Being a cop or military doesn't mean you automatically know anything about guns

[macville]

This letter is a prime example of why being a cop or military doesn't make you a firearms expert or even have a gauge knowledge of firearms.

 

http://www.knoxnews.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/05/24/letters-silencers-greed/340246001/

 

I may have to respond to this because it's pure fud and nonsense.

[Chucktshoes]

 Idiot. 

[Grand Torino]

Everyone has an opinion I suppose. Fortunately his is worthless.

[Ronald_55]

You always know someone has no idea when they spend most of the letter explaining how qualified they are......

[monkeylizard]

Didn't he also head up security at one of America’s largest indoor retail shopping areas?

[MP5_Rizzo]

I'm willing to bet this small arms expert voted for Hillary.

[Garufa]

It's a shame such a stellar career was ended in that tragic segway incident but I see he still has a firm grasp on the law.  What a dolt.

[Garufa]

56 minutes ago, macville said:

I may have to respond to this because it's pure fud and nonsense.

Please do cause that guy needs some serious correction.

[Omega]

I guess if you spend enough time playing Call of Duty on your Nintendo you get to know a few things.

[tacops]

Nothing quite like skinning your ignorance for all to see via mass media...should of been a politician.

[tacops]

I apologize...I forgot about the "no politics thing"...but I must point out that I did not choose a flavor.

[DWARREN123]

I am totally qualified to get up in the morning!

[Garufa]

1 hour ago, tacops said:

I apologize...I forgot about the "no politics thing"...but I must point out that I did not choose a flavor.

This is a simple matter of ignorance.  

Someone throwing credentials around like they are somehow a legal expert who in fact, only showed how unqualified he is on such matters and worse, spread false, inaccurate information.

[94user]

4 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

Didn't he also head up security at one of America’s largest indoor retail shopping areas?

That's Gecko? !

[macville]

Does anyone know if suppressors were ever illegal in TN since the '34 NFA act? As far as I've found, they've always been legal since being invented (or at least there was a defense to them written into the law.)

[Dolomite_supafly]

They have been illegal in Tennesssee up until the recent law change. Prior to the new law they were illegal but your registration was a "defense to prosecution". Basically it means you could be arrested for possessing one but once you showed your registration to the judge the charges would be dropped. Now they are legal. 

[macville]

52 minutes ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

They have been illegal in Tennesssee up until the recent law change. Prior to the new law they were illegal but your registration was a "defense to prosecution". Basically it means you could be arrested for possessing one but once you showed your registration to the judge the charges would be dropped. Now they are legal. 

I know that, but what I meant was there ever an actual ban on them (no defense in the law) since 1934? I would guess that sometime in the 60's or later they were actually made illegal by state law.

Edit: I am writing a response to the original letter and wanted to include that they've been defacto legal for x number of years.

Edited May 28, 2017 by macville

[MP5_Rizzo]

So basically what your saying is Federal Law trumped State Laws in Tennessee if I'm understanding this correctly.  So why are are there still states that ban NFA items and residents don't use the same principal.  I'm sure I may be over simplifying this but just thought of this in light of Tennessee decision to legalize them.

[Garufa]

8 minutes ago, MP5_Rizzo said:

So basically what your saying is Federal Law trumped State Laws in Tennessee if I'm understanding this correctly.  So why are are there still states that ban NFA items and residents don't use the same principal.  I'm sure I may be over simplifying this but just thought of this in light of Tennessee decision to legalize them.

Without getting into all the subtle nuances and particular circumstances, federal law supersedes state laws.  It always has per The Constitution. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Garufa

[macville]

7 minutes ago, MP5_Rizzo said:

So basically what your saying is Federal Law trumped State Laws in Tennessee if I'm understanding this correctly.  So why are are there still states that ban NFA items and residents don't use the same principal.  I'm sure I may be over simplifying this but just thought of this in light of Tennessee decision to legalize them.

I am not quite sure what you are asking. This law was passed because it's possible that congress in July may take suppressors off the NFA and if they do, the previous "defense" wording in TN would have actually made the currently legal suppressors illegal in TN. It was really an administrative bill to make sure there are no gotchas to TN residents who do currently have a legal suppressor.

[MP5_Rizzo]

15 minutes ago, macville said:

I am not quite sure what you are asking. This law was passed because it's possible that congress in July may take suppressors off the NFA and if they do, the previous "defense" wording in TN would have actually made the currently legal suppressors illegal in TN. It was really an administrative bill to make sure there are no gotchas to TN residents who do currently have a legal suppressor.

Dolos comment and I've seen the same thing said in other threads here that supressors were actualy illegal under previous Tennessee law but owners used the defense of Federal Regs.  My question was about states that ban NFA items.  Why would residents of those states not do the same as far as owning NFA items even if there state bans them.

Edited May 28, 2017 by MP5_Rizzo

[Oh Shoot]

53 minutes ago, MP5_Rizzo said:

Dolos comment and I've seen the same thing said in other threads here that supressors were actualy illegal under previous Tennessee law but owners used the defense of Federal Regs.  My question was about states that ban NFA items.  Why would residents of those states not do the same as far as owning NFA items even if there state bans them.

Still don't know exactly what you are driving at, either.

States may enact most any type firearm ban they choose. Hardly any have ever been struck down by federal appeal. Matter of fact, the only two I can think of right off are the Chicago handgun ban and the 8 round limit thang in NY SAFE act.

In short, just because something is not prohibited under federal law does not necessarily mean it cannot be prohibited under state law.

Or this have nothing to do with what you're asking?

- OS

Edited May 29, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[Omega]

I think you misunderstood the defense part, in TN law as written silencers are illegal unless you have a federal tax stamp.  If that part wasn't written into the law, then silencers would be illegal in TN, period.

[Oh Shoot]

 

2 hours ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

They have been illegal in Tennesssee up until the recent law change. Prior to the new law they were illegal but your registration was a "defense to prosecution". Basically it means you could be arrested for possessing one but once you showed your registration to the judge the charges would be dropped. Now they are legal. 

 

1 hour ago, macville said:

....This law was passed because it's possible that congress in July may take suppressors off the NFA and if they do, the previous "defense" wording in TN would have actually made the currently legal suppressors illegal in TN. It was really an administrative bill to make sure there are no gotchas to TN residents who do currently have a legal suppressor.

I don't see that. Seems to me existing law was just fine.

Matter of fact, it's not a "defense", but an "exception", and wording doesn't mention documentation, just that ..."(a) that the person acquiring or possessing a weapon described in subdivisions (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5) is in full compliance with the requirements of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. §§ 5841-5862). "

Obviously, if the NFA no longer mentions silencers, then you would be in compliance, eh?

Maybe it's a little "neater", but hardly really necessary.

- OS

Edited May 29, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

11 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

 

 

I don't see that. Seems to me existing law was just fine.

Matter of fact, it's not a "defense", but an "exception", and wording doesn't mention documentation, just that ..."(a) that the person acquiring or possessing a weapon described in subdivisions (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5) is in full compliance with the requirements of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. §§ 5841-5862). "

Obviously, if the NFA no longer mentions silencers, then you would be in compliance, eh?

Maybe it's a little "neater", but hardly really necessary.

- OS

You are correct, the quick reading I did the other day I saw defense in the section before (c) and my brain just transposed it. I read somewhere that there was concern that the language which was the issue was, " is in full compliance with the requirements" and that could cause issue. But I am all in favor of any "defense" or "exception" being removed from the law and things fully legal. Honestly, if you wanted to try pushing the TN firearms freedom act you could do so with no punishment from the state, just the jerk ATF would be after ya:)