[BSA1]

Why the feat of the BATF?

Recently someone asked a question about a mental health committment when he was a juvenile would prohibit purchase of a firearm. The answers generally were to hire a lawyer. I did a web search and found the same general answer to a same previous question on THR.

No one suggested simply calling the BATF. I was going to to but the thread was closed.

Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help?

As a career government bureaucrat I was the most knowledgable about the policies of my particular department not a lawyer from the street. In fact odds were I would get a phone call from that lawyer asking about our policy on a certan issue.

So it would make the most sense simply to call the local BATF office and ask them the question. The advice would be correct and best of all free.

Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help?

Is there a fear that by contacting the BATF the caller will be added to a list to investigate, raid their home or otherwise harrass?

Does anyone have any documented prove of this happening?

We have all heard the Internet stories which are very one sided and lacking in facts. If the fear is the government will now know you own a gun you better put your tinfoil hat on cause they already do.

[Ryanxia]

It could also be they suggest a lawyer because they will give you the most honest answer. There are numerous occasions where people have asked their local LEO and gotten false information (whether on purpose or because police generally aren't up to date on all the gun laws).

I've also heard first hand accounts of the ATF being less than gun rights friendly :)

I'm sure someone will offer a better answer but just my 2 cents.

[Sam1911]

With the caveat that I've never called the BATFE about anything... my understanding is that if you do manage to get an answer over the phone (and you likely won't), the answer is non-binding. It is far better to get an opinion in written form. My further understanding is that even written opinions are not truly "binding" but that they do generally protect the person to whom they are addressed ... though possibly not anyone else.

So, saying that the information you'd get by calling the local field office would be "correct" is far overstating the facts.

I think the broader reason is that what the law strictly says, and what the BATFE interpretation of the law are often thought to diverge, and what the BATFE "recommends" (whether or not they can enforce that recommendation), may be different. Asking a knowledgeable attorney might be thought to be a way of getting a more disinterested opinion about what the questioner's true standing under the law is.

I don't think anyone (well... most of us :rolleyes:) have any fear of being "put on a list" for calling and asking a question. The issue has more to do with official obfuscation, inconsistency, and contradiction.

[Carne Frio]

This is how "they" at BATFE have been protecting you.
http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html

[Art Eatman]

Inconsistency: Some (not all) BATFE employees behave in an anti-gun-owner fashion. Some have different interpretations of a rule (IRS is the same in that).

When a powerful bureaucracy is inconsistent in its statements and actions, being trusting is foolish.

[dogtown tom]

BSA1 ....Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help? ....

Its not fear of angering the beast, but fear of getting a wrong answer.
A short list of bad info that I've received from ATF in the last few years:

-Handguns cannot be mailed by anyone through the USPS.
-Firearm shipments can only be shipped to the dealers premises address.
-All firearm shipments must be shipped to a licensed dealer.
-1911 frames are pistols and not "other firearms".
-The shipping dealer is required to enclose a copy of his FFL with the firearm.

There's more, just search on this or any other forum.

I HAVE also received excellent information from ATF........by IOI's that understand that simply citing regulations keeps them from giving bad information. My first IOI would never just give me a yes or no answer....instead he would tell me what citation from the US Code applied to my question.

[CoRoMo]

Once Posted by TexasRifleman:

But this is the ATF, a government agency who decreed that every 14 inch shoestring in the United States was an illegal machinegun. It took them 2 years to realize what they had done and back off of their statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem here is that you are not dealing with simply "the police".

This is an agency that has publicly admitted to training it's agents to lie, whose motto is "Always Think Forfeiture" and who has tried in every way possible to demonize firearms and shooters, especially those who engage in legal private sales.

You simply can't risk dealing with an agency like this on the hope that "it will all turn out OK".

Care must be taken in any dealings with them. I have no doubt that many of their agents are good honest people, but the agency as a whole has a reputation for being extremely dishonest, so it would be very naive to not exercise caution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of training for ATF special agents and state and local task force officers, ATF purchased a number of Leatherman tool kits engraved with the words ‘ATF – Asset Forfeiture’ and ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ for distribution to the participants. These training aids were designed to increase awareness of the asset forfeiture concept so that persons who do not regularly employ the strategy as part of a criminal investigation might be reminded to consider it.

nuff said

[dogrunner]

Well, you could roughly start with the Ballough case in MD thirty some odd years back, pass thru the Branch Dividian compound, add in the Ruby Ridge affair and tack up the Fast and Furious debacle as 'rough' examples of a LE agency out of any reasonable semblance of control or civilized behavior.

I'm sure there are a lotta other incidents that haven't seen the massive negative publicity of those cited, but I'll ad a commentary made to me by a close friend that is a retired Federal LEO.....succinctly that the agency had a long standing history of hiring the dregs of the LEO community! That said, I have known several that were outstanding and dedicated employees......still, that MUCH heat has it's origins in both failed law and policy. It evidences a consistent lack of leadership (or the WRONG kind of leadership) and a disdain for the basic law of the land itself!

[Tirod]

As a career government bureaucrat I was the most knowledgable about the policies of my particular department not a lawyer from the street.

Policies aren't law, and you didn't have the authority to interpret them by your own discretion and imprison citizens until proven innocent.

And bureaucrats don't formulate regulations that impact the nation's citizenry with the force of law, like the California Air Resources Board.

Bluntly, it's naive to think that bureaucrats and LEO's are dispassionate, even handed and fair in dealing with the public at all. There are many, yes. And there are those who aren't, who condemn private property to sell out to a corporation for the municipality to gather taxable revenue, who deliberately allow illegal sales of firearms that wind up in the hands of drug terrorists who kill other officers, who charge convention fees to the taxpayer in a ruse to cover their on-the-clock vacation.

No, some of us would just leave the government out of it entirely. I guess we're a bit jaded about our fellow citizens having our best interests in mind.

We now recognize that others will take advantage of us at any opportunity. Entirely the reason we support the Second Amendment, ya know. Fundamental.

[jungle]

Public approval of congress is about 14%. Why would anyone think approval of the giant and unneeded bureaucracies they have created, like the ATF and IRS to name but two, is any higher?

We fully understand that government does not grant rights, it can only diminish them.

We are not afraid of this, our reaction is one of disgust and loathing.

[Sky]

This is how "they" at BATFE have been protecting you.
http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html

Is one heck of a disgrace if the incidences are true. But we can not believe all that is posted on the web....

Seems like once upon a time long long ago in a place called Nuremberg there were some guys who just said they were just following orders. Who knows maybe one day the policy writers for the BTAF will face the same type of hearings; doubt it though, Nuremberg took a war to get a judgement and I just do no see that happening here.

I have been dealing with some immigration issues this last year for a friend. 'Besides going through a 10 minute rotary answering service disguised in every way possible to keep you from talking to a real live person' my experience with a real talking person seems to be, " call one and get an answer, call again and speak with a different person and get a different answer". So unless you are lucky with the call it is pot luck on getting the proper info. I can only assume it would be the same with BTAF. Either way I am not planning on calling them even if Red Dawn happens in my back yard.

It is a shame when a government agency loses the trust of the citizens and stirs up so much angst.

[Frank Ettin]

Several things:

[1] The involuntary commitment question you referred to is a lot more complicated than a phone call to BATF can reasonably deal with. The exact facts matter a great deal, and both state law and federal law could be issues.

[2] When one calls a governmental agency, the person on the phone might not be a lawyer. And even if he or she is a lawyer, he or she is not your lawyer.

[3] In the course of my career I've dealt with a number of governmental agencies on behalf of clients. There are some things to call them to ask about and some things not to. And for information that one can really rely on, one needs to follow a reasonably formal process to get an official, written opinion.

[4] In my view, and based on more than 30 years as a lawyer, not calling a regulatory agency is not necessarily about paranoia or fear that the government might find something out about you. It's that some questions are really outside the scope of what you can expect a guy on the telephone to be able to fully and accurately answer.

[Joeyp]

Look at any government agency that enforces policy and you have an entity with nearly unlimited resources to prosecute you. While the average person has very limited resources to defend themselves. If you happen to prevail legally you may still be harrased or pursued further civilly. I used to wonder why the US has so many laws on the books and concluded that it is so they can turn almost anyone into a felon if necessary.

[mr.scott]

JoeyP you nailed it. Laws aren't created to protect us, they are created to control us.

[Shadow 7D]

Several things:

[1] The involuntary commitment question you referred to is a lot more complicated than a phone call to BATF can reasonably deal with. The exact facts matter a great deal, and both state law and federal law could be issues.

[2] When one calls a governmental agency, the person on the phone might not be a lawyer. And even if he or she is a lawyer, he or she is not your lawyer.

[3] In the course of my career I've dealt with a number of governmental agencies on behalf of clients. There are some things to call them to ask about and some things not to. And for information that one can really rely on, one needs to follow a reasonably formal process to get an official, written opinion.

[4] In my view, and based on more than 30 years as a lawyer, not calling a regulatory agency is not necessarily about paranoia or fear that the government might find something out about you. It's that some questions are really outside the scope of what you can expect a guy on the telephone to be able to fully and accurately answer.
Add to it that they admit to 'failing to explain the full letter of the law'
and that many times you run into agents who have no clue what the LAW says, only the Dept. regs.

[medalguy]

Let me provide my own personal experience.

A good many years ago I was an FFL and SOT. On numerous occasions I had BATFE enforcement agents come to my shop, or call me on the phone, asking for clarification of the law on Title II weapons. They were using me as their source to understand what was legal and what was not. Imagine them asking me, a "civilian", for clarification to a question that you had posed to them. Would you want to rely on that information in a legal proceeding against you later?

On another instance, two BATFE enforcement agents came to my shop requesting to "borrow" a machine gun I owned as inventory, stating that they needed to use it in an attemped sting operation. Let's see, they wanted me to give them a weapon registered to me? Not very damn likely.

As Frank said, there are just some things you need to get either from your own attorney who is looking out for your interests, or you want to get in writing from the BATFE legal office.

Oh, another reason to fear them? They can put you in jail and force you to exhaust all your resources defending yourself, right or wrong.

[BSA1]

Thank you for some very interesting replies. The responses are basically as follows and I will state that I do not feel of them are wrong since they are the posters personal opinion:

1. The BATF will not correctly answer your question, either by being deliberately dishonest, incompetent or anti-gun mission.

2. Never trust the answer you get on the telephone. Makes dang good sense to me. A written request will get a written response.

3. Only a lawyer can correctly interpret law, rules and regulations. I have a lot of doubts about this theory. What is not mentioned is a lawyer costs money, a good lawyer even more money (and who wants a bad lawyer?). So first I must find a lawyer that specializes in gun rights, pay a retainer up front and then his fee for the research which could easily be several hours ($$$$). And then if the lawyer’s advice is wrong he doesn’t go to jail I do…

4. The website of alleged abuses by the BATF does not withstand verificiation. I crosschecked most of the cases on Google or Yahoo and could not find independent reporting of the incidents. The articles were all very one sided and lacked enough information to form opinion. In one case the gun owners subsequently slipped of his electronic monitoring device and became a fugitive from justice. I am not saying the BATF conducts illegal raids and abuses its authority only that the website used is worthless.

5. Mistrust of the Federal Government is at all time low. Ding, ding , ding. Speaking for myself I find this to be true.

So here is my problem. I have a C&R license and I have a question regarding it. I don’t have the money to pay a lawyer for researching my question. Where do I turn?

[dogtown tom]

BSA1
So here is my problem. I have a C&R license and I have a question regarding it. I don’t have the money to pay a lawyer for researching my question. Where do I turn?
Ummmm................THR is every bit as reliable as your local ATF office.

Heck, we'll even post the applicable citation from ATF regulations.

What's your question?

[BSA1]

It involves purchasing and reselling C&R guns. Is it allowed, can I make a profit, how many guns before I become a business? I got my license for my own use but co-workers are asking me about ordering guns for them.

[Shadow 7D]

And most often, unlike the ATF, we even post the LAW that covers the regulation.
Consider, my congressman just put out a shotgun Email about BAFTE AGENTS and industry inspectors demanding FFL's logbooks and 4473's and attempting to remove them from the business premiss.

THIS IS ILLEGAL, grossly, and those FFL's that complied are now in VIOLATION of ATF regulations....

Incompetence? malice? what?

[Shadow 7D]

You are a collector
ONLY A COLLECTOR
you can not engage in the Business of dealing in firearms (FFL 1)

BUT, you are allowed to purchase and sell weapons in order to improve your collection
purchasing a crate of mosins, then putting the crate out at the gunshow will attract attention, BUT is perfectly legal (if less than tasteful to some, and that can cause legal troubles) if the point of purchasing the crate was to improve your collection, and you are disposing of those that fail to improve your collection.

as for price, you can make or loose as much money as you wish, so long as you are not in the business of selling and buying guns.

[Frank Ettin]

...Only a lawyer can correctly interpret law, rules and regulations. I have a lot of doubts about this theory. What is not mentioned is a lawyer costs money, a good lawyer even more money (and who wants a bad lawyer?). So first I must find a lawyer that specializes in gun rights, pay a retainer up front and then his fee for the research which could easily be several hours ($$$$). And then if the lawyer’s advice is wrong he doesn’t go to jail I do…[1] Of course it's not only a lawyer who can interpret law. But it is what we've been educated to do, and it is what we do for a living. If we're not doing a good job of it, we'll soon find ourselves without clients. And then we won't be making a living at it anymore.

[2] Yes, lawyers cost money. That's how we make our livings. On the other hand, what's at stake for you? Your property? Your freedom? And it's been my experience that it costs less to have a lawyer try to help keep you out of trouble than to try to get you out of trouble once you've gotten yourself into it. It's up to you.

[3] Your lawyer works for and represents you. If you run into problems, your lawyer will be there to try to help fix things. A governmental regulatory agency does not work for or represent you, so if you run into problems you can't expect them to try to help fix them.

[Cosmoline]

Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help?

I think it's appropriate to send a *formal* request to that agency if you are an FFL holder or other professional who has a technical question and has consulted with counsel. Otherwise you should not be communicating with them at all. They're not there to help. They exist to enforce the strongly anti-gun legislation passed by Congress over the years. They don't exist to help people own more firearms or shoot straighter.

Does anyone have any documented prove of this happening?


Of people being put in prison based on what they admitted to the agency? Oh heck yeah. Let me be very clear about this. Anything you say to any agency can and will be used against you. There is no privilege, no special confidential relationship, and no obligation on their part to protect you from the implications. So if you call and ask if your 14" full auto AK is legal they may well get your address and arrest you. That's not paranoia, it's common sense. Lots and lots of folks in prison lack common sense.

[JRH6856]

'Besides going through a 10 minute rotary answering service disguised in every way possible to keep you from talking to a real live person' my experience with a real talking person seems to be, " call one and get an answer, call again and speak with a different person and get a different answer".

So, you're saying you would have been better off sticking with the answering service? Maybe the designer knew something...

[Sky]

So, you're saying you would have been better off sticking with the answering service? Maybe the designer knew something...

hahaha could not get there from the rotary but one lady informed me the prior info I had received from a male respondant was incorrect and really did help. Did what she said by eliminating about 5 government forms and was successful by saving some money bundling.

[whalerman]

BSA, you seem like a nice guy. And I thank you for posting in the spirit you have. But I'm thinking your pure and innocent thought processes are the result of many years of working in such an agency. We are gun owners. A super high percentage of us, I repeat, an extrememly high percentage of us, are extremely law abiding citizens. Despite that fact, we have faced a lifetime of "gotcha leadership" from government regarding gun laws. I live in NY state. We have no shortage of gun laws, many of them proven to be ineffective, foolish, counterproductive, and designed solely to impress the ignorant. In other words, Sir, the issue has never been dealt with honestly. And now you ask why we honest citizens do not trust the main bureaucracy charged with administering those policies? Nothing personal, but you are part of the charade. The best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether. Now if we were law breakers, seeking to avoid a harsh sentence and searching for loopholes, our lawyers would certainly give you a call. But the average Joe is best served by being as invisible as possible to an agency that serves one purpose only, that being to be a political pawn to the slugs and bureaucrats manipulating the system. And one last thing, we don't fear the BATF, or whatever the current fashionable name is. We just know what it is all about.

[Big JJ]

BSA1
While all of the above information is very good, the answer to your original question is very simple.
It comes down to trust. The sad truth is not many citizens trust our government or any branch of it.
Guilt by association BATF, FBI, CIA, IRS you name it there are many more.
I must say a lot of this mistrust is well earned by our government agencies.
While I personally or legally do not have any issues with my back ground.
I would never trust any government agency that I was not absolutely forced to trust.

[whalerman]

These agencies are not guided by law or the Constitution, they are guided by the politics of the moment. The reason we don't trust you is you haven't shot straight in the past.

[Agsalaska]

I would love to add to this but between some posts on the first page and whalermans post 26, you guys have pretty much nailed it.

[Deanimator]

Why the feat of the BATF?
There's simply no chance of me trusting an organization that once produced an OFFICIAL training video on how to lie under oath.

Combine that with running guns into Mexico in order to justify another assault weapon ban, and I wouldn't trust that mob as far as I could throw Rosie O'Donnell and a boxcar full of bags of hammers.

[RobNDenver]

I think that is a rumor that has grown to urban legend over the years. Recently I purchased two suppressors and wanted to know how the form 4 was progressing. I called the BATFE at about 4 months and spoke to a very friendly person who explained that my applications had been received and were being worked. At six months (about the expected time) I called again and a friendly person told me that the forms were approved and mailed back to my dealer on such and such a date. Like the OP, I have found most government agencies bend over backwards to be nice to citizens who call and ask for help, or seek information.

[Deanimator]

I think that is a rumor that has grown to urban legend over the years.
Who goes in front of Congress to apologize for "rumors" and "urban legends"?

[archigos]

Some ATF agents are good people.
However, the ATF has refined its primary purpose to be the infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Why would I as a gun owner and freedom-loving American have any trust for them?

[Cosmoline]

I have found most government agencies bend over backwards to be nice to citizens who call and ask for help, or seek information.

Contrary to the TV image of cops beating suspects up, they're actually pretty darn friendly when they're getting ready to put you in prison, too. That's where the lying part comes in. You may have to work with them, certainly. The law requires you to do so in certain circumstances. But tread with extreme caution. They may be friendly, but that does NOT mean they are your friends.

[Carl N. Brown]

People have been prosecuted after following advice from ATF when the ATF person giving the advice gave bad information, that was followed in good faith and may have been given in good faith.

Federal prosecutors are very often more concerned with "wins" than in justice, and federal judges bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to federal law enforcement. Read the court rulings in Ballew, Clifton v Cox and Idaho v Horiuchi.

[mgregg85]

I fear any government agency that has the power to bind and loose with almost no oversight. Look at what happened with the Akins accelerator, first the ATF boys said it was legal then changed their mind 2 years later and destroyed a man's business overnight. They even had the gall to round up all the legally sold accelerator stocks.

Does any other federal law enforcement agency get away with these shenanigans?

[DMF]

Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help? Ignorance and/or irrational/paranoid thoughts.

[X-Rap]

Does any other federal law enforcement agency get away with these shenanigans?
__________________


Shorter list and better question might be naming an agency that doesn't.

[DMF]

People have been prosecuted after following advice from ATF when the ATF person giving the advice gave bad information, that was followed in good faith and may have been given in good faith.Really, lets see some citations from court cases where the person showed they acted in good faith on information provided by ATF and were prosecuted anyway.Federal prosecutors are very often more concerned with "wins" than in justice, and federal judges bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to federal law enforcement. Read the court rulings in Ballew, Clifton v Cox and Idaho v Horiuchi.Ballew, that's one of my favorites. So what's your problem with the prosecution of Ballew? The guy was making grenades, barricaded his door when LE tried to serve a warrant, then pointed an antique firearm (still capable of easily killing someone) at the officers/agents serving the warrant.

Before you go off half cocked about Ballew, you might want to research the FACTS. NOT what some fool with no interest in the truth wrote in his work of fiction ("Unintended Consequences"), but the actual facts.

Look forward to seeing what you have to offer about Ballew.

[Frank Ettin]

All of the concerns voiced regarding dealing with the ATF apply to any governmental regulatory agency. And they simply arise because the agencies job is not looking out for your interests. Their job is furthering the mission and interests of the agency and most efficiently administering the statutes and regulations within their purview. They are easier to understand when considered in those terms.

If a regulatory agency can help assure that someone with a question will follow and abide by the statutes and regulations the agency administers, the mission of the agency is being furthered. To promote that purpose, agency personnel will, in that context and within the limits of their knowledge, be helpful to persons with questions. But you need to be clear that's their purpose, not furthering your own interests.

Another thing to consider is that often when one calls an agency with a question, he may fail to provide all the information necessary to the agency to provide an accurate response. This often occurs because the person asking the question isn't thorough familiar with the statutes and regulations and may, therefore, not fully appreciate what information can be important.

[Drail]

Anyone who has ever "dealt with" the clowns of BATFE understands why you should fear them. They're not your friends and they are not working for you. You look just like a target to them.

[Kiln]

Anyone who doesn't trust the ATF is just being paranoid. The ATF always has our best interests in mind...like when they were helping uncle sam push for harsher weapons regulations by selling military grade weapons to cartels in Mexico and blaming US citizens and FFL dealers.

[Sambo82]

I don't like dealing with the ATF for the same reason I don't like dealing with the angry fat lady at the DMV. Except she can't invent a reason to throw me in prison for 10 years...

[whalerman]

Mr Ettin, I don't think there is any agency, even the "well-respected" EPA, that has so justly earned its reputation as a politically driven machine. You cannot trust an agency that constantly adjusts its beliefs on which way the winds are blowing. They are driven by policies of the moment, not by law. Certainly not by the Constitution. That piece of drivel just gets in their way.

As far as their "interests". Their interests should be serviing us. They work for us. They should be concerned with helping people comply with the laws, not playing a constant game of gotcha and bait and switch. I realize you are using your last name. That makes a big difference in what people can say.

[mr.trooper]

Gun nuts have a LONG history of xenophobia and paranoia.

Some of it is founded and some of it isn't.

Either way, it is a central part of out culture - so much that I just assume anyone who is a fellow gun nut is going to be an 'eccentric' persona and roll with it.

[BSA1]

Whalerman,

Although your comments are meant to chide me I do not find the offensive. I learned through experience the folks from the Northeast look down on us here is the Midwest.

My original question has to do with contacting the BATF for help. I asked for documentation that a caller was added to a list to investigate, raid their home or otherwise harassed for contacting the BATF for help with what the law and regulations state?

No far no one has offered any documentation. The one link that was offered lacks any verification.

My follow up question concerns selling guns with my C&R license. The answers were somewhat vague and still leaves me in the dark. And since the profit is so small it is not worth me spending several hundred dollars to have a lawyer research it.

You then launched into your personal attack on me because as a former government worker I am put on some “charade” and “the best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether.” I am not quite sure where to go with these statements.

What “charade” are you referring to? My belief that most government agencies and workers want to help citizens? I most certainly will confess to this. I believe as a Christian and in God that despite how bad things seem people are basically good.

When you say “the best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether” are you saying that I am a illegal gun owner? Or unless I believe the way you do I should not be allowed to own a gun? Does this apply to your views on the BATF or all government or the world in general?

There is enough hate in America on talk radio and now on this thread. I profoundly regret the hate that it has generated. It is clear that this is too emotional of a subject for the information I seek. Moderator please shut it down.

[Frank Ettin]

....I don't think there is any agency, even the "well-respected" EPA, that has so justly earned its reputation as a politically driven machine. You cannot trust an agency that constantly adjusts its beliefs on which way the winds are blowing. They are driven by policies of the moment, not by law. ...

As far as their "interests". Their interests should be serviing us.....A fairly typical emotion driven perspective on any governmental agency (whether the ATF, IRS, FDA, EPA, DEA, etc.) the activities of which interfere with one's interests and desires -- a perspective that is both common and counter-productive. It underscores another reason one can be well advised to use a lawyer when dealing with a governmental agency, at least if a lot is at stake. With a lawyer one gets, in addition to education, knowledge and skill, professional objectivity.

[Bubbles]

...co-workers are asking me about ordering guns for them.
You need a Type 01 FFL if you're buying guns specifically to resell.

[jungle]

Interesting history here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives

So in addition to keeping the gov monopoly on the booze and smokes market free from competition, they spend a lot of time seperating honest citizens and their weapons.

Uncle Sam doesn't like it when you steal, he hates the competition.

Perhaps they should arrest the mayors of NY, Chicago and Detroit among many other places for the infringement of the constitutional rights of the citizens? Protect and serve? Isn't there an oath involved?

Nothing to be paranoid about, move along, nothing to see here.:D

BSA1, why is it you are asking us for information the BATFE could easily and cheerfully give you? They would be happy to cite the law for you, just as the IRS has been known to give 300 different answers to the exact same question. None of them binding, written or not.

[Carl N. Brown]

My point was not the documentary accuracy of the fictionalized account of the Ballew case in Unintended Consequences .

My point was:
....federal judges bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to federal law enforcement. Read the court rulings in Ballew, Clifton v Cox and Idaho v Horiuchi.
The court rulings I was referring to are:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/ballew_v_us.txt Ballew v. U.S., 389 F. Supp. 47 (D. Md. 1975)
I have a download of the text of Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1977) but the link is not available to me right now.
Idaho v Horiuchi mentions Clifton v Cox also: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html

My sources on the Ballew Raid go back to 1971 through 1975. I did not even mention or cite Unintended Consequences (1996) in my post.

However, since one is looking forward to seeing what I have to offer about Ballew:

Ballew was not making hand grenades. Had no live grenades. He was a military veteran, he owned five dummy grenades as demilitarised souvenirs which did not contain explosive charges (see ATF FAQ on dummy grenades http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#dummy-ammo ). Three had been rigged to pop caps as noise makers. The ATF told the judge what Ballew could have done not what he actually had done: he could have plugged the hole in the practice grenade, he could have put gunpowder for his muzzleloader in the grenade, he could have put a cap in the firing mechanism, and the judge accepted their opinion, even though acknowledging that if Ballew had jury-rigged the grenade like that, it would have exploded in his hand as soon as the safety spoon was released.

The door that had furniture in front of it led to the utility corridor of the apartment; the furniture blocked entrance before the raid. If it hindered the entrance of the agents breaking down the backdoor, maybe they should have knocked and served the warrant at the front door allowing them to identify themselves as agents with a warrant. The agents wore street clothes and their reason given to the court was because it was a high crime neighborhood. Ballew claimed that he kept the back door barricaded because it was a high crime neighborhood, and when the backdoor was being broken down by persons unknown, he presumed it was a criminal break-in.

The original reports at the time claimed he fired first at the agents who were forced to return fire. The court ruling accurately notes that when ATF Agent Seals forced his way through the door, he saw Ballew standing nude pointing gun down the hallway:
Shouting, "He's got a gun," Agent Seals drew his own pistol
from his holster, fired a shot and moved to the left to take cover.

Montgomery County Police Officer Royce R. Hibbs was the next
member of the team to enter the room. He likewise observed
plaintiff pointing a handgun in his direction. Hibbs ducked to the
right, firing several shots as he sought to move to a place of
safety.

Next into the room was Officer Louis Ciamillo of the
Montgomery County Police. When he saw plaintiff pointing a revolver
in his direction, he took careful aim with his pistol and fired.
From the evidence, this Court finds that Officer Ciamillo fired the
shot which struck plaintiff in the head. Plaintiff fell to the
floor bleeding profusely, firing his own weapon as he fell. It
cannot be determined on the record here whether plaintiff attempted
to fire his weapon at the police officers before he himself was
struck. What is clear is that his revolver did not discharge until
he was actually falling and that the projectile from his revolver
was discharged in a downward direction.

from Ballew v. U.S., 389 F. Supp. 47 (D. Md. 1975)

[JRH6856]

acknowledging that if Ballew had jury-rigged the grenade like that, it would have exploded in his hand as soon as the safety spoon was released.

but he could have pulled the pin from a distance with a string...:evil:

[DMF]

The court rulings I was referring to are:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bard...allew_v_us.txt Ballew v. U.S., 389 F. Supp. 47 (D. Md. 1975)
I have a download of the text of Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1977) but the link is not available to me right now.
Idaho v Horiuchi mentions Clifton v Cox also: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html

My sources on the Ballew Raid go back to 1971 through 1975. I did not even mention or cite Unintended Consequences (1996) in my post.

However, since one is looking forward to seeing what I have to offer about Ballew:

Ballew was not making hand grenades. Had no live grenades. He was a military veteran, he owned five dummy grenades as demilitarised souvenirs which did not contain explosive charges (see ATF FAQ on dummy grenades http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nati...tml#dummy-ammo ). Three had been rigged to pop caps as noise makers. The ATF told the judge what Ballew could have done not what he actually had done: he could have plugged the hole in the practice grenade, he could have put gunpowder for his muzzleloader in the grenade, he could have put a cap in the firing mechanism, and the judge accepted their opinion, even though acknowledging that if Ballew had jury-rigged the grenade like that, it would have exploded in his hand as soon as the safety spoon was released.

The door that had furniture in front of it led to the utility corridor of the apartment; the furniture blocked entrance before the raid. If it hindered the entrance of the agents breaking down the backdoor, maybe they should have knocked and served the warrant at the front door allowing them to identify themselves as agents with a warrant. The agents wore street clothes and their reason given to the court was because it was a high crime neighborhood. Ballew claimed that he kept the back door barricaded because it was a high crime neighborhood, and when the backdoor was being broken down by persons unknown, he presumed it was a criminal break-in.

The original reports at the time claimed he fired first at the agents who were forced to return fire. The court ruling accurately notes that when ATF Agent Seals forced his way through the door, he saw Ballew standing nude pointing gun down the hallway:You might want to read your own citation as much of what you've claimed about the case is false, as is proven by the court record which you yourself have cited. Maybe you're not aware, but what judges and juries do is determine the facts to render a judgement.

The judge determined that what Ballew possessed were in fact "destructive devices" as defined by the US Code.

From your own citation:
"Plaintiff argues that Agent Davis should have undertaken a
more extensive and careful investigation before seeking a search
warrant from the Magistrate. The simple answer to this contention
is that Davis' belief stated in the affidavit that there were
unregistered hand grenades in Ballew's apartment proved to be
entirely accurate. This Court finds that several of the grenades
seized by the federal agents on June 7, 1971 in Ballew's apartment,
in combination with components likewise seized, were firearms as
defined in the National Firearms Act and had not been registered as
required by law.

Plaintiff contends that the items seized were harmless when
found, were neither designed nor intended to be used as firearms
and therefore were not in violation of federal law. The evidence
in this case does not support such contention.

26 U.S.C. section 5861(d) makes it unlawful for any person "to
* * * possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the
National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; * * *."
section 5845(a)(8) defines firearm as "a destructive device." The
term "destructive device" is further defined as follows in section
5845(f):

(f) Destructive device.-The term "destructive device"
means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb,
(B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more
than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or
incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or
(F) similar device; (2) any type of weapon by whatever name
known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel
a projectile by the action of an explosive or other
propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more
than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun
shell which the Secretary or his delegate finds is generally
recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and
(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for
use in converting any device into a destructive device as de-
fined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a
destructive device may be readily assembled. The term
"destructive device" shall not include any device which is
neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any
device, although originally designed for use as a weapon,
which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line
throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordinance sold,
loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the
provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of
the United States Code; or any other device which the
Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate finds is not likely
to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which
the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

In United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 609, 91 S.Ct. 1112,
1118, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971), Mr. Justice Douglas observed that the
National Firearms Act "is a regulatory measure in the interest of
public safety, which may well be premised on the theory that one
would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades
is not an innocent act." More recently, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has had occasion to construe section
6845(f) in United States v. Morningstar, 456 P. 2d 278 (4th Cir.
1972). At page 280 of that opinion, the Court said the following:

Section 5845(f), subparagraph (1) deals with explosive and
incendiary devices which have no business or industrial
utility. They are covered regardless of their intended use.
Subparagraph (2) is inapplicable because it refers to weapons.
Subparagraph (3) deals with two types of materials "from
which a destructive device may be readily assembled.". The
first type is a "combination of parts. . . designed. . . for
use in converting any device into a destructive device. . ."
[Emphasis added] such as a bomb. This type includes, for
example, the unassembled parts of a military fragmentation or
incendiary bomb. Because of their design they are proscribed
regardless of how the possessor intends to use them. If
Congress had resolved not to include commercial explosives, it
could have stopped at this point. Instead, in subparagraph
(3) it defined a second type of illegal materials as a
"combination of parts. . . intended for use in converting
any device into a destructive device. . . ." [Emphasis
added] such as a bomb. It is apparent, therefore, that
Congress provided that the use for which these materials are
intended determines whether they fall within the Act.
(Emphasis in original.)

At page 281, the Court went on to say:

On its face, the definition of a destructive device gives
fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that
includes any combination of parts intended to be used as a
bomb or weapon and from which a bomb or weapon can be readily
assembled. See United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617,
74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954).

Included among the many items seized in plaintiff's apartment
on June 7, 1971 were a practice fragmentation hand grenade, a
plastic, baseball type grenade, and a smoke or gas grenade
canister. (Defendant's Exhibits Nos. 6, 7 and 8). Each of these
items was equipped with a grenade fuse assembly. Also recovered in
proximity to the grenades were several cans of black powder and a
number of cans of smokeless powder suitable for use in rifles,
pistols and shotguns. (Defendant's Exhibits Nos. 10-15,
inclusive). From the testimony of the witness Scroggie (called as
an expert by the government) and from an examination of the
exhibits themselves, including photographs of various tests
conducted by the government, this Court finds that these three
grenades together with the powder seized were in combination both
designed and intended to be used as destructive devices. Although
these grenades could not have been exploded as found, they could
have been fully activated merely by adding either the black powder
or the smokeless powder likewise seized in plaintiff's apartment on
June 7, 1971. [footnote 15] Unassembled parts of a hand grenade,
like parts of a military fragmentation bomb, would be a combination
of parts "designed" for use in converting any device into a de-
structive device within the meaning of section 5845(f)(3). See
United States v. Morningstar, supra, 456 F.2d at 280. In United
States v. Shafer, 445 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 404 U.S.
986, 92 S.Ct. 448, 30 L.Ed.2d 370 (1971), the Court held that
grenade shells, fuses and powder in combination constituted a "de-
structive device" under section 5846(f), even though unassembled.
In United States v. Kiliyan, 456 F.2d 555 (8th Cir. 1972), a
training grenade, similar to Defendant's Exhibit No. 6 in this
case, was held to be in violation of this statute.

Plaintiff relies on that part of section 5845(f) which
provides that "the term 'destructive device' shall not include any
device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a
weapon, * * *." It is argued that possession of ordinary household
articles would result in a violation of the law if the government's
interpretation of the statute is accepted here. Such argument was
specifically rejected in United States v. Davis, 313 F.Supp. 710,
714 (D.Conn. 1970), in which the Court found that cloth, gasoline
and bottles which could be used to construct a Molotov cocktail
were a combination of parts in violation of section 5845(f). The
Court concluded that what Congress meant by the term "combination"
was "an association of the components of a destructive device, at
the same time and place, capable of being converted into a
destructive device-not an actual union of parts in an assembled
device." See also United States v. Ross, 458 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th
Cir. 1972).

Moreover, the grenade shells themselves in this case had been
"redesigned" for use as a weapon. Thus, the component parts seized
here would also fall within the second type of illegal materials
proscribed by section 5845(f)(3), as the evidence shows that in
combination they were "intended" to be converted into destructive
devices such as active hand grenades. [footnote 16] Plaintiff was
a collector of firearms and ammunition of various types and was in
possession of a large quantity of weapons, devices and component
parts at the time of the raid on June 7, 1971. Plaintiff spent
much of his spare time disassembling, cleaning and re-assembling
his weapons and firing them at practice ranges. He had inserted
pistol primers in the fuse assemblies of the smoke grenade
(Defendant's Exhibit No. 8) and the practice hand grenade
(Defendant's Exhibit No. 6), had placed paper caps in the fuse
assembly of the plastic grenade (Defendant's Exhibit No. 7) and had
done other work on these devices designed to reactivate them. By
placing live pistol primers in two of these grenades, plaintiff
clearly disclosed his intention to make them explosive. Plaintiff
argues that the smoke grenade contained no delay element and
therefore could not in fact be used as a true hand grenade.
Although as reactivated the smoke grenade could not be thrown with-
out causing injury to the thrower, it was quite capable of being
used with other items in the apartment as a booby trap and as such
constituted a destructive device within the meaning of section
5845(f) (3)."

However, even though what the officers/agents recovered were in fact destructive devices as defined in the law, that is irrelevant to whether or not they had established probable cause for the search. Again, your own citation shows they clearly had established probable cause for the search.

Further, your claim that the door was not a normal entry door is also false. The door the officers/agents used led directly into the living room of the apartment.

Again from your own citation:
"Shortly before 8:30 P.M. on June 7, 1971, the law enforcement
officers entered the building through a laundry room and then
proceeded by way of a flight of stairs to an interior hallway and
a door which led from the hallway into the living room of Apartment
No. 2. [footnote 8] . . .

. . . 8. Plaintiff argues that the officers did not enter through the
"front" door. Whether or not the door entered could be called the
front door, the evidence discloses; that it was one of the
principal means of gaining entrance into plaintiff's apartment.

Also, the court determined the officers/agents did properly identify themselves as law enforcement, and their announcement of the warrant could be heard at a great distance from the door.

Again, from your own citation:
"From the evidence here, this Court finds that plaintiff heard
the law enforcement officers at his door. [footnote 18] Rather
than admitting the officers and submitting to a search of his
premises, plaintiff chose to resist the lawful right of the agents
to enter his apartment. Attempts were made to barricade the door
and prevent entry by the officers. Even more imprudently,
plaintiff and Mrs. McNeil armed themselves and prepared to shoot it
out with the officers. After Agent Seals had entered the apartment
and fired the first shot, plaintiff continued to point his loaded
revolver at the other agents and officers who followed Seals into
the room. Even after the first shot, plaintiff could have avoided
injury to himself by taking cover and surrendering his weapon, or
at the very least by not pointing his revolver at the other
officers who entered the room after Agent Seals. His own negligent
actions led directly to the serious injuries he suffered.

The credible evidence in this case does not support
plaintiff's contention that he did not know that these men in his
apartment were law enforcement officers. This Court finds that
plaintiff did in fact hear the knocking and the loud announcement
that federal officers were at the door with R search warrant.
Although dressed in civilian clothes, a badge was prominently
displayed by Agent Seals who was the first law enforcement officer
to enter the apartment.

Whatever plaintiff was doing in the nude before the officers
entered his apartment, he was not, as he claims, in the bathtub
when they first knocked on his door. The evidence discloses, in
the words of one witness, that he was "bone dry" when shot. More
likely, plaintiff was not dressed when be first heard law
enforcement officers at his door and in his haste to arm himself
and try to keep them out, be did not take the time to clothe
himself."

Also, from your own citation:
"One police officer, stationed outside the building, testified
that he could hear the pounding and the command from where he was
then located."

Further, your assertion that Ballew was a military veteran is unsubstantiated, but even if true is irrelevant. Being a veteran does not change the facts. I'll point out that many veterans (and many currently serving military personnel for that matter) have committed a wide variety of crimes.

Further, is nothing in the record that indicates that anyone claimed Ballew fired first, however, that too is irrelevant. It is not necessary for a person to actually be fired upon for them to reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and be justified in using lethal force to stop that threat.

So the facts are:
1- The officers/agents clearly established probable cause to believe that Ballew was violating federal law, and that there was probable cause to believe the evidence was located in the apartment.

2- The officers/agents acted properly in knocking and announcing their presence and the service of the warrant, and then waiting a reasonable time for the occupants to allow them to enter and serve the warrant before attempting to force entry.

3- After the occupants (Ballew and a woman married to another man) refused to allow entry, barricaded the door, and armed themselves (the woman was also armed with a pistol), the officers attempted to force entry into the apartment.

4- Ballew pointed a cap and ball revolver at the officers/agents, and the officers/agents responded to that threat with deadly force.

Those are the facts, and those facts are why Ballew's attempt at suing the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act failed.

Next time maybe you should read your own citation and acquaint yourself with the truth, rather than cherry picking a few quotes in a lame attempt to support your false claims.

[DMF]

acknowledging that if Ballew had jury-rigged the grenade like that, it would have exploded in his hand as soon as the safety spoon was released.

but he could have pulled the pin from a distance with a string...Well you see Carl N. Brown left out an important part of the court ruling, probably because it doesn't support his false claims about what was going on in the Ballew case.

Here it is for you, again from Carl N. Brown's own citation, and it goes directly to your point:
"Plaintiff argues that the smoke grenade contained no delay element and
therefore could not in fact be used as a true hand grenade.
Although as reactivated the smoke grenade could not be thrown with-
out causing injury to the thrower, it was quite capable of being
used with other items in the apartment as a booby trap and as such
constituted a destructive device within the meaning of section
5845(f) (3)."

[Frank Ettin]

Quite enough thread drift.