Can someone help me wrap my head around this?

[Rookie]

LEO responds positively to OC - Page 7 - INGunOwners

The statement is that local police have no authority to inspect your tax stamp. Why or why? What gives or doesn't give them the authority?

 

[JTinIN]

The one theory was that the Tittle II tax stamp is a tax matter ... however in the real world if one gets stopped with a Tittle II firearm then the local police tend to assume you have an illegal Tittle II firearm until you can show them that it is not ... which is typically done by showing them the copy of the Form 4 or Form 1 and then possible the local police checking with the BATFE.


Will sit back and wait for the more detailed comments / analysis.

 

[KJQ6945]

LEO responds positively to OC - Page 7 - INGunOwners

The statement is that local police have no authority to inspect your tax stamp. Why or why? What gives or doesn't give them the authority?

I don't know if this will help, but the last line on the back of a form 4 reads:

Proof of Registration: This approved application is the registrant's proof of registration and it shall be made availible to any ATF officer upon request.

You cited the state statute in your link. Local law enforcement would have to have reasonable suspicion that you didnt have a stamp before they could legally demand you to produce it.

Legally they don't have much authority to demand to see a stamp, but contempt of cop will get you arrested. Eventually your high priced attorney will get your NFA item back, maybe.

I learned along time ago, you can be right, or you can be happy, but very seldom both. Just my two cents, but, I would rather show a stamp to anybody that wanted to see it as opposed to spending two years trying to get a confiscated item back.

 

[curraheeguns]

Legally they don't have much authority to demand to see a stamp.

Sure you are 100% correct, they cannot "Demand" a stamp. But they can arrest you for a C Felony for violation of Indiana Code if you are in possession of a machinegun or a B Felony if you are shooting a machinegun.

At that point you may want to volunteer the fact that you are qualified under the exceptions....by showing your stamp.

IC 35-47-5-8
Machine gun
Sec. 8. A person who owns or possesses a machine gun commits a Class C felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.3; P.L.123-2002, SEC.43.


IC 35-47-5-9
Operating loaded machine gun
Sec. 9. A person who operates a loaded machine gun commits a Class B felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.4; P.L.123-2002, SEC.44.


IC 35-47-5-10
Applicability of statutes relating to machine guns
Sec. 10. The provisions of section 8 or 9 of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to any of the following:
(1) Members of the military or naval forces of the United States, National Guard of Indiana, or Indiana State Guard, when on duty or practicing.
(2) Machine guns kept for display as relics and which are rendered harmless and not usable.
(3) Any of the law enforcement officers of this state or the United States while acting in the furtherance of their duties.
(4) Persons lawfully engaged in the display, testing, or use of fireworks.
(5) Agencies of state government.
(6) Persons permitted by law to engage in the business of manufacturing, assembling, conducting research on, or testing machine guns, airplanes, tanks, armored vehicles, or ordnance equipment or supplies while acting within the scope of such business.
(7) Persons possessing, or having applied to possess, machine guns under applicable United States statutes. Such machine guns must be transferred as provided in this article.
(8) Persons lawfully engaged in the manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance, or device for the sole purpose of industrial, agricultural, mining, construction, educational, or any other lawful use.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.5; P.L.123-2002, SEC.45.

 

[KJQ6945]

We're on the same side here.

I learned along time ago, you can be right, or you can be happy, but very seldom both. Just my two cents, but, I would rather show a stamp to anybody that wanted to see it as opposed to spending two years trying to get a confiscated item back.

Like you said I might be 100% right, but I'd rather be happy and still have toys. That's why I said I would show it to anybody that wanted to see it.

 

[inccwchris]

(8) Persons lawfully engaged in the manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance, or device for the sole purpose of industrial, agricultural, mining, construction, educational, or any other lawful use.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.5; P.L.123-2002, SEC.45.

Since I drive a dump truck and transport constuction and mining material does this mean that I qualify under the exemption?

 

[Rookie]

So, basically like LTCH. You aren't obligated to show it, but it's your get out of jail card.

 

[KJQ6945]

So, basically like LTCH. You aren't obligated to show it, but it's your get out of jail card.

There's no such thing as a "get out of jail free card". If you wait that long to play the card you do have (the stamp), you probably won't have it very long. As curraheguns pointed out, your dealing with potential felonies.

Consider the liability standpoint. You get locked up for a state statute that because of a federal stamp, you're exempt from. You don't disclose your exemption at the time. If the prosecutor drops the charges it opens the PD to liability. If they continue with the charges, they might win and you get a felony. Maybe they lose and you get acquitted. You won and spent 100k. It's a fools bet and you lose either way.

This thread started as a spinoff from the kid open carrying a .22 mp5 clone.
I'll never get the mentality of a person who openly carries with a video camera. They are looking for a confrontation with the cops, and they will get it.
If they are that tough, walk into a biker bar with a video camera and tell them that only pussies ride Harley's. It's against the law for those bikers to beat you up, so it'll be ok! (I want to watch that vid).

 

[Beowulf]

There's no such thing as a "get out of jail free card". If you wait that long to play the card you do have (the stamp), you probably won't have it very long. As curraheguns pointed out, your dealing with potential felonies.

Consider the liability standpoint. You get locked up for a state statute that because of a federal stamp, you're exempt from. You don't disclose your exemption at the time. If the prosecutor drops the charges it opens the PD to liability. If they continue with the charges, they might win and you get a felony. Maybe they lose and you get acquitted. You won and spent 100k. It's a fools bet and you lose either way.

This thread started as a spinoff from the kid open carrying a .22 mp5 clone.
I'll never get the mentality of a person who openly carries with a video camera. They are looking for a confrontation with the cops, and they will get it.
If they are that tough, walk into a biker bar with a video camera and tell them that only pussies ride Harley's. It's against the law for those bikers to beat you up, so it'll be ok! (I want to watch that vid).

People that do that are indeed looking for confrontation with police. Their goal is to document misbehavior on the part of law enforcement and to let them know they are being watched. They want to make it clear to government officials that we do not tolerate encroachment on our Constitutionally protected freedoms.

You can't count on the media to document this. You certainly can't count on the government to police themselves (since they never do).

The two scenarios you list, documenting police behavior and going into a bar and taunting bikers are nowhere near the same. Police are the people that the citizens of that municipality/county/state/nation entrust to enforce and uphold the law and generally protect the citizenry. To do so, they are given weapons and the ability to commit grievous bodily harm (if not outright kill) other people who threaten that or to deprive those same people of their liberty. They must be held to a higher standard, otherwise we fall into tyranny. On the other hand, bikers are a group of private citizens who happen to enjoy riding motorcycles. They have no power over anyone else. So taunting them would just make you a jerk.

Besides, most Harley riders are retired old dudes because they are the only ones who have enough money to afford those outrageously priced machines, so as long as you are limber enough to break into a mild trot, you can probably outrun them.

But what do I know, I'm just a jealous Vulcan rider who'd love to own Street Glide but can't bring himself to spend $18,000+ on a motorcycle (especially when I could buy a nice machine gun or two for that).

 

[curraheeguns]

Police are the people that the citizens of that municipality/county/state/nation entrust to enforce and uphold the law and generally protect the citizenry. To do so, they are given weapons and the ability to commit grievous bodily harm (if not outright kill) other people who threaten that or to deprive those same people of their liberty. They must be held to a higher standard, otherwise we fall into tyranny.

Actually in Indiana we give Any Person the ability to "uphold the law and generally protect the citezenry".


IC 35-33-1-4
Any person
Sec. 4. (a) Any person may arrest any other person if:
(1) the other person committed a felony in his presence;
(2) a felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed that felony; or
(3) a misdemeanor involving a breach of peace is being committed in his presence and the arrest is necessary to prevent the continuance of the breach of peace.
(b) A person making an arrest under this section shall, as soon as practical, notify a law enforcement officer and deliver custody of the person arrested to a law enforcement officer.
(c) The law enforcement officer may process the arrested person as if the officer had arrested him. The officer who receives or processes a person arrested by another under this section is not liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.7.


We also give any person the right to use deadly force or any force justified to effect that arrest.


IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has

probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

So we should probably have 10 hour news cast about every idiot that does something stupid in general instead of just when a police officer does something stupid, because in reality we all kinda have the same power......we just don't all have the balls to enforce it or get paid to do it.

 

[KJQ6945]

I'm going to go with, yeah, what he said!

 

[Beowulf]

Actually in Indiana we give Any Person the ability to "uphold the law and generally protect the citezenry".


IC 35-33-1-4
Any person
Sec. 4. (a) Any person may arrest any other person if:
(1) the other person committed a felony in his presence;
(2) a felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed that felony; or
(3) a misdemeanor involving a breach of peace is being committed in his presence and the arrest is necessary to prevent the continuance of the breach of peace.
(b) A person making an arrest under this section shall, as soon as practical, notify a law enforcement officer and deliver custody of the person arrested to a law enforcement officer.
(c) The law enforcement officer may process the arrested person as if the officer had arrested him. The officer who receives or processes a person arrested by another under this section is not liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.7.


We also give any person the right to use deadly force or any force justified to effect that arrest.


IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has

probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

So we should probably have 10 hour news cast about every idiot that does something stupid in general instead of just when a police officer does something stupid, because in reality we all kinda have the same power......we just don't all have the balls to enforce it or get paid to do it.

Come on, Corey. That's a load of .

Can you go in front of a judge and get permission to go root through someone's house? Can you randomly ask someone to identify themselves for no reason and then take them captive if they refuse? Can you block off a portion of public road and force people to blow into a tube and then lock them up in your garage if they have been drinking? Can you take someone into custody for their own protection and then lock them up for 72 hours?

No? Well, then you don't have all the powers of the police. If you did most of those things, you would be arrested and would go to jail.

So, since we are investing this powers in the police, we need to hold them to a higher standard.

Now, I'm sure most law enforcement officers are truly dedicated men and women who want to protect the public and defend the constitution. But law enforcement also attracts a decent percentage of bullies and people who get off on abusing their authority.

Was Bisard protecting the citizenry when he slammed his cruiser right through a group of motorcyclists? Were his buddies delivering justice when they "accidentally" lost his blood sample that proved he was drunk when he did it? Was Lon Horiuchi delivering justice when he used his sniper rifle to put a bullet through the head of a woman holding a baby in her arms?

Oh look, here's another hero, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from an evil bicyclist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUaok48ZYDw

Come on, guys. There is a lot of abuse of authority by police in the US (really, by any group you give authority to). By encouraging people to watch the police, we can make sure the bad apples get expunged and the majority of the good men and women get the credit for the good work they do every day.

I'll tell you what, if it makes you feel better, you can also film me along with the police if you decide to open carry in public, but I think you'll be pretty bored by the result. Frankly, I think you'll be bored by the result of filming just about anyone except the police.