Quoted:  This is what the guys working at DFW Gun Range told me 8/13/05 when I tried to rent an MP5 from them.   "Our new ATF agent believes renting a machine gun is the same as selling a machine gun, and without the proper paperwork and a $200 transfer tax, it is illegal."  Needless to say I didn't get to shoot an full auto.

WTF?!?!?

smells like bullshit to me, but with the .gov, you never know

Quoted: Quoted: I never rent anything FA from our local shops around here. "NO DOUBLE TAPPING ALLOWED" "SHOOTER MUST WAIT THREE SECONDS BEFORE FIRING THE NEXT ROUND" "PLESE RENT ONE OF OUR FULLY AUTOMATIC SUB MACHINE GUNS" ya right. I haven't been back since. MI guys know where this place is... Yeah, I grew up in MI and I know exactly which place you are talking about.  Bunch of bungholes.  Arrogant, condescending, etc.

Care to inform a fellow Michigander so I know where not to go?

I think the proper question which needs to be ask of this "agent" is this.

In which Issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER was your opinion published?

hmmm Thought so.

Quoted: Well, I know that the store I worked at didn't do that, because that is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the law. It sucks, but it's the law. And as far as the local agents not knowing the law, but making their own opinions about it, well, you lose. Our local agent told us that because VA is a 1 every 30 days state, with the exception of CCH holders, we had to do a mulitpurchase to the NTC if someone with a CCH bought more than 1 handgun from us in 30 days. I told her she was wrong, as the NTC and the law only require it if you sell more than 1 handgun to the same person in a 5 day period.

Which law are they violating? You're paying $600 or whatever to have the store buy a certain Glock as a rental, and the only person they happen to rent it to is you.

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: Well, I know that the store I worked at didn't do that, because that is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the law. It sucks, but it's the law. And as far as the local agents not knowing the law, but making their own opinions about it, well, you lose. Our local agent told us that because VA is a 1 every 30 days state, with the exception of CCH holders, we had to do a mulitpurchase to the NTC if someone with a CCH bought more than 1 handgun from us in 30 days. I told her she was wrong, as the NTC and the law only require it if you sell more than 1 handgun to the same person in a 5 day period. Which law are they violating? You're paying $600 or whatever to have the store buy a certain Glock as a rental, and the only person they happen to rent it to is you. Kharn

Because they are SELLING A FIREARM TO A DC RESIDENT. Period. End of story. I don't give a damn how they are 'justifying' the sale, it is STILL A SALE, and a VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

How does the retailer handle the disposition in the bound book? IF he leaves it open for more than 72 hours after the 'sale', he is in violation of the law, also, not to mention the fact that he didn't do a NCIS or VSP check (Not sure what system MD uses..).

Quoted: Isn't there some little quirk in the law that makes it illeagal for a non-licensed person or non-LEO to handle a post sample FA firearm?

Nope.

Quoted: Because they are SELLING A FIREARM TO A DC RESIDENT. Period. End of story. I don't give a damn how they are 'justifying' the sale, it is STILL A SALE, and a VIOLATION OF THE LAW. How does the retailer handle the disposition in the bound book? IF he leaves it open for more than 72 hours after the 'sale', he is in violation of the law, also, not to mention the fact that he didn't do a NCIS or VSP check (Not sure what system MD uses..).

The weapon never leaves the range, its still possessed by the shop (you're making an investment of capital in the shop, used by them to purchase a rental weapon of your choice, which they only let you use), its kept in their vault until you show up, at which time "your" weapon is retrieved, you shoot it till your heart's content, then you give them the weapon back, they put it back in the vault and you go home. Thus, no disposition needed in the bound book, since the ATF doesnt view it as a sale and it never leaves the range.

Kharn

Quoted: THIS is the work the NRA should be FULLY ENGAGED in - Dismantling / unfucking the BATF&E - spotlighting every abuse, every made-up enforcement action, EVERY harassment of law-abiding gun owners.  This Agency needs a fucking PURGE.

I'm fuzzy on my history, wasn't there talk of an ATF purge in early 90's because of all the JBT shennagigans and Waco was a basically a dog and pony show to prop up the ATF (that went haywire of course)?

Quoted: Quoted: Because they are SELLING A FIREARM TO A DC RESIDENT. Period. End of story. I don't give a damn how they are 'justifying' the sale, it is STILL A SALE, and a VIOLATION OF THE LAW. How does the retailer handle the disposition in the bound book? IF he leaves it open for more than 72 hours after the 'sale', he is in violation of the law, also, not to mention the fact that he didn't do a NCIS or VSP check (Not sure what system MD uses..). The weapon never leaves the range, its still possessed by the shop (you're making an investment of capital in the shop, used by them to purchase a rental weapon of your choice, which they only let you use), its kept in their vault until you show up, at which time "your" weapon is retrieved, you shoot it till your heart's content, then you give them the weapon back, they put it back in the vault and you go home. Thus, no disposition needed in the bound book, since the ATF doesnt view it as a sale and it never leaves the range. Kharn

Ha... just let the ATF auditor know WHY that gun doesn't have a disposition, and that you sold it to a noneligible person....
Because that is EXCATLY what they have done.
If they want to buy a gun, move out of DC, or lobby to change the law.

It is an illegal purchase no matter how you slice it....

Quoted: Quoted: THIS is the work the NRA should be FULLY ENGAGED in - Dismantling / unfucking the BATF&E - spotlighting every abuse, every made-up enforcement action, EVERY harassment of law-abiding gun owners.  This Agency needs a fucking PURGE. I'm fuzzy on my history, wasn't there talk of an ATF purge in early 90's because of all the JBT shennagigans and Waco was a basically a dog and pony show to prop up the ATF (that went haywire of course)?

ATF only screwed up the initial raid. After that FBI was in charge.

The way I see it is, The Range is providing a service.

That service is for the Demonstrating of one of their firearms, you can not take that firearm home with you, They are letting you Demonstrate it and that is all.  And all they ask for is a monetary amount to keep this firearm servicable.  

The Firearm will be Demonstrated in a controlled area. When you think about it it is no diffeent that test driving a car.

Quoted: It seems that someone simply needs to find the balls to stand up to the LOCAL agent that the range is being intimidated by and tell him where he can shove his OPINION on the law.  Since he is an agent, not a judge, he doesn't get to make judgements on the meaning of the laws. Oh and whoever stands up to him will also have to have the Wallet to back up their balls.

You are exactly right, but a little wrong.  Federal agencies interpret and re-interpret the law constantly, no judge required.  However, it DOES take a Judge to get them to back down on a specific interpretation if it is wrong.

I work in the transportation industry, and believe it or not, Federal DOT agents do the same thing!  They intimidate people into compliance with THEIR interpretation of the law.  They have entire bureaucracies dedicated to interpreting and re-interpreting the law.  And they will enforce a strict interpretation of a statue on us, but the next guy in the chain commits way more violations and doesn't get the interpretation or enforcement attention we do (much bigger, big time legal department, offices are near the FRA regional offices, and 15X the revenue).  If you disagree, you can go to their boss, but you risk increased harrassment as well, and it's all legal.  But it's hard to get work done when the federal man shuts you down for inspection.  The threat of being there more often is effective.  

I have dealt with three Federal DOT inspectors from different specialties so far.  I won't post what specific agency since I don't want our local agent stomping down.  Yes I am paranoid about it, he constantly threatens personal fines which run in the 5 and 6 figures, based on varying interpretations of the law depending on what he sees.  And he NEVER leaves without re-interpreting something to be more strict than it was before and threatening a fine.  Job security I would guess, we run a tight ship.  

Two had massive power trips and the third, while he was a personable guy and education focused instead of seeking out things to beat you with, even stood in a rookie class I was in and told them "don't be doing this, cuz I'll jump out of the weeds and show you my badge!" at which point he whipped it out.....no shit!  

I am sure that this will curb crime in some way.  We should all be greatful that these friendly government officals are making sure that these horrible weapons don't fall into the wrong hands.  After all what else do they have to do?

Quoted: Quoted: It seems that someone simply needs to find the balls to stand up to the LOCAL agent that the range is being intimidated by and tell him where he can shove his OPINION on the law.  Since he is an agent, not a judge, he doesn't get to make judgements on the meaning of the laws. Oh and whoever stands up to him will also have to have the Wallet to back up their balls. You are exactly right, but a little wrong.  Federal agencies interpret and re-interpret the law constantly, no judge required.  However, it DOES take a Judge to get them to back down on a specific interpretation if it is wrong. I work in the transportation industry, and believe it or not, Federal DOT agents do the same thing!  They intimidate people into compliance with THEIR interpretation of the law.  They have entire bureaucracies dedicated to interpreting and re-interpreting the law.  And they will enforce a strict interpretation of a statue on us, but the next guy in the chain commits way more violations and doesn't get the interpretation or enforcement attention we do (much bigger, big time legal department, offices are near the FRA regional offices, and 15X the revenue).  If you disagree, you can go to their boss, but you risk increased harrassment as well, and it's all legal.  But it's hard to get work done when the federal man shuts you down for inspection.  The threat of being there more often is effective.   I have dealt with three Federal DOT inspectors from different specialties so far.  I won't post what specific agency since I don't want our local agent stomping down.  Yes I am paranoid about it, he constantly threatens personal fines which run in the 5 and 6 figures, based on varying interpretations of the law depending on what he sees.  And he NEVER leaves without re-interpreting something to be more strict than it was before and threatening a fine.  Job security I would guess, we run a tight ship.   Two had massive power trips and the third, while he was a personable guy and education focused instead of seeking out things to beat you with, even stood in a rookie class I was in and told them "don't be doing this, cuz I'll jump out of the weeds and show you my badge!" at which point he whipped it out.....no shit!

I've seen similar games from Mine Health and Safety Administration (MHSA) inspectors in the mining industry.  Mine operators will have equipment guards made up for different MHSA inspectors.  They swap out the machine guards according to what design each individual MHSA inspector interprets the regulations to require after they make compliance visits.  

Quoted: Ha... just let the ATF auditor know WHY that gun doesn't have a disposition, and that you sold it to a noneligible person.... Because that is EXCATLY what they have done. If they want to buy a gun, move out of DC, or lobby to change the law. It is an illegal purchase no matter how you slice it....

You're not taking the time to read and understand the situation, the weapons have not been sold (in the eyes of the ATF), the range just has a whole lot of rental guns in their safe that are only ever taken out by one specific individual each. The weapon is only transfered once the "renter" has moved out of DC, until then, its the range's property and never leaves their facility.  I havent seen many bound books listing a disposition for a weapon that is still sitting in the FFL's safe.

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: Ha... just let the ATF auditor know WHY that gun doesn't have a disposition, and that you sold it to a noneligible person.... Because that is EXCATLY what they have done. If they want to buy a gun, move out of DC, or lobby to change the law. It is an illegal purchase no matter how you slice it.... You're not taking the time to read and understand the situation, the weapons have not been sold (in the eyes of the ATF), the range just has a whole lot of rental guns in their safe that are only ever taken out by one specific individual each. The weapon is only transfered once the "renter" has moved out of DC, until then, its the range's property and never leaves their facility.  I havent seen many bound books listing a disposition for a weapon that is still sitting in the FFL's safe. Kharn

Maybe it comes down to how the individual store carries this out.

If they TELL the individual that he in fact "owns" the guns, and they are just storing it in their safe for him, and he can only use it on their premises - AND he pays them money for "buying" it, then it woudl seem to me that they either need to list a disposition in their bound book, or explain to the buyer how he "bought" something, but DOESN'T own it.

If people are TOLD that they are just paying for an "exclusive rental" (with an option to get the gun if they move to a differen state), than I supposed everything is kosher.

So I'm just curious what these shops tell people.  One is a legitimate clever solution of "long-term rental" and I don't see a problem with it really.  The other seems like it's right on the verge of some kind of fraud grey area.



However (back to the original topic of the thread) - I still maintain that renting sub-machineguns to random people off the street does seem to violate the SPIRIT of the FFL buying the SMG to demonstrate to a police department that is supposedly considering a purchase.  I dunno - it'll be interesting to see whether this is just some crazy ATF agent, or a shift in the actual policy?