Soooooo walking around with a mp5 look alike weapon, while you and your friend are filming with cameras.
Nope don't see anything here that shows these guys where baiting for a negative response.
The original reference I provided is correct: ORS 166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers.
Originally Posted by sgb
Unfortunately, your latest reply selected a subsequent post in which I'd mistakenly fat-fingered the number (.172, instead of .272, the correct number). Corrections in the latter post have been made. But the original statutory reference is correct, and it answers your question. A person having an NFA item in Oregon is required to have proof of lawful possession when in possession of that item.
SGB I am trying to understand where it is an issue when you are being obvious in trying to bait an officer on camera by OCing something that looks a lot like a fully automatic weapon and giving him reasonable suspicion that he has no right to take a moment of your time to ask you to show him that you are obeying the law. You asked for statute and ccw9mm gave you the statute that illustrates the regulation of the type of firearm this guy was being investigated over. Take the moment to go look up the statute on obeying the lawful order of a police officer or would you like ccw9mm to do that for you also...
As ccw9mm stated very clearly, how can the officer know if you are obeying the law if he does not ask to see proper ID? IF you deal with a traffic stop expect to be asked for proof of ID and insurance. The cop is not going to just take your word for it. This was a request in the course of an investigation for purposes of investigating the validity of the claim of a citizen. He protected this morons rights.
The officer in this was very professional, knowledgeable, and courteous. This kid and his friend went cruising looking to provoke a police officer into a confrontation and he ended up looking like the idiot he is.
I don't know where SGBg is going with this. I am ardent supporter of OC and I think the LEO handled it perfectly. There was a MWAG call. The officer didn't just decide to stop the individual on his own. Just as if someone were stopped for a broken tailight. The officer is now investigating. If the idiot was carrying a AR (which is a common rifle folks by) he might or might not have asked to see if it was select fire or not. From where he was he most likely could tell by visual.
Since it is very unusual to see what looks to be an MP5 the officer I feel was well in his right to ask to see it to confirm if it was authentic.
Back to the traffic stop...if the officer, who now has pulled you over for a legitimate reason, sees what appears to be a real gun (we will say a Glock) in your car he has the right at that point to ask if it is real, if you have a permit, and to inspect it if your answer is it is a toy.
Awesome Police officer! While that DA taints what a law abiding gun owner is all about IMO, that officer makes me have the utmost respect for both him and his office. If I was there on the sidelines, I would ask to shake the officers hand. After the officer left the scene, I would tell the idiot what I thought of his baiting tactic.
This is exactly why I could never be a cop. I'm ardently pro-2A, and pro-OC - and while I appreciate the cop's temperament, professionalism and knowledge of the law, part of me wishes there was an objective "button pushing" exception for idiots like this that would allow him to duct tape the guy to a light pole for no more than 60 minutes. He crossed over the line from filming how the cops would handle the encounter to forcing the cop to jump through every possible hoop. A professional encounter wasn't enough, he wanted to waste the cop's time by making him prove that he knew the law.
This reminds me of the idiots that used to get in the left lane of the interstate and set their cruise control at 55 mph to prove a point - except this guy would be the one setting it at the minimum speed of 40 mph.
SGB not sure where you are going with this either but ccw9mm provided statutes for it.
I will go one step further to merely possess, not just carry, an automatic weapon or NFA item you must be able to provide documentation when demanded "AT THAT TIME" not wait a minute let me go get it. Even when I was in LE when I took the departments Glock 18 to a public range I had to have a copy of the paperwork with me even being tactical officer it was issued to.
Yes you are right and AR can loook like an M4, An M1 carbine can look like an M2 and so on. There are semi auto copies of everything nowadays. Unless the officer stops and checks, especially after being dispatched, what would you have them do? The officer is totally within the law to use that as PC for stopping to check the weapon if he saw fit. The officer responded to a dispatched call for service, he observed what could possibly be an automatic weapon and simply using his experience determined that it was not, how difficult is that?
The pics you used were rather deceiving. Yes they are both HK's one being an MP5 and one an HK 94 but they are intentionally manufactured with different barrel lengths to meet legal requirements. Other than that they are the same except for the fire control group and even those with interchange.
Belt fed 1919 or a semi auto copy?
Open Bolt MAC 10 subgun or a semi auto pistol version? Again guns are exactly the same except for internals.
You want to use HK's as an example try this one. Full auto HK MP5K or a semi auto SP89? Both guns are exactly the same except for the internal fire control parts and the fire control group/safety.
Now by statute if these were full auto you would have to have on your person the paperwork to back it up. How is the officer going to know what it is unless he asks?
You are simply looking for an argument but have no basis for it. It was a legal stop, he did what he needed, and the young man did not get his confrontation.
I can appreciate that people will do this to shed light on abuse of powers from police. It forces municipalities to better educate their officers so acceptance is the norm, and ignorance doesn't prevail.
Excellent response from the officer...thank you.
By Law anytime you have an NFA weapon in your possession either SBR,Suppressor,or FA,you are required to have the tax stamp available for proof that it is a registered item.
And the GSG5 has a barrel shroud that looks a lot like a suppressor so if you wanta walk around with a gun that looks like it could be a class 3 weapon IMHO you are trolling for a public reaction.
There is a fine line between trying to prove a point and being a horses arse, these guys crossed it and the officer is an example of good law enforcement
Now I am going to throw a brick into all of these arguments.
Technically, the only officer that has the legal right to demand inspection of a Tax Stamp is an officer of the BATFE.
Technically, the police officer is only certified for the state that he is in.
Technically, the officer is under no imperative to enforce Federal Laws or codes, only state laws.
While any officer can ask to see the Form 4 to prove ownership of a Class 3 weapons, technically the person being asked does not have to do so and a lot of the people that are into the NFA world know this.
Since the ownership of any NFA weapon is proved by a tax stamp...then an officer asking for a tax stamp for a gun would be no diffferent than an officer asking for your federal tax records that is under the juristiction of the IRS.
How many of you would show your tax records to an officer that asked for them?
That is all that a Form 4 is. A record showing that you paid a federal tax to own an NFA item. Nothing more, nothing less.
With that being said...
lets imagine for a moment that the punk was carrying a class 3 (select fire) MP5.
If the cop requested to see it, all that he could legally do is report the case to the BATFE and hand it off to them if there was any dispute because it is not his jurisdiction. This is actually a common practice with LE, to call the Feds when in doubt. Its the very reason that the BATFE has a number of agents in each state, to assist local LE in these matters. If the local Feds cant handle it, they call in the rest of the troops that brings the full wrath of the U.S. Government.
The cop featured in the video, knew more than the average cop about the NFA process. Fact is, most of them dont have a clue. I know that none of the cops around here carry supporting paperwork with them, that is a function and responsibility of the Training Officer to keep the paperwork in order and its kept in a locked safe at the station.
So there ya have it. The officer did a great job maintaining control and he possess the BS skills that make his job easier.
Even so, I'd have run him as I do with most contacts.
I'd say this officer did a fine job handling this situation. I'll admit, I don't know a lot about the BATFE and NFA regulations.....I don't have to. As HotGuns already stated, it's not my jurisdiction. If I have an "encounter" with an armed citizen who's carrying what visually appears to be a class 3 weapon, you better believe I have RAS to detain the individual and check the gun.
I woould love to find this guys youtube site and flood him the same crap he was throwing at the officer. If I see this guy in my neighbor hood, I'm calling the cops!
First rate job by Officer Nork. This should be used by all law enforcement as an example of the right way to do things.
Ahh, yet another person 'looking for a confrontation' by doing legal things.
Officer conducted himself well, however.