. Rather than get an answer directly from the ATF people assume the 20 different answers from the internet they find to be truth. NOT always so!