Ashland City ADA not NFA friendly

[Guest ETS_Inc]

One of my customers submitted his Form 4 to the Cheatham County Sheriff's Department for the CLEO signature, and was turned down by the Sheriff. The Sheriff said he would double-check with the Assistant District Attorney this morning, to ensure he was correct.

The customer called me to tell me that the ADA advised the Sheriff to deny the signature, based on TCA 39-17-1302 (Prohibited Weapons).

Here is what TCA 39-17-1302 says:

"39-17-1302. Prohibited Weapons.

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:

(1) An explosive or an explosive weapon;

(2) A device principally designed, made or adapted for delivering or shooting an explosive weapon;

(3) A machine gun;

(4) A short-barrel rifle or shotgun;

(5) A firearm silencer;

.

.

.

( It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person's conduct:

(1) ...

(7) Involved acquisition or possession of a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun or firearm silencer which is validly registered to the person under federal law in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. A person who acquires or possesses a firearm registered as required by this subdivision shall retain proof of registration.

..."

So, I called the ADA, and spoke to him about it. He said that NFA weapons are illegal, and the owners of such can take their chances in court with a jury. As we know, they are legal. Unfortunately, some ADA's aren't as gun-friendly as we'd hope. There are still those, even in TN, who will attempt to prosecute lawful owners of legally owned weapons. I guess he doesn't like his successful conviction percentages, and would rather waste money prosecuting cases which can't be won by his office. I wonder how much money his office wastes on unwinnable cases?

I'd love to see him attempt to prosecute me for possessing my NFA weapons within his jurisdiction. I love seeing public officials wiping egg off of their faces.

[dunndw]

Guess the jerk only read the parts of the law he wanted to be true...forgot all about number 7.

I was surprised the Serpas(missing an S) signed mine actually.

Can your customer appeal the ruling to someone who knows how to actually read...like a 2nd grader?

[creeky]

Couldn't the BATF call them?

(Not that they would.)

[Guest ETS_Inc]

BATFE is a Federal Agency. They have no control over what is a State issue.

[creeky]

BATFE is a Federal Agency. They have no control over what is a State issue.

Sorry... I don't know what I was thinking.

What will this guy have to do to get this resovled?

[Guest ETS_Inc]

He's going to form a living trust, bypassing the need for CLEO signature. Then let's see the Sheriff arrest him and the ADA attempt to prosecute.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

My local Class III dealer tells me that there is a law on the books in TN compelling the Sheriffs to sign UNLESS they can come up with a good reason not to. Unless they have info that dude should not have the item, they have to sign. Unfortunately I have not found the statute yet.......

Of Course the trust/Corporate route would eliminate this worry, but unless he has info that the guy will use this for ill intent the Sheriff is apparently breaking the law.......

[Guest bkelm18]

Some people just need the stupid smacked out of them.

[Guest ETS_Inc]

My local Class III dealer tells me that there is a law on the books in TN compelling the Sheriffs to sign UNLESS they can come up with a good reason not to. Unless they have info that dude should not have the item, they have to sign. Unfortunately I have not found the statute yet.......

Of Course the trust/Corporate route would eliminate this worry, but unless he has info that the guy will use this for ill intent the Sheriff is apparently breaking the law.......

That law would be TCA 39-17-1361. However, the ADA is basing his decision on the first part of 39-17-1302, in that silencers are prohibited weapons, therefore, their mere possession is evidence of illegal activity. It appears that he's of the opinion that anyone in possession of a silencer should be arrested, and try their luck in court.

[Guest jcoyle6]

I'd love to see him attempt to prosecute me for possessing my NFA weapons within his jurisdiction. I love seeing public officials wiping egg off of their faces.

[Im Neero]

I agree with you guys that it's legal, but since when do you need the approval of the American Dental Association to buy a silencer?

[Guest ETS_Inc]

I agree with you guys that it's legal, but since when do you need the approval of the American Dental Association to buy a silencer?

It's for those tooth-jarring calibers like .50 BMG and 20mm.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Hasn't the AG made an opinion on this? Wouldn't that opinion override the ADA (since the law in question is a state law)?

If so, I would totally send a copy to the ADA and be like "FYI...."

Regardless, just because it says it is a "defense" does not change the fact that the burden of proof is on the state/county to show a crime has been committed, and I believe they would have a hard time producing a legitimate argument that any reasonable judge wouldn't simply dismiss.

EDIT: No AG opinion found yet, however, I did find this in a foot note:

http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2001/OP/OP20.pdf

1Tenn. Code Ann. §§39-17-1301 through 1322 proscribe the possession of weapons. For example, Tenn. Code

Ann. §39-17-1302 prohibits the possession of certain weapons such as machine guns and short barrel rifles and

shotguns unless one of the enumerated defenses to prosecution is applicable. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1307 prohibits

the possession of a firearm, including a handgun, shotgun or rifle, with the intent to go armed unless one of the

enumerated defenses to prosecution is applicable under Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1308.

[Guest GT_Rat]

I would recommend he call his state representative. Cheatham county is very rural (father-in-laws family lives out there) and most of the constituents are gun owners/hunters etc. Let his state rep know that his ADA is going to willfully violate the law saying he will prosecute legal NFA weapon owners.

[Guest utarch00]

Some people just need the stupid smacked out of them.

++++100

[Guest utarch00]

I agree with you guys that it's legal, but since when do you need the approval of the American Dental Association to buy a silencer?

The American Dental Association does not care, it is the American Disabilities Act that does.

[Guest slothful1]

The American Dental Association does not care, it is the American Disabilities Act that does.

Yeah, silencers are frowned on because they don't do anything for deaf people.

[Guest ETS_Inc]

I just got off the phone with the AG's office. They're working on an opinion for me, so that we can take it to the ADA, showing him where it is legal to own a properly registered NFA weapon.

If one were to extrapolate the ADA's reasoning a bit further, then the Williamson County Sheriff's Department SRT would be a bunch of unconvicted felons, for they all possess suppressors for their FN PS90's. And, so would every soldier on Fort Campbell, because they routinely possess machineguns. They should all be arrested, and be forced to go to court, to prove their affirmative defense.

[Guest Jason F.]

He's going to form a living trust, bypassing the need for CLEO signature. Then let's see the Sheriff arrest him and the ADA attempt to prosecute.

Can you explain this just a little bit more please? I have been trying to read up and understand as many of the NFA rules and such as I can but have not read anything on this yet.

[DaveTN]

I hope that now that you know this you don’t try to bypass the Sheriff without your customer knowing exactly what he is in for.

<O:p</O:p

Right or wrong I’m pretty sure there won’t be any ADA worrying about wiping egg off his face, but there sure could be an innocent citizen spending tens of thousands of dollars on his legal defense.

<O:p</O:p

We have discussed the AG ruling thing before and I don’t think (although I will admit I could be wrong) that an AG opinion can block a case should the court decide to hear it; it’s just an opinion.

<O:p</O:p

<O:pI am not implying that I think he is right, but getting arrested for something the Sheriff has told you is illegal can be expensive.

</O:p

[Paletiger13]

I think our LE peeps should send their recruits back to school to learn the laws a little more. In most European countries it is mandatory to have your firearms muffled in order to protect the ears of the shooter and surrounding people. Go figure, back asswards. lol:confused:

[Cannon Fodder]

Speaking of which, Frank how did this turn out?

[Guest ETS_Inc]

I haven't pursued it any further, yet, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, I can't figure out a way to word the question for the AG that would get a more easily understandable response than what is already written in the law. To me, it's already as straight-forward as it can get.

Secondly, I'm not sure I'm ready to stir up that hornet's nest that would be sure to come about from making the ADA and Sheriff eat a little humble pie.

Third, the Sheriff has only been denying suppressor forms, but not anything else. I can't explain it, but that's what's happened for at least one person.

[ioerror001]

Maybe this has been covered, but I'm sure I heard tennessee has a MUST SIGN policy unless they have knowledge of the person to commit a crime, did the person not mention that when he was told he was denied? That should be something the sheriff knows, and unless the sheriff is saying that person can't get a signature he is breaking tennessee law. Shouldn't be much more than showing him the law and having him sign. Does noone on here have the TCA code showing the must sign in it? I haven't read it, just heard about it last year.

[Guest ETS_Inc]

Maybe this has been covered, but I'm sure I heard tennessee has a MUST SIGN policy unless they have knowledge of the person to commit a crime, did the person not mention that when he was told he was denied? That should be something the sheriff knows, and unless the sheriff is saying that person can't get a signature he is breaking tennessee law. Shouldn't be much more than showing him the law and having him sign. Does noone on here have the TCA code showing the must sign in it? I haven't read it, just heard about it last year.

Trust me, the ADA and I had a not-so-pleasant phone conversation about the appropriate TCA's, which I quoted to him, verbatim. Unfortunately, he sees TCA 39-17-1302 (Prohibited Weapons) as a trump card. He says that, even though there is a defense against prosecution if they are registered with BATFE, possession of a suppressor is a crime in TN. Therefore, if the Sheriff signed the paperwork and you eventually took possession, you'd be committing a crime; so he can't sign it because he 'has knowledge' that your possession would be illegal.

It's a Catch-22 that the imbicle ADA can't see through.