Today at the gun range

[jminn1]

I finished my business on the shooting range and exited. While I was waiting for the range manager to check me out, the guy next in line to go on to the range popped his large tactical rifle bag up on the counter and proceeded to partially unload the content. Since the facility I was at requires rifles to be trigger-locked while carrying them through the store, he was first of all miffed about having to have the range manager unlock his rifle. The guy hauls out shooting glasses, some targets, a silencer, and the rifle he's going to shoot. [insert sound of tires screeching to a halt] The range manager asks if he has the paperwork for silencer. The room goes kind of quiet. The guy becomes a bit confrontational, and asks the range manger if he is a LEO, to which the range manager says no, and then proceeds to politely explain that range requires the permit for the silencer to be presented, and that the police would be called if the permit cannot be produced. The guy gets out his phone and pulls up an image, then shoves the phone at the range manger and with demands of the range manager "do you know what that is?" The range manager examines the image on the phone and says "no, don't have any idea." The guy says "Its a dealer stamp". The range manager says "ok", and then dropped the issue..

I'm looking for a bit of education here, but am mostly just curious.

Was the range manager entitled to ask to see the permit for the silencer? I'm assuming it would be some sort of federal permit.

Would being a firearms dealer convey the proper level of permission to possess and deploy the silencer in that setting?

Is the image of a dealer license on a phone good enough, or should the actual permit for the silencer been required?

I learned one thing today for sure: Don't mess with the old guy behind the counter at the range!

[JP171]

I finished my business on the shooting range and exited. While I was waiting for the range manager to check me out, the guy next in line to go on to the range popped his large tactical rifle bag up on the counter and proceeded to partially unload the content. Since the facility I was at requires rifles to be trigger-locked while carrying them through the store, he was first of all miffed about having to have the range manager unlock his rifle. The guy hauls out shooting glasses, some targets, a silencer, and the rifle he's going to shoot. [insert sound of tires screeching to a halt] The range manager asks if he has the paperwork for silencer. The room goes kind of quiet. The guy becomes a bit confrontational, and asks the range manger if he is a LEO, to which the range manager says no, and then proceeds to politely explain that range requires the permit for the silencer to be presented, and that the police would be called if the permit cannot be produced. The guy gets out his phone and pulls up an image, then shoves the phone at the range manger and with demands of the range manager "do you know what that is?" The range manager examines the image on the phone and says "no, don't have any idea." The guy says "Its a dealer stamp". The range manager says "ok", and then dropped the issue..

I'm looking for a bit of education here, but am mostly just curious.

Was the range manager entitled to ask to see the permit for the silencer? I'm assuming it would be some sort of federal permit.

Would being a firearms dealer convey the proper level of permission to possess and deploy the silencer in that setting?

Is the image of a dealer license on a phone good enough, or should the actual permit for the silencer been required?

I learned one thing today for sure: Don't mess with the old guy behind the counter at the range!

I think that yes the Man was within his rights and needs to ask about the status of the person having a suppressor in his gear, Just being a FFL does not as I understand it convey you to possess a suppressor you have to have a endorsement stamp on your FFL that may be what the guy showed. I would think that the image if it had that persons name on the pic of a valid license would suffice as the license has to stay at the legal offices of the FFL's shop. and lastly yep ya never give the range control guy a ration of..... anytime ever unless your never going back

[Carry-a-Kimber]

There is no "permit" for an individual to own a suppressor only a National Firearms Act (NFA) tax stamp. If he was a dealer of Title II firearms he would have a Special Occupation Tax (SOT) stamp. The guy at the range has NO authority to see the NFA stamp or SOT stamp but it is his right to refuse business to anyone he wants. One of the ranges I go to asks to see my stamp any time I bring a suppressor or SBR, it's annoying but I like the range so I show it.

[jbarn]

I wonder what training anyone working at a gun range has in what a tax stamp is supposed to look like.

It is ridiculous for them to ask, as it matters not to them. If some knucklehead posses the NFA item illegally it has no effect to the range. Do they conduct background checks on everyone going in to shoot?

[jimlongley]

I have been to several ranges where various NFA items were in use (IDPA Three Gun is a literal blast with full auto) and every one of them has required presentation of valid paperwork for the NFA item.

We get back to the property rights issue with this, the ranges are private property (with few exceptions) and they can make any rules they want (within limitations) about who can shoot what and so on.

[jbarn]

I have been to several ranges where various NFA items were in use (IDPA Three Gun is a literal blast with full auto) and every one of them has required presentation of valid paperwork for the NFA item.

We get back to the property rights issue with this, the ranges are private property (with few exceptions) and they can make any rules they want (within limitations) about who can shoot what and so on.

I agree they can make those rules; however, it serves no purpose and actually slows down their process of checking in. Kinda dumb, IMO.

There are at least two ranges in DFW that don't care and don't ask.

[Tic Tac]

I have been to several ranges where various NFA items were in use (IDPA Three Gun is a literal blast with full auto) and every one of them has required presentation of valid paperwork for the NFA item.

We get back to the property rights issue with this, the ranges are private property (with few exceptions) and they can make any rules they want (within limitations) about who can shoot what and so on.

I agree they can make those rules; however, it serves no purpose and actually slows down their process of checking in. Kinda dumb, IMO.

There are at least two ranges in DFW that don't care and don't ask.

Agreed. Unless they require all shooters to show a CHL or other proof they're legally qualified to possess firearms in general, checking paperwork for silencers or SBR sounds pretty silly.

[TomsTXCHL]

Unless they require all shooters to show a CHL or other proof they're legally qualified to possess firearms in general, checking paperwork for silencers or SBR sounds pretty silly.

I disagree with this, because first of all whether one has a CHL or not, there is no license required to "possess firearms in general". OTOH silencers or SBRs do require a special permit, are very easily identified by bystanders, and if any of those bystanders are LEOs they might be inclined depending on the circumstances to determine whether the owners have them legally. From the private business owners' perspective, it is well within their rights to try and limit "illegal activities" on their properties, so that they don't become known among LEOs as a place where the laws of the land are overlooked or ignored.

[jbarn]

Unless they require all shooters to show a CHL or other proof they're legally qualified to possess firearms in general, checking paperwork for silencers or SBR sounds pretty silly.

I disagree with this, because first of all whether one has a CHL or not, there is no license required to "possess firearms in general". OTOH silencers or SBRs do require a special permit, are very easily identified by bystanders, and if any of those bystanders are LEOs they might be inclined depending on the circumstances to determine whether the owners have them legally. From the private business owners' perspective, it is well within their rights to try and limit "illegal activities" on their properties, so that they don't become known among LEOs as a place where the laws of the land are overlooked or ignored.

There are the same restrictions for possessing a handgun as an SBR, the only difference is the payment of a tax. There is no permit. A range who checks for the TAX STAMP, is acting as an agent for tax collection.

Since the restrictions are the same, ie felony convictions, etc., how do they know I am not a convicted felon domestic violence, illegal alien, and drug abuser?

I clearly said it is within their rights, it is just stupid to do. I'll repeat, what range employees have been trained in recognition of a legitimate tax stamp?

[Jumping Frog]

Unless they require all shooters to show a CHL or other proof they're legally qualified to possess firearms in general, checking paperwork for silencers or SBR sounds pretty silly.

I disagree with this, because first of all whether one has a CHL or not, there is no license required to "possess firearms in general". OTOH silencers or SBRs do require a special permit, are very easily identified by bystanders, and if any of those bystanders are LEOs they might be inclined depending on the circumstances to determine whether the owners have them legally. From the private business owners' perspective, it is well within their rights to try and limit "illegal activities" on their properties, so that they don't become known among LEOs as a place where the laws of the land are overlooked or ignored.

A range owner has no responsbility to take on quasi-law enforcement duties. Just sticking their nose into something they have no need to control. If someone is there with an illegal suppressor, the range owner has committed no crime.

[TomsTXCHL]

Just sticking their nose into something they have no need to control.

It's been said already, but it's their private business therefore they can do whatever they want. If anyone doesn't like it, they can take their business elsewhere.

[tbrown]

Just sticking their nose into something they have no need to control.

It's been said already, but it's their private business therefore they can do whatever they want. If anyone doesn't like it, they can take their business elsewhere.

True. That's been said already and repeating it doesn't make the busybodies any less foolish or less ignorant.

[LAYGO]

Garland or Eagle doesn't ask for details (IIRC). I was there with my buddy & his sbr/suppressor & don't recall anyone inquiring.

Although, he did have concerns about us being on our own lane w/o him firing his rifle (which is fun as all get out to shoot).

I wish I could get together the necessaries for an SBR.

[03Lightningrocks]

Yep. It's their business and they have the right to make the rules for shooting there. It doesn't mean they are ignorant.

[MasterOfNone]

So would this be like running a parking garage and requiring everyone to show a bill of sale for their cars?