Vero Beach man accused of having an illegal weapon outside Fort Pierce gun show

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/oct/26/vero-beach-man-accused-having-illegal-weapon-outsi/



Looks like someone dimed Kennedy out after seeing his short-barreled rifle. I might add that despite the reputation
that Port Fierce has, the gun shows at the old Civic Center and the newer Fenn Center have always been chock-full of
cops of all types, both on-duty and as customers. NOT the place to try anything illegal.

I speak after having attended regularly years ago, and also having a friend with a FFL who does business there (and yes,
you *will* be subject to a NICS check if you want to buy a firearm from him. Or any other FFL there.)

Dumbass! Hope he enjoys time in club fed.

on the other hand, having a buttstock so the weapon is shoulderable is a no-no.


ATF: If a receiver has never been barreled as a rifle, then pistol configuration is fine.

I know from whence I speak :)



4473'd as a pistol before last November's change to the form.

as long as it is under .51 caliber and not easily convertible to full auto. :)

Typical media nowadays.

has anal-raped a Citizen without due cause or process...

Just playing what-if-advocate here, it's not like the BATFE doesn't have something of a history.

Like I said earlier, the gun shows in Fort Pierce are always hip deep in cops.

Besides, if I saw someone with what looked to be a short barelled rifle, I would certainly have passed the word
quietly to the show security, which would be St. Lucie County sheriff's deputies or city cops (Ft. Pierce or
Port St. Lucie) on paid detail. St. Lucie County owns the venue.

I will trawl the gun boards and see what follow-up comes out of this.

them to be legally registered. Why do you presume guilt?

A few months ago, a former pro boxer with priors sent his girlfriend into an Austin gun show to make a straw purchase. When they left, their car was immediately pulled over. The police routinely run plates of folks at the show who are "suspicious."

Gun shows are not the place to be if you are a criminal.

but whats the point really of restricting barrel length on a rifle or shotgun? Is it because its concealable?... handguns are concealable and you can get a "handgun" in a rifle caliber.

Canadians can own short barrelled rifles without the hassle we have to go through.

After all the National Firearms Act came out of the gang violence of the 1920s, and covered the weapons most favored by bootleggers during prohibition: automatic weapons (particularly submachine guns) and short-barreled long guns, mostly sawed off shotguns.

I agree with you about the issue of short-barreled rifles. I wouldn't own one myself (I think you waste the point of a rifle by giving it a short barrel), but the concern that someone's going to pull a "Matrix" and whip an M4 out from under their coat is rather silly. A rifle bullet at short range isn't going to do so much more damage than a handgun at the same distance that it's worth the hassle. Short-barreled shotguns are a slightly different story in that you can make the argument for them being decidedly more fatal at short range than either a handgun or a rifle.

Want to know something funny? The reason the legal length on a rifle is 16 inches, but the legal length on a shotgun is 18 inches, is thanks to a simple manufacturing mistake. After World War II, the government sold as military surplus a lot of M1 Carbine light rifles. These were supposed to have 18 inch barrels, making them immune to the NFA, but somebody realized that a bunch of them had barrels closer to 17.5 inches in length due to manufacturing variables. It was well within the acceptable margin of error for military gear, but the law was uncompromising, so the US government had just illegally sold an indeterminate number of unregistered short-barreled rifles. Solution? Have Congress change the legal length from 18 inches for a rifle barrel to 16, and all those guns were happily legal again.

it was an 11.5 inch barrel with some kind of flash suppressor that was threaded and not welded. It would be painfully obvious to anyone looking at the thing it was too short. What's cop supposed to do when they're looking directly at a violation like that?

There are people at gun shows who will sell you an upper like that and not mention that it needs to be NFA'd. It's not illegal to own the upper unless you have a lower that can be mated to it. The poor guy might not even have known he was walking around with a billboard slung around his neck that said "BUST ME".

I'm going to SBR an AR15 some time next year. They're really handy even if you are giving up a bit of velocity.

Do what the law says and presume innocence. NFA registered items are legal. Unless you have any reasonable suspicion that it is not registered then you should presume that it IS registered.

I'd initiate a quick field interview to establish the legality of the firearm and be done with it. Most guys with NFA stuff carry a copy of their stamp when they take it out. It's easy enough to resolve the question right on the spot.

Or I could ignore the guy and let him try to sell it to a dealer or ATF man and get busted.

Not much of a choice, is it?

You know that SBR's are legal. So on what reasonable suspicion do you believe that THIS one is not legal? If you cannot establish R.S. then you cannot legally initiate anything.

"Hey, that's a really nice AR. How long did it take to get the tax stamp?" You don't have to accuse anyone of anything. Making accusations is generally a recipe for failure. You don't have to turn it into some kind of Constitutional Battle Royal. All it takes is opening up a conversation to confirm one's suspicion that the rifle is, indeed, legal.

Police officers are not forbidden to speak to strangers.

anything at all? Do you hang out in the parking lot asking people how long it took them to get their insurance card? I doubt it. So why approach someone about their SBR? Are you wanting to buy it or are you fishing for P.C? Your motivation to ask such a question of a stranger is key here. Why are you asking?


Edit for a couple of questions:

Are you in uniform or in plain clothes? What if the guy looks at your uniform and turns around and walks away? What if he simply says I make it a personal police not to talk to police without my lawyer present and walks away? What if he says 6 months?

You open the conversation and see where it leads. Most of the time I'd say guys working details like try to avoid getting wrapped up in an arrest so saying I'd be fishing is not really accurate.

If they say they need a lawyer present to speak to me I'd probably bust a gut laughing. If he said six months, I'd probably just let it go and ask him if he knew where I could buy some ammo.

The other option is to do nothing and let the guy deal with the Federal agency who is far less understanding than some podunk local cop. It really doesn't matter that much to me.

They're only legally obligated to show it to Treasury agents. Most people with one of those will show it to a police officer if asked, but it's not technically required.

Anyway my bet is that this is simply a case of terminal stupid, somebody casually taking advantage of the cheapness of AR replacement parts to put a 14 inch upper on something without realizing the legal ramifications.

There are lots of problems with this story because so much is left out of it. A picture would really have helped.

But my problem is that there really seems to be a presumption of guilt. An ATF agent knows damn well that SBRs are perfectly legal. He made an assumption without any evidence (at least none was reported in the article) that this rifle was illegal. Last I checked we live in a society that believes in the presumption of innocence. You have to have some sort or reasonable suspicion to stop and ask questions. Does the mere fact that you are driving a car on a public road give a cop the presumption that you are doing so with out mandated insurance? NO.

In some ways, it's like a cop being unable to display his duty weapon without his badge being visible.

While most everyone agrees that keeping a copy of your Form 4/1 with the item is the best way to go (it is even suggested by the NFA branch of ATF) it has never been determined what the legal grounds and/or boundaries are.

The letter of the law says that you must present your Form 4/1 for inspection purposes to an ATF agent upon his/her request. The law does not say anything about the NFA item being shown or that the Form 1/4 must be kept with the item (although the NFA branch of the ATF SUGGESTS it). Now consider the fact that your Form 1/4 is actually a confidential tax document. Such documents require a subpoena to get without your consent. So how exactly does a leo (non ATF) have the authority to demand you show it to him/her? I know, I know, the normal response is to show it so you don't go to jail and so forth. BUT, the leo is at that point presuming you guilty. With no evidence, no probably cause, and not even reasonable suspicion you are faced with PROVING lawful possession of lawful property under threat of arrest. That is NOT how our system of justice is supposed to work. You are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. For a cop to ask "papers please" he/she is supposed to have reasonable suspicion.

Does the mere presence of a SBR rise to the level of reasonable suspicion in or of itself? I say no, no more than the mere presence of any other object that may be lawfully owned. Does the mere fact that you are driving on a public road (in violation of no law) provide reasonable suspicion that you do not have insurance and are subject to be pulled over and asked for it? No.

hauled in and then defend yourself with your stamp in court.

Something like "NFA papers are a defense to prosecution". Another "beat the rap/beat the ride" situation.

SBR and a pistol, saw it happen firsthand.