Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 7/9/2001 2:16:52 PM EST
If I am shooting full auto on private property can the police/sheriff come onto the land if they are called or hear it? It is a very rural area (where everyone shoots anyway) and we will be at least 500 yards from anyone else's residence in a somewhat wooded area posted no trespassing? Thanks
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 2:21:17 PM EST
Of course they can investigate. As long as you're legal, wish them a nice day as they're leaving.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 2:35:42 PM EST
Ditto the above post. But remember "they" can wait untill you leave and might do a "pull him over to check what in the hell he has stop". Just a thought, due to seeing it done here in KY. Most LEOS will just want to see it and BS with you about guns. So you should be ok.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 2:41:52 PM EST
Give them 2 or 3 mags to run thru the different ones. Probably a small dept. that doesn't have anything along those lines. It's surprising how favors like that will be returned. Powderburner.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 2:47:07 PM EST
Hehe I like it when I'm out bumping the AK or AR and the cops show up saying someone reported full auto fire. So what!!! I'm not sure why people report it, as it is not illegal and the cops should tell them so. I know one man in eastern KY who has over 100 transferable machine guns in his possesion. You name it, he owns it.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 2:48:47 PM EST
Not sure about the laws where you are but you may have to befurther away freom dwellings to shoot. As for shooting full auto, to me full auto fire is probable cause to investigate. You may want to try the full auto thing on a day when it's raining heavy as the sound won't carry as much. A full auto weapon is a world of problems if it's illegal. It's your call.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 2:55:05 PM EST
Why is full auto fire cause to investigate?? It is freakin scary when even gun owners are so brain washed that if they hear full auto or rapid fire they immediately think somebody is up to no good. Rediculous!!!!! That same brain washing is starting, has started, with so-called "assault weapons". It's just a gun, like any other. A tool, nothing more, nothing less. AR/AK etc are being so demonized by the left and the leftist media, in 20 years your AR15 will have the same taboo as a real "select" fire weapon. To some extent, it has already happened.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 3:18:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By whome: If I am shooting full auto on private property can the police/sheriff come onto the land if they are called or hear it? It is a very rural area (where everyone shoots anyway) and we will be at least 500 yards from anyone else's residence in a somewhat wooded area posted no trespassing? Thanks
View Quote
Check your county, town, village ord. about discharging firearms, if any at all, usually distance to dwellings must be observed for safety reasons. Make sure that your back drop is over built too. Walls built of used tires filled with sand, stacked and staggered is best, and could be covered with almost anything for cammo. Full auto goes great with a can (sound suppressor), so no calls are made to the police, because no one is disturbed by the noise that full auto makes! The officer driving by can not hear it so, he just goes about his or her business too! Get the can, they work and saves on the flow of bull-s_it in your direction! Private Property, is just that, "private", post it and on the posting state, "DANGER due to the discharging of arms, un-authorized entry into, or onto area could lead to serious injury or even death!" This should fill any legal requirements,and curtail suits before they are started. As for LEO's entering your property, it is touch and go, but in rural areas it would dictate no, simply because it is common to hear weapons discharge everyday. Deal with all situations, with reason, and again get a can for that auto, for privacy!
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 3:37:36 PM EST
Let er rip
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 3:47:56 PM EST
I've been on both sides of this. I've been checked and been dispatched to check. Yes it is legal to investigate based upon complaint and observation (by sound). If all is legal (guns, shooters {NO FELONS}, area, etc) no problem. Offer the officer(s) the opportunity to shoot. You'll be surprised at what they pull out of the trunk, case, etc. and offer to let you shoot if you're nice and not a jerk or angry.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 3:57:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By akrazy: Why is full auto fire cause to investigate?? It is freakin scary when even gun owners are so brain washed that if they hear full auto or rapid fire they immediately think somebody is up to no good. Rediculous!!!!!
View Quote
Actually, it would give probable cause to investigate. Under federal law (18 USC 922(o)(1)) possession of a machinegun is prohibited. Possession of a properly registered machinegun, however, is a defense to a charge of possession under 922(o)(2)(B). (see US v. Gonzalez, US v. Just)
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 7:09:17 PM EST
If your thing is legal, just call the local law and tell them when and where you'll be doing some shooting. They may check anyway but eventually they will get to know you and not bother. Yes, Police can enter and search on private land even without probable cause, reasonable suspicion will suffice regardless of signage. It is commonly referred to as the open fields exception. Generally the only property that is protected from search is curtlidge, that is the immediate area surrounding your home, or locations that are not otherwise visible to a passerby. Gun fire of any kind that might be out of place or the subject of a citizens call is grounds to investigate the source. I'm not sure how anxious I would be to walk up on someone with an automatic weapon. I may just wait you out and stop you on the road.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 7:39:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By akrazy: Why is full auto fire cause to investigate?? It is freakin scary when even gun owners are so brain washed that if they hear full auto or rapid fire they immediately think somebody is up to no good. Rediculous!!!!! That same brain washing is starting, has started, with so-called "assault weapons". It's just a gun, like any other. A tool, nothing more, nothing less. AR/AK etc are being so demonized by the left and the leftist media, in 20 years your AR15 will have the same taboo as a real "select" fire weapon. To some extent, it has already happened.
View Quote
[size=4]EXACTLY!!![/size=4] And unfortunately with all of these [red]1-800-rat-Uout[/red] phone numbers & rewards that the government is funding, you'll have to watch your six with every step you take in the not too distant future.[:(] ColtShorty GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 9:20:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By shaggy:Actually, it would give probable cause to investigate. Under federal law (18 USC 922(o)(1)) possession of a machinegun is prohibited. Possession of a properly registered machinegun, however, is a defense to a charge of possession under 922(o)(2)(B). (see US v. Gonzalez, US v. Just)
View Quote
Considering that that law is uncostitutional(see 2nd, 9th, 10th Amendments), probable cause is unwarranted. Would sound of gun fire be an unreasonable cause to search the property? I lean toward no. I think it would be reasonable if the cops haven't been forewarned that shooting is going on.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 12:10:05 AM EST
shaggy, are you saving that if you showed the LEO your tax stamp or whatever the heck it is, in theory he could still arrest you, take the weapon, and when it went to court the judge would simply throw it out? That would be a bad deal if it were so.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 1:56:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By shaggy:Actually, it would give probable cause to investigate. Under federal law (18 USC 922(o)(1)) possession of a machinegun is prohibited. Possession of a properly registered machinegun, however, is a defense to a charge of possession under 922(o)(2)(B). (see US v. Gonzalez, US v. Just)
View Quote
Considering that that law is uncostitutional(see 2nd, 9th, 10th Amendments), probable cause is unwarranted. Would sound of gun fire be an unreasonable cause to search the property? I lean toward no. I think it would be reasonable if the cops haven't been forewarned that shooting is going on.
View Quote
I perfer (Perpich vs. DOD U.S.Supreme Court 1990), which defines the people themselves as militia, which allows military type weapons to them, and exempt them from color of law charges! THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WHY TYRANTS AND PROFESSIONAL ANTI-AMERICAN HATE GROUPS DEMONIZE THE MILITIA AT EVERY TURN! Destroy the peoples only defense against an arbitray form of government, then destroy them for no they are not armed! I am the master of all my land, through years the police have come to know it and respect it, so no problems here! I REPEAT BUY A SOUND SUPPRESSOR, AND STOP PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY START!
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 2:02:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2001 2:06:47 AM EST by andreusan]
Originally Posted By mattja: shaggy, are you saving that if you showed the LEO your tax stamp or whatever the heck it is, in theory he could still arrest you, take the weapon, and when it went to court the judge would simply throw it out? That would be a bad deal if it were so.
View Quote
This would violate ones constitutional right, during the violation the offender, even if law enforcement, can be put down! STRONG WORDS, BUT TRUE NONETHELESS! There are 21 case to include the U.S.Supreme Court that confirm an individuals right to use deadly force against anyone, even police, who are violating their constitutional rights! The courts have become so currupted, now being controlled by cartels known as BAR Associations, they deny the power of the constitution at will. How? They are a monoply in violation of the sherman anti-trust act, and state anti-trust acts too! I posted the link to these cases some time ago Anyone want them e-mailed, send me a request at spec-ops@flinet.com
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 2:10:44 AM EST
In Delaware, FA and Supp's are illegal to own. Period. I have been shooting the GAT out back. And the cops have come. Fortunately they were cool and so was I. first I let them in and this blew their minds. Then I handed them the rifle with unit attached. As it is still 1 round\pull of trigger and I have a pit\backstop, and everthing was Kosher..... There was not much they could say. Yes they parked down the street for about 30 min. But that was the last time I ever saw them. And they have not been back. [:D]
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 3:07:45 AM EST
Private property or not, the first question is if its legal to shot on ones own property. Some states require you to have X amount of property. If this requirement is met than the next question is if the state allows FA. If both requirements are met than it should not be a problem and I would suspect the police have every right to investigate to ensure all is ok.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 6:57:30 PM EST
Libertyof76 - I agree with you in theory -that these laws are a violation of the 2nd Amendment- but in practice it works a little different. Every law is constitutional and thus enforceable until a majority of the US Supreme Court says otherwise. You and I may think a law is unconstitutional and shout it from the mountaintop, but the founders vested the power to decide what is constitutional, and what is not, in the judiciary; ultimately the US Supreme Court. Under Article III of the Constitution, they are the final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what isn't. Now believe me, I don't like the law anymore than you, but to simply say a law is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment is to ignore a lot of caselaw that you would ultimately face in the courtroom. I hope you understand what I'm saying and don't get me wrong here. I admire your idealisim - I lost mine a long time ago and found cynicism instead. I guess in a nutshell what I'm trying to get across is that if it were that easy -just going to court and argue a certain gun law is a violation of my 2nd Amendment rights- this issue would have been dead a long time ago and we'd all have gunsafes chock full of brand new M249's, MAG 58's, M2HB's, M134's, and M79's.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 6:58:44 PM EST
Originally Posted By mattja: shaggy, are you saving that if you showed the LEO your tax stamp or whatever the heck it is, in theory he could still arrest you, take the weapon, and when it went to court the judge would simply throw it out? That would be a bad deal if it were so.
View Quote
Thats it exactly. Of course, if the cop sees you have valid paperwork, he's not going to bother because he knows (or at least should know) its not going any further - the prosecutor would just drop the case anyway. An original form 4 (not a copy) is perfect proof of your defense. The cop may want to call BATF with the serial numbers and verify it if he thinks its a forged document or if he's not familiar with it though. Also, on the back of the approved form 4 is the name and phone number of the local CLEO who certified the document. In a pinch you could simply ask the cop to call the local CLEO who would say "yes, I approved a machinegun for Mr. shaggy". This is why its so important for NFA owners to always have a copy of their paperwork handy, with the originals stored in the safe deposit box or in the safe.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 7:00:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By andreusan: I perfer (Perpich vs. DOD U.S.Supreme Court 1990), which defines the people themselves as militia, which allows military type weapons to them, and exempt them from color of law charges!
View Quote
Andreusan - You've completely misread Perpich. It defines nothing of the sort. The part you refer to is dicta; a discussion of two statutes written AFTER the constitution - one in 1792 and one about 1903. I haven't read the case in a while, but as I recall, both statutes were repealed.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 7:04:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By andreusan: This would violate ones constitutional right, during the violation the offender, even if law enforcement, can be put down! STRONG WORDS, BUT TRUE NONETHELESS! There are 21 case to include the U.S.Supreme Court that confirm an individuals right to use deadly force against anyone, even police, who are violating their constitutional rights!
View Quote
Andreusan - Wrong again. You cannot use deadly force against law enforcement for violating your constitutional rights. You misread Perpich, so I'm betting you got these other cases wrong too. I defy you to cite me a case which holds an individual can use deadly force against law enforcement to prevent a violation of any of their constitutional rights.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 9:13:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By shaggy:Libertyof76 - I agree with you in theory -that these laws are a violation of the 2nd Amendment- but in practice it works a little different. Every law is constitutional and thus enforceable until a majority of the US Supreme Court says otherwise. You and I may think a law is unconstitutional and shout it from the mountaintop, but the founders vested the power to decide what is constitutional, and what is not, in the judiciary; ultimately the US Supreme Court. Under Article III of the Constitution, they are the final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what isn't.
View Quote
I do tend to be more a theory based guy rather than a reality based guy[;)] Supreme Court ruling are only valid for that case, and while past rulings can be used in a current case, that past ruling can be overturned. Harder? Yes. But not impossible. (BTW, I also dispute the fact that the Supreme Court is the Final Arbitrator of the Constitution. I believe the states are, but that would be a whole other thread.)
Now believe me, I don't like the law anymore than you, but to simply say a law is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment is to ignore a lot of caselaw that you would ultimately face in the courtroom. I hope you understand what I'm saying and don't get me wrong here. I admire your idealism - I lost mine a long time ago and found cynicism instead. I guess in a nutshell what I'm trying to get across is that if it were that easy -just going to court and argue a certain gun law is a violation of my 2nd Amendment rights- this issue would have been dead a long time ago and we'd all have gunsafes chock full of brand new M249's, MAG 58's, M2HB's, M134's, and M79's.
View Quote
Yes, I am still young and naive and full of idealism[:)]. Any-hoo, I realize that it won't be easy. Fighting for liberty never is. I do understand what you are saying, but I think us gunowners have obeyed too many laws that we know to be unconstitutional and which violates our rights, and we need to draw a line in the sand and stop it right there right now. Like I said before, maybe I'm naive, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a lot of experience in the "real world". But I think now it is time to say enough is enough. I know you already own a lot of MG's, and have experience with the ATF, and of course I can't nor would I force you to do anything you don't want to. I'm just saying if I'd do things differently if I could. Don't take this as an attack, because gunowners need to stick together, this is just something to think about.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 9:24:52 PM EST
Ruby Ridge
Top Top