Question: Traffic stops and running the numbers

[user]

WW's right. My response to a speeding ticket stop to the query is "well, it aint more evidence of speeding, is it?"

Why respond at all? My standard lecture includes the following: when the cops want to talk to you about anything more serious than a traffic violation, look at your right hand, fingers outstretched. That breaks your focus on the cop and allows you to think for yourself. The five fingers represent five letters: K Y B M S. Those letters stand for "Keep Your Big Mouth Shut". Use my "letter to law enforcement" available in pdf format on my website if the cop insists on demanding answers. Ignore stuff about how you don't have fifth amendment rights prior to an arrest, that's hogwash. Ignore hostility, anger, and confrontation. Ignore smooth, friendly, "I just want to help you.", and "The sooner you tell me what I need to know, the sooner we can get out of here." Ignore statements that begin with "I need for you to...", as expressions of personal feelings with no legal effect. Obey orders to move, get out of the car, put your hands in appropriate places, etc. Do NOT do field sobriety tests. The only things you should say are, "I prefer not to, thank you.", and "I want my lawyer."

 

[Citizen]

Why respond at all? My standard lecture includes the following: when the cops want to talk to you about anything more serious than a traffic violation, look at your right hand, fingers outstretched. That breaks your focus on the cop and allows you to think for yourself. The five fingers represent five letters: K Y B M S. Those letters stand for "Keep Your Big Mouth Shut". Use my "letter to law enforcement" available in pdf format on my website if the cop insists on demanding answers. Ignore stuff about how you don't have fifth amendment rights prior to an arrest, that's hogwash. Ignore hostility, anger, and confrontation. Ignore smooth, friendly, "I just want to help you.", and "The sooner you tell me what I need to know, the sooner we can get out of here." Ignore statements that begin with "I need for you to...", as expressions of personal feelings with no legal effect. Obey orders to move, get out of the car, put your hands in appropriate places, etc. Do NOT do field sobriety tests. The only things you should say are, "I prefer not to, thank you.", and "I want my lawyer."

Oh, no, no, no. Don't ignore that one!

That right there is coercion to waive a right! That is a violation of Title 42 of the United States Code. The cop just told you he is going to hold you/continue your seizure until you waive your enumerated and highly regarded right to silence/against self-incrimination. Don't ignore it; commit his words to memory. Hand him some more rope in the form of innocent request for clarification. Even better if just a moment earlier you invoked your right to silence. There is case law on this point, if I recall. (Even better if you're recording, and can prove he said it.)

Maybe you won't get a windfall settlement for that mere statement by the cop, even if clarified, but it will look very tasty in a formal written complaint (petition for redress of grievance).

On the other hand, if you're a bit of a rookie, follow User's advice and KYBMS by not asking for clarification. Just make a mental note about the cop's statement for later. Otherwise, ignore it, meaning don't argue about it or respond to it. Just make a mental note and continue to KYBMS.

 

[user]

I say, do ignore that one - I'm a big believer in calling their bluff. And, as Whoopi Goldberg's character in "Eddie" said to Ivan Radovadovitch, "Take the foul! Take the foul!". Of course, I'm thinking afterwards, you don't just get a free throw, you get to take the cop's house in a sale in front of the courthouse to satisfy the damages for the false arrest/false imprisonment suit.

Another quote from the Virginia Legal Defense "Personal Defense Law" seminar: if they've got probable cause to arrest you, they are going to arrest you no matter what you say; if they don't have probable cause, talking to them will give them probable cause!

 

[davidmcbeth]

here's a thought ....

How about if you put lots of numbers on your gun ... just etch out a few dozen #'s that may look like actual serial numbers (not obscuring the true one of course, if yours even has a serial number on it). Would this be OK?

Then they'll look at your gun and say "whaaaat?". They may run a number that is not a serial number, get confused, and arrest you for their confusion?

 

[builtjeep]

If you really want to mess with their heads. www.polymer80.com makes an 80% Glock 17 frame. Combine that (after YOU do the milling to complete the frame) with a Lone Wolf Dist. aftermarket slide and barrel and you have a 100% legal, modern handgun with no serial number.

I'm sure you'd wind up at minimum spending a couple of hours on the side of the road while they figure out WTH it is, but you've not altered, destroyed, etc. as no serial number ever existed.

 

[OC for ME]

http://pennlago.com/are-firearms-without-serial-numbers-illegal/

Hmm...

 

[Grapeshot]

"In 1968, the Gun Control Act (GCA) imposed numerous additional requirements in the arena of gun manufacture. As per the GCA, all firearms manufactured or imported into the United States are required to bear a serial number. This law ―which was effective October 22, 1968― extends the serial requirement beyond the specific group of NFA regulated firearms."

"The serial number requirement remains in effect today, which explains our modern conceptions."

http://pennlago.com/are-firearms-without-serial-numbers-illegal/

 

[builtjeep]

From the same page.

"There’s another possible scenario in which there is no serial number, and that is in the case of a home build. As of late, there has been a 80% or 60% receiver complete craze. In these particular cases, the gun cannot be sold or transferred and must only be for the manufacturer’s own personal use. If it is a home build manufactured by yourself,*using your own equipment, for your own personal use, no serial number is required.

Although not*required, BATFE has stated: “*. . . we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27*CFR*478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.”http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html*Again, this is simply a suggestion and not a legal requirement."



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[builtjeep]

Also of note, as has been thoroughly discussed on many builder forums. This part "In these particular cases, the gun cannot be sold or transferred and must only be for the manufacturer’s own personal use" is not quite true. You may not build the gun with the intent to sell or transfer, it must be built for your personal use, but it MAY be sold at a later time so long as that was not the intent when built. Splitting hairs, but true none-the-less. And the ATF is careful with their wording about serializing in the event of a transfer. "SHOULD be identified as required in 27*CFR*478.92", not SHALL, and 27*CFR*478.92 applies to licensed manufacturers, which the home hobbyist is not.

 

[grylnsmn]

From the same page.

"There’s another possible scenario in which there is no serial number, and that is in the case of a home build. As of late, there has been a 80% or 60% receiver complete craze. In these particular cases, the gun cannot be sold or transferred and must only be for the manufacturer’s own personal use. If it is a home build manufactured by yourself,*using your own equipment, for your own personal use, no serial number is required.

Although not*required, BATFE has stated: “*. . . we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27*CFR*478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.”http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html*Again, this is simply a suggestion and not a legal requirement."

I'd like to know the source for the bolded part. I haven't seen any law or regulation that requires that you use your own equipment. For example, if I owned a workshop with a dril press, I can let my friend come and use it to complete a 80% lower, even though it isn't on his "own equipment". Similarly, if I were to rent time in a machine shop, or use a machine shop that is open to the public (like some maker spaces), then it should be just as legal, by my understanding.

 

[builtjeep]

I can't look up the sources from my work computer, but IIRC this was another BATFE about face in response to certain 80% manufacturers holding "Build Parties" where they had cnc machines and people would "rent" time on it, plop in their lower, and pres the GO button. I'm not sure how legal/enforceable it is, but it IS the BATFE's current stance. I'd imagine though that you could sell your drill press to your friend for cheap, and he may choose to sell it back to you after he's finished. Also, who doesn't have a drill press of their own? Pick one up for $50 or less at the flea market.

 

[grylnsmn]

I can't look up the sources from my work computer, but IIRC this was another BATFE about face in response to certain 80% manufacturers holding "Build Parties" where they had cnc machines and people would "rent" time on it, plop in their lower, and pres the GO button. I'm not sure how legal/enforceable it is, but it IS the BATFE's current stance. I'd imagine though that you could sell your drill press to your friend for cheap, and he may choose to sell it back to you after he's finished. Also, who doesn't have a drill press of their own? Pick one up for $50 or less at the flea market.

As I recall, the BATFE's guidance was specifically directed at the company "80% Arms" that both made 80% lowers and "rented" time on their CNC machines to finish them (with the push of one button).

As for someone not having a drill press, not everyone has room for various tools. The friend I was thinking of lives in a small apartment.

 

[davidmcbeth]

As I recall, the BATFE's guidance was specifically directed at the company "80% Arms" that both made 80% lowers and "rented" time on their CNC machines to finish them (with the push of one button).

As for someone not having a drill press, not everyone has room for various tools. The friend I was thinking of lives in a small apartment.

Its the same line of thinking used with roll-your-own shops that allowed people to rent their rolling machines to produce cigs. Some places had stand your own machines in corners of their business and others had been set up just for RYO business. Gov't wants its tax dollars ! In that case.

Your friend can finish a 80% using a Dremel is he wanted to. A drill would be nice too. And doing this with polymer should be easier than a metal one. And different metals have different degrees of cutting difficulty. At some time I know that people were producing copper and/or bronze 80% lowers. And even various grades of Al alloy have different degrees of cutting difficulty.

Or make one from flat plates; these plans are available online. No milling at all, just drilling.

Have fun.

And you can make AKs too ! And many other firearms. One guy here was going to mold his himself...I don't recall if he posted his end results but that's not too difficult either.

 

[F350]

I have some finished out 80% lowers; how can BATF prove when, where, how, with what I finished them out??? The big thing is large, public finishing projects are sure to draw .gov's attention, letting a buddy use your drill press in your garage...

 

[davidmcbeth]

I have some finished out 80% lowers; how can BATF prove when, where, how, with what I finished them out??? The big thing is large, public finishing projects are sure to draw .gov's attention, letting a buddy use your drill press in your garage...

What? You did not serialize them and provide this information to the government?

 

[F350]

What? You did not serialize them and provide this information to the government?

ACTUALLY; doing such would be the pansy thing to do

 

[davidmcbeth]

ACTUALLY; doing such would be the pansy thing to do

Wasn't a slant on you ... good job is what you did....liberals are crying I'm sure.

 

[F350]

Wasn't a slant on you ... good job is what you did....liberals are crying I'm sure.

No offence taken, I know you were kidding around and my reply was in the same vain.