Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
-
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:10 pm
Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Is there a benefit to purchasing NFA items as a trust as opposed to an individual person?
Has anyone here experienced any hassles from BATFE or any other gov't agency once approved for any NFA item? I ask because I've been told the various agencies can come do spot inspections if you own NFA items.
I understand that these "Solvent Trap" suppressors will make an AR sound more like a 10/22. Is there a way to make one of these even quieter?
Sorry if these have been asked a million times before. I've looked around the site but there's so much here I probably missed the topic it if it exists.
Thanks in advance for any info. First post on a new (to me) forum is always sketchy. My first post on THR got me thrashed like a red-headed stepchild.
Tor
Has anyone here experienced any hassles from BATFE or any other gov't agency once approved for any NFA item? I ask because I've been told the various agencies can come do spot inspections if you own NFA items.
I understand that these "Solvent Trap" suppressors will make an AR sound more like a 10/22. Is there a way to make one of these even quieter?
Sorry if these have been asked a million times before. I've looked around the site but there's so much here I probably missed the topic it if it exists.
Thanks in advance for any info. First post on a new (to me) forum is always sketchy. My first post on THR got me thrashed like a red-headed stepchild.
Tor
Last edited by TorPrepper on Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A couple questions
You save money on the finger-prints, but you lose money purchasing the trust. That said, most people do it for one dominant reason, and to a lesser extent, a second reason.TorPrepper wrote: Is there a benefit to purchasing NFA items as a trust as opposed to an individual person?
1 - Primary reason is that the local sheriff or Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) isn't cooperative. S/he takes the stance, "not in my jurisdiction!" In which case, the trust (or corporation) circumvents the LEO completely.
2 - By using a trust, you can gain a little freedom in who has custody of your NFA items since others can be trustees, such as a family member.
Agencies do NOT come and do inspections if you have NFA items on a trust versus on an individual. This myth has appeared from time-to-time, although usually for being a class III dealer as opposed to a trust holder. It's hard to say exactly where this started, but it's believed to have originated from some folks running their class III shop out of their garage, in which case, the place-of-business can be inspected, which by default is attached to the home. However, this has nothing to do with owning a tax-stamp.TorPrepper wrote: Has anyone here experienced any hassles from BATFE or any other gov't agency once approved for any NFA item? I ask because I've been told the various agencies can come do spot inspections if you own NFA items.
A "solvent trap" that is actually a silencer will get you in a ton of trouble. Avoid it unless you live outside of the US. However, a silencer can be made slightly quieter -- especially on high-heat rifle cartridges -- by shooting them 'wet', which just means to literally wet the inside of the silencer. Cooling the gas lowers the pressure, which in turn, lowers the volume.TorPrepper wrote:I understand that these "Solvent Trap" suppressors will make an AR sound more like a 10/22. Is there a way to make one of these even quieter?
You're going to want to seek out more information on 'wet shooting' before you do it, because not every silencer is built for this, and even those that can be 'wetted' safely, still have a safe amount and a *KABOOM!* amount. You don't want the *KABOOM!* amount, because it's a *KABOOM!* (self explanatory).
After that, shooting sub-sonic rounds is the only way to get it quieter. I may catch some argument from this, but my limited understanding of the situation is that ARs are really not a great platform for being suppressed since a certain amount of crud and noise is going to come out of the ejection port, and typically, the better the suppressor, the more crud and noise come out of the ejection port.
No worries. Someone else is wondering the same things you're wondering, and they'll click on this link and read it and be better off... and we'll never know it.TorPrepper wrote:Sorry if these have been asked a million times before. I've looked around the site but there's so much here I probably missed the topic it if it exists.
It happens. It's hard to argue with them because it seems like these questions come up all the time and the old-timers and board-veterans keep re-answering them again and again. But on the other hand, the search feature of many websites are often sub-par... either no hits, or way too many hits.TorPrepper wrote:Thanks in advance for any info. First post on a new (to me) forum is always sketchy. My first post on THR got me thrashed like a red-headed stepchild.
That said, there is an "FAQ" "stickied" above this thread where some of the questions you asked have been touched on.
Welcome to the board.
Re: A couple questions
Google is far superior with an added tag like site:silencertalk.com except for boards which do not allow the search robots.TROOPER wrote:... the search feature of many websites are often sub-par... either no hits, or way too many hits.
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Re: A couple questions
Totally agree. Unfortunately, and using this particular thread as an example, the title is simply "A couple of questions"... and that's not likely to be a common search criteria for anyone.doubloon wrote:Google is far superior with an added tag like site:silencertalk.com except for boards which do not allow the search robots.TROOPER wrote:... the search feature of many websites are often sub-par... either no hits, or way too many hits.
...
-
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:10 pm
Re: A couple questions
Thank you for your answers Trooper. I will look into the things you mentioned. I think in my particular case the trust isn't necessary since I'm a one-man operation here and our local sheriff is cooperative in these types of things. His office keeps fingerprints on file and will provide free printouts of them once they are paid for initially.
I asked about the solvent trap suppressors because if I do go the Form 1 route that would be the only way I could afford one.
Tor
I asked about the solvent trap suppressors because if I do go the Form 1 route that would be the only way I could afford one.
Tor
-
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:10 pm
Re: A couple questions
Basically if you think about it, all of these "special taxes" are nothing but bribes. It's all TABOO until you pay the right people. Then, no problem.
Re: A couple questions
Your google-fu has been weighed, it has been measured and it has been found wanting.TROOPER wrote:... Unfortunately, and using this particular thread as an example, the title is simply "A couple of questions"... and that's not likely to be a common search criteria for anyone.
Don't search for "a couple questions" when what you really want to know is "advantages of nfa trust"
advantages of nfa trust site:silencertalk.com
Or "trust vs individual"
trust vs individual site:silencertalk.com
Of "trust vs corporation"
trust vs corporation site:silencertalk.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Re: A couple questions
My Google-Fu is weak? Well yes, it is, actually, but my point was that they guy started a new thread over old material, but worded the title in a way that it's not likely to be useful for people in the future since the title itself isn't likely to be a part of someone's search criteria.
-
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:10 pm
Re: A couple questions
So anyway . . .TROOPER wrote:My Google-Fu is weak? Well yes, it is, actually, but my point was that they guy started a new thread over old material, but worded the title in a way that it's not likely to be useful for people in the future since the title itself isn't likely to be a part of someone's search criteria.
Re: A couple questions
It's just good-natured back-and-forth. Ignore it.TorPrepper wrote:So anyway . . .TROOPER wrote:My Google-Fu is weak? Well yes, it is, actually, but my point was that they guy started a new thread over old material, but worded the title in a way that it's not likely to be useful for people in the future since the title itself isn't likely to be a part of someone's search criteria.
That said, if you wanted to edit the title of this thread to something more search friendly, nobody would complain about it.
-
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:10 pm
Re: A couple questions
Or, people could simply check the box to search INSIDE the message, right?TROOPER wrote:It's just good-natured back-and-forth. Ignore it.TorPrepper wrote:So anyway . . .TROOPER wrote:My Google-Fu is weak? Well yes, it is, actually, but my point was that they guy started a new thread over old material, but worded the title in a way that it's not likely to be useful for people in the future since the title itself isn't likely to be a part of someone's search criteria.
That said, if you wanted to edit the title of this thread to something more search friendly, nobody would complain about it.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Yes, that could help, but it may end up returning so many hits that the results are not useful.
Look, no one here is ripping on you for asking these questions, and hopefully the answers you received were adequate, concise, relevant, and above all else, useful. I don't mind helping. Really, it's my pleasure. All of this other nonsense about search engines and what-not... it's just an quasi-interesting aside, not a whine-fest.
Look, no one here is ripping on you for asking these questions, and hopefully the answers you received were adequate, concise, relevant, and above all else, useful. I don't mind helping. Really, it's my pleasure. All of this other nonsense about search engines and what-not... it's just an quasi-interesting aside, not a whine-fest.
-
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:10 pm
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
I see . . .TROOPER wrote:Yes, that could help, but it may end up returning so many hits that the results are not useful.
Look, no one here is ripping on you for asking these questions, and hopefully the answers you received were adequate, concise, relevant, and above all else, useful. I don't mind helping. Really, it's my pleasure. All of this other nonsense about search engines and what-not... it's just an quasi-interesting aside, not a whine-fest.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
According to the ATF (as explained to my store, a SOT dealer, by the ATF when I asked the question), only one type of agent, a BATF agent, is allowed to check your stamp, without warrant (court order). No other Federal, State of local jurisdiction has been authorized to check and verify a stamp in possession, or do they have jurisdiction to do so. The amendment to the NFA of 1934 changed the law to no longer allow the delegation of authority to other agencies.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-201 ... ec5841.htm
Being as there are so darn few agents in any given area, the chances of a legal, authorized "stamp check" is about nil.
As to one who is neither a FFL nor SOT, but only owns weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act, ATF may only compel you to show an agent upon request the registration paperwork, that is the Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever else might have been used to register the weapon. See 26 U.S.C. sec. 5841(e). They do not have any right to compel you to produce the weapon. As always the Fourth amendment applies, and ATF may not enter your home or other place of storage of the NFA weapon, nor seize the weapon, without a warrant, or without falling under an exception the Supreme Court has created to the operation of the Fourth amendment, or without your consent.
This link provides a good run down with the appropriate laws cited:
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faq ... er_Privacy
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-201 ... ec5841.htm
Amendments
1976—Subsecs. (a), (c) to (e). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary” wherever appearing.
Being as there are so darn few agents in any given area, the chances of a legal, authorized "stamp check" is about nil.
As to one who is neither a FFL nor SOT, but only owns weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act, ATF may only compel you to show an agent upon request the registration paperwork, that is the Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever else might have been used to register the weapon. See 26 U.S.C. sec. 5841(e). They do not have any right to compel you to produce the weapon. As always the Fourth amendment applies, and ATF may not enter your home or other place of storage of the NFA weapon, nor seize the weapon, without a warrant, or without falling under an exception the Supreme Court has created to the operation of the Fourth amendment, or without your consent.
This link provides a good run down with the appropriate laws cited:
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faq ... er_Privacy
Last edited by Chorizo on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
That may be true, but in some states possession is illegal and federal registration is an affirmative defense. If you don't show the cop your stamp, you're going to jail.Chorizo wrote:According to the ATF (as explained to my store, a SOT dealer, by the ATF when I asked the question), only one type of agent, a BATF agent, is allowed to check your stamp, without warrant (court order). No other Federal, State of local jurisdiction has been authorized to check and verify a stamp in possession, or do they have jurisdiction to do so.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
That is a State law. Showing a stamp if possession is illegal, doesn't make it instantly legal, it is the possession that is illegal and a stamp doesn't cure the issue.. In States where they ARE legal, nobody but a ATF agent may check a stamp.Abiqua wrote:That may be true, but in some states possession is illegal and federal registration is an affirmative defense. If you don't show the cop your stamp, you're going to jail.Chorizo wrote:According to the ATF (as explained to my store, a SOT dealer, by the ATF when I asked the question), only one type of agent, a BATF agent, is allowed to check your stamp, without warrant (court order). No other Federal, State of local jurisdiction has been authorized to check and verify a stamp in possession, or do they have jurisdiction to do so.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
There's two different issues here: first, who can check the stamp. Second, who can demand to see a stamp by coming into your house.
First: anyone can ask to see the stamp, but refusal could lead to different ramifications depending on who is demanding. Pretty clearly you'll get into more trouble for refusing an ATF agent versus a local cop. Me personally? I'll show the local cop if he asks, requests, or demands it, simply because I don't want to wear handcuffs. Even if I don't get convicted, I'd still rather diffuse the situation as early as possible.
Second: an ATF agent can demand to see the stamp.... ok... but that has nothing to do with entering your home. I realize you didn't claim that it did, but since the original point at the start of this thread was whether or not having a stamp would allow the ATF unfettered access to your home, then the context of your statement, Chorizo, needs to be clarified. They don't need a warrant to demand to see your stamp, but that doesn't mean they can enter your home without a warrant to execute that check. Those are two different situations. That's like saying that an ATF agent recognizes you on the highway, and because he has the legal ability to check your stamp, he must therefore have the legal ability to pull you over to execute that check. False.
First: anyone can ask to see the stamp, but refusal could lead to different ramifications depending on who is demanding. Pretty clearly you'll get into more trouble for refusing an ATF agent versus a local cop. Me personally? I'll show the local cop if he asks, requests, or demands it, simply because I don't want to wear handcuffs. Even if I don't get convicted, I'd still rather diffuse the situation as early as possible.
Second: an ATF agent can demand to see the stamp.... ok... but that has nothing to do with entering your home. I realize you didn't claim that it did, but since the original point at the start of this thread was whether or not having a stamp would allow the ATF unfettered access to your home, then the context of your statement, Chorizo, needs to be clarified. They don't need a warrant to demand to see your stamp, but that doesn't mean they can enter your home without a warrant to execute that check. Those are two different situations. That's like saying that an ATF agent recognizes you on the highway, and because he has the legal ability to check your stamp, he must therefore have the legal ability to pull you over to execute that check. False.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Let's break this down. You said,Chorizo wrote:That is a State law. Showing a stamp if possession is illegal, doesn't make it instantly legal, it is the possession that is illegal and a stamp doesn't cure the issue.. In States where they ARE legal, nobody but a ATF agent may check a stamp.Abiqua wrote:That may be true, but in some states possession is illegal and federal registration is an affirmative defense. If you don't show the cop your stamp, you're going to jail.Chorizo wrote:According to the ATF (as explained to my store, a SOT dealer, by the ATF when I asked the question), only one type of agent, a BATF agent, is allowed to check your stamp, without warrant (court order). No other Federal, State of local jurisdiction has been authorized to check and verify a stamp in possession, or do they have jurisdiction to do so.
I didn't say it made it instantly legal, I said it was an "affirmative defense". There are states where under the law it is not legal to possess a silencer but if you have the proper federal registration it is a defense against prosecution. You can still be arrested but the judge will throw it out. Texas is (or was, the law may have changed recently) such a state. So the stamp actually does cure the issue.Chorizo wrote:Showing a stamp if possession is illegal, doesn't make it instantly legal, it is the possession that is illegal and a stamp doesn't cure the issue..
You said,
But when I described a situation where the state clearly will ask for and check your stamp, you said "That is a State law." Which makes no sense, you just said the state is not authorized.Chorizo wrote:No other Federal, State of local jurisdiction has been authorized to check and verify a stamp in possession, or do they have jurisdiction to do so.
You said,
There is the way things should work, and the way things do work. If possession is legal in a state and a cop asks you for your stamp, is it really worth the hassle of going to jail to not show him your stamp?Chorizo wrote:In States where they ARE legal, nobody but a ATF agent may check a stamp.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Read the code and the links and it will all come clear.TROOPER wrote:There's two different issues here: first, who can check the stamp. Second, who can demand to see a stamp by coming into your house.
First: anyone can ask to see the stamp, but refusal could lead to different ramifications depending on who is demanding. Pretty clearly you'll get into more trouble for refusing an ATF agent versus a local cop. Me personally? I'll show the local cop if he asks, requests, or demands it, simply because I don't want to wear handcuffs. Even if I don't get convicted, I'd still rather diffuse the situation as early as possible.
Second: an ATF agent can demand to see the stamp.... ok... but that has nothing to do with entering your home. I realize you didn't claim that it did, but since the original point at the start of this thread was whether or not having a stamp would allow the ATF unfettered access to your home, then the context of your statement, Chorizo, needs to be clarified. They don't need a warrant to demand to see your stamp, but that doesn't mean they can enter your home without a warrant to execute that check. Those are two different situations. That's like saying that an ATF agent recognizes you on the highway, and because he has the legal ability to check your stamp, he must therefore have the legal ability to pull you over to execute that check. False.
Yes, they must have a warrant to enter your home, unless you invite them. No unfettered access.
No, not everyone can check your stamp. ONLY an ATF agent may do so. That doesn't mean a power hungry or uninformed well meaning LEO may try to do so, but it still is not legal if they do. No, they may not ask to see your can. Only the stamp and only an ATF agent. Your call how far you are willing to take the issue. An illegal arrest and illegal confiscation of a can still means they have you can and you are in jail. It doesn't mean it is right and I am answering the question correctly that ONLY an ATF agent may do so and they may ONLY ask for your stamp.
You are correct for a probable cause stop. Your simple existence doesn't provide probable cause to check your stamp. To do so, they also need a reason to check the stamp.
Not going to play your strawman games about well it is better to do this and not follow the law than to do this yada, yada yada.
Question was asked and question was answered.
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Your ability to extrapolate meaning from alphanumeric characters is abysmal.Chorizo wrote:Read the code and the links and it will all come clear.
Yes, they must have a warrant to enter your home, unless you invite them. No unfettered access.
No, not everyone can check your stamp. ONLY an ATF agent may do so. That doesn't mean a power hungry or uninformed well meaning LEO may try to do so, but it still is not legal if they do. No, they may not ask to see your can. Only the stamp and only an ATF agent. Your call how far you are willing to take the issue. An illegal arrest and illegal confiscation of a can still means they have you can and you are in jail. It doesn't mean it is right and I am answering the question correctly that ONLY an ATF agent may do so and they may ONLY ask for your stamp.
You are correct for a probable cause stop. Your simple existence doesn't provide probable cause to check your stamp. To do so, they also need a reason to check the stamp.
Not going to play your strawman games about well it is better to do this and not follow the law than to do this yada, yada yada.
Question was asked and question was answered.
Are you saying local law enforcement can't ask to see your stamp? Or are you saying that local law enforcements shouldn't ask to see your stamp? You answer that question in your own following sentences. On the one hand, you say they may not ask to see your can. Then you contradict yourself with the acknowledgement that you may end up in jail.
That's great. I love this other s--t you put up about strawman games when this is EXACTLY what you're doing yourself.
Could you do us all a favor and get the F--k out of this thread?
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
To the original poster: this board has reached a sort of critical mass in that the odds of some mental alpha-male coming in and stirring up s--t where none existed are about 1-in-X. Well the membership of this board is now >X, therefore these kinds of threads devolve into what's-his-face feeling like he has to weigh in on a topic and use technicalities to show everyone how he's right and they're wrong, all the while he puts into his own comments the exact same material that everyone else was saying from the beginning.
Do you want the law here, or do you want reality?
Reality? People who are NOT ATF agents will ask to see your paperwork at some point. At this time, you'll have a choice, you can think back to the wonderful sound legal advice granted by king-s--t-of-turd-mountain up there, or you can show the paperwork, and be on your merry way.
I don't care which you choose.
But to answer your original question about whether the mere legal possession of an NFA item permits the government to inspect your home at their leisure: no, it does not.
---- ETA ---
Done with this thread. Questions asked, questions answered, dumbasses weighing in with how they know everything and giving you their sarcasm.... check, check, check. This is now a complete thread.
Do you want the law here, or do you want reality?
Reality? People who are NOT ATF agents will ask to see your paperwork at some point. At this time, you'll have a choice, you can think back to the wonderful sound legal advice granted by king-s--t-of-turd-mountain up there, or you can show the paperwork, and be on your merry way.
I don't care which you choose.
But to answer your original question about whether the mere legal possession of an NFA item permits the government to inspect your home at their leisure: no, it does not.
---- ETA ---
Done with this thread. Questions asked, questions answered, dumbasses weighing in with how they know everything and giving you their sarcasm.... check, check, check. This is now a complete thread.
Re: A couple questions
Yes.TROOPER wrote:...
It's just good-natured back-and-forth. Ignore it.
...
Ribbing Trooper instead of thrashing the new guy.
Didn't even bother to read Troopers response because I'm confident anything in there to disagree with is a nit not worth picking, I'm sure his answer is good to go.
ETA: just read the posts past the good natured ribbing part and ... wow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Ooops sorry, I think I stumbled into ARFCOM by mistake.
"Trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick yourself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: Benefits of NFA as a trust, BATFE Hassles, Solvent Trap suppressors made even queiter
Be VERY careful citing law and giving advice from documents that are almost 2 DECADES old.Chorizo wrote: This link provides a good run down with the appropriate laws cited:
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faq ... er_Privacy
If you play that game then you run into alot of issues like NO SBR's in Alabama, no hunting with silencers in MOST states, in VT and MI silencers are illegal(thats just a few off the top of my head).......all which are incorrect TODAY.
Please look at the dates of sources you cite before giving advice.