Cop encounters with NFA items

What would constitute probable cause for a NC state LE to suspect that possession of such an item is illegal, and to demand proof that it's not?

The fact you are in possession of the said NFA item in their presence and them recognizing it to be an NFA item (only referring to legal encounters in public or in places the LE has the legal right to be at the time you are in possession of the said item). Below in the underlined sentence, the statute says they are illegal to possess unless you meet one of the following requirements. Having properly applied, paid the tax, been approved, and received a tax stamp for possession of an NFA item as listed in subsection 5 is one of the legal exceptions, so the only way for the LE to know the person is possessing the NFA item legally and not in violation of N.C.G.S. 14-288.8 is by them seeing the paperwork.

§ 14-288.8. Manufacture, assembly, possession, storage, transportation, sale, purchase, delivery, or acquisition of weapon of mass death and destruction; exceptions). North Carolina General Statute states that possession of such items is illegal unless they meet one of the following exceptions; (Subsection (5) is the exception referred to when talking about tax stamps.

(5) Persons who lawfully possess or own a weapon as defined in subsection (c) of this section in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, §§ 5801-5871.
Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the discretion of the sheriff in executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon.

Out of all honesty, the overwhelming majority of LEs have no idea about NFA items and would most likely never even know to ask for such paperwork unless you volunteered it. That same amount of LEs probably wouldn't even know you were shooting a suppressor because unlike in the movies they still make noise. When it comes to SBRs and SBSs with the invention and use of braces and guns like the Shockwave they have no clue there is even a difference and that an SBR or SBS requires such paperwork. Sorry had a long day at work and I might be rambling. Please let me know if I did not explain it very well, I'll try again when I'm not as tired.
 
Good discussion.

I would probably show LEO the papers, but the issue is an interesting one. The only "papers" are of course protected tax documents. In the case of SBS and SBR, there's now virtually NO difference and there are no papers for the majority of the types of SBR SBS guns out there now because they're not NFA stuff today.

"Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the discretion of the sheriff in executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon."

This part is moot these days, as there is no "execution" of paperwork by the sheriff any more (at least in NC).

I've always thought that it would be fun to be an attorney with idle time when and if such encounters take place.

I was at work one day , when a co-worker and shooting friend came to my office and said "would you like to go shoot machine guns this afternoon?". Of course "yes" was the answer. We went to the Wilson police range where indeed some sort of machine gun shoot was taking place. There was a tripod mounted 50 cal, and a minigun among the many other guns folks were shooting. You could shoot most anything for the price of the ammo. It was never clear to me who organized this and how, but I did get to shoot a Sten and a Barrett 50 cal (2 rounds!)

About an hour into the shoot, talk went though the crowd "see the guy with the Hawaiian shirt? He's ATF". Indeed he seemed to be, as he went thru the tables chatting with owners. Some folks left, most stayed, and while this was an annual event apparently, the Sheriff rescinded permission for it a year or so hence and I never got to go again. I noticed some owners letting him shoot their stuff, and the encounters seemed to be professional if not warm and cuddly. Still, it was a buzz (gun) kill.

It was the only time I've seen any sort of "enforcement" of NFA stuff, and Title II weapons in particular.
 
Good discussion.

I would probably show LEO the papers, but the issue is an interesting one. The only "papers" are of course protected tax documents. In the case of SBS and SBR, there's now virtually NO difference and there are no papers for the majority of the types of SBR SBS guns out there now because they're not NFA stuff today.

"Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the discretion of the sheriff in executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon."

This part is moot these days, as there is no "execution" of paperwork by the Sheriff any more (at least in NC).

I've always thought that it would be fun to be an attorney with idle time when and if such encounters take place.

I was at work one day , when a co-worker and shooting friend came to my office and said "would you like to go shoot machine guns this afternoon?". Of course "yes" was the answer. We went to the Wilson police range where indeed some sort of machine gun shoot was taking place. There was a tripod mounted 50 cal, and a minigun among the many other guns folks were shooting. You could shoot most anything for the price of the ammo. It was never clear to me who organized this and how, but I did get to shoot a Sten and a Barrett 50 cal (2 rounds!)

About an hour into the shoot, talk went though the crowd "see the guy with the Hawaiian shirt? He's ATF". Indeed he seemed to be, as he went thru the tables chatting with owners. Some folks left, most stayed, and while this was an annual event apparently, the Sheriff rescinded permission for it a year or so hence and I never got to go again. I noticed some owners letting him shoot their stuff, and the encounters seemed to be professional if not warm and cuddly. Still, it was a buzz (gun) kill.

It was the only time I've seen any sort of "enforcement" of NFA stuff, and Title II weapons in particular.

I left the language in about the Sheriff only because it's still in the state statute, although it is no longer required federally (thank goodness). One of those crazy things about laws, rarely does fed, state, and local get on the same page at the same time. As far as LE and NFA items (based upon my 29+ years of experience), you will see more action from local ROs wanting to see your documents than LEs. Based solely on two reasons, one typical LEs lack the education regarding NFA items, so they won't ask, fearing they will (and they would) look stupid. And two the LEs like myself, who are educated and personally own NFA items, understand if you bring out an MG or suppressor to the local range, then you have your mess together. With that said, I'm sure somewhere there is an LE who would be a "Richard" simply because they believe they can. Those are the ones I try to educate and correct as I do not have the time of day for LEs who do not understand what it means to protect and serve.

I wish I could have been at the MG shoot with you! A couple of years ago, I was able to check off a couple of bucket list guns when I was teaching a class in GA. I got to shoot a 1918 Browning and a 1928 Thompson. I must say the Thompson had a cool factor, but I LOVED the BAR. Got to shoot it on both slow and fast cycle, and I must say she is truly a work of art, no wait, she's a masterpiece! Some may disagree with me, but I believe John Mosses Browning was a genius and made things by hand that today's enginers could not match with the best computer and CNC machine!
 
Last edited:
I’ve never been asked, but would likely comply.

On the other hand, should one be forced to show them to satisfy random LE whether local or federal without a warrant? Probable cause implies there is suspicion of a crime. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

I’m honestly really curious on this.
 
I recall a post on that other forum.... member was on highway where they were conducting huge traffic stop, perhaps training... he is a FFL and they look at all his stuff, they run the serial numbers. No problems. I don't like that, if some evidence clerk in Toledo fat fingered the serial number(s) and your firearm or suppressor is on the hot list, you're getting hauled in. Another thing, watched LivePD while ago and a car left an apartment complex but did not stop when they lit him up, most likely the driver did not see the lights when he turned in the parking lot, anyway he says he is armed and has permit, they run the handgun and it comes back stolen! The guy says it is his and he even has all the papers in the case with the gun, they run it again and it is not stolen. Fat fingers did it again. They let him go with their genuine apology.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never been asked, but would likely comply.

On the other hand, should one be forced to show them to satisfy random LE whether local or federal without a warrant? Probable cause implies there is suspicion of a crime. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

I’m honestly really curious on this.

Note, I am not a lawyer, and I do not practice law in any state. The information in my post is my opinion based upon my years of service as a LE and nothing more. For expert opinion consult with your attorney........... Sorry for the extremely long post below

The possession of an item (weapon or suppressor) fitting the definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction is itself prima facie evidence. Below are the definition and examples of how prima facie is used in criminal law from Cornell Law School and Law Library - American Law and Legal Information websites. Let's take out all the issues of the Fourth Amendment and for the sake of argument you and the LE both have legal right to be in the location of the encounter. The LE sees you in plain view possessing a Weapon of Mass Destruction as defined in N.C.G.S. 14-288.8. You possessing the item, the LE seeing the item in plain view, and articulating the item is included in the definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, is prima facie evidence of a violation of North Carolina law (not federal law). A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.

Now let's apply this in terms of an NFA encounter. John Smith has purchased a suppressor (which is completely backward in my opinion, why not apply before the purchase like with pistol purchase permits), then applied for, paid the tax, and received proper federal documentation which exempts him from N.C.G.S. 14-288.8. Mr. Smith is at a local public NC Wildlife Range shooting the suppressor, I get a call for service at the range by an anonymous caller saying someone there has an illegal suppressor. I arrive at the range and I witness Mr. Smith possessing and shooting a suppressor. I have the legal right to be at the range as it is a public range. I see Mr. Smith possessing the suppressor in plain view. I can articulate based upon my training and experience the suppressor Mr. Smith is possessing is included in the definition of N.C.G.S. 14-288.8, this is prima facie evidence and unless it is rebutted by Mr. Smith, he can be arrested.

So how does Mr. Smith rebut the evidence, he produces his documentation which shows he is exempt from N.C.G.S. 14-288.8. Now, Mr. Smith does have a choice when he wants to rebut the prima facie evidence with his documents. Mr. Smith can wait and do it in court with his expensive attorney, and then ask the judge to order the law enforcement agency that has held his suppressor in the evidence room for the past year to give it back and to have his arrest record expunged. Or Mr. Smith can rebut at the encounter by showing the LE the documentation and then LE goes about his day elsewhere and Mr. Smith goes about his day at the range enjoying his suppressor. If I have confused anyone, even more, I apologize in advance and will try my best to clarify.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie

Prima facie - Definition - Latin for "at first sight."

Overview
Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted." An example of this would be to use the term "prima facie evidence."

It may also be used as an adverb meaning "on first appearance but subject to further evidence or information." An example of this would be to use the term "prima facie valid."

A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption. A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.

Application
Various torts will typically have prima facie cases attached to them. A plaintiff would typically need to prove that a defendant has met all the components of a prima facie tort case in order to prove that the defendant committed that tort. For example, the tort of trespass has a prima facie case with 3 components:

  1. The defendant had the intent to invade the land
  2. The defendant invaded the land
  3. The plaintiff possessed the land and did not consent to the defendant's invasion
If the plaintiff is not able to prove one of the components, then a court will likely find that the tort did not occur.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law Library - American Law and Legal Information
https://law.jrank.org/pages/9373/Prima-Facie.html

Prima facie - Definition - [Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and CRIMINAL LAW. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

Statutes may specify that certain evidence is prima facie evidence of a certain fact. For example, a duly authenticated copy of a defendant's criminal record may be considered prima facie evidence of the defendant's prior convictions and may be used against the defendant in court (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-412 [West 1996]). A CIVIL LAW example is a statute that makes a duly certified copy or duplicate of a certificate of authority for a fraternal benefit society to transact business prima facie evidence that the society is legal and legitimate (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-14-603 [West 1996]).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
I knew a guy 20+ years ago who had some really neat guns. Lots of them. Some of the more interesting items were a F/A '28 Thompson reweld and a All original M3 grease gun. Great shooting guns. I'd been shooting with him several times at ranges . Russell would walk right in there like he knew eveyone. RO's cops etc. Everyone knew Russell. What I knew about Russel was that he was an excellent welder and machinist. Top notch work. He was also really good at photo shop because thats where all his form 4's came from. The grease gun was interesting though. Not a reweld at all. He bought it at an antique store in Oregon for $50. They thought it was a toy.
 
I don't have any (items), but went to two different ranges with people who did, and both times there were off-duty LEOs there. In both cases, they came over, looked, said "cool guns," and went their way. They did not ask about legality, their questions were "what do you like about this/that?", and "why did you choose this/that?"
 
I had my three suppressors and Glock SBR Roni at my managers farm, his cousin is a BATF&E Agent, he had his FA Colt and did not ask about my papers. He can shoot that Colt AR real good.
edit: I got more aggravation about paperwork at the range, the counter guy wanted to see the original with tax stamp, I had PDF on my phone, told him the originals are in the safe. OK. They don't ask anymore, I just bring the stuff in and shoot them.
 
Last edited:
Some years ago when I first got my can, was down on my property shooting both suppressed and unsuppressed. One of my wonderful neighbors called sheriff's dept. Deputy had to come, took a walk down in my woods. When I saw him, I recognized him. We knew each other -at that time I knew about all of them. When he said they had a call -he said he should have known it was me. He saw my suppressor sitting on the table and said "cool". Asked him if he wanted to shoot it. he said Thanks maybe another time. No asking about papers or anything. Only time I have had any encounter with LE and my suppressor.
 
I had my three suppressors and Glock SBR Roni at my managers farm, his cousin is BATF&E agent, he had his FA Colt and did not ask about my papers. He can shoot that Colt AR real good.
edit: I got more aggravation about paperwork at the range, the counter guy wanted to see the original with tax stamp, I had PDF on my phone, told him the originals are in the safe. OK. They don't ask anymore, I just bring the stuff in and shoot them.
Going to be tough to do with an efile form 1. No stamps.
 
What would constitute probable cause for a NC state LE to suspect that possession of such an item is illegal, and to demand proof that it's not?
You're saying specifically what would be probable cause for possession? I can't begin to imagine what that would be unless visually they saw something they believe to be illegal, or the received a complaint/tip of something (like a machine gun being fired, or silencer) and the tipster either gave a description of the individual and you fit it, or the LE saw you with other gun items, or some such loose connection.

I'm not a lawyer but there's a reason "probable cause" is used instead of "proof". It's as gray as can be. Most of it hinges on the reasonable person standard, which again, relies on a judge or jury of your peers to define as "reasonable" after hearing arguments from lawyers and blah blah blah.
 
MI had the same "must show LEOs upon request" deal. I kept copies in my range bag and mini copies stuffed into grip compartments, shell holders, etc.
My experiences in the detroit area - there were some cops and such that were at ranges now and again... nobody asked to see paperwork.
One range said "hey, that's an SBR - you have a tax stamp for that, right?" I said yes and the RSO said "ok, good. It's good to see somebody making an actual SBR the right way instead of all these AR pistols."
ONE range just outside of detroit stopped me when I showed up with a mossberg 590 AOW and said I had to show paperwork. I said "why do I gotta show my tax forms? you're not LEO" and the RSO said "rules are posted" and pointed at a sign on the wall that all NFA items must have paperwork present to be used. I said something like "hard to argue with that" and flipped open a folder of papers. RSO told me to stop looking for the form and have a good time shooting - he didn't really want to see anything, the rule/sign was just do discourage people who didn't have stamps. They didn't want the liability of having illegally bubba'd guns in their shop and he said that a good few detroit shooters coming in had some very illegal stuff with them.
 
You're saying specifically what would be probable cause for possession? I .

No, sorry.... I was questioning what was probable cause for LEO to consider it (NFA item) illegally owned therefore making showing a tax stamp mandatory. Why would someone be inclined to conclude that a person possessing such an item doesn't own a tax stamp?

I could make an argument that "I know the individual is a convicted felon, therefore he/she could not own the tax stamp" , but barring that?
 
Last edited:
No, sorry.... I was questioning what was probable cause for LEO to consider it (NFA item) illegally owned therefore making showing a tax stamp mandatory. Why would someone be inclined to conclude that a person possessing such an item doesn't own a tax stamp?

I could make an argument that "I know the individual is a convicted felon, therefore he/she could not own the tax stamp" , but barring that?
Gotcha. Yea I'm with you. The problem with your logic is that the items are not illegal to own, they are illegal to possess without the appropriate approvals/paperwork. So basically, by that logic, LE could say "I know that item (SBR, Can, etc) requires ATF approval" but that in and of itself I believe cannot generate any probable cause.

Without the LE having either very specific background information on the individual or a tip/evidence on which they are following up, I don't know how they could LEGALLY. And both of those scenarios really aren't probable cause, they are matters of fact.
 
Good points (fact vs prob cause).

There's times I wish I was a wealthy attorney capable of representing myself if such an event happened.

The good news is, I've never been asked to show stamps with any of my NFA items. I transport them in a locked case so it's not likely LEO will encounter them in a roadside stop (and I'm not likely to open the case either).
 
Gotcha. Yea I'm with you. The problem with your logic is that the items are not illegal to own, they are illegal to possess without the appropriate approvals/paperwork. So basically, by that logic, LE could say "I know that item (SBR, Can, etc) requires ATF approval" but that in and of itself I believe cannot generate any probable cause.

Without the LE having either very specific background information on the individual or a tip/evidence on which they are following up, I don't know how they could LEGALLY. And both of those scenarios really aren't probable cause, they are matters of fact.

The short answer is that possession of any of the various NFA items without the appropriate federal registration is illegal on its face. Failure to produce said registration documents either because one simply refuses to do so or is unable to (either because they are elsewhere or they don't in fact exist) amounts to probable cause. The reality is that you can absolutely be (lawfully) arrested for possessing legal, registered, NFA items if you can't or won't produce the required proof of federal registration. If you later produce those documents the charges will get dismissed. In theory you could actually be convicted of illegally possessing your legally registered NFA items if you were foolish enough to refuse to produce the registration paperwork.
 
Failure to produce said registration documents either because one simply refuses to do so or is unable to (either because they are elsewhere or they don't in fact exist) amounts to probable cause.

That's not what probable cause is.

There's no "registration". Just a tax stamp on a transfer.
 
That's not what probable cause is.

There's no "registration". Just a tax stamp on a transfer.

I mean that is an interesting theory, but all my form 1s say at the top:

"Application to Make and Register a Firearm"

and all my form 4s say at the top:

"Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm"

The BATFE maintains a registry of NFA items. I'd say that makes the form 1s and 4s registration forms, especially since they specifically identify themselves as applications to register.

NFA items are illegal in North Carolina unless federal tax/registry requirements are met. Having an NFA weapon and not having proof of meeting federal requirements absolutely amounts to probable cause. LEOs in NC can't even check the registry with the BATFE to see if a weapon is registered. Proving one is not in violation of NC General Statutes incumbent on the possessor.
 
Last edited:
Anyone keep a reduced copy of their paperwork in their range bag while shooting NFA items? I know BigWaylon would need a Sherpa and a suitcase but I have heard some folks say "piss off" its only the business of the ATF while others keep a reduced copy on them to placate any potential type of LE run in or questions.

Me personally I have never had anything happen except a lot of interest from fellow shooters with genuine questions about the "how-to's and how much". Those folks I always offer up a few mags and answer what questions I can for them.
Nope have pdfs on my phone.
 
Having an NFA weapon and not having proof of meeting federal requirements absolutely amounts to probable cause

I'm not sure you understand the/my use of the term probable cause. If I am going about my business and behaving in a legal way, there is no "probable cause" to justify searching me, for example.... or to require an answer to any question. LEO has to have "probable cause" that a crime has occurred in order to obligate citizens to do certain things.

Possession of a stolen item is illegal in NC too, but LEO can't demand you produce a receipt to prove innocence. Possession of a firearm by a felon is illegal but LEO can't demand your name and ID to run a check if you're behaving legally.

A form IV just documents a tax paid for the transfer from one party to another. The *item* is registered. For example, if I show a Form IV and it says on it "CFF Trust" the LEO has no idea who is a member of that trust, nor is it clear I am obligated to document who is, other than to ATF.

"LEOs in NC can't even check the registry with the BATFE to see if a weapon is registered." That's true, and it does create an issue for them , doesn't it?

This is an interesting discussion as we know there's no clear answer (or case law). Neither do cops :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you understand the use of the term probable cause. If I am going about my business and behaving in a legal way, there is no "probable cause" to justify searching me, for example.... or to require an answer to any question. LEO has to have "probable cause" that a crime has occurred in order to obligate citizens to do certain things.

Possession of a stolen item is illegal in NC too, but LEO can't demand you produce a receipt to prove innocence. Possession of a firearm by a felon is illegal but LEO can't demand your name and ID to run a check if you're behaving legally.

A form IV just documents a tax paid for the transfer from one party to another. The *item* is registered. For example, if I show a Form IV and it says on it "CFF Trust" the LEO has no idea who is a member of that trust, nor is it clear I am obligated to document who is, other than to ATF.

"LEOs in NC can't even check the registry with the BATFE to see if a weapon is registered." That's true, and it does create an issue for them , doesn't it?

This is an interesting discussion as we know there's no clear answer (or case law). Neither do cops :)


Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause


The difference between NFA items in NC and the other examples you cite above is that while NFA items are illegal on their face "unless properly registered/owned/whatever you want to call it" having property or even having a title I firearm isn't illegal on its face "unless it is stolen/you are a felon/etc." There is a big difference between "illegal unless" and "legal unless."

I'm not arguing that you are not within your rights to decline to provide proof of legal ownership to non-BATFE LEOs. You can absolutely choose to do that. However, possession of a generally illegal weapon and the absence of proof one is in compliance with an exception spelled out in that statute is absolutely probable cause for an arrest.

Remember, probable cause is simply a reasonable basis to believe a crime may have been committed. That isn't a particularly high standard. A lot of this is entirely dependent on the LEO, his general knowledge of the law related to NFA stuff, and the specific interaction. That doesn't change the fact that given the right set of circumstances you can absolutely be (legally) arrested for possession of NFA items that are legally possessed.
 
I agree that the standard for an *arrest* (for ANY reason) is low , regardless of whether a NFA item is involved. If a cop doesn't like ones attitude, the odds of being arrested on some random charge increase.

The standard for indictment or conviction is considerably higher. Especially when the government(s) have created a situation where the only "get out of jail" card (the tax stamp) is a legally protected tax document.

Fun discussion!
 
Last edited:
I am reminded of a video I saw a few years ago on the evile and vile tube of u...

A young, early 20's looking man had one of those MP5SD looking 22's with the fake can, and would walk around on the streets to see what LEO's would do....
He actually met a really cool LEO who was like "Hey, cool gun. Thank you, because if you are here, I know that no crimes are being committed right here."

What I though was hillarious was all the so called experts in the comments. Most seemed to think that the LEO had zero business talking to the individual. I quietly disagreed, as, at a distance, to an untrained eye, it sure did look like a 2 stamp NFA item. I am pretty sure that the LEO would be justified in making sure it was either the lookalike non NFA item, or if it was in fact an NFA item that the user had the stamps.
 
The answer (s) for sure depends on the state law. I'm not sure how well "guilty until proven innocent" works beyond an arrest.

I think a fundamental part of a legal system is that anything not explicitly defined as illegal is legal. For example it should be legal to drive with a drivers license but NOT keep it with you when driving EXCEPT that the NC law says you need to have it with you when operating a vehicle.

I may be giving lawmakers too much credit , but it's possible they didn't say in NC statutes " The owner of a NFA item must have in their possession and display upon LEO request, a copy of their tax stamp to indicate compliance with this statute" because of the confidentiality of federal tax documents?

I may be able to answer my own question. I remember when the NC law for Title I firearms in NC was changed and that one magic clause "except as authorized under federal statute xyz123.abc" was added. I'm not sure how this actually happened BUT it was certainly not openly advertised or discussed anywhere. It was carefully (and quietly) added and announced as the breakthrough it was only after it was signed into law. Those purposely vague and innocent looking words authorized legal ownership of machine guns in NC

ATF shortly announced they would transfer Title I items into NC as a result. I took advantage of this change as I was very much aware of NC law vs the NFA at the time.

I'd buy a beer for those who worked behind the scenes (WAY behind the scenes) to make this happen in 2011 I think.... :)
 
Last edited:
probably not as it was an elective purchase, just as all your postage stamps are not deductible either

Agree, but a postage stamp is for...postage and is not a stamp specifically to indicate a Federal tax paid.
 
Last edited:
Leave it to the Feds :)!!

You would know....heheheheh.. and I'm probably not too far behind you.
Revenue stamps, excise stamps, stamps for transfers...depending on which article you read, there are several reason it’s no allowed.
 
I am reminded of a video I saw a few years ago on the evile and vile tube of u...

A young, early 20's looking man had one of those MP5SD looking 22's with the fake can, and would walk around on the streets to see what LEO's would do....
He actually met a really cool LEO who was like "Hey, cool gun. Thank you, because if you are here, I know that no crimes are being committed right here."

What I though was hillarious was all the so called experts in the comments. Most seemed to think that the LEO had zero business talking to the individual. I quietly disagreed, as, at a distance, to an untrained eye, it sure did look like a 2 stamp NFA item. I am pretty sure that the LEO would be justified in making sure it was either the lookalike non NFA item, or if it was in fact an NFA item that the user had the stamps.

I think a lot of keyboard warriors often forget, as those apparently commenting on the video you watched did, that the police need reasonable suspicion to detain someone and probable cause to arrest someone, but they can walk up and talk to anyone they want to in a public place without having to have any reason at all. Said people are not required to respond or hang around but nothing prohibits LEOs from approaching them and trying to engage them in conversation.

...

I may be giving lawmakers too much credit , but it's possible they didn't say in NC statutes " The owner of a NFA item must have in their possession and display upon LEO request, a copy of their tax stamp to indicate compliance with this statute" because of the confidentiality of federal tax documents?

Quite frankly I suspect that lawmakers didn't take it into account at all. It would be far from the first time that a law was made that required LEOs to do something specific to enforce it and the law failed to include any legal authority to take the specific actions required.

I may be able to answer my own question. I remember when the NC law for Title I firearms in NC was changed and that one magic clause "except as authorized under federal statute xyz123.abc" was added. I'm not sure how this actually happened BUT it was certainly not openly advertised or discussed anywhere. It was carefully (and quietly) added and announced as the breakthrough it was only after it was signed into law. Those purposely vague and innocent looking words authorized legal ownership of machine guns in NC

ATF shortly announced they would transfer Title I items into NC as a result. I took advantage of this change as I was very much aware of NC law vs the NFA at the time.

I'd buy a beer for those who worked behind the scenes (WAY behind the scenes) to make this happen in 2011 I think.... :)

I actually owned a machinegun in NC before the law change. I happened to live in a county where I was able to get the required permit from the Sheriff to own it. I got the impression that the sheriff that issued my permit to own said machinegun had never actually had anyone ask him before for a permit. I suppose since he was a democrat anyone who might have been interested just assumed he would say no. Still, he was a democrat in a rural NC county and it took less than five minutes of conversation to get him to agree. Go figure.

I've since moved to a different county. I bought another MG last year and it transferred to me without any permit from the sheriff necessary. That was good because I didn't really want to go asking for a permit again.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it was really strange before the 2011 change. There were MG's in NC but it was sketchy and people seemed very -quiet- about them. Bizzell HAD signed them , but he wouldn't for me.

Did you transfer one from out of state, or was it an in - state sale ?

I would love to know who all was involved in getting that phrase into NC law. That was very carefully and skillfully played. :)
 
The answer (s) for sure depends on the state law. I'm not sure how well "guilty until proven innocent" works beyond an arrest.

I think a fundamental part of a legal system is that anything not explicitly defined as illegal is legal. For example it should be legal to drive with a drivers license but NOT keep it with you when driving EXCEPT that the NC law says you need to have it with you when operating a vehicle.

I may be giving lawmakers too much credit , but it's possible they didn't say in NC statutes " The owner of a NFA item must have in their possession and display upon LEO request, a copy of their tax stamp to indicate compliance with this statute" because of the confidentiality of federal tax documents?

I may be able to answer my own question. I remember when the NC law for Title I firearms in NC was changed and that one magic clause "except as authorized under federal statute xyz123.abc" was added. I'm not sure how this actually happened BUT it was certainly not openly advertised or discussed anywhere. It was carefully (and quietly) added and announced as the breakthrough it was only after it was signed into law. Those purposely vague and innocent looking words authorized legal ownership of machine guns in NC

ATF shortly announced they would transfer Title I items into NC as a result. I took advantage of this change as I was very much aware of NC law vs the NFA at the time.

I'd buy a beer for those who worked behind the scenes (WAY behind the scenes) to make this happen in 2011 I think.... :)

A different way to explain the reasonable suspicion and probable cause and proving you’re innocent. Think about when you are driving a vehicle. When you enter a check point and driving legally, you are required to show your drivers license and vehicle registration to prove you are not driving illegally. No probable cause but you are made to show your documents. I do believe you are giving to much credit to the legislators when crafting laws. Many laws have been created with constitutional violations. For the record I’m not disagreeing with you. The phrase innocent until proven guilty, is pretty straight forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah, it was really strange before the 2011 change. There were MG's in NC but it was sketchy and people seemed very -quiet- about them. Bizzell HAD signed them , but he wouldn't for me.

Did you transfer one from out of state, or was it an in - state sale ?

I would love to know who all was involved in getting that phrase into NC law. That was very carefully and skillfully played. :)

I’m not sure how that came about, but you’re right they kept it hush hush till it was too late. Many Sheriffs were upset because it took away their authority. There were only a few Sheriffs that would sign for them. I always felt that was a violation of constitutional rights, when one person is treated differently just because the Sheriff of their county was afraid to issue a permit. A lot of Sheriffs were afraid someone would get hurt or killed and it would come back on them and be made public that they issued the permit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not a lawyer so take this as just my 2 cents when it comes to showing tax stamps to local law enforcement. First they would not be investigating the federal transfer or possession of the item they would be investigating the possession of the item under state law. Most people confuse the need to show the tax stamp, trust or corporation documents to only ATF for inspection when requested by a ATF agent as the only agents that are allowed to see or look at your tax stamps, trust or corporation documents.

Local law enforcement in North Carolina are investigating the criminal possession of a weapon of mass destruction (North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.8. Manufacture, assembly, possession, storage, transportation, sale, purchase, delivery, or acquisition of weapon of mass death and destruction; exceptions). In that North Carolina General Statute it states that possession of such items are illegal unless the meet one of the following exceptions; (Subsection (5) is the important paragraph that will apply to what we are talking about)

(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(1) Persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.

(2) Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors of firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses.

(3) Persons under contract with the United States, the State of North Carolina, or any agency of either government, with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in under their contracts.

(4) Inventors, designers, ordnance consultants and researchers, chemists, physicists, and other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge or to facilitate the creation, development, or manufacture of weapons of mass death and destruction intended for use in a manner consistent with the laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina.

(5) Persons who lawfully possess or own a weapon as defined in subsection (c) of this section in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, §§ 5801-5871. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the discretion of the sheriff in executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon.


If a local law enforcement officer is investigating someone shooting or possessing a weapon that is defined below; (Subsection (3) is the important paragraph that will apply to what we are talking about)


(c) The term "weapon of mass death and destruction" includes:

(1) Any explosive or incendiary:

a. Bomb; or

b. Grenade; or

c. Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces; or

d. Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; or

e. Mine; or

f. Device similar to any of the devices described above; or

(2) Any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell of a type particularly suitable for sporting purposes) which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; or

(3) Any firearm capable of fully automatic fire, any shotgun with a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, any rifle with a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is included within this definition. For the purposes of this section, rifle is defined as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; or

(4) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any weapon described above and from which a weapon of mass death and destruction may readily be assembled.

And you are found in possession of a item defined above in subsection (3) it is prima facie that you are in violation of NCGS 14-288.8. So if you do not show proof that you meet the exception in subsection (5) above you can be arrested for possession of a weapon of mass destruction and your NFA item seized as evidence until trial. If you do not show them proof you are not violating the law how else are they going to know? If you think they can call some magic ATF number and run your name you are mistaken. More than likely you will be found not guilty but thats after paying a lawyer enough money that you could have bought another NFA item and the lawyer shows the tax stamps and other documents to the DA and Judge.

So my question is why would chance being arrested and your property being seized until trail if all you have to do is take a minute of your time and show a few documents that most local law enforcement officers will not understand (as mentioned several times above local officers don't receive a lot of training regarding NFA items). Just remember you are not being inspected for federal law compliance, you are being criminally investigated for the violation of a North Carolina State Statute which every sworn local law enforcement officer has subject matter jurisdiction. Sorry for the long lengthy post. As for me I will show my tax stamps or documents to any local or federal law enforcement officer that ask to see them.

The above-quoted post is pretty much spot-on in terms of how I think. With that in mind, I hunt whitetail deer with suppressed firearms -- and I keep a copy of my trust (which includes a copy of the asset list and the tax stamps) in a waterproof container my leech pack. I also keep a copy of said same in my range bag. There's also a copy in my gun locker. There's also a copy in my truck. That may seem like overkill, but it ensures that I always have proof of lawful possession on me or in reasonably close proximity to me when I have my fun toys out and about ... or stowed at home.

To date I've never needed them, but to date I've never encountered a wildlife officer while hunting. Moreover, the owner of my local gun shop is a deputy sheriff who knows me on sight and by name and has, right now, a MG sitting in his shop's safe waiting on ATF approval for transfer into my trust (with written notice regarding ownership of the MG already sent to the sheriff of my county, as required by law). So, the local law is unlikely to roll up on me and ask me questions about my fun toys since they already know me. :)
 
Last edited:
do any of you have concerns that if the gubmint decides to get grabby with new laws that they will come for yours ? or does the trust provide a better protection for you?
 
do any of you have concerns that if the gubmint decides to get grabby with new laws that they will come for yours ? or does the trust provide a better protection for you?
At the present time I do not not have any NFA items. My guess is that in 2021, I will send in one or more Forms to acquire one or more items.

I sorta think having the NFA stamp and paying the $200 tax is a way of telling the Gubmint that you will do what they want and they will leave me alone because I submitted to their requirements.

I have been wrong before. I have two ex-wifes...
 
Back
Top Bottom