Contacted by BATFE today!! *Update*


PDA






scndactive
June 10, 2009, 06:13 PM
Here's the origenal threadhttp://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=453768

I was contacted again by one of the agents from the other day, but this time by phone.

I informed him of my decision to take my attorney's advise and decline the interview. The agent asked who and where my attorney was, I told him I could have the attorney contact him, he said that was fine, then told me they have been contacting a lot of people and I am the only one not cooperating. I assume it was a lie. He also said that if I did not cooperate he would enter into his report that I refused to cooperate under direction of a lawyer and that I would be receiving a letter in the mail stating that I was not to engage in the business of selling firearms without a licenses and would include an application for an FFL.:scrutiny:

That nice 'lil puppy bared some teeth today.

I'm not sure what to do.

Can we keep this one on topic please?

If you enjoyed reading about "Contacted by BATFE today!! *Update*" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
psyopspec
June 10, 2009, 06:17 PM
He also said that if I did not cooperate he would enter into his report that I refused to cooperate under direction of a lawyer and that I would be receiving a letter in the mail stating that I was not to engage in the business of selling firearms without a licenses and would include an application for an FFL.

What did your attorney say about that?

SquirrelNuts
June 10, 2009, 06:17 PM
Follow the advice of your lawyer.

Ed Ames
June 10, 2009, 06:19 PM
You are not in that business (I assume from context). So nothing changes because you get a letter, does it?

What's the issue?

Jim K
June 10, 2009, 06:21 PM
What makes them think you might have been dealing in guns without a license? Don't answer me, but be honest with your attorney.

Jim

JohnBT
June 10, 2009, 06:39 PM
"that I was not to engage in the business of selling firearms without a licenses and would include an application for an FFL"

Great, fill it out and send it in. Maybe they'll fast track it.

John

TAB
June 10, 2009, 06:41 PM
now I'm not in the tin foil hat club, but I'd be willing to bet they are going to dig into your back ground. I hope you dotted all your "Is" and crossed all your "Ts"

swarfy
June 10, 2009, 06:44 PM
let your lawyer deal with them...

Rockwell1
June 10, 2009, 06:51 PM
I was contacted again by one of the agents from the other day, but this time by phone.

I informed him of my decision to take my attorney's advise and decline the interview.

And the very next words out your mouth should have been if there's nothing further Officer, good day.

I'm not sure what to do.

Number one you'd better really have a lawyer

Number two tell the Agents that all-further conversation or correspondence goes through him

rbernie
June 10, 2009, 07:11 PM
Send them nothing without an attorney. No matter what letters or forms they give you to sign, acknowledging 'receipt of their concerns', sign nothing.

You will likely be asked to sign a form stating that you won't be a bad boy in the future, but the words in the form will, in legalese, imply that you have done something wrong in the past. I know of one person who has been thru this already.

Sign nothing. Contact the NRA or the local gun rights groups in your state and ask for an attorney referral.

TimRB
June 10, 2009, 07:13 PM
"I'm not sure what to do."

Do nothing. They are going to send you a letter telling you to obey the law. Presuming you already do that, this whole episode has been a non-event.

Tim

ConstitutionCowboy
June 10, 2009, 07:15 PM
It sounds to me like the BATFE is trying to make inroads into areas of the law they have no business in, like fishing for something to hit you with. That not working, now they are trying to intimidate you. Seems they have too many employees with too little legitimate work to do.

Remember, no one in law enforcement has power to ask you for information that would otherwise require a warrant to obtain. These inquiries are unconstitutional. Hence, the veiled threats such as instructing you that you'd better not go into business without a license. This is intimidation.

This is intimidation to keep you in line and not make waves. Sooner or later, I hope someone or some association with the resources and assets takes up this cause. These actions need to be challenged.

When a crime has been committed, then this agency may go ahead and obtain whatever warrants they can justify and proceed from there. My hope, prayer, and goal, however, is to eliminate this agency and all other agencies and bureaucracies of its ilk that are unconstitutional. In my opinion, no agency or bureau is as patently unconstitutional as the "Firearms" and possibly "Explosives" branch(es) of the BATFE. "...(T)he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is quite clear.

Woody

rbernie
June 10, 2009, 07:23 PM
They are going to send you a letter telling you to obey the law. Presuming you already do that, this whole episode has been a non-event.
Yes, but then they will ask you to sign and return the letter. They will tell you that your signature is 'just the equivalent of a delivery receipt'. They will tell you that it's just a formality.

But when you read the form, it states that you have been adjudicated by the F Troop to have been inappropriately buying and selling guns. It's a form letter, and it's BAD. Like I said - I know folks to whom this has already occurred. No, I will not break confidence by outing them on this forum.

Do not sign and return anything.

It sounds to me like the BATFE is trying to make inroads into areas of the law they have no business in, like fishing for something to hit you with. I suspect, from the wording of the letter they send ("I've been buying and selling guns without a license and may be part of the Mexico issue but will be a good person from this point forward"), that they're trying to drum up 'progress statistics' over the whole Mexico drug war thing.

SharpsDressedMan
June 10, 2009, 07:25 PM
It might be the right time to ask them what their probable cause was to be pointing a finger at you to begin with. If they did not originally have reason to believe that you were in violation of something, what the hell were they doing to begin with? .........................obviously, no probable cause, no resulting warrant. Your attorney should seek a written apology, ask for a reprimand of the agents or supervisor (for sending them on a goosechase), and an agreement to leave you alone for the rest of your life (o.k., I might be dreaming on that one.....)

taprackbang
June 10, 2009, 07:33 PM
Do not fill out any paperwork for 'them.'
Do not talk with them, at all.

61chalk
June 10, 2009, 07:43 PM
I would not answer or sign anything from them, an assume, they will tell you lies, they may not care if your guilty or inocent, they only care about getting something on someone to look good, they won't care if your guilty or inocent, this is what my lawyer told me many years ago. An remember you have already been recorded an every time they call you will be recorded, so try an not get too mad an tell them off.....stand your ground, hang tuff an don't let them intimidate you, let your lawyer do the work, my guess is that when your lawyer contacts them they going to tuck tail an you will never hear from them again. They know their on a dead end, they have just been fishing.....just my 2 cents worth, I'm pulling for ya guy!!!

rdhood
June 10, 2009, 08:38 PM
Do not fill out any paperwork for them.
Do not talk with them, at all.

To be clear: you have already said too much. You have already engaged in conversation that has invited followup verbal threats. You then engaged in more conversation that will, apparently, result in followup written threats. If you don't have a lawyer, then you have lied to them. If you do have a lawyer, you have not listened to his/her advice. Until a warrant shows up at your door, cease conversation. If something shows up in the mail, do not sign it, do not return it. If you do have a lawyer, forward it to your lawyer. Do not talk with them at all.

Phatty
June 10, 2009, 08:51 PM
If you don't have a lawyer, then you have lied to them.
And the absolute worst thing you could ever do is lie to a federal agent. You'd probably get a stiffer sentence for that than you would from the alleged crime they were investigating.

If you ever go the "my lawyer advised me not to say anything" route, the proper way to do it is, "please direct all questions to my lawyer, John Doe, at 555-5555," and then end the conversation.

If you say, "my lawyer advised me not to talk" and then refuse to give that lawyer's contact information, it sets off red flags that you just lied.

MisterMike
June 10, 2009, 09:44 PM
With all due respect to my fellow THRers, I'd seriously suggest that, if you haven't already done so, you immediately hire a lawyer and follow his/her advice, and not the advice of people you don't know on an internet forum. A fair amount of the legal advice posted on THR, and elsewhere on-line, is incorrect. Some of what's been posted in this thread meets that description.

TexasRifleman
June 10, 2009, 09:46 PM
Do not sign and return anything.

Seconded on that. This is about the 3rd or 4th one of these I've heard of. Take anything they send you straight to your lawyer.

As for the question of what puts someone on their radar for this, it seems to be multiple handgun purchase forms in border states that are kicking off these investigations.

I'd advise steering clear of handgun purchases that kick off the multiple report until this whole Mexico gun thing blows over.

They are looking for someone to "blame".

c5_nc
June 10, 2009, 10:43 PM
I'm not sure why you have made such a big deal about it, I have had several people I know go through the same thing. They want want to make sure you are not flipping the guns. If you buy more than two handguns in a week you generally get a call (as of late), I even had a FFL warn me about this. In my case the FFL just suggested I pick up the 2nd handgun the next week so they wouldn't have send in a report. Now you have just created a big hassle for everyone, may end up having to hire an attorney, and you certainlly made yourself look like a person of interest.

Geno
June 10, 2009, 11:04 PM
Get yourself a P3 telephone recorder. (Voice of experience). Next time you get a call from them, have the recorder ON as you lift the receiver, and immediately place them on-notice that anything they say will be recorded and presented in your defense. Advise them to cease and desist. Advise them that you feel harassed and intimidated, and that henceforth, they are to communicate exclusively with your attorney...period. Send copies to the attorney.

TexasRifleman
June 10, 2009, 11:08 PM
I'm not sure why you have made such a big deal about it, I have had several people I know go through the same thing. They want want to make sure you are not flipping the guns.

Sorry, that's not what is going on here.

I have seen the wording of the letter they send. It says flat out that you admit dealing firearms without a license and you promise not to do it again.

It's a confession. If you just "play along the nice guy" you will be confessing to a Federal offense.

You wanna gamble with that go ahead, but don't advise anyone else to.

Now you have just created a big hassle for everyone, may end up having to hire an attorney, and you certainlly made yourself look like a person of interest.

The day you have to be afraid to talk to your attorney, you're toast.

Ohio Gun Guy
June 10, 2009, 11:22 PM
I would seriously consider talking to a lawer, and like everyone above said, stop talking to them (Giving them ammo).

9x23
June 10, 2009, 11:30 PM
Once you invoke your 5th amendment rights they are done asking you any incriminating questions unless you want to talk with or without an attorney present.

The only time they can make you answer questions is if they give you immunity (You better have that in writing.). If you still refuse a judge will order you to answer under the threat of being held in contempt of court and you will usually be placed in a jail until you talk or a judge rescinds the order.

If they want the info bad enough that could be a very long time if you refuse to answer.....9x23

rdhood
June 10, 2009, 11:42 PM
I'm not sure why you have made such a big deal about it

It is sad but true: the police are not your friends. The BATFE are not your friends. They are not necessarily your enemy nor are they necessarily to be scorned, but they are not your friends. They NEVER come knocking at your door wanting to see your guns, home, stuff because they are just friendly. Virtually nothing good can come of chatting them up and cooperating with them as they work in an official capacity. Mayberry was a TV show. I respect them and the job that they do, but I also realize that they are permitted to lie, to deceive, and to intimidate in the course of that job. And if, in the course of that job, they have reason to fix their attention on you, no amount of chattiness, friendliness, or cooperation is going to help your case, but it could darned well hurt you.

GRIZ22
June 11, 2009, 12:26 AM
If you read my responses to your original post you have let this escalate to the point I feel you need a lawyer. The conversation with yout lawyer will probably go like this:

You: ATFE wanted to see the 3 guns I bought because they thought I might be running guns to Mexico.

Lawyer: Do you have the guns? Are you running guns to Mexico?

You: Sure I still have the guns, I'm not running guns to Mexico.

Lawyer: Any reason why you don't want to show the guns? That would get them off your back.

You: I'm exercising my rights.

Lawyer: If you're not doing anything wrong I'd suggest you show them the guns and make them go away.

The whole thing could have been avoided to start with.

GRIZ22
June 11, 2009, 12:32 AM
The only time they can make you answer questions is if they give you immunity

Asking for immunity is an admission of having done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong there is no need for immunity.

And the absolute worst thing you could ever do is lie to a federal agent.

18 USC 1001, False Statement a 5 year felony. Highly unlikely the US Attorney would pursue this in this instance. If you're going top keep on talking to them about "my lawyer" you'd better get one.

1shot3kills
June 11, 2009, 01:04 AM
have your lawyer send letter of representation,after that by law they cannot contact you they HAVE TO CONTACT ATTORNEY

Spreadfire Arms
June 11, 2009, 01:25 AM
9x23 wrote:

Once you invoke your 5th amendment rights they are done asking you any incriminating questions unless you want to talk with or without an attorney present.


Miranda and the 5th Amendment issue surrounding Miranda does not apply to a telephone call. Case law has already shown that the Miranda Warning does not need to be given prior to questioning on the telephone as the person being called can simply hang the phone up.

and for clarification in the original post, ATF requires dealers to send in a Report of Multiple Sale if the same buyer purchases two or more handguns within five business days. not five days. so if the dealer is closed two days a week, it is two or more handguns within seven days.

libertybelle33
June 11, 2009, 01:39 AM
If you read my responses to your original post you have let this escalate to the point I feel you need a lawyer. The conversation with yout lawyer will probably go like this:

You: ATFE wanted to see the 3 guns I bought because they thought I might be running guns to Mexico.

Lawyer: Do you have the guns? Are you running guns to Mexico?

You: Sure I still have the guns, I'm not running guns to Mexico.

Lawyer: Any reason why you don't want to show the guns? That would get them off your back.

You: I'm exercising my rights.

Lawyer: If you're not doing anything wrong I'd suggest you show them the guns and make them go away.

There is absolutely no way that a lawyer would ever say that to a potentially high-profile client such as this one, especially if, as some have suggested previously, this could be a "progress statistics" game.

Lawyers want to be hired. Why? When they are hired, they can go to trial. When they go to trial, they receive money. I can't imagine a lawyer that continued to enjoy profiting from his/her job ever telling a client that his/her situation is "no big deal" and that, "if they are innocent, they should just comply with police investigation."

Not even being a lawyer, I happen to agree with what they would actually say anyway, which is: keep your mouth shut. There's no sense in giving yourself a sentence or a verdict before a trial has even come to pass. This is exactly what a trial is for, and OP should protect himself by sticking to that train of thought.

Rockwell1
June 11, 2009, 01:45 AM
Asking for immunity is an admission of having done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong there is no need for immunity

Quite possibly the dumbest post of the thread.

With over 20,000 gun laws on the books can anyone state for certain that the haven't broken one of them at some point?

TAB
June 11, 2009, 05:05 AM
if you had a lawyer, I would give them thier mail address and request all future contact be in writing and mailed to your lawyers office.

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 08:52 AM
They want want to make sure you are not flipping the guns.
And you know this HOW???

If you're not them, you DON'T.

Advising somebody to talk to police or federal agents without legal representation in such a situation is the equivalent of advising somebody to not have anti-virus software on their computer, to have unprotected sex with strangers and to share needles with intravenous drug users.

It's not just irresponsible; it verges on the malicious.

AWP79
June 11, 2009, 09:32 AM
Thanks for all the great advise that everyone has chimed in on I had no idea about the 2 handguns within 5 days thing.

TexasRifleman
June 11, 2009, 09:34 AM
Lawyer: If you're not doing anything wrong I'd suggest you show them the guns and make them go away.

No lawyer who ever passed the bar exam would give that answer.

If there is a lawyer somewhere that WOULD say that, I wouldn't hire them to help me with a traffic ticket, let alone anything else.

rdhood
June 11, 2009, 09:41 AM
If you read my responses to your original post you have let this escalate to the point I feel you need a lawyer. The conversation with yout lawyer will probably go like this:

You: ATFE wanted to see the 3 guns I bought because they thought I might be running guns to Mexico.

Lawyer: Do you have the guns? Are you running guns to Mexico?

You: Sure I still have the guns, I'm not running guns to Mexico.

Lawyer: Any reason why you don't want to show the guns? That would get them off your back.

You: I'm exercising my rights.

Lawyer: If you're not doing anything wrong I'd suggest you show them the guns and make them go away.

???? A lawyer worth his salt is not going to say that. A lawyer would never suggest giving up information without a warrant or probable cause, and a lawyer would never suggest his client talk to law enforcement without him present. A lawyer would never suggest that appeasing police in the course of an investigation will "get them off your back".

Phatty
June 11, 2009, 10:11 AM
Lawyers want to be hired. Why? When they are hired, they can go to trial. When they go to trial, they receive money. I can't imagine a lawyer that continued to enjoy profiting from his/her job ever telling a client that his/her situation is "no big deal" and that, "if they are innocent, they should just comply with police investigation."
Believe it or not, the vast majority of lawyers really do give advice that is in the best interest of their clients, not what is in the best interest of the lawyer's finances. If the best solution for a client also happens to quickly dispose of the matter, the lawyer is not going to keep that advice to himself just so that he can milk some fees out of the client. There may be some rotten apples out there that this may not apply to, but those lawyers are the exception, not the norm.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that a lawyer would say what is quoted above, but the reason is not financial motivation, it is because it is not good advice.

cloudedice
June 11, 2009, 10:17 AM
"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."
- a 1949 opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

twinwillows
June 11, 2009, 10:29 AM
Just Curious, can anyone advise if the BATFE followup on multiple weapon purchases is going on outside the border states?

Bookworm
June 11, 2009, 10:44 AM
On another forum I visit, a PA state trooper was talking about the postings of the defendant during a probable cause hearing (the man was arrested while carrying a bible, OC a gun (legally), and handing out flyers NEAR a park where Obama was going to speak later), citing that the man intended to be "disorderly".

Assume those BATF agents know your internet handle, and are reading this forum as well.

gimlet1/21
June 11, 2009, 10:51 AM
You have the right not to incriminate yourself, so don't.

waterhouse
June 11, 2009, 10:59 AM
ETA:post deleted since no longer needed.

Libertybell, welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy your time here.

t165
June 11, 2009, 11:10 AM
The letter the BATFE (may) be sending you is nothing but smoke. If you had done something wrong you would not receive a letter...you would be handcuffed. If you were really straw buying, flipping guns the last thing the BATFE is going to do is send you a letter telling you to stop...that would be akin to the DEA sending letters to suspected drug dealers telling them to stop...or the FBI sending letters to suspected terrorists warning them to stop...does not make a lot of sense does it?

Lawyering up should be the end of it unless you have actually done something wrong. There should be no more incriminating questions and that includes phone calls, emails, and the letter you (may) receive should do nothing more than provide instructions for lawful compliance which does not violate miranda. I witnessed a Indiana State Police Detective get turned inside out in court once for being cute and trying to skirt miranda once it was invoked by telephoning the suspects. The judge made him look like a buffoon and the entire case was kicked! I can't help but suspect you may have gotten under the skin of the agent and he is just poking you a little to get you riled up. Did you happen to, perhaps, get under his/her skin a little also? :) If you do happen to be dealing with a LEO who does not understand the law, which happens occasionally, then forward all subsequent contact to your attorney. If you do receive another phone call then advise the BATFE Agent the phone converstaion is being recorded if you live in a two party state. Federal law and a few states allow one party taped converstaions. The agent will probably advise you it is unlawful to record the conversation (if you are required to disclose the recording) but that is not true...it's just standard procedure to warn as such. The agent (or any smart LEO) will probably just hang up without questioning you further. Then make a copy of the recording and forward it to your lawyer after writing down the time and date and name of the LEO. Your attorney will know what to do at that point. And always remember...LEO's at all levels are allowed to lie as an investigative tool...they will try, and often do, fool people into knee-jerk reactions. If the ATF Agent you are dealing with reads this thread he will probably get a good laugh out of all the responses. Just for the record...the BATFE is contacting a good number of individuals in my area who purchase two or more hanguns in a 7 day period. Shotguns and rifles do not seem to trigger the visit.

The BATFE Agent is just doing his job and I know many on here will be up in arms over it. Try to remember BATFE Agents or any other form of LEO probably doesn't know you personally or your true character. And seeing as to how LEO's are continually lied to they begin not to trust anyone. After the first time you trust someone, get burned, and made a fool of, you learn not to trust and believe everything you are told. Yeah, LEO's can be rude and obstinate...but so can private citizens. Then the siege mentality sets in...both for the LEO's and private citizens.

Okay, let the flaming begin. I think I'm going to be outnumbered for defending the hated BATFE a little. :rolleyes:

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 11:15 AM
It certainly does appear that the ATF is simply fishing for straw purchasers. They are trying to do their job of keeping firearms in "proper hands".

Do I agree with 90% of the laws that the ATF enforces? NO. In light of what I suspect they are trying to do, I would probably have a frank conversation in which I ASKED THEM EXACTLY WHAT GROUND OR REASON DO THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT I'M DOING SOMETHING WRONG. I would also definately ask what are they trying to catch people for. If they answered in a candid manor "sir, we just want to make sure you're not a straw purchaser", then I would have them wait at the door and bring ONLY THE GUNS THAT ARE IN QUESTION to the door.

Federal agents are individuals. You'd be surprised at the number of them that hold the same stance that we do. I currently enforce laws that I REALLY don't believe in, that's why I will be changing occupations here shortly. Don't always assume that everything is a conspiracy, chances are these guys really just want to make sure you're not flipping the guns on the black market.

9x23
June 11, 2009, 11:32 AM
Spreadfire Arms wrote: Miranda and the 5th Amendment issue surrounding Miranda does not apply to a telephone call. Case law has already shown that the Miranda Warning does not need to be given prior to questioning on the telephone as the person being called can simply hang the phone up.
From 1970 on officers in my department of 3500 sworn personnel, including me, received college accredited training to become certified. After that I received specialized college accredited training as a homicide investigator which you can imagine included copious amounts of constitutional law. Additionally we had three departmental lawyers who updated our training and were available 24/7 for any questions/problems.

I was never made aware that questioning on the telephone was not covered by the 5th amendment. Perhaps I may have stepped out of the classrom for a potty break or maybe I was checking my eyelids for holes at the time or perhaps this is new case law that I’m unaware of. In any case would you please inform me and the rest of the posters/readers of this case law that you are referring to so we all can look it up and then make informed decisions about these conversations?

Sincerely thanking you in advance.....9x23

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 11:33 AM
Do I agree with 90% of the laws that the ATF enforces? NO. In light of what I suspect they are trying to do, I would probably have a frank conversation in which I ASKED THEM EXACTLY WHAT GROUND OR REASON DO THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT I'M DOING SOMETHING WRONG. I would also definately ask what are they trying to catch people for. If they answered in a candid manor "sir, we just want to make sure you're not a straw purchaser", then I would have them wait at the door and bring ONLY THE GUNS THAT ARE IN QUESTION to the door.
And they're under exactly no obligation to TRUTHFULLY answer your questions.

Would you perform knee surgery on yourself?

If not, why would you act as your own lawyer with a similar actual skill set in that field?

scndactive
June 11, 2009, 11:34 AM
Thank you guys for all the great responses.

Just to clarify. I am not it the business of selling firearms and I do still have all three pistols.

At the time of purchase I was not aware that the multiple purchase form covered handguns purchased over 5 business days, I thought it only covered multiple handguns using a single 4473 form (my fault for not doing the proper research)It would have been nice to get a "heads up" though.

I do have "legal services" I may upgrade thuogh if this escalates. I will ask the attorney I spoke to to call them today. They will be getting no more responses from me.

To be completely honest this sticker on the back of my truck is not helping.
I know a lot of you will think this was stupid by drawing unnecessary attention to my self, but I will not suppress my views just because they are unpopular. However this recent mess is making me rethink my methods of activism.:banghead:

rdhood
June 11, 2009, 11:36 AM
Actually Griz22 (about 2300 posts) posted that in post #27.

Libertybell copied the post and disagreed with it in post 31.

You also disagree with Griz22's post, and agree with libertybell.

As my dad used to say, "you are in violent agreement with the person you think you are disagreeing with."

Libertybell, welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Noticed that, I actually edited before you posted.

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 11:51 AM
To be completely honest this sticker on the back of my truck is not helping.
Not "helping" WHOM?

9x23
June 11, 2009, 11:51 AM
GRIZZ22 wrote:

Asking for immunity is an admission of having done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong there is no need for immunity.

I never said that you should ask for immunity. What I said was:

The only time they can make you answer questions is if they give you immunity (You better have that in writing.).

But now that you bring it up, if I was the detective and you asked for immunity I would have strong suspicions that you were intimately involved in my investigation...Hmmmmmm???.....9x23

c5_nc
June 11, 2009, 11:57 AM
And you know this HOW???

If you're not them, you DON'T.

Advising somebody to talk to police or federal agents without legal representation in such a situation is the equivalent of advising somebody to not have anti-virus software on their computer, to have unprotected sex with strangers and to share needles with intravenous drug users.

It's not just irresponsible; it verges on the malicious.

Almost everyone buying multiple handguns from the same dealer within a week is getting a visit or phone call now. All for the same reason. They ask if you still have the guns, if they visit they ask to see them. Had this happen to multiple people I know. My prefered FFL suggested I space out when I pick up transfer handguns from him a week apart, b/c his customers that he has to send in letters on are all geting phone calls or visits. Should they being doing this, NO, but me personally I'm going to take 2 minutes to show them the handgun instead of hiring a attorney out of pocket, wasting my time with in, and raising suspicion about myself. This is normal procedure now, like a license check point is, does not require an attorney.

Just Curious, can anyone advise if the BATFE followup on multiple weapon purchases is going on outside the border states?

Its happening in North Carolina and I imagine most states. You have to buy 2 handguns or more within a week from the same FFL, then that FFL has to remember and follow through with sending the letter to BATF. Its usually a phone call instead a visit.

Phatty
June 11, 2009, 11:59 AM
9x23,

Miranda warnings are only required when interrogating a person who is "in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."

As was mentioned, Miranda warnings are not required where a LEO calls a person at home and asks them questions because that person is not in custody.

CoRoMo
June 11, 2009, 12:06 PM
...they're trying to drum up 'progress statistics' over the whole Mexico drug war thing.

BINGO! The new orders, from the top down.
Gotta find some evidence for their previous assumptions.

GRIZ22
June 11, 2009, 12:07 PM
Quote:
Asking for immunity is an admission of having done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong there is no need for immunity

Quite possibly the dumbest post of the thread.

With over 20,000 gun laws on the books can anyone state for certain that the haven't broken one of them at some point?

Remember ignorance of the law is not a defense. Rockwell, if you're asking for transactional immunity in the situation described you'd better have something to give. You're not getting immunity for anything unless you have something to bargain with.

There is absolutely no way that a lawyer would ever say that to a potentially high-profile client such as this one,

I don't see anything that potentially makes this a high profile case with national news coverage.

A lawyer worth his salt is not going to say that. A lawyer would never suggest giving up information without a warrant or probable cause, and a lawyer would never suggest his client talk to law enforcement without him present.

It seems that you haven't known many good lawyers. A good lawyer wants to solve the problem with the minimum of fuss. I do agree that once you've retained him a lawyer doesn't want you to say anything to LE as anything you say, however innocent, can make more problems for them.

When they are hired, they can go to trial. When they go to trial, they receive money. I can't imagine a lawyer that continued to enjoy profiting from his/her job ever telling a client that his/her situation is "no big deal" and that, "if they are innocent, they should just comply with police investigation."


Good lawyers like to avoid trial if possible. A good lawyer wants to get the best deal he or she can for the client. Good prosecutors like plea bargaining because they get a conviction and defense attorneys like it as it gets their client a lighter sentence than they would have gotten if they went to trial. Moreso when the circumstances and evidence are overwhelming and there is no viable defense that could be presented. Going to trial can be a crapshoot.

Good lawyers are not lacking for clients to keep them in business.

I would have them wait at the door and bring ONLY THE GUNS THAT ARE IN QUESTION to the door.


Following this advice would have avoided the whole issue. They know you bought the guns. You've acknowledged that by signing the 4473. They wanted to see if you still had them or what you did with them.

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 12:14 PM
Almost everyone buying multiple handguns from the same dealer within a week is getting a visit or phone call now. All for the same reason. They ask if you still have the guns, if they visit they ask to see them. Had this happen to multiple people I know. My prefered FFL suggested I space out when I pick up transfer handguns from him a week apart, b/c his customers that he has to send in letters on are all geting phone calls or visits. Should they being doing this, NO, but me personally I'm going to take 2 minutes to show them the handgun instead of hiring a attorney out of pocket, wasting my time with in, and raising suspicion about myself. This is normal procedure now, like a license check point is, does not require an attorney.
"Normal procedure" is NOT synonymous with "in your best interest".

You have NO control over what they do, how they do it or why.

You DO have control over whether you protect your OWN legal and constitutional rights and interests. They have NO interest in doing that, nor except in very circumscribed circumstances any DUTY. They're not interested in protecting your rights. If YOU aren't, they aren't going to get protected at all. If you're not interested in protecting YOURSELF, talk to them without benefit of counsel.

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 12:28 PM
Would you perform knee surgery on yourself?

No I would not, but subsequently I wouldn't go to a doctor to have a splinter removed either. I don't think agents showing up to ensure that you are not a straw purchaser is a like comparison to knee surgery. Agents showing up at your door with an indictment is.

Following this advice would have avoided the whole issue. They know you bought the guns. You've acknowledged that by signing the 4473. They wanted to see if you still had them or what you did with them.

That's the whole point right there. They're not violating your rights if they come to your door and ask. They already know you bought the guns, so to show them those guns only will not give them any new information other than the fact that they are still in your possession. Since I'd say there is a 99.99% chance that's the only reason they're there, why not show them you're an honest citizen and be done with it?

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 12:43 PM
I don't think agents showing up to ensure that you are not a straw purchaser is a like comparison to knee surgery.
And you KNOW that's why they're there, HOW?

Oh yeah, you DON'T know.

I don't know about you, but I work really hard to avoid contact with the police. Certainly I don't have enough official contact with them to unerringly know a pretext when I hear one, or to KNOW unfailingly when my rights are being violated.

I'm neither a lawyer nor an orthopedist and haven't the slightest intention of doing a profoundly incompetent [and potentially self-destructive] impression of either.

As the religious say, "Pride goeth before a fall." Be just as proud of your imagined legal skills as you like. Don't complain if they cause you to fall into poverty or prison.

TexasRifleman
June 11, 2009, 12:44 PM
Since I'd say there is a 99.99% chance that's the only reason they're there, why not show them you're an honest citizen and be done with it?

When every lawyer in the country, many Supreme Court justices over the years, and pretty much everyone else advises against doing that, what exactly are your grounds for going against all that legal advice?

You and others keep saying "be done with it". Why does pretty much every legal mind in the country advise against doing that if it's "no big deal"?

jon_in_wv
June 11, 2009, 12:58 PM
Its the Governments job to enforce the laws by punishing those that break them NOT to intimidate you into following them, prove your an honest citizen, or to appease their intrusions because they are, "just trying to be sure your following the law." You guys are part of the problem when you constantly make excuses for the harassment and abuse of powers by people like the ATF and the IRS. They MUST follow the constitution, they are BOUND by it but they aren't going to do it if we are willing to look the other way for them. I mistrust and fear the ATF because they and the IRS have grown in power to have the ability to make you PROVE your innocent or that your not breaking the law. You are supposed to be presumed INNOCENT. It their job to prove otherwise.

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 01:01 PM
And you KNOW that's why they're there, HOW?

Oh yeah, you DON'T know.

I don't know about you, but I work really hard to avoid contact with the police. Certainly I don't have enough official contact with them to unerringly know a pretext when I hear one, or to KNOW unfailingly when my rights are being violated.

I'm neither a lawyer nor an orthopedist and haven't the slightest intention of doing a profoundly incompetent [and potentially self-destructive] impression of either.

As the religious say, "Pride goeth before a fall." Be just as proud of your imagined legal skills as you like. Don't complain if they cause you to fall into poverty or prison.

Well for one, we could start by using some common sense. Said agents know that you purchased the firearms because your name is on the 4473. Showing them only those firearms, at the door, provides no additional information other than the fact that you still have them in your possession. What law are you breaking at that point?

BTW, what happened to THR? I was on here a few years back and I can tell the general attitude is a little different these days:confused:. How many here are lawyers? So I should be taking your legal advice because???

You guys are part of the problem when you constantly make excuses for the harassment and abuse of powers by people like the ATF and the IRS.

The agents showing up at his door to ask a question violated neither his rights nor the constitution. The subsequent call and letter may have been harrasment, but maybe they wouldn't mind a small portion of co-operation from citizens through the course of their duty. I do tend to agree that all they can do is show up and ask. If told no, then show up with a warrant or don't show up. I just don't understand why everyone thinks that every LEO investigator is up to no good and trying to take away your rights??? That's generally not the case, there are exceptions, but you get the point.

TexasRifleman
June 11, 2009, 01:03 PM
How many here are lawyers? So I should be taking your legal advice because???

YOU are the one offering legal advice, and VERY bad advice at that. The real lawyers have spoken on this already, and they said in no uncertain terms to never ever do what you are suggesting.

What law are you breaking at that point?

This is what you keep missing, even though you say it. If you have broken no law why in the world would you attempt to "prove your innocence"?
That's insane.

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 01:07 PM
This is what you keep missing, even though you say it. If you have broken no law why in the world would you attempt to "prove your innocence"?
That's insane.

What additional information are you providing to just show them the guns? They already know you bought them. What other information are they getting? I liken this to witnessing a murder but refusing to tell the story because you may have to "prove your innocence" that you weren't involved.

JR47
June 11, 2009, 01:09 PM
NOT to intimidate you into following them,

When all is said and done, why WOULD you think that the government would NEED to intimidate one into following the law?

If you feel like being asked to prove that you still possess weapons that you admitted to buying, in writing, is somehow wrong, then, by all means, make a federal case of it.

Should you feel that the request, while unusual, but legal, should be dealt with by letting the agents see the weapons, then do so.

Instead of asking the advice of a bunch of nameless, faceless, and admittedly unqualified entities on the Internet, seek local counsel if you need it. That way, you won't be hunting for such counsel if things go south. Trust me, NOBODY in the legal, or LEO, profession cares a whit about the statements of on-line experts.

Rockwell1
June 11, 2009, 01:09 PM
When every lawyer in the country, many Supreme Court justices over the years, and pretty much everyone else advises against doing that, what exactly are your grounds for going against all that legal advice?

He's a cop, getting you to waive your rights is part of his job

TexasRifleman
June 11, 2009, 01:12 PM
What additional information are you providing to just show them the guns? They already know you bought them. What other information are they getting?

You again and again miss the point. Why is it any of their damn business whether you still have the guns or not?

What other information are they getting?

Every word you speak to an LE agency investigating has the potential to open doors you never thought of, with no upside. If you are not guilty of anything, silence cannot hurt you.

The only thing that can hurt you is talking and you are encouraging that.

Why would you do that when every legal scholar that's walked the streets of the USA has advised against it?

Sorry, it's just goofy.

why not show them you're an honest citizen and be done with it?

You vill show your papers please? Danka.

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 01:12 PM
He's a cop, getting you to waive your rights is part of his job

Really? I'm a cop. Spell out "assume" for me, cuz I'm not a cop but that's what you ass-u-med.

You again and again miss the point. Why is it any of their damn business whether you still have the guns or not?

Why is their damn business to regulate guns in the first place? Why is their damn business to do background checks? Why it their damn business to require FFLs to register? I shouldn't be, but they do. You're providing no new information.

TexasRifleman
June 11, 2009, 01:16 PM
You're providing no new information.

Any time you talk to LE you provide new information, whether you know it or not. Why in the world would you help someone investigate you?

Seriously, you need to stop and think about this stuff.

9x23
June 11, 2009, 01:17 PM
Phatty wrote:

Miranda warnings are only required when interrogating a person who is "in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."

Not only does Miranda apply in custodial interrogation, but it also attaches as soon as the investigation is FOCUSED on you.

Example of a non-focused investigation: I walk into a room and see a dead man with a pipe wrench deeply imbedded in his head and there are 10 people looking over him. I say, "What happened?"

You blurt out, "I killed him because he pissed me off!" ADMISSIBLE statement.

Example of a focused investigation: Same body only you are now holding the wrench. Reasonably, I should be suspecting you (Someone else may have killed him and you may have removed the wrench thinking that you might be saving him, but I don't know that) so I say without Marandizing you, "What happened?"

You blurt out, "I killed him because he pissed me off!" INADMISSIBLE statement.


You also wrote:

As was mentioned, Miranda warnings are not required where a LEO calls a person at home and asks them questions because that person is not in custody.

So GRIZZ22 posts that and you carry it as the banner of truth?

I am not trying to be combative here - just looking for the truth, so AGAIN please direct me to the case law you and GRIZZ22 are referring to about telephone conversations not being subject to the 5th Ammendment.

Sincerely thanking you in advance too.....9x23

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 01:18 PM
Well for one, we could start by using some common sense.
Then you've hit "fail" before you've left the gate.

I used to know an F-14 driver who was an adviser to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. He said that "insh allah" was a really lousy pre-flight procedure for a supersonic fighter. It doesn't work ANY better as a legal strategy when your finances and freedom are at stake.

Said agents know that you purchased the firearms because your name is on the 4473. Showing them only those firearms, at the door, provides no additional information other than the fact that you still have them in your possession. What law are you breaking at that point?
You don't know why they're there.
You don't know what their actual motivations are.
They don't have to TRUTHFULLY tell you.

I used to know a guy in usenet who regularly told non-computer savvy people that they had no need for anti-virus software on their PCs. He knew it wasn't true, but he said it anyway. After a certain point, misinformation starts to look like disinformation.

Rockwell1
June 11, 2009, 01:21 PM
Really? I'm a cop. Spell out "assume" for me, cuz I'm not a cop but that's what you ass-u-med.

My bad I had you confused with another poster

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 01:25 PM
Why in the world would you help someone investigate you?

Because I have nothing to hide?

Because I turned in my foil hat?

Because "lawyering up" is expensive?

Because I understand the men have a job to do and generally have more important stuff to do than try and build a case against me where one doesn't exist (EXCEPTIONS TO THIS, but not many)?

Because the "Big Gubmint' gonna git ma guns" woobie has yet to materialize since the whipping of the dems in the 90s for passing the AWB?

Because I have better things to do with my time than turn a splinter into knee surgery... you know things like debating with strangers over the internet:D?




Fine, everyone out there completely throw my perspective out of the window and look at this through only one very narrow mindset in the manner that these agents were probably up to no good by casing a citizen for gun confiscation or to build a false case. I was wrong, you should be lawyering up so you can basically donate money to a future crooked politician. Remember, all LEOs are bad.

maksim
June 11, 2009, 01:31 PM
I dont know, personally I do see it from both sides.

Yes, you have a right to lawyer up, yet, you just made it 20 times worse for yourself, and lets not even consider the money it will cost you to lawyer up.

If we all fear that everyone is out to get you, why even go out the door in the morning? Every cop just wants to pull you over, every driver behind the wheel wants to mow you over.

i would understand lawyering up if you know you did something wrong, or heck, get pulled over for speeding, when you did, or god forbid you had to discharge your firearm.

but when it is common knowledge that any purchases of multiple handguns get a visit, you are only instigating it more. The more you drag it out, the more probable cause you are giving them. Sometimes it is better to stand up and be the better man. They know you have the handguns, and in NJ they have pistol permits to prove it, bring them out to the door, show them, and voila... done and over with, and you did not make yourself most importantly might I add, memorable to them.

right now you are in their eyes "the one guy out of 30 we had to see that lawyered up"

And you are probly the only guy that did that. Yes, we know you want to stand up for your rights, but when only 5% of firearms owners are NRA members, I would venture to guess, 99% of the people the agents visit invite them in, show them the firearms in question, and leave.

You have to pick your battles, this is not one of them.

But.... because you escalated it to this far, right now, you really do need a lawyer because you cannot make yourself un-memorable anymore, and I would not be surprised if they are checking up on you already.

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 01:35 PM
Because I understand the men have a job to do and generally have more important stuff to do than try and build a case against me where one doesn't exist (EXCEPTIONS TO THIS, but not many)?
And apparently you're willing to BE one of those "exceptions".

Your choice; just don't try to hoodwink others into following you over the cliff.

Because I have better things to do with my time than turn a splinter into knee surgery
Unless of course you can't tell your knee from your elbow and a splinter from the wing spar of a Nieuport 17.

Fine, everyone out there completely throw my perspective out of the window and look at this through only one very narrow mindset in the manner that these agents were probably up to no good by casing a citizen for gun confiscation or to build a false case. I was wrong, you should be lawyering up so you can basically donate money to a future crooked politician. Remember, all LEOs are bad.
It's more of a legal astigmatism than a "perspective".
You don't KNOW what those agents were "up to". And you're almost certainly unequipped to tell.

As I said, you're free to walk over that legal precipice. Just don't try to drag the unwary to the rocks below it with you.

Rockwell1
June 11, 2009, 01:35 PM
I think I said this in the last thread but, this is one of those things you either get or you don’t. If you don’t the only thing that’s really going to change your mind is a bad run in with a law enforcement agency, unfortunately you may not get a chance to put your new found perspective into action after said run in.

The very fact that the agents showed up on his front stoop questioning the OP about the guns shows that they (at least on some level) suspected him of having committed a crime.
I want to say the OP would be a fool to answer any questions under such circumstances but the only people that are going to “get it’ already “get it”

There’s no such thing a “routine” questioning although, there may be if we continue to allow it.

Bottom line, if Dr. James Duane and Chief Justice Robert Jackson of the Supreme Court can’t convince you, nothing on this forum will either


i would understand lawyering up if you know you did something wrong,

Another Robert Jackson quote The intent of the 5th amendment is primarily to protect the innocent from unwarranted prosecution

TexasRifleman
June 11, 2009, 01:37 PM
If we all fear that everyone is out to get you, why even go out the door in the morning? Every cop just wants to pull you over, every driver behind the wheel wants to mow you over.

That's a little bit different than when they come to your house and specifically tell you that you are under investigation for a crime.

Cooperate with that if you want, but there is no upside.

Norinco982lover
June 11, 2009, 01:37 PM
nice window sticker;)

maksim
June 11, 2009, 01:40 PM
Well, what he did in question was the fact that he bought multiple handguns from the same dealer in a week. that is why he is being investigated.

If he bought one a week, and they came... i would take the very same stance.

If he trully commited a major crime, getting a lawyer or not would not make a difference. If he was suspected of something bigger, they would of already arrested him.

Pick your battles. but obviously that is my jersey opinion. =)

Besides, what happened in the past doesnt matter, what he is doing about it now is what does.

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 01:43 PM
Besides, what happened in the past doesnt matter, what he is doing about it now is what does.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

scndactive
June 11, 2009, 01:46 PM
Thank you everyone for the advice. I have no doubt that everyone's advise is sincere, and trying to be helpful, but the only advice I will be taking is that of an attorney.

attempting to convince others that your opinion is the correct one is futile and will only assist in getting this thread closed. We have seen this happen closed thread after closed thread

I think this is a good topic and we could all learn something from the discussion but we can only do that if the thread stays open.

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 01:50 PM
Yes, you have a right to lawyer up, yet, you just made it 20 times worse for yourself, and lets not even consider the money it will cost you to lawyer up.
There isn't 1/1,000,000,000 the potential for harm from seeking legal counsel that there is from using "insh allah" as a legal strategy in a criminal investigation of which you are a subject.

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 01:50 PM
It's more of a legal astigmatism than a "perspective".
You don't KNOW what those agents were "up to". And you're almost certainly unequipped to tell.

As well as you don't "KNOW" what they're up to any more than I do. Spend your 600 bucks on an attorney if that makes you feel better.

The very fact that the agents showed up on his front stoop questioning the OP about the guns shows that they (at least on some level) suspected him of having committed a crime.

No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else.

Unless of course you can't tell your knee from your elbow and a splinter from the wing spar of a Nieuport 17.

If you're not a lawyer or ATF agent, you're no more qualified to tell me I don't know what's going on than I'm qualified to tell you my perspective bubba.

I used to know an F-14 driver who was an adviser to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. He said that "insh allah" was a really lousy pre-flight procedure for a supersonic fighter. It doesn't work ANY better as a legal strategy when your finances and freedom are at stake.

Calling an F-14 PILOT a "driver" is fail out of the gate. There is a great deal of difference between flying a super-sonic jet and answering an honest question on the basis of "all is as God wills it".

That's a little bit different than when they come to your house and specifically tell you that you are under investigation for a crime.

They went to his house not because they inherently to investigate him for a crime. They went to his house because of a departmental policy. It's a huge fishing net. Do I agree with the policy? No, but I don't disagree with it enough to lawyer up.

CoRoMo
June 11, 2009, 01:54 PM
Why in the world would you help someone investigate you?
Because I have nothing to hide?


Quite an assumption there. Mistakes happen, and many times you have no knowledge of the little mistakes that they are searching for. Their MO is to make mountains out of mole hills.

Assuming that compliance will simply get to the end of it is naive.

The very fact that the agents showed up on his front stoop questioning the OP about the guns shows that they (at least on some level) suspected him of having committed a crime.
No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else.

More assumptions. It's almost like you know these agents personally and have the information that we know only they have. Face it, you have no idea what these agents have in mind.

Rockwell1
June 11, 2009, 02:02 PM
No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else.

And why are they checking up on multiple firearms purchasers? Let's he how far you can go with this before saying ,in effect, they're investegating a crime.

Deanimator
June 11, 2009, 02:06 PM
As well as you don't "KNOW" what they're up to any more than I do. Spend your 600 bucks on an attorney if that makes you feel better.
Hmmm, let's see:

I don't know what they're up to and SAY I don't know what they're up to.

You don't know what they're up to and say you DO.

I recommend, "Seek legal counsel".

You recommend "insh allah".

I STATE I'm not a lawyer.

You're attempting to play one on the internet.

As I said, a long enough pattern of misinformation is indistinguishable from disinformation.

CoRoMo
June 11, 2009, 02:11 PM
You don't know what they're up to and say you DO.

To be correct, the first two lines/responses that 5whiskey types in post #82 does both.

In the first one, he acknowledges that he doesn't know what they're up to, then the next line he types states that he does.

It's magic!

9x23
June 11, 2009, 02:19 PM
5whiskey you wrote:

Calling an F-14 PILOT a "driver" is fail out of the gate.

Among several other aircraft I was also a C-130 "driver" in Southeast Asia for two years. "Driver'" is not a derrogatory term as it is applied to pilots, but it's more of an insider slang for pilot.

If you are not or have not been a military pilot then I assume (There's that word again! :D) that you were defending their status and I appreciate that.....9x23

rbernie
June 11, 2009, 02:37 PM
No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else.
No, it doesn't. You likely didn't read the whole thread, because if you had you would have seen that others have been getting the same visits recently and it's all tied back to the 'Mexico gun running' issue. We know what this is about, and we know how this will go - because we've seen it before. The end result will almost certainly be pressure from the F Troop to get the gun buyer to sign a very incriminating document.

And, having read all of the thread over again - is there anything more that we can add to this?

Some folk suggest finding counsel (myself among them). There are no-to-low cost ways to do that, and many state RKBA organizations can direct y'all to a list of helpful pro-RKBA attorneys.

Some folks suggest that directing the F Troop to an attorney is a bad idea, either from a cost or a self-incrimination perspective.

I have concluded that each side will not convince the other.

What I can offer is the experience that was relayed to me by another. In this other (very recent and also in Texas) case, the F Troop folk tried to exert pressure on the gun buyer to sign an incriminating form that attested to the gun buyer having engaged in past shady deals but promising to be better in the future. The gun buyer contacted a local RKBA organizations, they hooked him up with an attorney who agreed, sans retainer, to act as representation when actually called upon to do work. When the attorney's contact info was passed to the F Troop boyz, they evidently moved along in search of more compliant targets.

That's it.

We (with good confidence) know how this plays out because it's scripted.

Phatty
June 11, 2009, 02:41 PM
Not only does Miranda apply in custodial interrogation, but it also attaches as soon as the investigation is FOCUSED on you.
The standard I quoted was taken directly from Miranda v. Arizona, hence the quote marks in my earlier posts. What case are you relying on for this focused investigation standard?

So GRIZZ22 posts that and you carry it as the banner of truth?

I don't think GRIZZ22 has posted anything here regarding Miranda rights. Are you referring to Spreadfire Arms?

I am not trying to be combative here - just looking for the truth, so AGAIN please direct me to the case law you and GRIZZ22 are referring to about telephone conversations not being subject to the 5th Ammendment.
Whether you are trying to or not, your tone is definitely coming off as combative, particularly with the bold "Sorry - You are Wrong!" to start your post and considering that you demand cited authority when you yourself have provided none to support your argument. Here's the cases you want so bad:

General Rules:
First, we reject defendant's argument that he was entitled to Miranda warnings. In order for Miranda rights to be invoked, there must be (1) custody and (2) interrogation. United States v. Vega-Figueroa, 1st Circuit, 2000.
The procedural safeguards prescribed by Miranda only apply "where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him 'in custody.'" Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714, 97 S. Ct. 711 (1977) (per curiam )). A person is "in custody" for purposes of Miranda if the person has been arrested or if his freedom of action has been curtailed to a degree associated with arrest. See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322. The proper perspective for determining whether a suspect is "in custody" at the time of questioning is whether "a reasonable [person] in the suspect's position would have understood his situation . . . as the functional equivalent of formal arrest." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317, 104 S. Ct. 3138 (1984). Burket v Angelone, 4th Circuit, 1999
The Fifth Amendment right to counsel safeguarded by Miranda cannot be invoked when a suspect is not in custody, see United States v. LaGrone, 43 F.3d 332, 337 (7th Cir. 1994), even if in anticipation of future custodial interrogation, see McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 182 n.3, 115 L. Ed. 2d 158, 111 S. Ct. 2204 (1991) ("We have in fact never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than 'custodial interrogation.'") United States v Wyatt, 7th Circuit, 1999

Specifically applied to phone calls:
The district court also correctly concluded that, even if it could be said that the informant was acting ostensibly as a police agent when she spoke with Foster, the record shows that Foster was not in custody when he received the phone calls and therefore, not entitled to Miranda warnings.Foster v. Jones, 9th Circuit, 2000
Miranda warnings are only required to be given to suspects who are in custody and being interrogated by authorities. United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2002). "[A]n 'in custody' determination requires two discrete inquiries: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Id. at 499. As of the time of the call, there is no indication on the record that police had ever approached petitioner about his relations with R.C. Further, petitioner was in his residence when he conversed with R.C. and there is no indication that petitioner was not completely free to hang up the phone at any time. Because petitioner was not in custody at the time of the phone call, he was not entitled to Miranda warnings at that time. Georgeoff v. Moore, E.D. Mo., 2008
Deleon challenges the use of his statement to the DEA agent arguing that he should have been given Miranda warnings and that his statement was coerced. Miranda warnings must be provided "'only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him 'in custody."" Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 320, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 128 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1994) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S. Ct. 711, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (per curiam)). No restriction on Deleon's freedom occurred during his phone conversation with the DEA agent. Because Deleon was therefore not in custody, he was not entitled to Miranda warnings. United States v. Deleon, 9th Circuit, 2006

I've backed up my statements. Where are your supporting cases?

runrabbitrun
June 11, 2009, 02:42 PM
So, if one wishes to talk to an attorney in a situation like this.
You/we are automatically guilty of something?

If this is the normal presumption of LE investigators these days,
we are in for some dark days ahead I fear.

Someone also stated it's 'policy' for this department to conduct follow ups
about multiple gun purchases.
Can someone point us to this policy?

Thanks

dirt_j00
June 11, 2009, 02:48 PM
It really is a shame that law-abiding citizens of the US are being harassed/questioned/annoyed/bothered (take your pick) by the .gov for performing a perfectly legal transaction.

If it was illegal to buy >3 handguns in a 5 business-day period, then OK. But its not. So leave us alone.

Any ideas on what we can do to help with this situation? I suppose we could contact our elected officials and make them aware of these situations...

coloradokevin
June 11, 2009, 02:51 PM
:
If you don't have a lawyer, then you have lied to them.

And the absolute worst thing you could ever do is lie to a federal agent. You'd probably get a stiffer sentence for that than you would from the alleged crime they were investigating.

While I do think it is fair to have some concerns about this incident, I wouldn't be too worried about the "I'm going to talk to my lawyer" lie.

If I arrested everyone I had contacted who claimed they had a lawyer, I'd have probably jailed 10,000 people in the last five years. Every cop, agent, sheriff, etc has probably heard this talk until they are blue in the face. I think you'd be hard pressed to see them place charges on you for "lying" about having a lawyer on retainer when you didn't.

By way of example, here is the text of our local "false information" statute:

"It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly and willfully to give false information to an officer or employee of the city when such officer or employee is acting in their official capacity, concerning the identity of any person participating in, connected with, or responsible for, or concerning the manner of the commission of, any act, when, as part of their official duties or employment, such officer or employee is investigating:
(1) The legality of such act; or
(2) The identity of the person participating in, connected with, or responsible for the commission of such act."



Anyway, like I said, I can see why to OP was concerned... I just wouldn't sweat that aspect of it!

Rockwell1
June 11, 2009, 02:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=related

Phatty
June 11, 2009, 02:56 PM
So, if one wishes to talk to an attorney in a situation like this.
You/we are automatically guilty of something?

If this is the normal presumption of LE investigators these days,
we are in for some dark days ahead I fear.
I wouldn't worry too much about whether or not your request for a lawyer results in the investigator's presuming you are guilty. A judge won't look too fondly on an affidavit in support of a search warrant request that is based on "the suspect asked to speak to an attorney when I asked to see his guns."

Requesting a lawyer wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't for the huge number of people that willingly waive their right to an attorney. The feds get so used to dealing with suckers that it becomes frustrating to them when a person actually invokes their rights.

GRIZ22
June 11, 2009, 03:58 PM
GRIZZ22 are referring to about telephone conversations not being subject to the 5th Ammendment.


I made no statement regarding this but as I have been accused of making one I might as well. I do agree that telephone conversations can be used as against a suspect.

There have been a lot of misquotes in this thread.

There have been a lot of things said here and a lot of things that haven't been.

All the great legal minds advise when you are a suspect to make no statement to law enforcement without an attorney. I generally agree with that. Many have overlooked the key word here is suspect. There are times when making a statement to the police can remove you from that suspect list and only you can decide if you are smart enough to do that. I know of many cases where citizens, with and without lawyers, cooperated with LE and got themselves removed from that suspect list. If you can't tell the difference when to make a statement is to your benefit then you need a lawyer. LE and prosecutors do not want to waste anyone's time fabricating a case against someone that will lose in court. Arrests without convictions are not a career enhancer for a LEO.

LEOs talk to thousands of people daily while performing their jobs. Everyone they talk to is not a suspect.

Rockwell1
June 11, 2009, 06:05 PM
Everyone they talk to is not a suspect.

At least not in your mind

Dr. Fresh
June 11, 2009, 06:21 PM
I can't believe some of what I'm reading here.

First off, I have several family members in law enforcement, so I have no beef with them. I am not a cop hater by any stretch of the imagination.

However, you should NEVER waive any right, no matter what. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Come on people, there's a reason we have rights.

Purchasing more than one pistol within a week's time is a legal activity. As such, an investigation is completely uncalled for.

model 649
June 11, 2009, 06:31 PM
Never, EVER talk to the police(or those under that banner) without an attorney. Period. Here's an excellent couple of lectures on the subject by an attorney and then a police detective in VA. PRICELESS advice, indeed.

The atty's portion: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

The Detective's portion: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en

Watch, listen, and learn.



Josh

t165
June 11, 2009, 06:58 PM
Phatty...I'm not trying to be adversarial but if the BATFE Agent(s) try to contact scndactive by telephone (or any form of communication) at this point they will be violating the law. Once scndactive expressed his desire to seek legal counsel before answering the agents questions they have to back off. I have seen investigators served with court issued restraining orders when they do not respect miranda.

Investigators like 9x23 who work serious felony cases know what is expected from them in their jurisdictions. Judges and prosecutors want things done a certain way. The SCOTUS cannot make a prosecutor prosecute a case. The SCOTUS cannot stop a lower judge from throwing a case out of his court. All the SCOTUS can do is reverse rulings from lower courts on certain issues. And as to how 99.99999% of all cases in America will never come before the SCOTUS 9x23 and fellow investigators have to do what they have to do to make their cases airtight. It is always best to mirandize when in question that to not mirandize. Conducting a homicide investigation via phone would be terrible police work unless it was absolutely necessary. If it was an attempt to skirt miranda it could very likely cost you your case in the real world of law enforcement. I was taught that the mere prescence of a law enforcement officer constituted "custody" insofar as miranda was concerned. Ask two highly educated lawyers about miranda and you will likely receive two different answers...maybe only slightly, but different. Nothing in law is cast in stone and it is better to be safe than sorry.

model 649
June 11, 2009, 07:34 PM
Miranda? HAH! Just a WARNING. It's not a "right". Yes, they must WARN you, but that in no way "backs them off". They can continue to ask questions(and do). Watch the second lecture I posted above. About 6:54 the best explanation I've seen begins.

Josh

t165
June 11, 2009, 07:56 PM
Damn model 649...thanks for clearing that up for me. After all my law classes and years on the job I actually thought "you have the RIGHT to remain silent" was taken from a Constitutional Amendment...the 5th to be exact. And I'll let all the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law instructors and experienced LEO's I've worked with in the past know the 5th Amendment is not a Right. I'll be sure and let them know how wrong they are. Heck, I'll even email the SCOTUS so you can correct them. I'm sure glad I happened to be blessed with your legal guidance...you are my new hero.....NOT!

That was a real funny post...got anymore good ones? :)

model 649
June 11, 2009, 08:08 PM
So, the attorney and the cop are incorrect? I never mentioned the fifth, and neither did you. More explanation? Were they only correct in VA?

Josh

DEANBILT
June 11, 2009, 08:10 PM
Why not arrange to have your lawyer produce said weapons and be done with it. Where there's smoke....

ConstitutionCowboy
June 11, 2009, 08:19 PM
Because the "Big Gubmint' gonna git ma guns" woobie has yet to materialize since the whipping of the dems in the 90s for passing the AWB?

And you do not believe this is how such woobie begins? Every despotic tyranny began with a seemingly innocuous intrusion. Your rights should be like a bee hive. Just get too close and you're going to get stung.

...I would venture to guess, 99% of the people the agents visit invite them in, show them the firearms in question, and leave.

And you believe that is the end of it? How long before the ATF has a brainstorm and begins to wonder if you sold your guns soon after they left? They'll be back, again, and again, and again.


There’s no such thing a(s) “routine” questioning although, there may be if we continue to allow it.

That's the whole point of this thread. Short, sweet, and succinct, Mr Rockwell1. I commend you.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

AKElroy
June 11, 2009, 08:22 PM
Do not fill out any paperwork for 'them.'
Do not talk with them, at all.

If you acknowledge nothing else in this thread, TAKE THIS ADVICE. Sign nothing. Acknowledge nothing. Say nothing. They call, you politely say that your attorney speaks for you & provide the number, then HANG UP THE PHONE. Ignore any accusations, bomb throwing, threats implied or stated as any such statements are designed soley to engage the opening of your mouth. They have an agenda, and they are trolling for stats. RBERNIE is dead on with that call. If you have actually broken any law, make sure your attorney has the information he needs to provide a proper defense. By the way, shame on you if your guilty of something. Well wishes & support for you if your not. Sure sounds like you're clean & being harassed.

jon_in_wv
June 11, 2009, 08:30 PM
Since its just innocent questions, why have the ATF do the following:

1. Call you periodically to ask you what, if any, crimes you have committed with your weapons.

2. Ask you where your weapon is stored just to be sure your storing it safely.

3. Ask you how much ammo you have.

4. Why don't you come in for some fingerprints, just so we can have them on file.

5. How about you let us walk around your house a bit, ask you some innocent questions, just for your safety.

6. How about we stop you periodically in your car, just to be sure your not breaking any laws.

Should we continue this stupidity or do you get the point. If your INNOCENT and not breaking the law then LE should not be questioning you or asking you incriminating questions or harassing you in ANY way. You should be free to go about your business unmolested UNTIL they have probable cause to believe you have broken the law. legally purchasing a few firearms is NOT probably cause to believe you may have broken the law. Seeking the advice of an attorney is NOT an admission of guilt and not answering their ridiculous incriminating questions is a DUTY. Government is corrupt when you fear IT instead of them fearing YOU. They should be afraid of violating your rights and losing their jobs, not scaring YOU into cooperating. And yes I find it appalling how many of you think that just because you didn't do anything wrong you should pander to unconstitutional actions of police. When you trade your rights for security, you will have NEITHER.

BTW. I've worked in LE for the last 17 years.

AKElroy
June 11, 2009, 08:52 PM
They should be afraid of violating your rights and losing their jobs, not scaring YOU into cooperating.

Well said.

AKElroy
June 11, 2009, 09:08 PM
Why not arrange to have your lawyer produce said weapons and be done with it. Where there's smoke....

Careful now. Contributing to an RKBA forum produces a lot of smoke in the eyes of some; maybe the wrong sort sees some of that smoke coming from your house? But hey, you have nothing to hide, so it's come on over, boys, right? Not my house, friend. We obey the law. Until they provide evidence to the contrary, they are not welcome in my home, on my phone or in my mailbox.

numaone
June 11, 2009, 09:25 PM
Why can't you just ignore them? No need for a lawyer. If they show up, close the door on them, if they mail you something, shred it, if they call you, just hang-up. No need to get an expensive lawyer yet.

Or am I missing something?

Phatty
June 11, 2009, 09:34 PM
t165,

I have no doubt that investigators such as 9x23 are tought procedure with the maxim "better safe than sorry" in mind. Any agency may have their own sets of rules and procedures, but just because an agency teaches their agents "always do x" doesn't mean that "x" is constitutionally-required law.

I definitely agree with you that Miranda law is not the clearest line of cases in the world and there is tons of room for honest disagreement. Any law where judges have to start using a "totality of the circumstances" standard is going to be messy.

t165
June 11, 2009, 09:55 PM
Model 649...I only watched the segment you pointed out. The police officer and his comments about the Miranda Warning. He plays a bit of a word game and then goes on to confess the Miranda Warning is a "RIGHT". Basically he said the Miranda Warning is not a right and then in the next sentence says the right to remain silent has always been in the United States Constitution via the 5th Amendment. I say "NO KIDDING"! The Miranda Warning is nothing more than a SCOTUS imposed abbreviated reminder of a suspects rights as outlined in the 5th Amendment...a "RIGHT". Any LEO or prosecutor who ignores this "RIGHT" can watch their case get thrown "right" out of court. Any LEO or prosecutor who ignores a suspects 5th Amendment right to remain silent and continues to harass/question him may very well be served with a court issued restraining order or jail time. I have seen it happen.

I loved being a LEO. Still, the United States Judicial System is not perfect. Innocent people do get prosecuted. I cannot tell anyone what to do if they are suspected of a crime but remaining silent and giving your attorney a chance to protect you seems to be a very good idea to me.

DEANBILT
June 11, 2009, 09:59 PM
AKElroy please clarify. No one comes through my door unless they've got a Publishers Clearing house check. New to THR, new to thread, not to life, my eyes are wide open...

Deltaboy
June 11, 2009, 10:12 PM
Keep your mouth shut, listen to your lawyer and God Bless you!

AKElroy
June 11, 2009, 10:13 PM
DEANBILT--First, welcome to the forum. I may have misunderstood your post. When I read the "where there is smoke" comment, I assumed you were refering to the likelyhood that the original post must have done something wrong to draw the attention of the BATF, and that if he had nothing to hide they should be allowed in. I withdraw my comments if that was not your intent. This may help to explain where I am coming from. I do not drink, and "sobriety check points" are back in the news locally. The argument made often in defending this practice is always "well, if you have not been drinking, you should have nothing to worry about. Well, no. I worry about the 4th amendment as much as the 2nd. None of our rights exist in a vaccuum.

DEANBILT
June 11, 2009, 10:34 PM
AKElroy, Thanks and thanks for the clarification. We are indeed on the same page. I am old enough and originally from a NE state which has practically stripped gun owners of their rights. I do everything by the book. Regards.

GRIZ22
June 12, 2009, 03:49 AM
Here are two posts regarding ATFE checking on multiple handgun purchases in FL in 2007. In summary the person did check with a lawyer who explained the law to him and he met with ATFE and showed them the guns. The conversation between the person and ATFE is also listed below.

initial post:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=289218

follow up post:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=289477

Conversation with ATF:

ATF: Are you armed?
ME: Yes, i have a CCW and wearing an ankle rig.

ATF: Ok, thank you for letting us know, just don't reach to your ankle, (chuckle)

ATF: Why do you by the exact same gun multiple times?
ME: I got a great deal on the HK P7s and decided to buy two.

ATF: Do you just collect guns
ME: You can say that

They thanked me for my time and shook my hands and said that if I ever had any gun related questions, to give him a call. And they left.


I guess they never came back as THR member never mentioned it again.

Quote:
Everyone they talk to is not a suspect.

At least not in your mind
__________________


I spent 31 years as a LEO 27 of them as a criminal investigator for a federal agency. I have talked to thousands of people in those 31 years getting information. That's what an investigator does. A few may become witnesses and only a small percentage of them were suspects.

sernv99
June 12, 2009, 05:51 AM
I do have "legal services" I may upgrade thuogh if this escalates.

well, since you listened to the tin-foil hat crowd on here, now you really do have to go through the hassle of getting a lawyer. If you just showed the agents your guns, you wouldn't be bothered by them anymore. All this would have passed now.

Davek1977
June 12, 2009, 06:19 AM
well, since you listened to the tin-foil hat crowd on here, now you really do have to go through the hassle of getting a lawyer. If you just showed the agents your guns, you wouldn't be bothered by them anymore. All this would have passed now.

And what good are rights if you willingly and freely give them up for the sake of mere convieince? Why don't you give up your guns? Your right to free speech? Why not allow the US govt to house troops in your living room if they see fit? You're more than willing to give up your 4th and 5th amendment rights, so why not surrender the first three as well, or the entire Bill Of Rights, or all Constitutional protections, for that matter? It sure would be easier than actually fighting for what you believe in, wouldn't it? The path of least resistence isn't always the wisest path to follow...... Some of us aren't willing to sacrifice what we believe in just because it might be "easier". The easy way really ends up being anything but in many cases

sernv99
June 12, 2009, 07:14 AM
And what good are rights....

and here we go again...:rolleyes: why don't you just lock yourself in your house, maybe that will help alleviate your concern about "the man" stepping on your "rights".

Davek1977
June 12, 2009, 07:21 AM
No thanks. I enjoy fresh air, socializing with people, and exercisising my rights IN PUBLIC. I don't need to hide in order to exercise or defend my rights. I'm not a coward or a sheep. I have independence and freedoms I value. I feel sorry for you if you don't, and if living in a box is an option for you. its not for me. My rights as a citizen are mine, no matter where I travel in this naiton of ours. I have no need to hide merely to exercise the same rights as any American has, nor should I be intimidateed by a badge into merely cooperating and taking the path of least resistence. You can call it paranoid, but I call it being an American..... you might want to try being one someday, and see how it makes you feel. It makes me feel proud to exercise the rights so many have died defending. If you want to disregard them, fine, do things your way. Just don't expectg a lot of company at the "strip my rights" convention, because most of us value them almost as much as life itself.

Rockwell1
June 12, 2009, 07:27 AM
Be advised that a few of our members are actually brady trolls it is highly likely you've recently had a run-in with one of them. I'll let you guess which one

runrabbitrun
June 12, 2009, 07:36 AM
Yep and usually thread lock is next.

Hey mods, haven't you guys seen the pattern here yet?
The trick is to get the thread locked so that the discussion can't continue.
The continuation of the discussion would lead to people learning more about their rights.

If I may suggest.
PLEASE, instead of locking the thread,
how about you mods REMOVE the people's post who are only here to inflame and 'bait' the rest of us
into responding in kind to the name calling. (i.e. tin foil hat crowd)...
This 'baiting' is designed to get the thread locked,
so we can't become more enlightened about our rights in situations like this.

Please mods and others.
Don't take the bait and recognize the pattern here.

sernv99
June 12, 2009, 07:46 AM
I have no need to hide merely to exercise the same rights as any American has, nor should I be intimidateed by a badge into merely cooperating and taking the path of least resistence

now here comes the fed/cop bashing...:rolleyes:

but I call it being an American..... you might want to try being one someday you seem to be very un-American with your bashing of the American gov't. You do know the powers to be were elected democratically by the people, yet you seem to have a hard time understanding that.


It makes me feel proud to exercise the rights so many have died defending so having the US gov't station US troops in your living room would be a good thing then, right? you seem to think otherwise given your previous statement on this matter. Make up your mind.

Be advised that a few of our members are actually brady trolls it is highly likely you've recently had a run-in with one of them. also be advised there are a few of our members here who claim to be "Americans" yet they bash anything associated with this democratically elected gov't, as well as the US military.

Rockwell1
June 12, 2009, 07:48 AM
I don’t understand why so many people on this forum are so vehemently against the exercise of our rights.

How does it negatively affect you that I choose to assert my rights? If this guy goes ahead and cooperates and finds out the hard way that yes, they really were looking to put him in jail are those of you telling him to waive his rights going to pay for his legal fees? How about the upkeep of his family? What do you lose by his insistence on protecting himself? So I’m wearing a “tinfoil hat” ( I bet Jefferson had one just like it) how does that hurt you?

Bottom line, if the OP wants to hire James Duane himself and he’s not asking you to pay for it respect his decision and BUTT OUT

as well as the US military.

I did my time, I defy you to find a single post in which I "bash" the government, the police or the army. I've even taken a poster or two to task for engaging in such "bashing"

sernv99
June 12, 2009, 07:59 AM
If this guy goes ahead and cooperates and finds out the hard way that yes, they really were looking to put him in jail get over it, you think every fed out there wants to waste their time putting all Americans in jail. Yeah, if he did something illegal, he should pay the price. If not, he won't see the inside of a cell.

Bottom line, if the OP wants to hire James Duane himself and he’s not asking you to pay for it respect his decision and BUTT OUT he had to go that route because he listened to folks like you.

I did my time, I defy you to find a single post in which I "bash" the government, the police or the army. I've even taken a poster or two to task for engaging in such "bashing" reread my posting again. Where was I qouting you about you bashing the military?

Rockwell1
June 12, 2009, 08:04 AM
he had to go that route because he listened to folks like you.

No he actually made that decision before he ever posted.

But hey, I'm going to follow my own advice, If you want to be a sheep go for it. If James Duane and Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson can't convince you I never will.

Deanimator
June 12, 2009, 08:15 AM
well, since you listened to the tin-foil hat crowd on here, now you really do have to go through the hassle of getting a lawyer. If you just showed the agents your guns, you wouldn't be bothered by them anymore. All this would have passed now.
And you know this HOW?

Oh yeah, you DON'T.

As I said, when I see somebody repeatedly give somebody "advice" which they KNOW to be wrong, it really starts to look like malice.

Rockwell1
June 12, 2009, 08:22 AM
well, since you listened to the tin-foil hat crowd on here, now you really do have to go through the hassle of getting a lawyer.


Here's the original post from the first thread. Please note that the OP made his own decision to protect himself before anyone on THR ever knew what was going on.

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

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?

I feel like my house just got cased

Note: AFAIK I have not broken any laws.


The ATF was on his property to see if there was enough evidence to warrant an investigation. IOW, they were looking for evidence a crime had been committed and our OP was a suspect. tell me again why he shouldn't protect himself in that situation?

runrabbitrun
June 12, 2009, 08:28 AM
This thread is done anyway.

OP followed his gut on this apparently
and is perfectly with-in his rights to seek legal council
BEFORE talking with the F Troop any further.

If this situation presents itself to me, I will do as 99% of the other
smart law abiding citizens posting in this thread have advised in this type situation.
(As well as every legal scholar in the land)...

After all the F troop doesn't have such a good track
record of being an upstanding
enforcement agency to begin with.
Quite frankly, I don't see why it's still in existence.
Didn't that whole prohibition thing end a long time ago? lol

divemedic
June 12, 2009, 08:37 AM
Exactly. No cop is going to come by your house and ask to look around if all he wants to do is drink tea and eat finger sandwiches. In this case, one of the agents came from over 1,000 miles away. The reason for any contact like this is to see if the person warrants further investigation. Of course they are looking for evidence, it is their job.

While showing them what they ask to see, you may inadvertently show them something that you have that is illegal. For example, that nifty rifle that you have violates 922(r). They now have PC for a cool tactical exercise.

Deanimator
June 12, 2009, 08:42 AM
get over it, you think every fed out there wants to waste their time putting all Americans in jail.
EVERY fed and ALL Americans? Doubtful.

SOME feds and SOME Americans? To a certainty.

THESE feds and THAT American? Nobody knows except THOSE feds.

The SENSIBLE response is to engage competent legal counsel and let somebody who knows what he's doing figure it out.

YOUR advice is "Insh Allah!". A friend once told me that's a lousy pre-flight check for an airplane. It's not much better as a legal strategy for the subject of a criminal investigation.

If Heath Ledger as the Joker were giving out legal advice, he'd sound a lot like you. You seem not to care what happens to the OP as long as there's a high potential for disaster. Anybody tempted to take your legal advice should remind themselves that schadenfreude isn't a German psychoanalyst.

sernv99
June 12, 2009, 09:28 AM
The SENSIBLE response is to engage competent legal counsel and let somebody who knows what he's doing figure it out.

The SENSIBLE advice is to avoid listening to folks like yourself. Tin foil hats are not one size fits all. What's next, calling a lawyer to ask if it's ok to tie your shoes?

YOUR advice is "Insh Allah!". A friend once told me that's a lousy pre-flight check for an airplane. It's not much better as a legal strategy for the subject of a criminal investigation. So thinking for oneself rather than listening to a bunch of conspiracy theorists is bad? Uhhh, must be the new thing nowadays.

If Heath Ledger as the Joker were giving out legal advice, he'd sound a lot like you. You seem not to care what happens to the OP as long as there's a high potential for disaster. Anybody tempted to take your legal advice should remind themselves that schadenfreude isn't a German psychoanalyst. yeah let's listen to you, another one in a long line of conspiracy theorists who think "the man" is after Joe Blow citizen. While you are sitting in your basement, terrified about "the man" knocking on your door, the rest of us will be happily enjoying life.:)

rbernie
June 12, 2009, 09:34 AM
Enough bickering. I suspect the OP has been long since addressed.

rbernie
June 22, 2009, 07:35 PM
A statement from the NRA ILA:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4990


In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"

Friday, June 19, 2009

NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation. For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands. But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate." That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply. Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice. Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent. There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney. NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information. Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

PythonFan
July 1, 2009, 01:23 AM
Thought you guys might like to add your 2 cents...

EDIT for kingpin:

Story from the Houston Chronicle is about ATF going door to door searching for guns that are deemed suspicious as possible straw purchases.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6505651.html

kingpin008
July 1, 2009, 01:27 AM
We'd be a lot more likely to follow the link if you'd give us even the most basic description of what we're going to be encountering when we click the link.

Thanks.

RoostRider
July 1, 2009, 01:48 AM
It puts you on a list to be submitted to the government for a 'random' search for illegal weapons....

kidding of course.... unless..... no, serious.... I think.....

It's regarding the BATFE searching for guns being straw purchased to be sent to Mexico... hence, the BATFE is going "a house at a time" searching for illegal guns/purchasers....

Oyeboten
July 1, 2009, 02:12 AM
I thought it was the BofATFandE and other alphabet-soup beurocracies who were sending all these 'guns' to Mexico in the first place.


Gets confusing.


Old Uncle Scam sure likes playing 'Hide the Salami'...


Yeeeeeeesh...

nalioth
July 1, 2009, 02:36 AM
This is old news, folks.

First reported weeks ago by one of our own:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=453768

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=455650

Rockwell1
July 1, 2009, 04:10 AM
It might be old news but it's wonderful opportunity to spread some truth via the comments section of the article

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