TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:I don't have any stamps, but am considering getting one in the future, so please excuse my ignorance. Does it out the range owner in jeopordy, if an unstamped firearm is found being used by the ATF.? I understand that demanding t he original is overkill, but it doesn't seem like it's asking a lot to show their papers of it does indeed put the range owner at risk.

This reminds me of when some Walmart locations were allegedly demanding to see licenses of open carry people on the grounds that Walmart could lose their liquor license if they allowed a non-licensed possession in their stores.

Sure, TABC vs BATF is apples/oranges but I would like to know the actual statute or regulation that holds the range owner liable for my failure to obtain a tax stamp.

I believe the original question was whether a range has any particular reason for demanding the original stamped form 4. I'm going to say, no... In fact the ATF technically cannot arrest you for possessing a registered NFA without having the paperwork. The law simply demands that the item be registered in the NFRTR at the ATF. Since they have a terrible reputation of accuracy in keeping the NFRTR, it behooves an owner to have the original of the form on which his NFA item was transferred to his possession.

It should have the original stamp on it (if applicable). Not all transfers are taxable, hence form 3's for FFL SOT's will not have a (tax) stamp, and form 5's to a law enforcement agency will not have a stamp. I doubt most LEO's departments let them run around with the original form 5's transferring the items to the Dept. In fact the Glock rep mentioned above, might not even have any forms if the NFA items involved were manufactured by his employer. Are they going to ask to see the Form 2's that were sent to ATF reporting the manufacture of the NFA items by a FFL 07/02 SOT, or see a copy of the FFL records for the manufacturer?

But then again, everyone knows that the employees of FFL's are the legal authorities on all things NFA and tactical...

bblhd672 wrote:I’ve read on other sites today that this is not uncommon - supposed to protect the range owners should ATF come to the range and check tax stamps of shooters present with NFA items. Prevent ranges for being charged with allowing illegal firearms.
Whether or not that is an actual ATF regulation or a range rule recommended by attorneys I don’t know.

Wish the Hearing Protection Act would get passed and put end to the suppressor foolishness.

Again, a range owner is under no more legal liability for failing to ask to see a copy of a tax stamp than he or she would be for failing to demand proof from a customer that the customer is in lawful possession of a firearm. In other words, the liability is ZERO.

Unlike being asked to show my LTC to bypass a NICS wait when buying a gun, the demand to see my form 4 serves ZERO legal function. In contrast, when it comes to showing my LTC for a gun purchase (A) I don’t have to show it if I don’t mind waiting a few minutes for the NICS request to clear, and (B) it’s a bypass that is actually written into the law. So comparing the LTC/NICS situation to the one where a range owner demands to see a copy of your form 4 is not a comparison that holds water. They are not the same thing.

Lastly, I purchased that suppressor in July of 2016!!!. I just got it out of NFA jail a couple of weeks ago. I paid my dues for it! I had the background check, submitted the prints, and sent in the passport photo, just to accommodate Obama’s asinine changes to the law. I jumped through all the tryannical gov’t hoops and paid the stupid stamp tax - not to mention the $830 for what is essentially a lawnmower muffler. I do NOT feel like I need to prove to some officious little dweeb, who has no law enforcement authority in the matter, that I am in lawful possession of that can.

But, like I said, his property, his rules. Luckily, I don’t have to contribute to his bottom dollar. He can go hang himself. I’ll spend my range money elsewhere.

Other than that, I have no opinion.

bblhd672 wrote:I’ve read on other sites today that this is not uncommon - supposed to protect the range owners should ATF come to the range and check tax stamps of shooters present with NFA items. Prevent ranges for being charged with allowing illegal firearms.
Whether or not that is an actual ATF regulation or a range rule recommended by attorneys I don’t know.

Wish the Hearing Protection Act would get passed and put end to the suppressor foolishness.

How many times has this EVER happened without several triggering events involving that range? The ATF has relatively few personnel so i dont see random checks happening. Also, you dont have to carry the stamp around legally.

1911 Raptor wrote:

rm9792 wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:I’ve read on other sites today that this is not uncommon - supposed to protect the range owners should ATF come to the range and check tax stamps of shooters present with NFA items. Prevent ranges for being charged with allowing illegal firearms.
Whether or not that is an actual ATF regulation or a range rule recommended by attorneys I don’t know.

Wish the Hearing Protection Act would get passed and put end to the suppressor foolishness.

How many times has this EVER happened without several triggering events involving that range? The ATF has relatively few personnel so i dont see random checks happening. Also, you dont have to carry the stamp around legally.

Does the possessor of an NFA firearm have to show proof of registration?

Yes. The approved application received from ATF serves as evidence of registration of the NFA firearm. This document must be made available upon request of any ATF officer. It is suggested that a photocopy of the approved application be carried by the possessor when the weapon is being transported.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-po ... gistration



[26 U.S.C. 5841(e); 27 CFR 478.101]

And what crime will you be charged with for not having the proof on your person? How long do you have to produce such proof when asked?

ETA: And the CFR references the rule for FFL’s possessing NFA items in their inventory. Not individuals.

I don’t have any dog in this hunt. I was merely expressing my thoughts that maybe the range owners have been advised by legal counsel to do this. To me it’s as stupid as a range that posts .06/.07 signs.
I support the range owners’ right to make the rules they feel best suits their business but that doesn’t mean I think anyone should give them their money if you don’t agree with their rules.
If you want to have onerous rules that offends customers or potential customers that is fine by me, you won’t be getting my money or recommendation to anyone else.

I have submitted an Employee Suggestion Form to HR to ask them to remove this requirement from our Range.

We'll see what happens.

James

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:

extremist wrote: Just like the requirement that we as employees have to carry IWB, no OWB carry.
James

My curiosity compels me to ask what's the rationale behind this one? Cosmetic uniformity, like all employees wearing a company logo shirt?

Apparently, the story we were told is some "Tactical Ted" had too much gear on his belt and offended some customers so the edict came down that only IWB holsters were allowed. I've been trying to get the policy changed since I started there.

James

superchief wrote:It is really not legal for anyone but an ATF agent to ask to see your Form 3, 4, 1, etc. These are tax return documents.

EXACTLY. And it is inappropriate to ask. I don’t do business with people who behave inappropriately.

superchief wrote:It is really not legal for anyone but an ATF agent to ask to see your Form 3, 4, 1, etc. These are tax return documents.

Sure it’s legal for them to “ask” to see your form 4 and your 1040 too, just as it is legal for you to say no. My bank asks me for my tax returns every time I get a mortgage (I have 3 rental houses). If I say no, they make me go somewhere else to “shoot”.

extremist wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:

extremist wrote: Just like the requirement that we as employees have to carry IWB, no OWB carry.
James

My curiosity compels me to ask what's the rationale behind this one? Cosmetic uniformity, like all employees wearing a company logo shirt?

Apparently, the story we were told is some "Tactical Ted" had too much gear on his belt and offended some customers so the edict came down that only IWB holsters were allowed. I've been trying to get the policy changed since I started there.

James

Someone went to a gun range, and was offended that someone was wearing too much gun gear? Did they think they were walking into Chuck-E-Cheese?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

superchief wrote:It is really not legal for anyone but an ATF agent to ask to see your Form 3, 4, 1, etc. These are tax return documents.

EXACTLY. And it is inappropriate to ask. I don’t do business with people who behave inappropriately.

The RSO and the Range Manager should be tarred and feathered.

"Someone went to a gun range, and was offended that someone was wearing too much gun gear? :???: Did they think they were walking into Chuck-E-Cheese?"

'Who' decides how much gun gear is too much?'