Found this over on arfcom.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-...13-Inaccurate-ATF-records-endanger-gun-owners
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-...13-Inaccurate-ATF-records-endanger-gun-owners
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I'd like to see perjury charges brought if they testify that it is 100% accurate...
Actually, about 10 years ago, I heard that the registry was only about 75% accurate.
The fact that the ATF will testify that it is 100% accurate also isn't a surprise.
I would just like to see their claim actually get audited.
One more reason that a right not exercised is a right lost... [sad2]One more reason I have no interest in Class 3 stuff.
My last compliance inspection had 427 NFA errors out of the 10,000 + NFA items sold over the years. As Jack stated "it is really up to the individual to keep his/her records in order"
My final inspection ended great - with a couple missing dates and a signature.
One more reason I have no interest in Class 3 stuff.
One more reason that a right not exercised is a right lost... [sad2]
At my last audit, the inspector brought along copies of the forms for "all" the NFA stuff in my inventory. He was only short by two. I supplied copies of those to straighten things out. I keep copies of all the forms in my home, my office and in my car. On the plus side, I have not had a problem with ATF for 28 years. (Knocks on wood). It is really up to the individual to keep his records in order. Jack.
Shouldn't even be required. Government has no business knowing what you own.
I have no objection to someone not being interested in NFA stuff, but I am curious what in that article would have you thinking that way???
As is illustrated by that article and the comments of several posters before me, if you keep YOUR paperwork in order you shouldn't have a problem...
That has nothing to do with NFA though, the unfortunate reality is ANY gun owner who has ever sold/given away ANY gun could be in the same situation... Look at Michael Lara, the Arizona cop who was brought up on felony charges by ATF ....
May be I didn't read it careful enough, I don't see how they got creative on that one, sounds pretty clear he had 1 unregistered SBR (in addition to his Registered MG), doesn't sound like ATF abuse sounds like Mr. Kwan had a good lawyer...Or look at Albert Kwan, getting brought up on some seriously trumped up charges based on ownership of Class 3 goodies (http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/kwan-dismissed.htm). Read carefully into that one, they got very creative with his case...
I am in NO way justifying Ruby Ridge or saying the results/actions are acceptable. HOWEVER 1/4 inch short is still a little too short (you know like a little pregnant )...Then there's Ruby Ridge, started over a shotgun barrel that was 1/4 inch too short, that snowballed...
So of the 3 cases you posted which stear you away from NFA, the two of them involving NFA clearly didn't "do everything in thier power to make sure they weren't breaking the laws" and in the one case in which there seems to be no violation of law it was a "regular" gun case so like you said you already have your name on so many 4473's. So why not throw your name on a Form 4, keep your records in order, and enjoy the fun that NFA toys have to offer... you need less worry, more funI am a law abiding citizen, I do everything in my power to make sure that I'm not breaking any laws (which becomes quite the burden when you own guns in the US, yes even in a free state like where I live), and still I have to worry about whether or not I'll be brought up on some obscure charge for who knows what reason by the ATF. It's bad enough that my name is on so many 4473's, but as far as I'm concerned getting into NFA is the equivalent of painting a target on my back for a federal probe, sans Vaseline.
That has nothing to do with NFA though, the unfortunate reality is ANY gun owner who has ever sold/given away ANY gun could be in the same situation
May be I didn't read it careful enough, I don't see how they got creative on that one, sounds pretty clear he had 1 unregistered SBR (in addition to his Registered MG), doesn't sound like ATF abuse sounds like Mr. Kwan had a good lawyer...
[He] possessed two pistols and two shoulder stocks. One pistol, a Heckler & Koch VP70M, is capable of firing a three-round burst and therefore falls within the legal definition of a "machinegun.”
The other pistol, a Heckler & Koch VP70Z,1 is a semi-automatic, single-shot weapon, which alone does not constitute a firearm requiring registration...
Here's where it gets really illustrative of the lengths the government will go to destroy the life of a gun owner who will not bend to their will:
The two shoulder stocks are interchangeable and can be attached to either pistol. The stocks can also be used as a holster for either pistol. To enable the VP70M to fire three-round bursts, the shoulder stock must be attached; absent the stock, the VP70M will not operate in fully automatic (machinegun) mode. When combined with the VP70Z, however, the shoulder stock will not alter the firing mode, but the resulting weapon will constitute a single-shot rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length, and will therefore qualify as a firearm requiring registration...
Even though the stock was not attached to the VP70Z, the government charged Kwan with having a short-barrel rifle and the jury found him guilty--after a proposed defense instruction to them was conveniently not allowed:
I am in NO way justifying Ruby Ridge or saying the results/actions are acceptable. HOWEVER 1/4 inch short is still a little too short (you know like a little pregnant )...
Johnson, meanwhile, has been arrested, convicted and sentenced to four years in federal prison on the rarely-used charge of possessing a gun while being a user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
So of the 3 cases you posted which stear you away from NFA, the two of them involving NFA clearly didn't "do everything in thier power to make sure they weren't breaking the laws" and in the one case in which there seems to be no violation of law it was a "regular" gun case so like you said you already have your name on so many 4473's. So why not throw your name on a Form 4, keep your records in order, and enjoy the fun that NFA toys have to offer... you need less worry, more fun
No, felony changes for constructive possession of an unregistered SBR. Just because it wasn't assembled at the time doesn't change what it is, 2 stocks with 2 weapons that both accept said stocks, one is registered one is not...one is legal the other is not...Felony charges for an interchangable shoulder stock.
My NFA are "toys" plain and simple, sure if some goof happens to "get silly" and that is my quickest item I can use to defend myself, it will work fine, but I don't plan on using them as such...thier main job is to put holes in old cars, refigerators, etc...Secondly, there is a stigma associated with "evil" guns that are silenced, have short barrels or fire on full auto, and for what its worth, every case I've ever heard of where someone uses a Class 3 gun for self defense they wind up before a grand jury (Gary Fadden, Harry Beckwith, etc.). I don't own guns that I wouldn't defend myself with, they're tools to preserve my life if confronted with violent death by some criminal in this dangerous world we live in. If at all possible, I'd like to avoid using my guns in self defense, but if I have to, I'd also like to avoid needless prosecution/hassle.
No, felony changes for constructive possession of an unregistered SBR. Just because it wasn't assembled at the time doesn't change what it is, 2 stocks with 2 weapons that both accept said stocks, one is registered one is not...one is legal the other is not...
On March 16, 2004, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”)
seized 19 weapons from defendant’s home, operating under the impression that defendant
was no longer permitted to possess the seized weapons because his dealer license had
expired
3At oral argument, the Government conceded that defendant was legally entitled to possess
the VP70M. In response to the Court’s questions, the parties stipulated that defendant was
required to have a license to possess the VP70M, that he (at one point) had the requisite
license, that he was required to register the machinegun, and that he did so by paying the
special (occupational) tax. The Court reaches the same conclusion as the parties, namely that
defendant was legally entitled to possess the VP70M, based on both the parties’ stipulation
and the Court’s review of the statutes and regulations at issue. The VP70M at issue falls
within the “grandfather” exception to the ban on machineguns expressed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(o). As a result, defendant was never required to have a dealer license to possess the weapon. See 27 C.F.R. § 479.105(b). He was, however, obligated to register the weapon
upon transfer to him, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), but he was exempt from the $200 transfer tax as a
result of his status as a special (occupational) taxpayer, 26 U.S.C. § 5852(d). See also 26
U.S.C. § 5811; 26 U.S.C. § 5801 (special (occupational) tax for a dealer in firearms is $500
per year). With regard to the VP70M, defendant submitted the requisite ATF Form 3 titled
“Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational
Taxpayer (National Firearms Act),” which effectively registered the machinegun. Tr. Exh.
A11. Thus, when defendant’s dealer license expired, he was still legally entitled to possess
the VP70M machinegun.