Contacted by BATFE today!!


PDA






scndactive
June 1, 2009, 08:05 PM
Contacted by BATFE today.

I Had all the doors and windows open in the house today as I usually do on summer days like this, and i hear my full name called, so I go to the door and there are two gentlemen in polo shirts and jeans standing just outside the front door.

They introduced them selves as Special Agent bla bla and Special Agent somthingorother, we are with the ATF.

ATF: We would like to talk to you about some guns you bought, a 9mm your wife purchased and two .45s. Do you still have these?

Me: What is this investigation about?

ATF: we have been checking on multiple firearms purchases with all the guns going to Mexico these days, Can we take a look at these guns?

ME: I will have to speak to my lawyer. do you have a card?

ATF: We're just trying to make sure these guns aren't going to Mexico and keep more gun control laws from being passed:barf:

I asked where they were from, they said Oklahoma and North Carolina, so they ain't Texas folk.

They had copies of the 4473s from where I bought them, but what I want to know is how this came up. the pistols were all purchased separately over a three day period, (so no multiple firearms form)so are they just going FFL to FFL looking for x number of guns in x amount of days?:confused:

I feel like my house just got cased :eek:

Note: AFAIK I have not broken any laws.

If you enjoyed reading about "Contacted by BATFE today!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TAB
June 1, 2009, 08:22 PM
could be any of a number of things.

your 3 guns in 3 days could have flagged you. Then agin it could have been something one of the dealers did/ did not do that got them intrested. who knows, it might have been just a random thing that you got lucky at.

if they all came form the same FFL, 3 hand guns in 3 days is a pretty odd.

deadin
June 1, 2009, 08:33 PM
the pistols were all purchased separately over a three day period,

It's a 5 day period....Title18 USC 44 Ch.923:
(3) (A) Each licensee shall prepare a
report of multiple sales or other dispositions
whenever the licensee sells or
otherwise disposes of, at one time or
during any five consecutive business
days, two or more pistols, or revolvers,
or any combination of pistols and revolvers
totaling two or more, to an unlicensed
person.

Quoheleth
June 1, 2009, 08:40 PM
I would go with a problem with the dealer/FFL holder. They're probably checking up on deals he made to make sure they are kosher.

Q

TexasRifleman
June 1, 2009, 08:43 PM
the pistols were all purchased separately over a three day period,

deadin has it right.

You were probably unaware, but your FFL sent in a separate form for your multiple handgun purchases.

Seems like we had a couple of other members post on this.

Martyk
June 1, 2009, 08:46 PM
That's it. 2 (or more) handguns in 5 days, a mandatory report goes to ATF.

sniper5
June 1, 2009, 08:47 PM
If you bought 2 or more handguns in a 5 day period from the same FFL he is obligated under federal law to send a notification form (don't know the exact form number offhand) to the BATFE even though they were not purchased all at once. It sounds like this wasn't a huge deal for them and I'm sure they get a ton of those forms dropped on their desk each morning and have to run around and say Hi to each of the purchasers (I am assuming you would have mentioned if search warrants or..uh..wrist jewelry was involved). If these were from different FFL's I would be willing to bet the instant background checks flagged the multiple purchases when they went through. Shouldn't, but I'll bet there is software in the system to do it, all plausibly weasel-word deniable of course. You probably didn't do anything illegal and they just have to check a box on a form that said you're not running a warehouse of gray market guns. Having spent years working around cops I would be willing to bet they were as eager to move on with their day as you were.

The Lone Haranguer
June 1, 2009, 09:11 PM
ATF: We're just trying to make sure these guns aren't going to Mexico and keep more gun control laws from being passed
:scrutiny: That is a strange thing to say.

TexasRifleman
June 1, 2009, 09:13 PM
That is a strange thing to say.

It's the equivalent of "We're from the government, we're here to help". :)

GRIZ22
June 1, 2009, 09:16 PM
ME: I will have to speak to my lawyer. do you have a card?


If you just showed them the guns that would be the end of it. Are you really getting a lawyer for this?

kingpin008
June 1, 2009, 09:45 PM
If you just showed them the guns that would be the end of it. Are you really getting a lawyer for this?

If he's done nothing wrong, why should he give in to their requests? Any time a couple individuals with the power to send me to Federal prison show up at my door wanting to ask me questions, I'd damn sure lawyer up as well. I don't care if all they wanted to know was how to get to the Denny's down the street.

dougwx12
June 1, 2009, 09:47 PM
If you just showed them the guns that would be the end of it. Are you really getting a lawyer for this?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Di8z7NC5sgik&ei=ZYQkSvbSMZ-gNein8Y8F&usg=AFQjCNEU_l3XnSCN0EexWxjjoYDWb8Spow

Noxx
June 1, 2009, 10:08 PM
If you just showed them the guns that would be the end of it. Are you really getting a lawyer for this?

Just roll over like a good dog and everything will be ok.

dirt_j00
June 1, 2009, 10:22 PM
How did the conversation end? You left us hangin!

TeamRush
June 1, 2009, 10:32 PM
It's always been that way as long as I've had my license,
Purchase more than 3 handguns in a month, expect a visit.

I used to be you couldn't buy more than TWO from the same dealer or he was REQUIRED to report the purchases, and that rule still stands,
But now they are putting purchases together by SSN, and by firearm type in the computers databases.

If you live in Indiana and buy up a bunch of rim fire rifles, it's no biggie.
Live in Arizona and buy up a bunch of big bore handguns or semi-auto center fire rifles, expect a visit.

I don't know how many times I've had visits from ATF down through the years, just to check the books and make sure the 'Inventory' isn't leaking out someplace without paperwork.

I make personal purchases, and I get them at home,
Like at a recent auction of a collection, and I purchased about a dozen different firearms...
They showed up, I showed them the firearms and paperwork, and they were gone in less than 15 minutes.
------------------------------------------------------

You get treated the way you treat people, so expect the next round of 'Visitors' to be carrying subpoenas and search warrants.

If you are lucky, they didn't use the magic word when getting the warrants....
(narco 'Terrorist')
And you don't wind up 6 states away in an underground cell with a hood over your head!
That 'Patriot Act' is a b!tch when they want to break it off in your butt!

mike26038
June 1, 2009, 10:51 PM
But now they are putting purchases together by SSN, and by firearm type in the computers databases.



And what corner of the internet did this info come from. By law, the only info retained by the computer system is the NICS transaction number, and the type of gun sold, IE Hangdgun, long gun ect. All other info has to be deleted within 24 hours of the transaction, unless it was a delayed transaction.

Rockwell1
June 1, 2009, 10:56 PM
If you just showed them the guns that would be the end of it. Are you really getting a lawyer for this?

I think someone already said it but yeah, if two cops show up on my door asking questions about anything They're going to get (politely) told " Officer I do not consent to any searches and I'd like to consult my attorney before answering any questions"

If you'll bother to watch Dr. Duane's video you'll note that he makes the statement that the 4th & 5th amendments to the Bill of Rights were primarly designed to protect the innocent from unwarranted prosecution.

GRIZ22
June 1, 2009, 11:07 PM
If he's done nothing wrong, why should he give in to their requests?

Just roll over like a good dog and everything will be ok.


There certainly is a lot of paranoia here and lawyers making money.

I've seen that don't talk to cops video and in certain situations I would agree but not with this one.

Show them the guns they already know you purchased and if the questioning starts to divert to anything questionable, then get your lawyer.

Don't show them the guns. Makes you a bit suspect. The agents have to get a subpeona for you to show the guns, gets the US Attorney's office ticked off and if you have done something wrong you sure have drawn attention to yourself and the US Attorney's office will find it.

Show them the guns you're not running to Mexico and 9999 out of 10,000 it's over.

Any time a couple individuals with the power to send me to Federal prison show up at my door wanting to ask me questions, I'd damn sure lawyer up as well. I don't care if all they wanted to know was how to get to the Denny's down the street.


A state prison would be okay? No directions to Denny's. That's paranoid.

Dimis
June 1, 2009, 11:08 PM
I think id find a lawyer as well knowing "Officials" like to bend distort and rearange the rules of alot of things showing them the weapons may find you in cuffs the way crazy agents get they may try and bust you for not having a proper lock/safe or god forbid something as rediculous as brandashing a weapon
pretty much 90% of all official conversations should start with the phrase "I need to speak with my lawyer..."

Rockwell1
June 1, 2009, 11:18 PM
There certainly is a lot of paranoia here and lawyers making money.

If your civil libertys mean that little to you, fine. I choose to
protect mine

Don't show them the guns. Makes you a bit suspect.

Huge indicator that the system is broke. Be a good little citizen waive your rights, goood boy

The agents have to get a subpeona for you to show the guns,

Sucks to be them that's their job.

gets the US Attorney's office ticked off and if you have done something wrong you sure have drawn attention to yourself and the US Attorney's office will find it.

Nice little intimidation factor built right into the system. Now citizen, you don't want to make us angry, you wouldn't like us when we're angry. Be a good little prole and bend ove... I mean waive your rights.


pretty much 90% of all official conversations should start with the phrase "I need to speak with my lawyer..."

Actually they should end with those words.

As in " I'd rather not answer any questions with out my attorney present. So if there's nothing else I can help you with good day gentlemen."

DAVIDSDIVAD
June 1, 2009, 11:23 PM
Oogah Boogah, let them talk to you or scary things will happen!


Please.

Wyo_F-A
June 1, 2009, 11:27 PM
It must be a down south thing, cause I have purchased 4 handguns at the same time on two separate occasions without incident. Both times were so the wifey and I could pick one or two from the bunch (we wanted to try them all and then make up our minds) and then sell off the others for a small loss through sites like this and gunbroker or back to the original dealer.

mljdeckard
June 1, 2009, 11:30 PM
When I was younger, I would have turned to jelly at the thought of real live federal agents on my doorstep. My house, hard drive, gun safe, sure man, whatever. Look all you want.

Today I would make them do their jobs. I work for my money, they can work for theirs.

I have a friend, who was involved in a business venture that eventually folded. A couple of years later, two DHS agents showed up and told him that someone who had purchased something from him two years ago was a suspect in a crime, and they wanted to check the records of everyone he had done business with to make sure they weren't involved as well. My friend asked then what the nature of the crime was, they looked at each other, and said; "trafficking in child pornography." Within 15 minutes, they had borrowed his records and copied the contents of his computer to look through later. I asked him what he was smoking, giving them that kind of access. He said, "Dude, they're DHS, they can have anything they want anyway."

"NO THEY CAN'T!! They snowed you with the line about kiddie porn to freak you out and get you to fall all over yourself to prove that you had nothing to do with it. They played you like a fiddle, you swallowed the hook. You just gave them an easy work day. If they had probable cause for a warrant, they would have brought it with them."

They are allowed to ply you, tease you, lie to you, lean into your face, tell you they will get a warrant, anything to get around the "warrant, exigency, or PERMISSION" rule.

Rockwell1
June 1, 2009, 11:40 PM
If you take nothing else from this thread learn this line

If they had probable cause for a warrant, they would have brought it with them."

Gunnerpalace
June 2, 2009, 12:14 AM
The lawyer thing does not sound paranoid to me,

That is a strange thing to say.
More laws more work, paperwork, which nobody likes.


Oh yeah and anyone still saying 4473 is not a form of registration is fooling themselves.

flrfh213
June 2, 2009, 12:24 AM
i have learned IF ANYONE ASKS THEY CAN BE TOLD NO. if you are told or demanded then it is safe to worry....

waterhouse
June 2, 2009, 12:25 AM
It's always been that way as long as I've had my license,
Purchase more than 3 handguns in a month, expect a visit.

I've filled out multiple purchase paperwork on average of 40+ times a year (a little less than one a week) for the past several years. I generally ask my customers about it. I've put as many as 14 handguns on one form. I've only heard from one customer that got a visit from the ATF. While it may happen, it is not generally the norm. How long have you had your license? I'm curious about the 3 guns in a month rule, I've never heard that one, but it could be a law before my time.

I used to be you couldn't buy more than TWO from the same dealer or he was REQUIRED to report the purchases, and that rule still stands,
But now they are putting purchases together by SSN, and by firearm type in the computers databases.


What state are you in? The SSN isn't even required to buy a gun. Where did you get this information? Are you talking about state laws or some sort of federal database?


If you live in Indiana and buy up a bunch of rim fire rifles, it's no biggie.
Live in Arizona and buy up a bunch of big bore handguns or semi-auto center fire rifles, expect a visit.

Again, where do you get this information? The NICS check doesn't even have an option to put in data about caliber or action type. They would know about a bunch of handguns, big bore or not, due to multiple purchase paperwork, but you could buy 50 semi auto rifles and all they would know is that you bought A long gun.


Oh yeah and anyone still saying 4473 is not a form of registration is fooling themselves.

As long as private sales of firearms remain legal the 4473 is no means of registering anything. If they pass laws to close the so called "gun show loophole", then the 4473s may be considered a registration issue.

scndactive
June 2, 2009, 01:47 AM
As long as private sales of firearms remain legal the 4473 is no means of registering anything. If they pass laws to close the so called "gun show loophole", then the 4473s may be considered a registration issue.

If this is true then how did my name come up?
If you live in Indiana and buy up a bunch of rim fire rifles, it's no biggie.
Live in Arizona and buy up a bunch of big bore handguns or semi-auto center fire rifles, expect a visit.

Process of elimination? I have a few misdemeanor convictions from my early years but nothing keeping me from buying or possessing a firearm. could this be the catalyst

3 semi-auto pistols purchased from the same FFL within a week (one was purchased by my wife)+ 5 hours from the boarder+ prior record = lets pay this guy a visit. I sure hope your right, if not its going to be a long summer.

They were polite, I was polite, I saw no need to act otherwise, but I was not going to roll over for them either. I shook their hands and told them I appreciate their concern. A half hour later I noticed an "unmarked" Crown Vic parked 100 yards from my drive in the park near my house. Tin foil hat??

you could buy 50 semi auto rifles and all they would know is that you bought A long gun.

50 long guns sold to an individual from one FFL, 200 or so miles from the boarder will likely get looked into. While I agree this should not happen, I would be surprised if it did not.

I will post updates.

Tiomoid
June 2, 2009, 01:52 AM
flexyourrights.org

TexasRifleman
June 2, 2009, 08:20 AM
If this is true then how did my name come up?

I think Waterhouse' point is that with legal private sales the 4473 isn't a guaranteed registration system since you might legally have sold all of the handguns by the time someone came looking for them.

If they outlaw private sales the 4473 should be close to 100% accuracy becasue if you sold something, there is another 4473 to continue the search til the gun is found. That is de facto registration.

waterhouse
June 2, 2009, 08:29 AM
If this is true then how did my name come up?

Because of this:
3 semi-auto pistols purchased from the same FFL within a week



As mentioned earlier in this thread (see deadin's post #3), as soon as you purchased the second one within a 5 day period, a multiple handgun form was faxed into the ATF.

The multiple sales form includes your name and address, as well as the make, model, serial number, and caliber of the guns you bought.

When they went to collect the 4473s they probably scanned the books. If your wife has the same last name as you they saw her purchase as well.

Your proximity to the border may have something to do with the visit, especially if you live along a major north-south corridor (IH-35 in TX). There is a whole task force that is trying to deal with guns going into Mexico, and one of their jobs is to check on multiple handgun purchases.


50 long guns sold to an individual from one FFL, 200 or so miles from the boarder will likely get looked into. While I agree this should not happen, I would be surprised if it did not.

It would only get looked into if a dealer thought something was suspicious and called the ATF about it. My point was that 2 handguns = extra paperwork that gets faxed to the ATF. 50 long guns does not equal any extra paperwork.

When a dealer fills out the data on the NICS background check, there is a box that says handgun, a box that says long gun, and a box for receivers.

The dealer simply checks a box. The only thing the gov't knows at this point is that John Smith bought a long gun. That's it. He may have bought one, or he may have bought 5, or he may have bought 50.

When you buy a handgun, the dealer checks the box for handguns. From NICS, there is no way to know if you bought one handgun, or 5, or 50. However, with handguns the separate (non-NICS) multiple purchase paperwork must be filled out and submitted.

JohnBT
June 2, 2009, 09:11 AM
"Any time a couple individuals with the power to send me to Federal prison"

You don't know much about the justice system in this country, do you? It takes a prosecutor and a judge too to get things moving in that direction.

John

TexasRifleman
June 2, 2009, 09:23 AM
You don't know much about the justice system in this country, do you? It takes a prosecutor and a judge too to get things moving in that direction.

And we've seen how readily those 2 are to go along with Federal agencies haven't we?

Let's be honest, prosecutors and judges are not completely impartial when it comes to Federal agencies.

MT GUNNY
June 2, 2009, 12:52 PM
Do you still Own the Three Firearms the Feds asked you about ?

JohnBT
June 2, 2009, 01:09 PM
"And we've seen how readily those 2 are to go along with Federal agencies haven't we?
Let's be honest, prosecutors and judges are not completely impartial when it comes to Federal agencies."

And your own lawyer might be working for the other side. Life is full of risk. So there's honesty and there's accuracy and the statement I was responding to was not accurate.

John

runrabbitrun
June 2, 2009, 01:45 PM
So we now have Federal agents going to specific homes
AFTER people are legally buying firearms? Nice :rolleyes:

Is it legal to purchase as many as you want in one week?
But if you purchase more than three in one week your somehow
now a suspect of some unlawful act?
(Or at the least now being placed on a 'list' somewhere,
for a possible follow up visit to your abode?)

Wow :eek:

kd7nqb
June 2, 2009, 01:56 PM
The way I see it its all about numbers,

1. The .gov still believes that most of the guns in mexico are being purchased legally, most of us on this bored know thats crap but its another matter.

2. If they are being purchased legally then looking at somebody who is buying lots of guns in a short period is a logical place to start.

3. I dont like the BATFE any more than most of us on the board but they never accused him of doing anything wrong, just a status check. To some this is a massive invasion of privacy to others its a worthless and stupid exercise.


If this happened to me I would have nicely told them that they could wait outside while I get the guns they asked for. I would bring them ONLY those guns and they would be leaving as soon as they were done.

sarge83
June 2, 2009, 02:22 PM
My shop won't even consider two handguns in 5 days. They will flat out tell you, 5 full business days before they will allow you to buy another handgun rather than put up with reporting to the ATF.

Sucks when you have a couple on layaway and the tax refund comes in...

CoRoMo
June 2, 2009, 02:32 PM
By law, the only info retained by the computer system is the NICS transaction number, and the type of gun sold, IE Hangdgun, long gun ect. All other info has to be deleted within 24 hours of the transaction, unless it was a delayed transaction.

Because the law enforcers never violate the law.

A half hour later I noticed an "unmarked" Crown Vic parked 100 yards from my drive in the park near my house.

Welcome to the DoHS watch list.

blkbrd666
June 2, 2009, 03:11 PM
A half hour later I noticed an "unmarked" Crown Vic parked 100 yards from my drive in the park near my house.

Call Dominos and have them deliver two large supreme pizzas to them.

scndactive
June 2, 2009, 04:13 PM
Quote:
A half hour later I noticed an "unmarked" Crown Vic parked 100 yards from my drive in the park near my house.

Call Dominos and have them deliver two large supreme pizzas to them.

LOL, wish I had thought of that.

There is an E-mail that's going around saying that this same thing happened to another gentleman in Texas. I heard about it on another forum I post at

I just received this email from a friend. He is a well respected, hard working Texan/American:

"BRIAN, JUST HAD 2 ATF OFFICERS LEAVE MY HOUSE WANTING TO SEARCH MY GUN SAFE AND TAKE DOWN SERIAL NUMBERS DUE TO THE FACT I HAVE PURCHASED A LOT OF GUNS LATELY. NICE GUYS AND YOU KNOW I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT APPARENTLY THE NEW ADMINISTRATION IS SENDING ATF OFFICERS TO TEXAS TO CURTAIL GUN PURCHASES THINKING THAT THERE A BUNCH OF FOLKS HERE IN TEXAS SUPPLYING THE SORRY, NO GOOD, LOW LIFE DRUG LORDS OF MEXICO. THESE OFFICERS CONDUCTED THEIR SELVES FIRST CLASS BUT I DENIED THEM TO LOOK AT MY WEAPONS. I DID NOT THINK I WOULD LIVE TO SEE THIS DAY COME BUT HERE IT IS. THE TWO OFFICERS WERE FROM COLORADO AND NEW YORK, HERE TO HELP OUT TEXAS ATF. NOTHING AGAINST THE OFFICERS BUT MY OPINION IS THAT THIS IS AN OBAMA POLITICAL MOVEMENT. A STARTLING DAY FOR ME AND MY AMERICAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS. JUST THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE THAT INFO WITH YOU. -REGARDS "

No jackboots, no warrants, no strong arm tactics, just a polite inquiry as to the location of the firearms purchased. although that's not any of their business. IMHO they have the SN from the pistols, if they come across them in 'ol Mexico then come back and see me, till then I'll stand behind the 4th and the 5th

DHJenkins
June 2, 2009, 05:20 PM
I'm not really sure what I would do in this situation.

I believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but I think I'd rather have the BATFE tick me off their "possible straw buyer/smuggler" list and move on to the next person.

Besides, it might be nice to know someone who can fast track a form 4 one day...:D

scndactive
June 2, 2009, 05:53 PM
My thread at the other board I post on was closed because the mods and some members do not believe me. I'm hoping that dose not happen here, so here is a scan of the business card I was given by one of the agents

I'm not trying to start a fire I just thought gun owners should know about this.

I could have swore the guy said North Carolina, but I guess not.

Take it or leave it. believe me or don't.

Blackbeard
June 2, 2009, 08:11 PM
Personally, I wouldn't mind showing them the guns, but I wouldn't let them in without a warrant. I'd be happy to meet them in the back yard so they can look at the serial numbers.

GunsNLipstick
June 2, 2009, 08:34 PM
Thank you for sending the business card. Your thread on the other board was reopened.

sanerkeki
June 2, 2009, 08:36 PM
So what happened at the end of the visit?

NotPbFree
June 2, 2009, 08:40 PM
If I had filled out forms that stated I was purchasing a weapon or weapons for my own use, what is the problem showing properly credentialed batf agents that I did indeed still own them? After all, they already know I HAD them. They are also verifying someone did not purchase in your name using a stolen ID.

One other thought, if agents can't verify folks aren't straw buyers, won't those unverified purchases go into the "possibly suspect" category and make the case for the Anti-gunners?

It does sound like the BATF is going through the motions down in TX to prove one way or another where the Mexicans are getting weapons.

NO WAY would I hire an attorney over this. I would rather deal with the BATF....

SharpsDressedMan
June 2, 2009, 09:02 PM
"If I had filled out forms that stated I was purchasing a weapon or weapons for my own use, what is the problem showing properly credentialed batf agents that I did indeed still own them? After all, they already know I HAD them. They are also verifying someone did not purchase in your name using a stolen ID."

Here is the basic problem. They are not investigating a specific crime. They have no knowledge that the guns in question are anywhere but in the hands of the legal owners. They are wasting valuable time and government resources "fishing" for a vague objective. It is virtually impossible to track "possible" firearm infractions this way. Want to bet that they spend thousand of hours (hundreds of thousands of dollars worth) and do NOT prosecute even one person for gun running? Nor will they ever admit that they wasted that much time and resource. They have yet to be accountable for hopeless investigations. (Any one remember the door knocking they did looking for a "possible" match up on a silenced Makarov, allegedly used to kill a judge or district attorney in the NW (Washington or Oregon, I forget which)? They canvassed the entire country, tracking Makarov barrels from Federal Ordnance records. Barrels sold to many at gun shows with no further records (none required by law). Nobody is talking about that one anymore.....

Rockwell1
June 2, 2009, 09:31 PM
The only reason the ATF shows up on your doorstep is because they are seeking evidence that a crime has been committed To put it another way they think they might have a good reason to put you in jail, by it's very nature this is an adversarial relationship from the start. Knowing that, you have every right to protect yourself.

ATF agents(nor any other police agency) are not required to be honest with you about why they're contacting you. If they truly are there just to verify that you still own the guns that doesn't mean they won't jump on some other violation that you were totally unaware of. Again, you have every right to protect yourself.

Why allow goverment inspection into your personal life? What do you think might be the F troop's reaction had the OP allowed them to follow him to one of his ( PURE SPECULATION HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE) multiple gunsafes located in his dedicated gun/ survival equipment room surrmounted by a Gasden flag?

Or to be more realistic what if they notice your copy of "The Federalist Papers" or "Unintended Consequenses" or, God forbid, "The Turner Diaries"? Welcome to the watch list.

Bottom line, it is always in your best interests to control (as much as possible) every official interaction you have with any police agency.

The 4th & 5th amendments were written primarily to protect the innocent from unwarranted prosecution.

The Founders wrote them with every expectation that you would avail yourself of their protection.

Jim K
June 2, 2009, 09:48 PM
I suspect it was not due to the dealer filing a multiple purchase form but to the dealer NOT filing the form. When one name came up three times in a week and no form was filed, they want to know if you really bought the guns or if the dealer is putting your name on the books for guns sold to someone else, or if someone else is using your ID.

AFAIK, they are going after dealers who are playing fast and loose with the rules, not after individual purchasers.

P.S. BATFE told the truth about those gun traces; it was the president who lied. What else is new?

Jim

mljdeckard
June 2, 2009, 10:09 PM
No. It's still them showing up on your doorstep hoping that you will do their job for them. Not gonna do it. Sharps and Rockwell are right. If you show them the serial #s, what do they need a warrant for?

They aren't doing anything to make MY job easier.

psyopspec
June 2, 2009, 10:13 PM
Given that the good gentlemen from the Federal government hold a job who's purpose is to gather evidence in order to get convictions, you can hardly fault someone for using their rights to protect themselves. In our justice system, innocence should be defense enough to prevent one from landing in jail; reality has proved otherwise. Thus, your rights are your friends.

model of 1905
June 2, 2009, 10:16 PM
I would have asked them, "so...you are not interested in the alcohol and tobaaco?"

BikerRN
June 3, 2009, 03:05 AM
Given that the good gentlemen from the Federal government hold a job who's purpose is to gather evidence in order to get convictions, you can hardly fault someone for using their rights to protect themselves. In our justice system, innocence should be defense enough to prevent one from landing in jail; reality has proved otherwise. Thus, your rights are your friends.

Speaking just for myself, if I was paid a visit like this I, I would tell them to come back with a warrant.

BTW: I'm a LEO.

BikerRN

toivo
June 3, 2009, 03:40 AM
This multiple purchase thing is news to me. Here in New York State, every handgun purchase requires a trip to the sheriff's office to have the gun's serial number added to your permit. For that reason, I try to "batch" my purchases to cut down on the back-and-forth trips. For instance, if I've got my eye on two handguns, I'll wait until I can buy them both at the same time and only have to make one trip. So my last three purchases have been multiples. I didn't realize I was generating so many reports.

No visits from BATFE yet. Of course, no one's claiming that guns are being smuggled into Canada...

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 08:54 AM
Not cooperating with authorities sure works out well in the various slums, ghettos & gang-ridden immigrant communities throughout the U.S. :rolleyes:

Plus, staying on their "possible straw buyer/smuggler" list can only work out well for you. Better to be seen as a suspect than an innocent person, I always say.

You live in fear. I'll just live.

kanook
June 3, 2009, 09:15 AM
toivo wroteOf course, no one's claiming that guns are being smuggled into Canada...I'm still need ing that... you know:neener:

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 09:58 AM
Not cooperating with authorities sure works out well in the various slums, ghettos & gang-ridden immigrant communities throughout the U.S.
Abdicating your legal and constitutional rights never works ANYWHERE.

9x23
June 3, 2009, 10:08 AM
In the early 80's I did a stint as a LEO range instructor and I was sent to the S&W and Colt armorer's courses. I thought I could make some extra money part time by getting an FFL and become a gun dealer and repairman.

Incident #1 - About 3 years into my licensure two BATF agents paid me a visit to "make sure my record keeping was in order." I excused myself to get the records and made a quick call to a buddy who had a gun shop and he assured me that this a "regular" thing and that I should comply. I accepted his advice and complied. My point here is that while they were looking through the records they could have made copies without my being aware. :eek:

Paranoia? :rolleyes: All I can tell you is that my department had some pretty sophisticated spy gear, so why would I put it past the Feds who have a whole lot more money than a local police agency.

Incident #2 - When I did not renew my FFL I was REQUIRED to send all my records to the BATF. Guess who now knows who purchased firearms from me? I was among the purchasers, so now the guns I bought for myself and my customers' guns are now REGISTERED. :what:

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 10:08 AM
You're exactly right, Deanimator. If I complied in this situation, that automatically means I've waived all of my rights for the rest of my life.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

So the next time I'm getting pulled over and don't know why, I should just floor it, right?

Rockwell1
June 3, 2009, 10:16 AM
Sheep are sheep, they'll never be anymore than sheep it's their nature

Assertting your civil rights is NEVER wrong or bad and it shouldn't make you suspect. I think it was a mistake for this country to develop the mindset that only badguys lawyer up.

peyton
June 3, 2009, 10:31 AM
Well Waterhouse helped me when I bought 10 revolvers (after 2 years in Iraq), he had the multiple form ready and off I went. Only bought revolvers though. The FED has not rousted me out of my tent at Camp Cupcake Iraq!! Over 4 years in Iraq, and I was so happy GEN Casey admitted we will be here another decade!! More guns to buy!! If the ATFE wanted to get serious, they would be blocking cargo ship deliveries into MEXICO. And the same could be done coming out of mexico. Look at all the guns seen on the news, military grade automatic firearms and rocket launchers are not bought at the mom and pop store is san antonio!!

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 10:33 AM
Call me all the names you want. I'd rather help an investigation than hinder one.

Our forefathers were willing to give up everything, including their lives, to create a better country. We've devolved to a point that it's now considered a violation of your civil rights to be asked a simple question by a law enforcement official.

What a pity.


(And yes, I know my car analogy is a bad one)

Rockwell1
June 3, 2009, 10:58 AM
Call me all the names you want.

I didn't call anyone anything, i made an observation.

Our forefathers were willing to give up everything, including their lives, to create a better country.

One of the things they sacrificed to give us was the right to protect ourselves in all official encounters with the police

We've devolved to a point that it's now considered a violation of your civil rights to be asked a simple question by a law enforcement official.

Not at all, the violation comes when i'm badgered into answering them without recourse to my constitutional freedoms

chuckusaret
June 3, 2009, 11:28 AM
They also made a visit to my house after a bulk purchase of 12 cases (5,280 rounds) of 7.62x54R Russian Surplus ammo last year. I was buying for four of us but it appeared to them it was only one guy. I guess they saw that four old guys with antique Russian weapons were not going to start a war.

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 11:31 AM
I didn't call anyone anything, I made an observation

Please, that's older than "I know you are but what am I?" You're implying that anyone who complies with LEO's without a lawyer present is a sheep.

Not at all, the violation comes when i'm badgered into answering them without recorse to my constitutional freedoms

Please point out in this thread where either 'visited poster' was badgered. By both accounts, the agents were courteous, non-insistant, and left without incident.

While I agree that asserting your rights SHOULDN'T make you a suspect, in the real world, it often does; it can also hinder an investigation.

My community is better served if I am helpful, so that is what I should be - Boogey man or boogey man.

armoredman
June 3, 2009, 11:48 AM
Live in Arizona and buy up a bunch of big bore handguns or semi-auto center fire rifles, expect a visit.
Been buying guns in AZ for over 20 years, not one visit, for any firearm I have ever purchased, OR for multiple purchases of handguns in a single day, which I also have done. And before anyone throws the "privilige" dart, I was doing this WELL before I earned a badge of any kind.
Just picked up two handguns from a local dealer a week ago on the same day...door bell is silent...wonder if they're trying to intimidate Texas into not seceeding... :)

almostfree
June 3, 2009, 11:54 AM
The OPs experience is pretty much the same thing happened to me a little over a year ago (before the current administration) in the Houston area. I believe it started with the FFL not properly maintaining his records or filling out multiple purchase forms. It was a scary experience and not one that I would like to repeat. My advice is to find a good attorney familiar with federal firearms laws.

From the threads that I have seen on this subject, it appears that this kind of thing is happening more often.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:03 PM
While I agree that asserting your rights SHOULDN'T make you a suspect, in the real world, it often does; it can also hinder an investigation.
Then it's going to be "hindered", LAWFULLY.

I have NO duty to be "helpful". I only have a duty to obey the law.

The law and US Constitution protect my right not to speak without an attorney present. I haven't the slightest intention of speaking to any LEO of any kind, especially the BATFE, without my lawyer present in such a situation.

Neither the BATFE, you, nor anyone else has to like that. All of you have to abide by it or face the consequences.

nitetrane98
June 3, 2009, 12:05 PM
When we had reached our insanely high quota of tickets for the month and were full of coffee and donuts, we would occasionally look for subjects with felony warrants because that's what everybody told us we should be doing. I didn't realize it at the time but I spoke with a lot of folks here.

"Hello, I'm with the Sheriff's Department and we have a felony warrant for Joe Blow, is he here? "NO" "Have you seen him recently or know where we might find him?" "Ain't my job to find him, that's your job, I ain't gonna do your job. You don't do my job."

Gadzooks Mike
June 3, 2009, 12:07 PM
Knock Knock

Hello?

Lot's of stolen cars in the area lately. Show me the registration for the car in your driveway, please.


How many of you would go for that? I wouldn't, nor would I show them the guns. Somebody said it earlier in this thread - if the gun shows up in Mexico, come see me. Otherwise, get off my lawn.

Now understand, it's not the agents (or LEOs or whomever) that I'm upset with here. It's the people giving those orders. The two guys showing up on the doorstep aren't to blame, and although I hate to use the phrase, they really are just "doing their jobs". They can have a cup of coffee or a coke and we'll sit around and chat. But no, they don't get to see the guns, and they can pass that message up the chain of command until it gets to where the order to come see me originated.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2009, 12:08 PM
Again, making them do their job and standing on your rights is never a bad thing. I have no obligation, moral or civil, to make their job easier.

I am missing the logic in how our founding fathers sacrificed to secure our civil rights so that we can surrender them as long as it a trivial matter and we're really innocent.

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 12:13 PM
I have NO duty to be "helpful". I only have a duty to obey the law.


And no one is saying you do.

What happened to you that the idea of being helpful and a contributing member of your community is so abhorrant?

All of you have to abide by it or face the consequences.

No need to be threatening. We're just discussing ideas here.

scndactive
June 3, 2009, 12:13 PM
Yes, like I've said, the agents were first class, and to clarify, I do not believe that they did any thing wrong, illegal, or even immoral from the time they pulled up to my house till the time they left.

Even as nice as they were being my heart was beating a mile a minute. they were so non threatening in fact, at one point I wanted to tell them what they wanted to know, but I just could not.

Your rights: use'em or lose'em

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:14 PM
You're exactly right, Deanimator. If I complied in this situation, that automatically means I've waived all of my rights for the rest of my life.
It means you've waived your rights in THAT encounter. You may not get another chance.

I'd never step into the path of a speeding bus, saying to myself, "I'll stay on the sidewalk NEXT time..."

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 12:15 PM
Again, making them do their job and standing on your rights is never a bad thing. I have no obligation, moral or civil, to make their job easier.

It's "their job" to interview people. How are you "making them do their job" if your hindering them from doing said job?

It's like telling a mechanic "fix my car", then refusing to drive it to the shop. "Why should I make his job easier?"

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 12:16 PM
This will come down to the various perceptions of duty.

One school of thought is that you have a duty to mankind. It is your obligation to take actions when they make everyone safer, even at personal risk.

Another school says you have a duty to the fatherland. It is your obligation to assist the fatherland even at personal risk.

These threads always devolve into supporters of those two schools arguing past each other.

If you are a fatherlander then OF COURSE you think you should assist the government in finding crime even if it is possible you will be deemed the criminal.

If you are a mankinder then OF COURSE you think you should make the state play by the rules if for no other reason than to normalize "Not talking to you without council" so that law enforcement has no grounds to think that people demanding their rights are always suspects, even at risk to yourself.

I won't say both sides are valid but until you start convincing the other side that your premise is sound you are just wasting bits.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:19 PM
Our forefathers were willing to give up everything, including their lives, to create a better country.
Our forefathers were willing to give up everything, including their lives, to create a better country where no man could be compelled to give evidence against himself, especially inadvertently.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:21 PM
I won't say both sides are valid but until you start convincing the other side that your premise is sound you are just wasting bits.
If just one person is prevented from giving up his own rights via the mis or disinformation of others, nothing said here is wasted.

Rockwell1
June 3, 2009, 12:22 PM
I just finished watching Dr. Duane's video again. I have come to the conclusion that if he ( with all his cites, and quotes and experience) can't convince you that it is never, under any circumstances, in your best interest to talk to the police, nothing that you hear on an internet gunboard is going to convince you either.

People are who they are, if you're born a sheep I can shear you and put a wolfskin on you and teach you to howl at the moon but when the chips are down you will bleat like a lamb because no matter what else I did you're still a sheep .

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 12:23 PM
Evidence of what? That I legally own what I say I own?

Gosh, I can see how that would be horrible.

EDIT - Ed's right. It's a sense of community vs. selfishness. I'm out of this one.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:35 PM
It's "their job" to interview people.
It's MY job to protect my freedom, rights and finances by not allowing them to interview ME without an attorney present.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:36 PM
Evidence of what?
You have no idea. That's why you never talk without a lawyer present.

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 12:36 PM
If just one person is prevented from giving up his own rights via the mis or disinformation of others nothing said here is wasted

I dislike the "If just one" argument because it is so often used to support everyone giving up something (like their RKBA) to reduce some marginal harm. Anyway....

The problem is that the fatherlanders (and there are a bunch of them) won't be prevented. The fence sitters will break mostly to ease unless they believe it is a duty to do otherwise, and simply arguing they don't have to comply doesn't impart a sense of duty. You may convince a few (proto) mankinders that they are not alone and really should do what you say next time the situation comes up.... but that pales in comparison to swaying fatherlanders to your position.

Edit
EDIT - Ed's right. It's a sense of community vs. selfishness.
No, Ed's right that it is two very different perceptions of community.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:45 PM
but that pales in comparison to swaying fatherlanders to your position.
I don't care any more about them than I care about anti-gunners. I just don't want the uninformed to think that they don't actually HAVE rights against self-incrimination. If they CHOOSE knowingly to forfeit their rights, I consider it foolish, but their choice to make.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 12:48 PM
It's like telling a mechanic "fix my car", then refusing to drive it to the shop. "Why should I make his job easier?"
No, it's like a mechanic "inspecting" your car without your permission and you being on the hook for any "repairs" that HE says you need, without getting a second opinion.

runrabbitrun
June 3, 2009, 01:32 PM
I just finished watching Dr. Duane's video again. I have come to the conclusion that if he ( with all his cites, and quotes and experience) can't convince you that it is never, under any circumstances, in your best interest to talk to the police, nothing that you hear on an internet gunboard is going to convince you either.

Ditto to that.

kingpin008
June 3, 2009, 01:39 PM
What happened to you that the idea of being helpful and a contributing member of your community is so abhorrant?

What happened to you to be so willing to waive your rights and be so "helpful" to an organization that doesn't have any real interest in being your friend?

Because let's get that clear - while the agents who visited the OP were friendly and respectful, they were not there on a friendly visit to have a beer and catch up on local gossip. They were there attempting to investigate a possible crime. That means that they think that the OP was a possible suspect in that crime. Which means that the questions asked were not harmless curiosity, they were an interrogation. And that's not something a free American is required to submit to without representation.

jackdanson
June 3, 2009, 01:47 PM
Yes, like I've said, the agents were first class, and to clarify, I do not believe that they did any thing wrong, illegal, or even immoral from the time they pulled up to my house till the time they left.

Of course they were, they were trying to collect evidence, that is THEIR JOB! They aren't "nice guys", they are trying to see if you are doing something wrong without any probable cause whatsoever.

Yes, like I've said, the agents were first class, and to clarify, I do not believe that they did any thing wrong, illegal, or even immoral from the time they pulled up to my house till the time they left.

Working for an agency who is set up to violate the constitution of the United States is both illegal and wrong.

Even as nice as they were being my heart was beating a mile a minute. they were so non threatening in fact, at one point I wanted to tell them what they wanted to know, but I just could not.


Yeah, it's a stressful situation... one that should have never happened.

The two guys showing up on the doorstep aren't to blame, and although I hate to use the phrase, they really are just "doing their jobs".

Screw that, I wouldn't do that job if you put a gun to my head. They aren't forced to take that job, they can quit any time.

Please point out in this thread where either 'visited poster' was badgered.

Uhhh, the part where they showed up... they were only nice because it suited their cause... collecting evidence.

The OP handled this better than I would have....... :cuss:

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 01:52 PM
Let's also be clear... waiving your rights, even though you think you safely can, IS NOT A HELPFUL CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

It can create an expectation that innocent people will be helpful and guilty people will refuse to comply. That correlation may be normal but it is not absolute... it can be false in both directions because it is nothing but an observed correlation. There is nothing forcing the correlation.

The use of a loose correlation in determining guilt can lead to guilty people going free (because they apparently complied and their behavior correlates with "not guilty") and innocent people going to jail (because they exercised their rights and the experience of the officers says that only criminals do that).

You may think you are helping your community when you surrender your rights. You are not. You may or may not be helping yourself (as many will point out, LEOs are not friendly no matter how they act) but you are harming one of the cornerstones of our community -- the ability to exercise individual rights without fear of reprisal.

JohnBT
June 3, 2009, 01:52 PM
"The OP handled this better than I would have....... "

No doubt. I don't doubt you for a minute. How do you treat the meter reader and the mailman? Just curious.


And what are "swaying fatherlanders"? Sounds like some sort of German hulu dancers or drunks or something.

Boy oh boy, these are some fun threads today.

John

Rockwell1
June 3, 2009, 01:55 PM
I'm not sure how to bring this into the conversation but, what is the mindset that can look at all the evidence, hear distinguished lawyers and the police themeselves tell you don't talk to the police (FYI Dr. Duane advocates making no statement to the police what so ever until you go to trial with or with out a lawyer) and says "Oh well I just want to be a good citizen, I'll talk" ?

German hulu dancers

I think you mean hula dancers hulu is an alien plot to destroy your mind and you aint soup yet:D

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 01:57 PM
And what are "swaying fatherlanders"? Sounds like some sort of German hulu dancers or drunks or something.

Don't know. I did a google and can't find it anywhere. Maybe there was more to the sentence?

springmom
June 3, 2009, 02:02 PM
Yes, like I've said, the agents were first class, and to clarify, I do not believe that they did any thing wrong, illegal, or even immoral from the time they pulled up to my house till the time they left.

Even as nice as they were being my heart was beating a mile a minute. they were so non threatening in fact, at one point I wanted to tell them what they wanted to know, but I just could not.

Your rights: use'em or lose'em

I can see myself having that same temptation. I'm a generally nice person; I like to be helpful, and I'm supportive of law enforcement. Unless law enforcement decides it'd like to start digging around in my private stuff.

I'm sure that to some, it seems you're being stubborn for no reason. But that last sentence is bang on: and an awful lot of men (and women) have died over the last two centuries defending the right for me to be secure in my home and my person from "fishing expeditions" by law enforcement.

Jan

eye5600
June 3, 2009, 02:03 PM
Here is what I wonder about this kind of situation. The ATF guys wanted to see the actual guns and read the serial numbers. Fine, and suppose you agree to cooperate. "Have a seat at the picnic table under the apple tree and I'll bring out the pistols and my copies of the paperwork."

Are they going to let you go unlock your safe alone? If they calmly sit under your tree, they are vulnerable to you shooting them from a window, or bursting out the door with a Colt in each had. It's similar to a traffic stop. A thousand go smoothly, and then one turns into a gun fight.

Or are they going to stand on opposite sides of your lawn with hands on gun butts waiting nervously for your to return with three unloaded (they hope) weapons?

IT guys like me don't have such exciting options.

By the way, I would keep have copies of all the paperwork available and not show the originals. I really would hate have the originals get out my hands.

nitetrane98
June 3, 2009, 02:11 PM
My favorite thing to do for the lawyer up crowd was to hand him my cell phone and say, "Of course, sure, no problem, we'll wait." Or perhaps, "Who is your lawyer, sir, let's see if we can get him on the line right now."
Absolutely amazing how many folks that want to talk to their lawyer have neglected to pay the retainer. Imagine that!!

Hey, you bluff, we bluffed, sometimes you called the bluff, sometimes we did.

Rockwell1
June 3, 2009, 02:13 PM
My favorite thing to do for the lawyer up crowd was to hand him my cell phone and say, "Of course, sure, no problem, we'll wait." Or perhaps, "Who is your lawyer, sir, let's see if we can get him on the line right now."

Once you get my lawyer on the phone ( and you will) I'm still not making a statement

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 02:13 PM
How is that calling a bluff?

If they answer, "I'll have to find one" they've still made the request and you've still got to honor it if your oath means anything.

psyopspec
June 3, 2009, 02:22 PM
Not cooperating with authorities sure works out well in the various slums, ghettos & gang-ridden immigrant communities throughout the U.S.

Ever seen an episode of cops? In case you haven't, it usually goes something like this:

1) Suspect is pulled over for what could be a minor infraction.

2) Officer on scene asks them if they've been using or if they have any drugs in the car.

3) If suspect is reluctant, officer assures them that "The only way I can help you is if you're honest with me." This usually leads to...

4) Consent to search. Cop finds paraphernalia.

5) Suspect declares that the paraphernalia found "is not mine! This is my cousin's car/my friend rode with me a few days ago and must have left it/I have no idea where that came from."

6) Suspect is arrested.

The show would be a lot more boring if everyone was aware that they could shut up, not consent to any searches, and get an attorney. As far as being a good member of a community goes, I would give that tip-o-the hat to the one who sets the example of holding up individual rights to his own family, friends, and other members of the community. To reiterate, the job of a law enforcement officer is to gather evidence in order to get convictions.

Well Waterhouse helped me when I bought 10 revolvers (after 2 years in Iraq), he had the multiple form ready and off I went. Only bought revolvers though. The FED has not rousted me out of my tent at Camp Cupcake Iraq!! Over 4 years in Iraq, and I was so happy GEN Casey admitted we will be here another decade!! More guns to buy!! If the ATFE wanted to get serious, they would be blocking cargo ship deliveries into MEXICO. And the same could be done coming out of mexico. Look at all the guns seen on the news, military grade automatic firearms and rocket launchers are not bought at the mom and pop store is san antonio!!

Thanks a lot for your service, dude. That's a lot of tours, and every firearm you buy when you're stateside is well earned, IMO.

Rockwell1
June 3, 2009, 02:35 PM
Ever seen an episode of cops? In case you haven't, it usually goes something like this:

The best episode I ever saw was the one where they caught a guy and started to question him, complete with "I can't help you if you're not honest" They guy started to talk then said "I don't want to be a jerk but I think I need to talk to a lawyer." The cops cut him loose, turned around and told the camera " We had to let him go because we couldn't get him to talk"

psyopspec
June 3, 2009, 02:40 PM
Rockwell, I saw that one. Only seen that happen one time, and I've been watching that show on and off for a little over 15 years.

jackdanson
June 3, 2009, 02:42 PM
"The OP handled this better than I would have....... "

No doubt. I don't doubt you for a minute. How do you treat the meter reader and the mailman? Just curious.

Perfectly fine, thank you. You see though, they have a valid reason to be at my house, unlike the ATF, whom had no reason whatsoever to be at the OP house. Furthermore the agency doesn't have any reason to exist other than to supress our rights.

Do I really need to post all of the instances in the past 40 years that the ATF has overstepped it's boundaries resulting in the deaths or imprisonment of people who were doing nothing wrong at all?

eye5600
June 3, 2009, 02:45 PM
"We had to let him go because we couldn't get him to talk"

I bet most of the time this happens, it gets left on the cutting room floor. They must have been short on material to include it.

blarney
June 3, 2009, 02:49 PM
Once someone says they will have to speak to their lawyer that is all there is to it. If you have arrested them you cannot question them any further legally. If you are there just rooting around hoping to find some kind of crime then you have been told no and your job is done till you have some kind of legal documentation demanding they comply. You have no bluff.

blarney
June 3, 2009, 02:52 PM
www.atfabuse.com

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 03:00 PM
gather evidence in order to get convictions

That bears repeating.

The way our criminal justice system works is that law enforcement gathers evidence and builds a theory of how that evidence could prove how a crime was committed. The theory will say that one or more people committed the crime. The justice system (in abstract) presents that theory, along with corroborating evidence, to a judge (and sometimes jury).

The more evidence the justice system (from LEO to prosecutor) has to choose from, the more likely they will be able to assemble evidence in such a way that it looks like a crime was committed. That appearance, when it is presented well, leads to convictions.

Note that no crime is necessary, only evidence and a theory. Now, I'm not trying to argue that most convictions are wrongful. The people who have researched the subject say the wrongful conviction rate is somewhere between 1% and 3%. That means between 97% and 99% of convictions are valid.

The numbers are that high for several reasons. The obvious reason is that ~32% of people charged with a crime in the USA are found innocent. The more important reason is that criminal investigations are normally triggered by victim reports of a crime (or some clear evidence such as a dead body). The investigative catalyst affects the shape of the investigation, limiting theories to those involving the crime reported. Investigators are unlikely to build a theory that the evidence they've collected proves you are part of a Mexican arms trafficking operation if they are trying to prove that you are a bank robber.

However, in this case, there was no crime. The BATFE agents were not knocking on the doors of someone suspected of committing a crime they knew had occurred. They were knocking on the doors of someone that, by all evidence, is a law abiding citizen. The person they were questioning had passed a background check just a few days earlier in fact.

When investigators investigate without a crime they are freed from the requirement that their theory prove something that actually happened. That is vastly liberating. Given enough facts a competent investigator can put together a plausible theory that a crime was committed. No promises about what crime but they can put together a convincing pattern of facts to prove something happened.

That's why anyone who argues they have "nothing to hide" is simply displaying ignorance of how our criminal justice system works.

ETA: I am not saying, by the way, that those investigators are working in bad faith. They may honestly believe that the crimes they theorize happened were in fact committed. They may honestly believe that they are making the world a better place. Misguided isn't the same as evil -- that's why it's often more dangerous.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 03:07 PM
Talking to the police without a lawyer is like performing brain surgery on yourself.

That first "oops" can leave you not just unable to fix things, but unable to even know you've screwed up.

Say the wrong thing and the situation just gets worse exponentially with every additional word you say.

If you don't know what your rights are, how can you tell if they're being violated?

Be humble enough to admit that you don't know EVERYTHING and that a lawyer knows the law better than you do.

danbrew
June 3, 2009, 03:21 PM
Don't show them the guns. Makes you a bit suspect. The agents have to get a subpeona for you to show the guns, gets the US Attorney's office ticked off and if you have done something wrong you sure have drawn attention to yourself and the US Attorney's office will find it.

At which point a judge will say, "this is all you got? he bought more than one gun and you want a search warrant? this is crap, get the hell out of my office and leave that guy alone."

or, er, that's what should happen.

compliance through intimidation is just stupid. what do you think happens when the SA goes back to the office and says to his boss "nope, no problem there - the guys on the up and up" vs. "well, he has the guns in question, but when looking in his safe, i noticed that he had a really short looking rifle."

boom! now you're talking real money to defend yourself when the ATF comes a'knocking. And when it turns out that the rifle bbl in question was 16", but the agent just thought it looked small? he's probably gotten a bonus for sniffing our the evil doers amongst us, the government has spent a bunch of our money screwing up your life, and you've spent a bunch of your money proving that you didn't do anything wrong in the first place.

all of which could have been handled by "i'm sorry, that's my personal business. i'd be happy to speak with you with my attorney present if you have a search warrant."

you are a fool if you invite any government entity into your private business.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2009, 03:25 PM
Ed and Dean sum it up. To come into your home, the police need either a warrant, exigency, or PERMISSION. If they don't have one of these, they have no business in your home. The conduct interviews TO TRY TO GET EVIDENCE AGAINST ANYONE THEY CAN. If they show up with no reason to come in, what does it hurt to ask? If you say no, they close the file. Period. The only reason they want to get your permission is to find evidence against either you or someone else to KEEP THE FILE OPEN.

So you let them in. Come look at my humble but tasteful gun collection.

"WOW, is that a Yugo SKS?"

"Yep."

"Did you modify it yourself or buy it from a guy at a gun show?"

"Oh, I'm a hobbyist, not a gunsmith, but I do pretty much all of my own work."

"Interesting. On this muzzle brake, I can't clearly see it indicated that it was made in the USA. This brings doubt as to whether or not this weapon is in compliance with section 922r. You have told me that you did the modification yourself, you didn't buy it from someone else who had already done it, so YOU are responsible."

"It's a Tapco brake that came with the kit. It's smudged, look right...."

"I already looked. I think we need a look at the rest of your firearms, records, and all related material." (Pulls out cell phone and dials the on-call judge.)

Far-fetched? I give it 50/50. With the current political climate and agency-wide guidance, THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. It MAY get tossed on appeal. IT MAY NOT. That is NOT what I save my money for. You will spend ALL of it, even it all goes away.

joeg26er
June 3, 2009, 03:28 PM
if you mis-state some facts in response to a question from the federal agents

no matter how "innocent" the mis-statement was...

you have now committed a federal crime - by lying to a federal agent...does not matter if it was intentional or simply a slip of memory...

just ask Marion Jones who served 6 months in the big big house...
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/080111newyork.htm
she made an intentional lie but that alone was what gave her a federal offense.

suppose the feds ask you while you are showing them the guns - how much ammo have you bought in the last month?
and you say X amount.

Then they find out you bought X+100 rounds you forget you picked up at the range for plinking. Well, welcome to your federal crime...

mljdeckard
June 3, 2009, 03:31 PM
Talked to an old friend of mine who I hunted with as a kid, lives close to the UT/AZ border. He told me that three of his neighborhood teenagers just got nailed by the AZ police (some county office) for POACHING when they were out in the desert, with firearms in their truck, no evidence of any killing of anything, because they didn't have AZ small game licenses.

I said, "I don't buy it, there had to me more to the story than that. No cop can get away with writing a ticket for poaching just because someone has a gun."

He said; "I helped them get a lawyer, and he advised them to pay the fine and walk away. Apparently there has been a big enough problem with poaching out there in the desert, that right now judges are giving the cop every benefit of every doubt. I'm staying out of there, and I'm advising everyone I know to do the same."

maskedman504
June 3, 2009, 05:12 PM
Two of my friends were fishing behind one of their mother's home and were approached by a Game Warden (or equivalent) on a boat that issued them citations for not having fishing licenses. My one friend mailed the ticket and money in; the other waited until one day before it was due to send it in. He did not overnight it it. About three weeks later, he got pulled over for speeding and was arrested; he had a warrant out for not paying the ticket. He told me the Sheriff's working in booking at the jail all found it immensley humorous that we was arrested for not paying a fishing ticket- my buddy didn't find it funny at all! :cuss:

Art Eatman
June 3, 2009, 05:46 PM
This sure has wandered away from the OP's encounter.

It seems to be fact that if you buy three handguns in less than five days, the feds get notified. Okay, no big deal. That's old hat stuff.

What folks don't seem to know is that the southern states bordering Mexico are seeing a large increase in checking on gun purchases and in checking people going into Mexico. I'd guess they're reviewing the fairly-recent 4473s all across these states.

I went to Ojinaga, across from Presidio, Texas, today. Customs and BATFE now have a checkpoint set up to question folks who are on their way across the border. This is relatively new, but definitely has been publicized. Basically, the want to know if you have guns and have more than $10,000 in cash. And, this trip, the guy asked where we'd come from and where in Mexico were we going.

Anyhow, the BATFE visit to the OP is right in line with the present administration's policy on guns'n'drugs'Mexico--as expected after the SecState blather during her visit Down South.

So, "Yes, I have them. Here they are," and the BATFE guys are done and gone and life goes on.

As far as, "Is all this BS worthwhile?" I dunno. I've seen video of sniffer dogs in the back of pickups, checking. It is reported that a few guns have been found at the San Diego-Tijuana crossing. Were I going to take guns or money to Mexico, I wouldn't drive across in daylight at a formal crossing; I'd walk across at night, way away from town. (Okay, use my canoe; the Rio Grande is running pretty good, right now.)

Maybe a multiple purchase in a short time is some sort of "profile". I don't know. Checking up on such, however, seems in line with all the other anti-something War On Whatzit stuff that the feds are doing.

leadcounsel
June 3, 2009, 05:46 PM
Exactly how is complying with the FEDS tracking down firearms through backdoor registration 'helpful' to anyone but the anti-gun crowd that supports registration. Whether you commited a crime or didn't, they can point to the helpfulness of the records.

And I agree, as an attorney and Soldier sworn to defend the US Constitution with my life, that the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Bill of Rights against unlawful searches and seizures and self incrimination are viewed with suspicion by the public at large but they are CRITICAL for freedom to survive. You should NEVER be viewed with suspicion or bullied into forfeiting your rights.

Besides, a lot of people unknowingly commit crimes every day because of the obscurity of the laws, and some carry severe penalties. For instance, maybe you are required to have your gun unloaded, locked, disassembled, or maybe one of your private transfer guns was stolen, or maybe you aren't allowed hollowpoints or high capacity mags, or maybe you are unknowingly harboring an illegal breed of dog or your dogs rabies shots aren't up to date, or the agents see a set of brass knuckles on your office desk and these are illegal, or maybe your addition to your house isn't up to code... And the point about being tricked into answering incorrectly, or accidently answering untruthfully, cannot be overstated. When did you buy X gun? How much did you pay? Did you check to see if he was a felon? What if they want to take all of your guns in for testing because they think some were used in crimes. Will you comply? Why invite trouble into your life because you want to comply with the authorities.

I advocate being a law abiding citizen, but often the laws are nearly impossible to follow because they are confusing and illogical; everything from blade length to barrel length, to personal property and pets. VERY confusing! And the penalties are severe in most places. Heck in Colorado the kill your pit bull, regardless of it's demeanor, and fine you $1,000! I was always worried because my cattledog often was confused as a pit bull.

The point is, cooperation is NOT your friend.

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 05:51 PM
What folks don't seem to know is that the southern states bordering Mexico are seeing a large increase in checking on gun purchases and in checking people going into Mexico.

What in this thread leads you to believe folks don't know that?

9x23
June 3, 2009, 06:53 PM
leadcounsel - Besides, a lot of people unknowingly commit crimes every day because of the obscurity of the laws, and some carry severe penalties.

I advocate being a law abiding citizen, but often the laws are nearly impossible to follow because they are confusing and illogical; everything from blade length to barrel length, to personal property and pets. VERY confusing!

Wel, there's the crux of the matter. You may not know what the reasons behind their questions are, but they do.

The authorities are permitted to lie to you, However, they can't offer you non-prosecution or lieniency for your cooperation unless autorized by the state attorney, etc. - even then a judge is not bound by it.

You may not lie to them - EVER!

Why would you want to chance it at all? Can you be so positive that you didn't realize you may have inadvertantly done something wrong? Hardly!.....9x23

sernv99
June 3, 2009, 08:44 PM
bunch of tin foil hat wearers in here....after that post by a tinfoil hat fashionista claiming he knew someone at NSA who told him the inside scoop on the gov't wiretap program, you have to really comb through the b.s. with these conspiracy theory postings about the gov't.

sanerkeki
June 3, 2009, 08:58 PM
Just got visited by the Maytag repair man and he wanted to check on my washer connection. I told him I will have to call my repair man to make sure what are my rights in this situation.

people paranoia is the worst sickness, and why worry about something no one has control over. Thousand of people are visited each day and it is just how it is.

JohnBT
June 3, 2009, 09:03 PM
"you have to really comb through the b.s."

But it's not b.s. if they're really out to get you. ;)

I think I need to spend more time looking in my rearview mirror.

John

Big Daddy Grim
June 3, 2009, 09:07 PM
Wow did that in Idaho never got a call or a knock on my door. Maybe it's my three big dogs or my sunny disposition that made them not come say hi. Chain store closin and I think I bought 12 guns over a 5 day period.

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 09:13 PM
It is really hard to call it a "tinfoil hat" situation when federal agents knock on your door. I know you were trying to be mockingly dismissive but surely you can see the difference between thinking unknown agents are trying to control or monitor you through unknown means and saying, "two people, dressed like _____ and driving a ______, came to my door asking questions about a recent purchase."

Speaking of seeing the difference...surely you can see the difference between a repair person you asked to come to your residence and a law enforcement officer coming to your door unasked?

Again, I understand the mocking dismissal thing and if it makes you comfortable, hey, far be it from me to disturb something that makes you think you are safe....but when mocking something that makes you uncomfortable turns to refusing to admit there is a hazard you have a problem.

akodo
June 3, 2009, 10:01 PM
I suspect it was not due to the dealer filing a multiple purchase form but to the dealer NOT filing the form. When one name came up three times in a week and no form was filed, they want to know if you really bought the guns or if the dealer is putting your name on the books for guns sold to someone else, or if someone else is using your ID.

AFAIK, they are going after dealers who are playing fast and loose with the rules, not after individual purchasers.

P.S. BATFE told the truth about those gun traces; it was the president who lied. What else is new?

if they are going after the dealers, then you are still correct to 'lawyer up' and said lawyer will get them to give you written immunity, then you show them the guns.

If BATF balks at giving you immunity, then YOU are the true target, not the dealer

GRIZ22
June 3, 2009, 10:35 PM
Those of you wanting ATFE to show up with a warrant for the guns keep in mind a warrant is for evidence of a crime. If they show up with a warrant you need to call a lawyer and your guns will be seized if they are listed on the warrant. Your lawyer may have to meet you at the lockup.

Some have said they would go through your gun safe, house, etc . You don't have to let them get there. Just show them the guns they already know you bought.

Some have responded "let them get a subpeona, that's their job". a subpeona will state what is to be produced, where, and when. It's not at your leisure. So figure you have to take a day off from work, travel to wherever they require you to go to, and pay your lawyer at least $1000 (plus his or her travel expenses). You may recoup 55 cents a mile for driving there. You've spent and done all this for something that could have been settled on your front porch. But you've exercised your rights at what cost? It's easy to say get a lawyer and make them work for the info.

A moderator noted this was in line with the administration's policy on guns being smuggled to Mexico. It's not like guns haven't been smuggled to Mexico for a long time already.

If ATFE visits 1000 multiple purchasers and they are shown all the guns they will divert to other endeavors more likely to result in criminal cases.

If 1000 people lawyer up and demand subpeonas, BATFE reports to the administration they were unable to check on the guns without massive expenditure of manpower and effort.

Who in the current administration said something like "we have to take every opportunity to exploit a crisis?". The administration (including the Secretary of State, AG, and Congress) are just looking for things to make a crisis and invent some new cockamamie gun laws (the ATFE agents were probably not kidding).

Exercising your rights can be costly.

if they are going after the dealers

It is the dealer's responsibility to file the multiple purchase form not yours. Immunity should not be brought up as immunity means you did break the law but there is a bigger fish to fry .

kingpin008
June 3, 2009, 10:41 PM
Exercising your rights can be costly but worth it.

Fixed it for ya.

GRIZ22
June 3, 2009, 10:49 PM
kingpin, I'm not saying don't exercise your rights but I would guess that many members of this forum can't peel off a grand and take a day off from work. There are times when a lawyer is needed and i don't think is one of them unless you're already doing something wrong. They know you bought the guns, have the serial numbers, and if the conversation takes a curve from the issue they presented then you may need a lawyer.

And there's always those people out there looking for a crisis.

Ed Ames
June 3, 2009, 10:51 PM
It's not a matter of looking for crisis. I don't see a crisis.

It's a matter of being a good citizen.

Deanimator
June 3, 2009, 11:06 PM
kingpin, I'm not saying don't exercise your rights but I would guess that many members of this forum can't peel off a grand and take a day off from work.
It sure beats peeling off 100 grand and taking 5-10 off from work.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2009, 11:06 PM
We're not saying "Force them to go get a warrant." That's exactly it. THEY CAN'T. They won't bring back a warrant, THEY WILL JUST LEAVE.

akodo
June 3, 2009, 11:11 PM
What happened to you that the idea of being helpful and a contributing member of your community is so abhorrant?

when the people asking for 'help' are keeping a keen eye out for any mistake that will allow you to be locked up, AND when the people asking for help have been given legal rights to LIE to you...as long as that LIE probably wouldn't harm an innnocent person, yes you should take pause.

But as I said before. Get them to grant you immunity and then please help them as much as you can. Now you are safe, AND you are helping

dkk73
June 3, 2009, 11:18 PM
With respect to the discussion on cooperation:

I would also respectfully point out, in addition to the numerous excellent points made above, that mistakes are made.

You could have been mistaken for someone. A form could've been filled out incorrectly. They might have the wrong address (well, not in this case, but in general). They may have been given false information by someone who took a dislike to you. You might have a name very like someone else's. Your buddy you gave a gun to 15 years ago may have given it to someone who did something stupid (again, an example for discussion).

Why place anything at risk that isn't? I'm not saying to be belligerent and lecture them on the growth of federal powers or something like that... But minimum cooperation seems prudent, which in this case amounts to terminating the conversation politely.

Ohio Gun Guy
June 3, 2009, 11:21 PM
I HATE the concept of I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide.

It's not legal, dont cooperate with it, don't give up your rights!

FYI: The Fourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

scndactive
June 4, 2009, 01:34 AM
This is from the ATF.gov

http://www.atf.gov/gunrunner/gunrunner.htm


Quote:
HOUSTON — Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Acting Director Kenneth Melson and Special Agent in Charge J. Dewey Webb, Houston Field Division, today announced the arrival of its Gun Runner Impact Teams (GRITs) personnel to the Houston Field Division in support of ATF’s Southwest Border strategy, Project Gunrunner.

Quote:
The ATF Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information, using intelligence from trace data, has created numerous investigative leads

They are coming to Texas(and have been since april) from other states to help investigate leads from "The ATF Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information"

Oro
June 4, 2009, 02:20 AM
The refrain I always here from everyone on the pro-gun side of the divide is that we should "enforce the laws on the books that already exist, not pass more."

It seems to me this is exactly what the BATF is doing. How else can they enforce the questions on the 4473 to catch straw purchasers or identity theft? If an agent showed up in a high-crime area (the southern border right now), to enforce existing laws and stop the insanity, let's support them within the law. Simply show them your ID, say, "yes, I bought the guns." Bring the guns out to the porch and show them. They are not learning anything they don't know, they are just confirming you didn't lie or break the law, or that identity theft has happened. The S/N is on the form, along with your name and address. They have this information - just confirm it and let them get promptly down their list of buys to check out and let them find the criminals.

We are all concerned rightfully about the free and legal ownership of guns without government interference. But why obstruct a legitimate attempt to enforce the law?

Rockwell1
June 4, 2009, 03:13 AM
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, "Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."

If one of the most respected jurists of the twentieth century can't convince you, I never will

MattTheHat
June 4, 2009, 03:38 AM
Something similar happened to me right after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Two FBI agents showed up at my place of employment and asked if they could speak to me out side.

Once outside, they told me they had been given an anonymous tip that I looked like one of the alleged bombers. This was still a few days before their names were known. I don't know if someone was playing a joke on me or what, but I looked nothing like any of the suspects, and the agents were visibly irritated that someone had wasted their time.

They indicated that the person they were looking for had a tattoo on on one of their arms. They told me that I absolutely did not have to show them my arms, and that if I didn't they would understand completely, but that if I did, they could cross my name off their list and move on to the next "lead".

Without hesitating, I took my shirt off right in front of the office, showing them my manly, yet tattoo-free arms. They very half-heartedly glanced at my arms and told me that was all they needed to and sincerely apologized repeatedly for the intrusion.

I would do the same today. They had a lead (even though we all knew it was bogus) and time was of the essence. They had a job to do. I knew I had the right to refuse, but I felt it was more important for them get on with more productive stuff that sitting there and arguing with them.

In the OP's situation, I wouldn't have been happy to see the ATF agents at my door, either. And I certainly understand my rights, as well. However I would not personally feel their request was so unreasonable so as to refuse it. I would have informed them that if they waited there at the door (which I would have closed behind me) that I would return with the guns in question, unloaded and in cases, for their inspection. If there was *any* further fishing, my friendly cooperation would have immediately ceased.


-Matt

TAB
June 4, 2009, 05:39 AM
so could not cooperating.

so its damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Deanimator
June 4, 2009, 07:19 AM
But why obstruct a legitimate attempt to enforce the law?
Whether it's "legitimate" is open to question.

What's NOT open to question is that in such a situation, the ONLY person with ANY interest in protecting YOUR legal rights and interests is YOU. They certainly have none. In fact, the odds are very good that they don't even KNOW your legal rights, regardless of any desire on their part to respect them. That's why we have lawyers.

Unless you're a lawyer, HOW will you know IF your rights are being violated? You've got big trouble in store for you if they violate your rights, even if they don't do it on purpose. THAT is why YOU protect YOUR rights before you do anything else. Do you want to pay a lawyer a little to prevent trouble or do you want to pay a lawyer a LOT to TRY to get you OUT of trouble?

If their investigation has to be LAWFULLY "obstructed" in order to protect your rights, then they're just going to have to live with it. The consequences of that "obstruction" are trivially insignificant in comparison to the consequences of you speaking without an attorney's advice and FALSELY implicating YOURSELF in a crime you didn't commit.

I don't trust strangers. I ESPECIALLY don't trust strangers with an agenda 180deg the opposite of mine, who are LEGALLY empowered to lie to me in order to get me to say incriminating things, and who have the power of arrest. If not blindly trusting them is "obstruction", then I'm going to LAWFULLY obstruct them, and with the total blessing of the courts. I don't owe them anything except to obey the law. My right not to speak to them without benefit of counsel is FIRMLY enshrined in the law.

And any conversations are going to be RECORDED.

The_Seventh_Sign
June 4, 2009, 07:35 AM
It basically does away with the 4th amendment and allows warrantless searches.

Personally i think the guy is right to do what he did too bad Randy weaver didn't do that when two agents were trying to entrap him. Shortly after the agents goaded him into breaking the law his Infant son and wife were gunned down in cold blood by an FBI sharp shooter.
Anyone remember Ruby ridge?

Or how about Waco Texas Branch Davidians where children burned to death awhile after a failed ATF raid?

You better bet i would get a lawyer and I would also invest in a Camerae system to watch the house in a 360 degree way with battery back up.
Paranoia No it is not I remember what these letters did and how many are killed due to it. This led to other incidents were more were killed.
Their Credibility is shot for life with me!

TSS

JohnBT
June 4, 2009, 08:04 AM
"The refrain I always here from everyone on the pro-gun side of the divide is that we should "enforce the laws on the books that already exist, not pass more.""

Oh stop it. If you can't add to the paranoia at least don't post any real facts. Thank you. :)

JBT

JohnBT
June 4, 2009, 08:09 AM
"Anyone remember Ruby ridge?"

I think I heard about that once. It was on the cover of Time magazine. And Newsweek. And every newspaper in the world. That Ruby Ridge?

John

waterhouse
June 4, 2009, 08:25 AM
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
Quote:
"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."
If one of the most respected jurists of the twentieth century can't convince you, I never will


To be fair, he specifically uses the word suspect, not client. The problem is that a person has no way of knowing if they are a suspect.

In other words, if the cops come to ask you if you have seen this car [holds up picture] parked anywhere in the neighborhood, and you haven't seen it, you are free to say "no", or free to say "I don't want to answer any questions without my lawyer present."

You are not, in reality, a suspect in that case, so I don't think Jackson's quote applies.

Let's say I witness a crime, for instance, kidnapping. I know the make, model, color, and first 3 digits of a license plate of a car that I saw abduct a child.

Time is important. Minutes count, since every minute that passes is another set of roads that car could have made it to.

Based on some of the responses in this thread, I should never answer any questions police ask without a lawyer present. I disagree.

As with most things in life, use your best judgment. If time isn't important (like in the OPs case), feel free to ask the cops to set up a time when your lawyer can be present.

Blanket statements about never, ever talking to the cops without a lawyer are similar to most blanket statements . . . there are almost always exceptions to the rule.

runrabbitrun
June 4, 2009, 09:01 AM
Why waste the tax payers money running around the streets knocking on doors?

Pick up the phone and call the gun purchaser to verify he/she purchased those
3 guns last week at Bill's Gun Emporium.

'Hi Mr. X, this is the ATF, our records indicate you purchased
three guns last week at Bill's Gun Emporium, can you verify this for us please?'
Why yes Mr. ATF man I did.
Do you still have those guns Mr. X?
Yes sir Mr. ATF man, I do.
Can you verify the serial numbers for us please Mr. X?
Sure, no problem hold on.. OK s/n bla bla bla.
Anything else I can help you with today Mr. ATF.
No that's' all we needed, have a nice day.'

Look at all the man power, time and gas money
they just saved letting their fingers do the walking.
See? Simple, safe for all and cost effective too.

Of course if any citizen gets a special visit
from this agency (or any agency) asking you questions
about lawfully purchased firearms, be smart and
take the advice of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.


Right about now I bet there's a lot of law abiding gun owning lurkers here
who just figured out that they have been duped with a back door gun registration. :uhoh:
I think it's safe to say we can all now with-out doubt call a NICS check a back door gun registration scheme.

Now the usual posters who frequent here to say 'you guys are tin foil hat guys'
are probably the same ATF types we are all talking about,
so pay them no mind.
Their dismissive comments are meant to blow smoke up your asp.
It's either that or their, lets just say, not the brightest candles on the Xmas tree. :rolleyes:

Yall keep em safe up there. :D

almostfree
June 4, 2009, 09:40 AM
In my situation, the agents showed up on my doorstep and left their business card while I was at work. I called them back and they wanted to come back to my house and inspect my firearms and verify serial numbers. Towards the end of the conversation I could tell he seemed more comfortable with me and said it might could be resolved over the phone.

Even still I got scared. I had never been contacted by a law enforcement officer in an official capacity. I ahd no idea whether it was a real investigation or just a routine check up. I hired an attorney who is a memberh here and a FFL, and we set up a meeting at his office where I produced the firearms and let them see them.

They were nice guys and I have absolutely nothing against them. Nonetheless, I had no idea why they were interested in me. That is why I personally felt the need for an attorney. I had no problem giving them the information they wanted, but I felt more comfortable having someone there unquestionably on my side more familiar with such matters.

His advice was to produce the firearms if you have them and they will likely go away. He did advise not to allow them inside your house. Once again, this was all during the Bush administration and long before the guns to Mexico thing had started. I believe this is a ramp up of a tactic they had been using to check up on multiple purchasers.

waterhouse
June 4, 2009, 09:43 AM
Right about now I bet there's a lot of law abiding gun owning lurkers here who just figured out that they have been duped with a back door gun registration.
I think it's safe to say we can all now with-out doubt call a NICS check a back door gun registration scheme.

Now the usual posters who frequent here to say 'you guys are tin foil hat guys'are probably the same ATF types we are all talking about,so pay them no mind.
Their dismissive comments are meant to blow smoke up your asp. It's either that or their, lets just say, not the brightest candles on the Xmas tree.

How again is NICS a backdoor registration? NICS isn't even required for over half of the guns that come through here.

Some registration system NICS is. :rolleyes:

Once again, NICS does not contain the make, model, serial number, or caliber of any gun you have ever purchased. There is absolutely no way, no how, that your guns are registered through NICS. It is not possible to even enter the data about the gun in NICS. How do I know? Because I fill out the NICS web page to run background checks about 4 times a day.

Feel free to call me an ATF type, and make comments about how bright I am. I'll stick with actual, real fact. We'll see who comes out looking smarter.

CoRoMo
June 4, 2009, 09:51 AM
...the southern states bordering Mexico are seeing a large increase in checking on gun purchases and in checking people going into Mexico. I'd guess they're reviewing the fairly-recent 4473s all across these states.

Anyhow, the BATFE visit to the OP is right in line with the present administration's policy on guns'n'drugs'Mexico--as expected after the SecState blather during her visit Down South.

+1 This illustrates that the BHO administration is fishing for evidence of their previous assertion. They'll need to make their case sooner or later, and they'll need the evidence that they lacked when they first spoke those fallacies.

Rockwell1
June 4, 2009, 11:34 AM
To be fair, he specifically uses the word suspect, not client

If the ATF show's up on your front door asking about your recent weapons purchases, you are a suspect.

runrabbitrun
June 4, 2009, 11:39 AM
How again is NICS a backdoor registration?

Not really sure, but it seems the ATF is getting more info
on some lawful gun owners somehow.
Maybe it's the 'other form' dealers have to fax in
if a guy buys a few guns in a week?

Semantics aside. What do we call this beast then...
That has ATF agents knocking on the doors of law abiding
citizens on what appears to be a 'fishing' expedition?

FWIW... I didn't single you out waterhouse, as being an 'ATF type'.
But if your one of the posters in THIS THREAD
who has dismissed others posts
about THIS particular matter as 'tin foil hat guys'....
I guess the shoe fits huh?
If NOT. My comments weren't about YOU.

But I'd add the semantics in your post 143 is apples and oranges.
I don't think anyone's advocating lawyering up if asked about
some crime you just witnessed as in your example.

We're SPECIFICALLY talking about the ATF showing up to a guys house.
NOT you or I seeing a get away car that just abducted a little girl.
Hell I'd tell the cops what I witnessed too. In THAT particular situation. ;)

psyopspec
June 4, 2009, 11:42 AM
The refrain I always here from everyone on the pro-gun side of the divide is that we should "enforce the laws on the books that already exist, not pass more."

Thus far in this discussion I have yet to read a post from anyone who doesn't think the law should be enforced. At most, all we've said is that our rights are important to us, and they deserve protecting when dealing with persons who's job is to gather evidence in order to get convictions, who can lie to us in the course of that process, and who can make life a little less pleasant through officer's discretion. Whether we agree with the law or not is an issue for a separate thread, but you can't throw the accusation that exercising one's rights is tantamount to thinking that current gun laws ought not be enforced.

Let's say I witness a crime, for instance, kidnapping. I know the make, model, color, and first 3 digits of a license plate of a car that I saw abduct a child.

In that case, hopefully you're contacting law enforcement and giving them all the information you have. However, that example isn't what was outlined in the OP.

Rockwell1
June 4, 2009, 11:51 AM
But I'd add the semantics in your post 143 is apples and oranges.
I don't think anyone's advocating lawyering up if asked about
some crime you just witnessed as in your example

This seems to come up every time this topic comes up and it's one of the dumbest arguments ( please note I said the ARGUMENT was dumb, not the person making it) I've ever heard.

There is a huge difference between me voluntarily approaching the police and giving a statement about a crime I witnessed and the police approaching me to ask questions about a crime they think I might be involved in.

Deanimator
June 4, 2009, 11:58 AM
Whether we agree with the law or not is an issue for a separate thread, but you can't throw the accusation that exercising one's rights is tantamount to thinking that current gun laws ought not be enforced.
One could argue that such an accusation is tantamount to thinking that the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution ought not be respected.

Trying to lull somebody into waiving their right to counsel in a criminal investigation is the constitutional equivalent of a Nigerian "404" scam email. Falling for it is the equivalent of emailing a "barrister" in Lagos your bank account information.

Deanimator
June 4, 2009, 12:01 PM
There is a huge difference between me voluntarily approaching the police and giving a statement about a crime I witnessed and the police approaching me to ask questions about a crime they think I might be involved in.
And even more so when they are completely at liberty to ask you those questions in the context of a completely fictitious scenario, totally unrelated to their real investigation.

eye5600
June 4, 2009, 12:26 PM
I'm sure I would just show'em the guns, though in a manner that minimized their ability to scan look over house etc. In the OP's case, it's probably true that they were just checking to be sure that he was the real buyer, not a straw purchaser. The risk in confirming a legal transaction they already know about seems pretty small.

But....

It's not as if the black hats and the anti's haven't earned all the obstruction that they get. Gun owners might possibly be more inclined to accept a tad more government oversight if 1) all the oversight currently allowed wasn't consistently misused, e.g. databases compiled from info that should be discarded, 2) there weren't a lot of complicated laws that make compliance difficult, especially as many are completely arbitrary and/or nonsensical, 3) too much authority has been put in the hands of certain individuals (esp. local chiefs of police) who can rule on a whim, and 4) there is pretty much a zero-tolerance policy in gun law.

waterhouse
June 4, 2009, 12:38 PM
This seems to come up every time this topic comes up and it's one of the dumbest arguments ( please note I said the ARGUMENT was dumb, not the person making it) I've ever heard.

There is a huge difference between me voluntarily approaching the police and giving a statement about a crime I witnessed and the police approaching me to ask questions about a crime they think I might be involved in.

The third option is the police approaching you for information on a crime that they don't think you are involved in.

I'll agree that there is a huge difference, which is why I also included the example about the cops stopping by to ask about a vehicle and showing you a picture.



You don't know why they are asking about the vehicle. They could tell you it was involved in a kidnapping, but they may be lying, since they are allowed to do that.

So if you haven't seen the vehicle, your choices are to say "no" or ask them to come back when you have a lawyer present.

My argument is that the when the cops knock on your door, "don't answer their questions, ever, under any circumstances" may not always fit.

I think the OP did a great job. I would not encourage him to talk to the agents in this matter either. All I'm saying is that people should use judgment before deciding to talk to gov't officials, and not blindly follow blanket statements.

waterhouse
June 4, 2009, 12:52 PM
FWIW... I didn't single you out waterhouse, as being an 'ATF type'.
But if your one of the posters in THIS THREAD
who has dismissed others posts
about THIS particular matter as 'tin foil hat guys'....
I guess the shoe fits huh?
If NOT. My comments weren't about YOU.

You said this:

Right about now I bet there's a lot of law abiding gun owning lurkers here who just figured out that they have been duped with a back door gun registration.
I think it's safe to say we can all now with-out doubt call a NICS check a back door gun registration scheme.

I know for a fact that there is no gun registration through NICS. You say it is safe to say that there is, without a doubt.

You then go on to imply that people who blow off your above statement as preposterous (I don't care for the tin hat terminology, but generally what it translates to is "that is a crazy idea that isn't true") are ATF types and are not too bright.


I've been through this many times. People post that they are sure that their guns are registered through NICS, because someone from the police or gov't had a list of their guns.

Every time it comes up, it turns out to either be a case of STATE level (non-NICS) registration or multiple handgun sale forms.

And yet people still post that NICS is registration.

If you want to say that NICS is a registration of gun owners, I won't argue with you. But it is certainly not a registration of guns.

I'm not for any gun registration at all, but the "NICS registration" myth continues to be spread on the internet, and it is simply not true.

scndactive
June 4, 2009, 01:01 PM
I know at least in my locale, ANY time you are contacted by the PD even if you are the caller/complainant/victim your name will be ran through the system. Which leads me to the conclusion that making a statement ANY time could work against you. Case in point, one night when I was away, my wife called PD saying she saw the lights from flash lights in our pasture behind the house. She armed herself and stayed inside waiting for PD to show up. After they got there they took her personal info, and while they took her statement they also ran her name. Turns out she had a warrant for theft of service FROM THE PUPLIC LIBRARY for books her ex never returned five years ago. they didn't take her in, but told her to clear up the matter ASAP.

I am a firm believer in Dr. Duane's advice.

Deanimator
June 4, 2009, 01:04 PM
My argument is that the when the cops knock on your door, "don't answer their questions, ever, under any circumstances" may not always fit.
But not answering without a lawyer present can never GET you into trouble. They may not like it, but it's the law and the Constitution which matter, not their likes and dislikes.

Your duty is to answer truthfully, if legally required to, based on the advice of counsel. You've got no duty to be "helpful" beyond that.

waterhouse
June 4, 2009, 01:05 PM
But not answering without a lawyer present can never GET you into trouble. They may not like it, but it's the law and the Constitution which matter, not their likes and dislikes.

I agree.

sernv99
June 4, 2009, 01:23 PM
But not answering without a lawyer present can never GET you into trouble. They may not like it, but it's the law and the Constitution which matter, not their likes and dislikes.

Your duty is to answer truthfully, if legally required to, based on the advice of counsel. You've got no duty to be "helpful" beyond that.

what's next, calling your lawyer to help you tie your shoes? Write a check to pay your phone bill? Yeah, every gun owner should call a lawyer when approached by LE :rolleyes: Why don't I call my mechanic to help me fill up my car up with gas.

you make it sound like all gun owners are morons and can't think for themselves. This tin foil hattery about some nickle and dime ATF agent or run of the mill LE officer trying to entrap a gun owner is far fetched. Get over it.

runrabbitrun
June 4, 2009, 01:29 PM
If you want to say that NICS is a registration of gun owners, I won't argue with you. But it is certainly not a registration of guns.

I'm not for any gun registration at all, but the "NICS registration" myth continues to be spread on the internet, and it is simply not true.

Fair enough waterhouse.
I'll revise my statement to say:
NICS seems to appear to be a backdoor registration of gun owners.

And just to clarify, my post # 144 was not a response to your post 143 at all.
It was a general response to the thread and the content of a few posters before.
Sorry if you took it to mean I was addressing you.

I'll close and add.
I can understand gun dealers not wanting
the myth to continue to spread.
That 'myth' can't be good for business.
Hopefully ALL you gun dealers are advising your customers
that in the event they purchase more than a couple
of guns a week from you.
You have a duty to report those guns you sold to the ATF via that special 'other form'.

It might cost you a few gun sales today, buy I imagine your customers
would be grateful to know that you just saved them the possible hassles
of ATF agents showing up at their doors on fishing expeditions.
In fact, I'd bet they would appreciate that information so much,
you'll have a customer for life.

Peace :)

rbernie
June 4, 2009, 01:35 PM
Too much bickering, too far from the OP.

Sadly, this one is done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Contacted by BATFE today!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!