Yeah he lied to you. Or he’s repeating where someone lied to him. They can demand it, but unless they are a sworn ATF TFO or SA, or an IRS SA, they have no legal authority to force you to produce it under 26 USC. It is privileged tax information. State law can’t supersede USC and grant them special powers not allowed in USC.

Also, the above authorities can’t snoop or fish as to what tax stamps you hold without probable cause of a USC criminal offense with a nexus to tax violations. That is also spelled out in 26 USC.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
An AZ state trooper buddy told me AZ has a law specifically authorizing state and local police to enforce federal gun laws. I doubt it ever happens unless it's a chance to stack charges on a real crime. But he said they can ask to see your stamps at the range.

They can ask all they want. That does not mean you have to produce it. They can ask to search your vehicle, your house, your person. That does not mean you have to oblige.

I can ask for a drivers license or your ID all day long, in my state however the only time you actually have to produce it is if you are driving a vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
No you don’t have to produce it in a state with no mirror laws.

What do you mean by “mirror” laws?

This is the Colorado statute pertaining to possession of silencers:

C.R.S. § 18-12-102 — Possessing a Dangerous Weapon (1) As used in this section, the term “dangerous weapon” means a firearm silencer, machine gun, machine gun conversion device, short shotgun, or short rifle. (3) A person who knowingly possesses a dangerous weapon commits a class 5 felony. (5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon, or to the charge of possessing an illegal weapon, that the person so accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon. [Emphasis added.]

Based on the statute that requires having a “permit and license” to possess a suppressor, do you believe that a Colorado peace officer could legally demand to see such permit? How could anyone know if someone had the required document without being able to see it?

Other than the fact that the applicable form is (used to be?) a tax document, how would that be different than asking to see someone’s concealed handgun permit to demonstrate that he was carrying legally?

(I may have misunderstood some of the discussion if the question was already addressed.)

What licensing or permitting apparatus does Colorado have in place for firearm silencers? Who is the licensing or permitting authority the Colorado law is referring to?

If one were to believe AI, a tax stamp is neither a permit nor a license, but rather a receipt. An FFL with a SOT would obviously be a different story.

Here's what's tripping me up:

You got 50 guys with guns at the range. Any number of them could have illegally obtained their guns. Now let's say there's 1 guy with a suppressor. What is it that says local law enforcement can ask for proof of legal ownership from the 1 guy? Then, why not the other 49?

In a traffic stop, I understand I have to produce my driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. At what point do I have to prove anything else in my vehicle is legally owned, assuming of course the items are in some way legal to own?

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Who is the licensing or permitting authority the Colorado law is referring to?

The BATFE is the authority via the NFA registration of the gun or suppressor. The particular form issued by them is demonstration (yes, a receipt) that the item was registered, and is therefore de facto properly licensed and permitted. That is my understanding of the situation based on everything I have been able to determine about it.

Note that the Colorado statute mentions an “affirmative defense.” Although I am not an attorney and never studied that legal principle in any depth, my understanding is that it means the law says something is illegal until and unless the defense is specifically raised and demonstrated. I.e., in this case I present the proper ATF form to show that I’m not breaking the law by possessing the item. The 49 guys you mention would go to jail if they could not present that defense when charged with possession of an illegal device.

Keep in mind that Colorado law says that suppressors are “dangerous weapons.” That is the presumption of the situation: You have one, you’re committing a felony. Unless you can affirmatively demonstrate that it’s legal.

FWIW, based on one video I saw just recently, the same is true of Pennsylvania and, I believe, of other states as well.

Beyond that, don’t expect any explanation or justification from me of any legislation or rules that interfere with our rights to keep and bear arms (and especially harmless devices like suppressors). Most are confusing at best, and utterly illogical attacks on reason and basic common sense at worst.

Added: Colorado, like probably all states, prohibits possession of explosives such as dynamite, etc., without a permit issued by the proper state agency. If during traffic stop a Trooper discovered several blocks of C4 in the back seat, what would he think and do? “Oh, the presumption is that it’s okay unless I can demonstrate a reason why it’s not, so slow down and have a nice day”? I am not familiar with any case law on the subject, but I would bet a whole handful of nickels that he would be legally justified in asking for proof that there was a permit for their possession, and that otherwise someone would get arrested.

Thank you.

I think I'm getting my head wrapped around it. It's akin to certain prescription drugs. If pulled over and the officer sees them laying on the passengers seat, I'd best have a prescription for them. On the other hand, a bottle of aspirin isn't inherently illegal.

I don't own an SBR, SBS, or supressor. It's not the money or the paperwork, but the responsibility for understanding the complexities that owning those items bring. It seems a simple misstep and everything goes sideways.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
No you don’t have to produce it in a state with no mirror laws.

What do you mean by “mirror” laws?

In certain instances a state will take an entire section of federal code, statutes, violations and copy them word for word making them a state law.
Many times these sections of law are quite technical or nuanced.
For example in Kentucky the state has taken all of the DOT (Department of Transportation) codes and made them state law as well. That however does not mean they are being charged federally or can be charged federally by local LE that don't hold the proper authority.
An example being I am not a certified DOT officer, but I can write all the DOT violations I want under the state level into state/local court.
There are things however I can't do. I can't stop a commercial vehicle solely for a DOT inspection, nor can I perform a full DOT inspection, nor can I take a commercial vehicle out of service for certain infractions.

I can't speak for Arizona but when Rick Lee says a Trooper can enforce all Federal Gun laws, I am presuming that Arizona has taken all Federal Statutes in the firearms section and made them State laws and they are enforcing a State law that is mirrored from the Feds. I don't see the Feds blanket deputizing the entire State Police to enforce gun laws on the federal level. However I could be wrong as Arizona has done some wild stuff to combat gang issues.
As Jones has pointed out there are certain sections regardless of what state law says local officers don't get to do. One of those is to be privy to federal tax documents.

quote:

Here's what's tripping me up:

You got 50 guys with guns at the range. Any number of them could have illegally obtained their guns. Now let's say there's 1 guy with a suppressor. What is it that says local law enforcement can ask for proof of legal ownership from the 1 guy? Then, why not the other 49?

In a traffic stop, I understand I have to produce my driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. At what point do I have to prove anything else in my vehicle is legally owned, assuming of course the items are in some way legal to own?

Here is what you are missing or at least not thinking about.
For the most part a police officer CAN ASK YOU ANYTHING THEY WANT TO. The rub is most of the time you do not have to oblige them.

For the 50 guys at the range the officer CAN ASK anyone of them about their firearms and or suppressor.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO OBLIGE! Simply holding a firearm or suppressor IS NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION. One has to have reasonable suspicion to detain you and even if detained YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED to answer their questions.


If you are stopped in your vehicle and the officer sees a bottle of pills in the seat. So what that does not rise to the level of probable cause to search and or seize those pills to investigate further.
If something is legal to own and in your vehicle you have no obligation to prove it. It is the states job to prove it is not legal for you to have.

The key to remember JUST BECAUSE AN OFFICER ASKS DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO RESPOND OR ALLOW THEIR REQUEST.
That being said, yes there are times where certain things are required.
The example you have given in almost all states if you are driving a vehicle you are REQUIRED to provide your DL, registration, and insurance. Each state has numerous others, many states REQUIRE you to actually sign a ticket, my state does not.
Lots of folks want to generalize what LE can and can not do.
There are numerous Law Enforcement Agencies in my County not all of them get the same levels of jurisdiction and enforcement, now expand that out to the country. There is no boiler plate for every LEO. Heck there was a time where I held certain powers that no one else on my department had EVEN the Chief.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Simply holding a ... suppressor IS NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION.

That would certainly be true in many jurisdictions but what if state law clearly states and defines that a suppressor is a “dangerous weapon” whose possession is a felony? A game warden doesn’t have to have reasonable suspicion that someone is fishing without a license to ask to see a fishing license. If a jurisdiction describes possession of something like a stick of dynamite as a crime unless one has a valid state-issued permit (as does Colorado), why is a law enforcement officer prohibited from asking to see the permit?

You keep saying those things, and I have no doubt that they are valid in your jurisdiction, or at least are policies of your local prosecutors and/or agency, but I don’t understand how an LEO acting within his area of jurisdiction may not ask to see the permit for something that requires a permit by the laws of his jurisdiction, and which is a crime if the person does not have a permit.

Anyway, I’ll leave it at that and raise the question with our local DDA when I see him next.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I don’t understand how an LEO acting within his area of jurisdiction may not ask to see the permit for something that requires a permit by the laws of his jurisdiction, and which is a crime if the person does not have a permit.

Driving an automobile requires a permit (DL) and insurance. You're just driving along, obeying all traffic laws, then stop at the grocery store and get out. You're not staggering and have no smell of alcohol or marijuana. You exhibit nothing even remotely suspicious, yet, a cop comes up, "Sir, can I see your DL and proof of insurance?". Why would you comply? Same pricinple, here.

One more attempt:
Driving is not a crime.

In Colorado being in possession of a firearms sound suppressor, a.k.a., a silencer, is.

But best of good fortune to anyone who believes he should get legal advice about a significant matter from anonymous Internet posters, especially if they do not even claim to be attorneys, and double especially when they give legal advice about places they may not have even visited, much lived in.

Driving on a public road is illegal.

It's the having a license, up-to-date vehicle registration, and proof of insurance that makes it legal. Is seeing a person driving on a public road a sufficient reason to pull them over and verify they have a license, registration, and proof of insurance?

If not, how would seeing a suppressor be different?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One more attempt:
Driving is not a crime.

In Colorado being in possession of a firearms sound suppressor, a.k.a., a silencer, is.

Unless CO passed some law within the last month or two prohibiting suppressors altogether, it is NOT a crime to possess them, if you have a valid federal permit/license. Correct me if I’m wrong.

quote:

But best of good fortune to anyone who believes he should get legal advice about a significant matter from anonymous Internet posters, especially if they do not even claim to be attorneys, and double especially when they give legal advice about places they may not have even visited, much lived in.

Gee, nobody is giving or taking any legal advice here. It's a discussion of principles. And, I don't need to have visited some places to participate in a discussion. It's always the same crap, "He hasn't been there done that, so he's not qualified to talk. He didn't serve, so he's not qualified to be Commander-In-Chief".

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
if you have a valid federal permit/license.

Yes, now you’ve got it: It is a crime, but the defense to that is if one has a permit.
And what’s the purpose of permits? To give formal legal authority to do things that are otherwise prohibited by law, such as possessing a suppressor in Colorado.

Carrying a concealed handgun in Colorado is often illegal—unless one has a concealed handgun permit, and then (sometimes) it’s not. But what purpose would the concealed handgun permitting process serve if the permits themselves were meaningless, i.e., they didn’t have to be presented if an LEO was about to arrest me for carrying a concealed pistol?

How do you think this would play out?
“I told you, officer, that I have a CHP, and that’s enough. I don’t have to show you anything.”
“Oh, okay, just because you’re doing something that’s defined as illegal by law, I can take your word for it that you’re not doing it illegally. Have a nice day.”

One last time:
Possessing firearms silencers is a crime in certain jurisdictions, including Colorado. The defense to that, however, is if the device is properly licensed and permitted, which by convention means it’s on the national registry. The obvious consequence of that exception to the base law is that someone who claims it applies to him must demonstrate it to be true, and not merely leave it floating around in space as something that could possibly be true.

But I could of course be wrong, and any LEO in a jurisdiction where suppressors were illegal without a permit might be required to take the possessor's word that it was permitted without any proof of the claim. Assuming, of course, that the officer were even legally justified in asking about an apparent crime being committed in his presence.
If all that is true, all the best. Perhaps an argument about general principles will trump what any particular statute may say. If that ever occurs, I will be in the line to offer congratulations.

I do not, BTW, intend to be offensive in any way, just explaining my knowledge and reasoning.

Sooo, Papers Please...You're guilty until you prove your innocence.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Sounds like Sporting Systems down in Vancouver is gonna start selling on just the 4473. They're pretty on the ball about this stuff, been leading a lot of the action against the grabbers these last few years, so it's not just some kook deciding "fuck it".

Yes, I noticed their cryptic FB posts saying “it’s coming” and then never saying exactly what they are doing.


Here is my best guess since they seem to be treating their decision and process like it is some proprietary business secret. This just my assumptions based on what I’ve seen from them along with other info I have heard…


1. They subscribe to the theory that since can manufacturer registers the transfer of the can to the selling dealer, when a can is sold to end user it is technically “registered” and in compliance with RCW that states ”…legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law”. One way to read that is as two separate requirements that must both be true.

A. It is “registered… in accordance with federal law” with the ATF via form 3 to the dealer.
B. The purchaser, is “possessing in accordance with federal law” since there is no longer a for 4 requirement for those in the protected classes.

Both requirements are being met. The question becomes whether the intent is for them to be met individually or collectively by the same party (end user).


Since GCA still classifies the can as a “firearm” (even though WA state doesn’t) a 4473 is still required (as is a B/G check) federally for the transfer to buyer.

Now here is where it gets hazy… WSP does the required b/g checks for firearm purchases in WA and they specifically tell dealers NOT to use the state system for NFA items, defaulting to the ATF B/G process through form 4. This is why once ATF approves, you can take possession w/o the state required 10 busn day wait.


Sporting Systems says they are doing the required background checks and mentioned the state 10-day is applied to a can w/o form 4. This is an interesting irony, in that it will increase the wait time to take possession vs doing a form 4.

The unknown is if they are actually submitting to WSP for a B/G check (even though WSP says don’t submit NFA) and if so, under what direction or allowance when WSP says not to submit NFA items.


The specifics in this is what Sporting Systems is keeping close to the vest. They frequently tout how they are doing the work for “us” yet they also seem to be interested in improving their market share instead of helping others navigate the strange new world in WA state.

I’d love to support them if they are priced competitively, but they are a three hour drive so not really reasonable. To make two trips, 12 hours on the road instead of doing a form 4 with my local FFL.


I’ll be interested to hear what the full story is.

^^ I voted for this!

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
https://x.com/GunOwners/status/2100788397795127307

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&lang=en&theme=&id=2100788397795127307" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 579px; display: block; border-width: medium; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor; border-image: none; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-image: url('https://codejanitor.net/embeds/images/bgmessage.png'); background-position: center 85px; background-size: 200px auto; overflow: hidden;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Now if we can get the ATF to send out clarification to FFL’s and correct the process, I can buy and sell cans off 4473’s.

So far the ATF has been silent on this but they were proud to announce to FFL’s that they have a new notification system in place. The system notifies FFL’s of local thefts and how to secure inventory during natural disasters. Yes, when there are hurricanes in my area I get automated messages from the ATF telling me to secure my firearms. The local thefts messages could possibly be useful.

^^^^ That’s encouraging.