User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/20/2002 5:54:56 PM EDT
[#1]
There are occasional inspections at ranges, but most of the time it's done as a consequence of something else. For example, a member here removed a cased rifle from his car trunk to get to his spare tire, and ended up having some citizen report him to the police, and ended up being a major event that resulted in the rifle being confiscated. Even though the rifle was determined to be legal, it took a lot of work to get the rifle back.
Basically, anytime you run into a police/guns situation, the potential is high that your gun could be inspected or confiscated for later inspection. If it is suspected that a gun is in an illegal configuration, BATF is often called in by the local cops. Obviously, if there's a shooting involving your gun, it WILL be confiscated and inspected. The point is: if you ever remove your rifle from your gunsafe, there's a possibility of something happening that could result in police/BATF interest in your guns. The chances are low, but the penalties are high. You have to determine what level of "exposure" you are willing to have. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2002 6:11:55 PM EDT
[#2]
You don't even have to remove it from your safe. Your ex-girlfriend could get vindictive and put a restraining order on you, any number of things.
One case I know of going on right now. An aquaintance of mine finds a disk at work and puts it into a computer to find out what it is. Nothing comes up - he puts the disk away - checks it out later at home. Turns out there is kiddie porn on it - he breaks the disk and throws it away - tells his wife when she asks that she didn't want to know what is on it. Later, police practically destroy his house, break his safe open, take some of his guns and ammo (I don't know why they didn't take all of them). He is left with guns, ammo, a safe that can't be locked, and a small child in the house - there's safety for ya. Turns out his computer at work logged everything he did, captured some file names, called the cops. This is still ongoing and I haven't heard anything for a while - I don't really know the guy well. In any case, if he had had preban features on a postban gun he would be facing charges on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 2:55:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: A lot of threads here address the BATF and their willingness to prosecute one for three or more features. The question is, who tells them that John Doe has an illegal gun. No one has ever taken names an evaluated at the range? I am not devil's advocating, I am just curious how BATF would even find out if I put an evil trigger group in a post '94 AR? Pissed off woman |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 3:44:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: A lot of threads here address the BATF and their willingness to prosecute one for three or more features. The question is, who tells them that John Doe has an illegal gun. No one has ever taken names an evaluated at the range? I am not devil's advocating, I am just curious how BATF would even find out if I put an evil trigger group in a post '94 AR? Pissed off woman LOL! Seriously, it does not matter. Anyone who thinks they are too slick to get caught is just fooling himself. With that said, however, the inference from your question is correct. They don't just arbitrarily look for violators (as a general rule). Usually, LE will add-on, to a multi-count (usually for drugs) indictment, a Crime Bill violation. But again, it should not matter. Other "ancillary" examples exist as well, as mentioned above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 9:12:17 AM EDT
[#5]
At my range, most shooters are using bolt action hunting rifles. So when I arrive with a decked out M4, it tends to draw abit of attention. Even tho its legal, I dont like bringing it there. Too many dirty looks, which is odd coming from other gun owners. But its a small town range, so I wont blame them.
Now if your using your AR15 for private hunting, or you do your plinking on private land, I wouldnt worry 1 bit about evil features. If I want to go kill some rabbits on my own property, sure, I'll pop on a telescoping stock. But when Im done the A2 goes right back on. If your gonna risk it, just be smart about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 10:06:20 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: LOL! Seriously, it does not matter. Anyone who thinks they are too slick to get caught is just fooling himself. With that said, however, the inference from your question is correct. They don't just arbitrarily look for violators (as a general rule). Usually, LE will add-on, to a multi-count (usually for drugs) indictment, a Crime Bill violation. But again, it should not matter. Other "ancillary" examples exist as well, as mentioned above. Danger Danger Will Robinson !![:D] Persecution may vary by area. I stay far (make that FAR FAR) away from federal criminal court cases, but I have heard of some strange firearms persecutions locally (kid brings gun to school fer chrissakes). You only need one gun nutty assistant persecutor to make your life miserable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 10:26:03 AM EDT
[#7]
Imagine your name in the newspaper. The article says you stopped for running a red light and upon inspection of the weapon on your back seat the police found it to be "modified" into a illegal assault weapon. This would do a lot of good for the anti-gunners in your state and for that they will house and feed you for free.
I'm sure none of us agree with these laws and some (OK...ME) feel they are wrong. That being said, Who wants to be a test case? The premise is correct, They probably won't find out! But the reality of "if they do" certianly outways your premise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 11:42:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Persecution may vary by area. I stay far (make that FAR FAR) away from federal criminal court cases, but I have heard of some strange firearms persecutions locally (kid brings gun to school fer chrissakes). You only need one gun nutty assistant persecutor to make your life miserable. Most AUSAs, in most circuits, don't have time for quirky AW violations, standing alone. I'm sure there are exceptions, however, the FBI, DEA, USCS, INS etc. cases tend to be big conspiracies involving multi-state, multi-year activity. Again, DON'T INFER FROM THIS THAT I'M OK'ING AW VIOLATIONS, cause I'm not. I'm just sharing knowledge. It's not worth going to jail for some bullshit f/h or collapsable stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 2:24:01 PM EDT
[#9]
It's not the probability of conviction that prevents me from putting a pre-ban upper on my post-ban lower. It's the possibility of conviction.
Some person bragged to me the other day at an outdoor range that they had a post-ban Beta C Mag for their AR but they didn't give a crap about "stupid post ban laws." I was in total agreement with their sentiment, but my pre-ban Beta C mag does give me extra peace of mind and that is worth the $$$. As for that person? I hate to say it but I can't remember what he or she looked like. Oh well, maybe next time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 2:38:37 PM EDT
[#10]
Here's a long boring fable, that's not exactly on point, about how one can get end up with a gun charge- Young guy moves into large eastern city from country. He likes guns and brings several semiautmatic rifles (M-1 carbine, ak types) with him that are completely legal to own. Has just moved in and has no furniture, they are laying on living room floor. His new job doesn't pay that great yet so he lives in the crummy part of town. He hears commotion and looks out late at night to see a pretty tough looking guy roughing up the 2 girls in their early 20's across the street on the sidewalk. He steps outside with the carbine at his side pointed down and mostly hidden by his body and loudly says something like what's going on here. After a couple of f-you s tough guy notices gun and takes off. Neighbor looks out at this point, sees guy with gun & calls cops. The cops have already had two gun related calls that evening (attempted suicide and foiled burlary). When kid opens door they see the AKs laying on the floor in an empty apartment and jump to the conclusion that young guy is a nut. He says go ask the girls why I had the gun. Cops return to say girls didn't have any problem with anyone and arrest him. At arraignment cops tell democrat judge who grew up in burbs and never shot a gun in her life about the "arsenal" they found and she puts high bail on him and he ends up in the county jail. The girls were drug addict prostitutes who were fighting with their pimp/dealer so they denied everything. Young guy got out of jail and basically got out of everything, but only after mommy and daddy paid for lawyer and he spent a few days in the county lock up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2002 2:53:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Its a damn shame, but where I live I'd never use one of my guns to protect anyone who wasn't family.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2002 5:05:33 PM EDT
[#12]
That's a kinda disturbing case. Gun owners are getting it both ways. I've always thought that most gun owners would use their guns to defend complete strangers from impending harm. But now, in some places, if what's going on isn't exactly what it looks like, (esp. if your weapon doesn't conform to complex and ever-changing laws) you could get in a good bit of trouble. So more gun owners do nothing, and fewer innocent people get defended from harm. I'm sure that, sooner or later, the antis will find a case where a CCW holder did not do anything to stop a violent crime and go nuts with it. And the country is one step closer to tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2002 6:55:54 AM EDT
[#13]
Assuming you are shooting at a public range that you have used for years, what would give anyone, besides the ROs for safety reasons, probable cause to want to examine your weapons? And I'm not talking full auto here.
What should your response be in this situation? Are we under any obligation to just let anybody from the ABC Agency handle and "inspect" our weapons because they decide today would be a nice day to do so? No apparent probable cause and no warrant involved. How would this situation change, if any, on private land that is known to be a "shooting range"? Moe |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2002 2:06:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Assuming you are shooting at a public range that you have used for years, what would give anyone, besides the ROs for safety reasons, probable cause to want to examine your weapons? And I'm not talking full auto here. What should your response be in this situation? Are we under any obligation to just let anybody from the ABC Agency handle and "inspect" our weapons because they decide today would be a nice day to do so? No apparent probable cause and no warrant involved. How would this situation change, if any, on private land that is known to be a "shooting range"? Moe Let me address the question of probable cause (I'm not going to get into the probability or liklihood it would or could happen). You have to remember the essential elements of the crime - posession or transfer of a statutorily defined "assault weapon". That is, if you have a gun which can accept a detachable mag and has two or more features, they have probable cause, and likely a case. The fact that your gun is a verifiable pre-ban is only a defense to such a charge. All they would have to do is see you and your gun in plain view in a public place (like a public shooting range) and if it has a detachable mag and two or more features (features which are pretty obvious upon even a quick glance at a gun) they've got you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2002 3:57:52 PM EDT
[#15]
...Or said weapon is visible from a public place or they have a lawful reason or right to be on the private property and see said weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2002 4:23:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Lets just hope everyone does their part to help try to do away with this stupid law and then these discussions won't even be necessary.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2002 7:12:14 PM EDT
[#17]
All they would have to do is see you and...they've got you. Got me for what? [i]Possession[/i] of a statutorily defined assault weapon? Since when did that become a crime in and of itself? The 1994 Crime Bill forbids the manufacture of new assault weapons but it doesn't forbid the possession of existing ones. I don't see where any crime has been committed here. I'm considered guilty of a non-crime? Not to piss in anyone's oatmeal. I have to agree with VA-gunnut. Moe |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2002 8:26:47 PM EDT
[#18]
mjm,
You'd better read the law again. It bans possession, manufacture and transfer of [b]ALL[/b] assault weapons, then provides for exceptions and exemptions. The LEO has the right to examine any weapon that appears to be an assault weapon to determine, among other things, if it is an exempted or excepted weapon. Possession of proof of status isn't required, but a wise man would have it handy when out in public with the weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2002 8:27:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: All they would have to do is see you and...they've got you. Got me for what? [i]Possession[/i] of a statutorily defined assault weapon? Since when did that become a crime in and of itself? The 1994 Crime Bill forbids the manufacture of new assault weapons but it doesn't forbid the possession of existing ones. I don't see where any crime has been committed here. I'm considered guilty of a non-crime? Not to piss in anyone's oatmeal. I have to agree with VA-gunnut. Moe Read the law. 18 USC 922(v)(1) states "It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or [i]possess[/i] a semiautomatic assault weapon". The fact that the particular gun in your possession may be a preban is only a defense to the charge. If you are in possession of a weapon which meets the statutory difinition of an "assault rifle", they have a case. And if you wish to escape conviction, you'd have to provide some evidence your gun was in fact, a pre-ban. Has it been enforced this strictly? Never to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to enforce it that strictly if they want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2002 5:58:43 AM EDT
[#20]
I,m in a quandry here. To avoid potential issues, do you keep a copy of a factory letter attesting to a pre-ban's exempt status with the weapon at all times??
What say Dave, I presume living in Cal, you have some opinion on this?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2002 11:24:04 AM EDT
[#21]
I keep a copy of the California registration letter in the pistol grip or butt trap of my AW's, and a copy of the invoice/packing slip from ArmaLite in my remanufactured preban Eagle Arms rifle. Can't hurt. I also make sure I bring a 10 round magazine to the range in case someone wants to shoot the evil black rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2002 5:30:07 PM EDT
[#22]
Well...you got me! It does ban possession.
Which brings up an interesting point. I've shot a both public and private ranges and swapped off guns with LEOs for a "test drive." Heck, once a month we shoot at the Sheriff's Range. Never has any of the LEOs ever given my guns an incriminating look or questioned their "parentage." I assume that the '94 laws apply equally to their personal weapons also, yes? So it would appear that the locals don't give anything but lip service to these regs and only the BAT boys really give a crap. Moe |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2002 6:58:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I also make sure I bring a 10 round magazine to the range in case someone wants to shoot the evil black rifle. Please tell me that letting someone try a rifle with one of your legal pre-ban 30rd mags locked into the rifle would not be some kind of violation under CA law, and you are just being on the safe side by letting people use the 10rnd mag. I know the new law in CA states that you can't transfer the mags, but if you let someone try to shoot your rifle with the 30rd mag in it, that is considered a transfer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2002 7:57:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Posted by Dave_G...
I keep a copy of the California registration letter in the pistol grip or butt trap of my AW's, and a copy of the invoice/packing slip from ArmaLite in my remanufactured preban Eagle Arms rifle. Can't hurt. I also make sure I bring a 10 round magazine to the range in case someone wants to shoot the evil black rifle. Yup... lets keep jumping through hoops, and behaving like scared little circus animals. That will win our rights back real quick! Civil disobedience... What's that??? Never heard of the concept! "Oh... I hate and disagree with all these unconstitutional "laws", but run the risk of becoming a test case, and having my comfortable life disrupted...Not [b]ME![/b] What are you, crazy???" Reading this thread, I fear that the struggle to preserve and win back our freedoms is already lost. It is amazing how willing we all are to accept the infringement of that which [b]"...shall not be infringed"[/b] [:(] This rant is not directed at anyone in particular. I'm not singling you out, Dave_G. I'm simply addressing what I see as the defeatist mindset, which is held by far too many gun owners. If we are ever going to win back our God given rights, it is not enough to simply understand and agree with the right to bear arms on an intellectual and abstract level. We will have to embrace it, and defend it with all of our heart and passion. We must feel the fire of freedom burning in our bellies, and heed its call! I guess my point is that eventually we are going to [b]have to[/b] stand up as individuals, and put everything on the line by saying, "I'm not going to take it anymore! This has gone too damn far!" The only question is what exactly will we sacrifice? Will it be time, money, and possible imprisonment, or will it be blood and tears? It is up to all of us to answer this question as individuals, and answer it we will, for sacrifice is inevitable if we ever hope to save, and restore our once great republic. [b]"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom, and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too."[/b] -Somerset Maugham |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2002 8:46:02 AM EDT
[#25]
I too have often wondered how the ATF can catch you if you have a post ban rifle with more than one evil features.
The only ranges I've shot at are either indoor or on State Game Lands. I know on the game lands that if you do something wrong and the Ranger catches you, he'll run the serial number of your pistol to the illegal database the State Police have to see if it's all legal. Other than that I really haven't had any trouble with "black rifles" I remember one time he showed up and it was me and my buddy, we had a preban AR15 carbine, semiauto Thompson with a 30 round mag stuck in it and my AP9 'assault pistol'. The only other shooters were two guys with old west style revolvers. They were shooting a whole cylinder worth (the range has a 3 round limit). The ranger first looked at us, but we made a good show of only firing 3 round out of our assault weapons. I was surprised when he walked over to the guys with teh revolvers and wrote them up. I've come to the conclusion that when I drive aroudn with my guns, that as long as I don't give the police any reason to pull me over, I'm good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2002 9:41:35 AM EDT
[#26]
Vulpsturm, was that the range by lake Nakamixion (sp) in Bucks co. by any chance ? Damn rangers are always at that one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2002 1:56:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Nope, it's the one near Allentown off of Route 100 near Fogelsville.
I have a friend in Downingtown who I think goes out to the one you're describing. When I'm down here at school in Center City, I usually go shooting out at C&C in the north east. $10 shoot all day, sure beats Targetmasters ;) I talked with the guys out at Abington Guns and they told me about a range called "The Farm". $5, shoot all day, no restrictions. Give me an email and I'll dig up the directions. Maybe we could get together sometime for a shoot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2002 7:07:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Possession of proof of status isn't required, Did hell just freeze over? Can’t believe the self proclaimed preban nazi just said that. Wow, I need a drink. R/K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2002 7:45:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Vulpsturm, no shit C&C huh? I used to be a member there. That place is like 10 minutes from my house. I think that farm you are talking about is called Sugarbottom. I've been there. It a farm that a guy lets people shoot on. I only went there once becuase he doesn't allow semi-auto guns. He said the neighbors were tring to shut him down so he didn't want them to see people shooting assult rifles. THis was 5 or 6 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2002 4:39:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Hmmm, that sucks if the guy at Sugarbottom doesn't allow black rifles. It'd be a long drive for me to get told I can't shoot my guns down there.
C&C is actually pretty good. Most people who were ever there while I was, was about 8 russian guys. They were all over my friend's Uzi and my Mac and Tec-22. We haven't been back for almost a month now because the last time we were there, this guy showed up with a Jennings and told my friend he was a convicted felon, then wanted to buy my friend's S&W. We asked that fat guy who always sits on the easy chair if we could tell the cop that sits outside and he got all annoyed saying it wasn't his problem. So we told the cops outside, didn't find out what happened after that. We're afraid to come back since the guy looks the type that if something did go down after we left, he wouldn't let us shoot there. There's a place on Callowhill that I want to check out, supposidly no limits on caliber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2002 7:09:46 AM EDT
[#31]
Now RK...Quoting out of context to make a point is the act of a foolish man. What I said was,
"...It bans possession, manufacture and transfer of ALL assault weapons, then provides for exceptions and exemptions. The LEO has the right to examine any weapon that appears to be an assault weapon to determine, among other things, if it is an exempted or excepted weapon. Possession of proof of status isn't required, [b]but a wise man would have it handy when out in public with the weapon[/b]." That's consistant with everything I've ever said on the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2002 11:32:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Dave, what are you doing? You KNOW RK was just trying to stir up shit . .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2002 11:48:35 AM EDT
[#33]
Two things:
First, Vulpsturm - Does the Grape Street Army Navy Store still exist? Second, for anyone contemplating violating th law - just think of the consequences. What if you have a fire and the fire / police / rescue team discovers your cache of pre-post hybrids? Don't laugh about the angry woman syndrome. A few years ago a fellow returned home only to find his house had been ransacked by the ATF. They raided his premises after his ex-girlfriend made an anonymous call that stated that he had a DIAS and an SP1. Also, and this is the scary crap, it has been reported that post-9/11 checks have been done by the FBI and ATF of firearms related companies' shipping records. Order a lower AND a pre-ban kit from Bushmaster. [>:/]Hmmmm... Probable cause per chance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2002 11:51:02 AM EDT
[#34]
Oh yeah!
Vulsturm, Have you considered joining the Guthsville Rod and Gun Club? Many years ago I was a member there, and I wonder if it's still around. -Schnert |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2002 12:03:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Vulpsturm, There is a place on Front St that maybe convienient for you depending where you are at in the city. Its called Firing Line. They rent full auto I believe. There is also a pistol range at 9th and Spring Garden St. Give me an email and maybe we could go shooting together sometime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2002 1:26:22 PM EDT
[#36]
In the past, you, and others, have implied that without status proof the weapon becomes illegal regardless of it’s true nature. How is that statement taken out of context? Either proof of status is required or it is not. R/K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2002 1:41:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Sorry Steve. A moment of weakness...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2002 7:54:07 PM EDT
[#38]
In the past Dave has refused to acknowledge the above point that I quoted. I’ve debated the concept with him numerous times, the whole while he’s denied the concept, or played games around it. Now he freely admits the point. I act surprised and am accused of stirring the shit. ???? R/K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2002 10:25:46 PM EDT
[#39]
LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA. FINGERS IN EARS. LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA. cAN'T HEAR A THING. LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA....
Is that OK Steve? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:14:52 AM EDT
[#40]
RK, I was joking with the both of you. You take shit way too seriously. Your quote was out of context. Dave was opining on spot inspections by LEOs, I believe, on a range.
You are right in that we have debated this issue a lot. If anyone is interested, the most recent thread is here [URL]ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=44999[/URL] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:53:12 AM EDT
[#41]
I'm no attorney ,nor do i wish to be 1,but the simple fact here(in my opinion)is either, If the LEo takes your AW or not you are still out a nice chuck of change!(HELL PROBABLY ENOUGH TO BUY 5 PRE-BANS AND 2 NFA M-16'S)
I obey the law ,to the letter,and encourage all others to do the same,except leo's cause they are above the law with special firearm privileages!!!!!![}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 4:01:14 AM EDT
[#42]
Futherer more u should consider the HEAT that u get for this site post something like this !!!!!!!
DAMN MAN, THE ABC'S ARE KNOCKING ON GOATBOY'S DOOR NOW!!!! [}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:17:03 PM EDT
[#43]
Dave generalized earlier in the thread by indicating something to the effect of “in public view”. Still do not see how my quote changes the context of the paragraph. “Possession of proof of status isn't required,” How does the rest of his paragraph change the circumstance of the above statement I quoted? Like I said before, either it’s required, or it is not. There does not appear to be any modifier to that statement in the rest of his statement. Were the rifle in question is in plain view or locked in a safe at home, that really doesn’t change the effect of the statement. Quoted: What I said was, "...It bans possession, manufacture and transfer of ALL assault weapons, then provides for exceptions and exemptions. The LEO has the right to examine any weapon that appears to be an assault weapon to determine, among other things, if it is an exempted or excepted weapon. Possession of proof of status isn't required, [b]but a wise man would have it handy when out in public with the weapon[/b]." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 3:34:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Steve, something else I’m curious of in Dave’s statement.
(Sorry if it’s out of context) Quoted: The LEO has the right to examine any weapon that appears to be an assault weapon to determine, among other things, if it is an exempted or excepted weapon. Does a LEO really have the right to examine a weapon for anything other than his own personal safety? Does a LEO really have the right to determine status? What rights, if any, do owners of such weapons have? R/K PS, hey Dave, Now try holding your breath till you pass out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2002 5:48:57 PM EDT
[#45]
I am curious to know if a local LEO is even supposed to enforce this law since it is a federal law?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 3:39:07 AM EDT
[#46]
RK,
Now that you asked, I don't believe LE would be allowed to inspect a weapon for "their own safety" unless they had a Terry suspicion that you were engaged in a crime. Then, in the course of a Terry detention, they would not really be able to "inspect" the weapon, just secure it. If they believe the weapon was in violation of some law (see below for which LE I'm talking about), then that might be enough to detain you and inspect the weapon. But in that case, it's because they suspect the weapon is in violation, not for some nebulous safety reasons. Do they have a right to check status? Depends on who "they" are. VA-gunnut brings out a good point. Local LEO would have no jurisdiction to enforce a strictly federal code section, unless it's somehow referenced or incorporated in a state or local law. The feds, if they believed (reasonably) that you possessed an illegal weapon, can detain and examine the weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 10:04:13 AM EDT
[#47]
If there is an appropriate state law, as in California, any peace officer, well almost any, can enforce California law regarding AW's.
And RK, by deliberately quoting out of context, you expose the weakness of your own arguement. My fingers are now back in my ears and I am singing The Marine Corps Hymn with great enthusiasm and gusto! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 12:09:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Do they have a right to check status? Depends on who "they" are. VA-gunnut brings out a good point. Local LEO would have no jurisdiction to enforce a strictly federal code section, unless it's somehow referenced or incorporated in a state or local law. The feds, if they believed (reasonably) that you possessed an illegal weapon, can detain and examine the weapon. Steve - I'll defer to your expertise here, but it seems to me that if a state or local LEO had probable cause to believe you were violating a purely federal statute, they would still have the ability to detain you until the feds arrived and could sort it out. For example, Counterfeiting money is a crime under federal law. Even assuming there was no parallel state statute, I would assume if a state or local LEO found you in possession of materials which would give rise to probable cause to believe you were in violation of the federal statute, they could detain you for a reasonable time to allow the feds to arrive and check it out. Say you were pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint and they saw printing plates and a sheet of fake twenty dollar bills in plain view; I wouldn't expect them to just give you the breathalizer and send you on your way with the plates and counterfeit cash. Then again, maybe this issue is simply dependent on the state law and if (or how) it empowers state & local LEOs with regard to purely federal crimes. Prosecution of the crime would obviously be done by the feds, but if local law enforcement had probable cause to believe you were in commission of a felony (even one under purely federal law) I don't think they'd have to just walk away and hope federal law enforcement caught up with you at a later time. Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 4:03:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Not to get too technical, but I stated they (local LE) would not be able to "enforce" a strictly federal statute. Not only do I believe they would be outside their bailiwick trying to enforce putative federal violations, I don't think they would be able to even investigate it unless it was ancillary to some state crime or somehow put lives in immediate danger. Even in your money laundering example (actually a crime in VA too), the apparent fruits of the federal crime were discovered during a traffic stop investigation.
But, could they detain while the feds arrive to investigate? Yea, I think you are right about that- good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2002 4:29:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Most federal LEO's do not know federal law well enough if at all to detain a individual for a violation of them. I agree if an LEO comes across what he believes to be counterfeit money then the LEO could at least detain you until they were clear on whether you broke a federal law or not. As far as detaining an individual on a firearms violation it would first depend on what you were doing and why you were initially stopped i.e. speeding, or DUI, or robbing a bank. The Leo would only be able to run the serial number on your weapon to see if it was stolen and will not be able to tell if it was a preban or postban, the LEO would have to have some knowledge of federal firearm laws and would have to know the exact law on any federal law they want to enforce to be able to enforce it. There would also be no way a LEO detaining you on the range or any other time during a stop in the field would be able to tell if the weapon is postban or preban by the normal means available to most agencies, it would require an investigator to research it further. Of course all of this may be different in CA because of the new AW law. A CA LEO may have the ability in the field the check a weapons serial number to determine the date of manufacture or at least if it was registered in his state. Any CA LEO's know about this?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
