ATF Agents at the Gun Show Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you ask them to explain how they obtained jurisdiction to do anything inside your state and your county, let alone pretend to be "law enforcement?" People don't realize that legally speaking, having ATF inside your state and your county is equivalent to having Egyptian law enforcement sitting at a table and checking "compliance." I would have asked them if they are cops just to see what the response would be. I would ask them how they obtained permission from the county sheriff to operate as "law enforcement."
 
So the ATF is at gun shows. What does it matter?

Personally, I like the idea of them passing out literature on gun laws. Since they are there at the table as an information resource, I could see some real opportunities to get some questions answered without having to write a long letter or be on hold for 20 minutes.

Personally, I don't know about the ATF being at our local gun shows, but we get lots of cops shopping.

Did you ask them to explain how they obtained jurisdiction to do anything inside your state and your county, let alone pretend to be "law enforcement?" People don't realize that legally speaking, having ATF inside your state and your county is equivalent to having Egyptian law enforcement sitting at a table and checking "compliance." I would have asked them if they are cops just to see what the response would be. I would ask them how they obtained permission from the county sheriff to operate as "law enforcement."
Click to expand...

Okay, I am game. How about you explain why they can't be there.
 
I really have nothing against the ATF in as much they are doing a job-- I have more of an issue with the Justice Dept. not raining them in. They do serve a good purpose-- to an extent..and most of the normal field guys are just working stiffs like most of us.

I guess I have no issue with them putting out literature..now if they are seen taking picts and whatnot, then that is another story..
 
There's an amazing amount of paranoia here--comparisons to the SS, references to an "official policy" to lie under oath, etc. Objectively speaking, isn't it better for members of a law enforcement agency to try to educate folks than to wait for them to get tripped up by a misunderstanding of the law?

Our ire over irrational gun laws should be directed toward our legislators. With all the rhetoric I read among our pro-2A community about the need to enforce existing laws, it seems like we shoud be supporting these folks in the legitimate exercise of their law enforcement mandate.
 
Kimber45acp Did you ask them to explain how they obtained jurisdiction to do anything inside your state and your county, let alone pretend to be "law enforcement?" People don't realize that legally speaking, having ATF inside your state and your county is equivalent to having Egyptian law enforcement sitting at a table and checking "compliance." I would have asked them if they are cops just to see what the response would be. I would ask them how they obtained permission from the county sheriff to operate as "law enforcement."
Click to expand...

Fail. Not just a good ole regular FAIL, but a genuine Reynolds Wrap tin foil FAIL. Where did you get your law degree?:uhoh:

I don't question ATF about their "jurisdiction" anymore than I question the FBI, TSA at the airport, Coast Guard on the lake, National Guard, Texas State Guard or the Texas Rangers.

BTW, name a county sheriff that doesn't SUBMIT to the authority or "jurisdiction" of a Federal or State agency.:rolleyes:
 
The agents in Montana are friendly and professional, and in my mind always welcome. At least one of them is a firearms enthusiast, too. Good bunch.
 
references to an "official policy" to lie under oath, etc.
Click to expand...
When you produce an OFFICIAL training video on how to lie under oath about the accuracy of the NFA record keeping system, that makes lying under oath OFFICIAL POLICY. And LIE is the ONLY description since the supervisor in the video UP FRONT admits that the NFA record keeping system isn't 100% accurate, but instructs agents to ALWAYS testify UNDER OATH that it IS. That's called SUBORNATION OF PERJURY.

LEOs are allowed to lie during an investigation. They're NOT allowed to lie under oath on the witness stand ABOUT that investigation or anything else.

Use search to find the documentation which has been posted here multiple times.

If it didn't happen, why did they go before Congress to apologize for it?

I'm not interested in anything they've got to say. I simply can't trust it.
 
Started thinking about it and realised I haven't been to a gun show in 15 years----maybe I'll have to go to the next one and play spot the Fed---hhhhmmm
 
When you produce an OFFICIAL training video on how to lie under oath about the accuracy of the NFA record keeping system, that makes lying under oath OFFICIAL POLICY. And LIE is the ONLY description since the supervisor in the video UP FRONT admits that the NFA record keeping system isn't 100% accurate, but instructs agents to ALWAYS testify UNDER OATH that it IS. That's called SUBORNATION OF PERJURY.
Click to expand...

You've raised this allegation several times in these forums, so I thought I'd actually check it out. As it turns out, while you may not be doing so intentionally, you're mischaracterizing the videotaped statements of a single ATF official at a roll call 14 years ago as ATF Policy. For those interested, the most pertinent part of his statement is this:

"The more information that we receive, relative to the individual that they're doing the search on, the better. If we have a birth date, current address, anything. And of course, a lot of times we don't. All we get is just a first and last name. Middle initials even help us.

Because as we go through the search, the further we have to go to make sure it's right, all the way back to the actual microfilm records and the actual hard copy of the transfer registration document, even middle initials can help us eliminate erroneous individuals.

For a name search, the specialist will search the data base, using the first three letters of the last name. The example given here is Smith, S-M-I. What happens is, they run the S-M-I. They'll get, let's say, 10,000 hits on S-M-I. Then they'll run the state and the S-M-I, and maybe they'll get 400. In this case, they probably would. With some more uncommon names, you may only get 3 or 15 or 20 names.

Then they'll run the fourth letter, to even break it down further. It's S-M-I, and then it'll be T.

Let me say that when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100 percent accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true. If our data base was absolutely error free, we could simply run the name of the individual and his first name, and if it didn't come up, we could guarantee everyone that that individual doesn't have a Title 2 weapon registered to him.

But since sometimes in the entry part of this game people invert letters and vowels, you could put the name in, it won't come up that way.

So we run multiple methods of running it. If the last name and first name, if the guy's first name or the lady's first name, looks like a last name, we'll run that first. We'll invert it, just to see what we come up with.

So this way, we try to eliminate the possibility of have somebody in there who has a Title 2 that we come up with a report that says they do not. We are going to a new data base whose capabilities will allow us to do more varied kind of queries and hopefully better queries, phonetics, Sound, Soundex (ph). Soundex will help us.

For a serial number, we'll just search the exact serial number. We have come up with a couple of incidences, and this shows the skill of the specialists that are in there, where a Z has looked like a 2 and a 2 has looked like a Z. If you run the wrong one, you come up with no registration. If you run them both, you find out that it is registered that way. There was a mistake in the printing on the form, or it was a mistake in the call in.

So we do the exact serial numbers, but we do look for idiosyncracies in the serial number that might make it more apt that some kind of inversion could have taken place.

The specialists will analyze the results off the search. Like I say, since the serial number is exact, the only records where the serial number is identified, will be provided.

The specialists will eliminate records based an the type and description of the firearm. For the name search, we do the name, we run the FFL, the licensee data base, and the SOT data base with the name to see if there's any trade names.

If there's any trade names, then we go back to the registry to run the trade name to see if that trade name has any Title 2 weapons registered to it, because in many cases the agents call in with a name. That individual turns out to be a licensee, turns out to be a special occupational taxpayer.

Although there was nothing registered under his name, there were weapons registered under his trade name, his company name. In many cases, they may have two or three different trade names.

Again, as I emphasized a minute ago, to ensure the thoroughness of the search, the requesting agent should supply as much information as he possibly can. A lot of times that information is only first name/last name, and that's all he has, based on an informant or tip or whatever, and that's what we run with, is that.

I mentioned before we'll run the SOT data base and we'll run the FFL data base, licensee data base, to see if we come up with anything there, and then we'll go back to the NFRTR to find out if they have any weapons registered to them.

Depending on what we come up with, when we come up with similar names, and we don't have a date of birth, if we come up with Allison Stevens or Tom Busey, and we come up he's in a different state, we'll get the hard copy or the microfilm copy of the actual transfer record to see if the date of birth is the same as the agent has.

Depending on the volume that we're dealing with, a lot of times what we're doing now is we are sending -- I have been there a year now, and before I got there, we were sending basically either hit or no hit, and we'd send the hit. We would send possibles if they were real close, but due to some difficulties that we've had and to make sure that we don't -- we try not to send the wrong information, we have been sending probably more information than the agent needs."

Those interested in reading the entire transcript of the videotape can find it at http://www.gunowners.com/ip05.htm and judge for themselves.

In fact, if you read the entire transcript it's abundantly clear that this guy is in fact describing the efforts that they went to at the time--around a decade and a half ago--to try to ensure that they were providing the most accurate information they could to field agents, even though the sytem that they were working with was imperfect.

Was what the guy said a boner? Undoubtedly. But, a statement of an official ATF policy to lie under oath? Nothing could be further from the truth. I would submit that you're mischaracterizing and overblowing the whole episode. But, those who would like to judge this on their own can certainly check it out and come to their own conclusions
 
Was what the guy said a boner? Undoubtedly. But, a statement of an official ATF policy to lie under oath? Nothing could be further from the truth. I would submit that you're mischaracterizing and overblowing the whole episode. But, those who would like to judge this on their own can certainly check it out and come to their own conclusions
Click to expand...
1. At the time the statement was made, was the NFA record keeping system 100% accurate?

2. Were BATF agents instructed to state UNDER OATH that the NFA record keeping system was 100% accurate?

3. Did the BATF supervisor state that the NFA record keeping system was NOT 100% accurate?

4. Would somebody on trial for ALLEGEDLY violating the NFA consider an agent's FALSE testimony as to the accuracy of the NFA record keeping system "overblown"?

Yeah, I guess suborning perjury is "overblown"... until YOU are facing years in prison.

Of course that little incident is hardly the BATFE's only Brady nightmare...
 
dogtown tom said:
Fail. Not just a good ole regular FAIL, but a genuine Reynolds Wrap tin foil FAIL. Where did you get your law degree?

I don't question ATF about their "jurisdiction" anymore than I question the FBI, TSA at the airport, Coast Guard on the lake, National Guard, Texas State Guard or the Texas Rangers.

BTW, name a county sheriff that doesn't SUBMIT to the authority or "jurisdiction" of a Federal or State agency.
Click to expand...
The hostility and personal insult in your post tell me that you are defensive about what I brought up. Do you understand what jurisdiction means? Do you think that having jurisdiction is automatic just because some individual with a badge "says so?" Do you understand why your county sheriff is ELECTED? Do you think that everyone with some badge is essentially the same (meaning that they are "over us" and cannot be questioned)?
 
see ATF at all the shows,saw 3 at Krogers the other day,wait a minute,think I see one out on my porch now. gotta go...jwr
 
Beware the lone, bearded, rough looking guy with a blackberry. He talks to no one, touches nothing, just wanders, listens, looks, and texts.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing a person of similar description in Norfolk. He would stand in front of the tables that specialized solely in the more eye-catching black rifles and handguns and do exactly what you described - and did so with a blackberry.
 
Norfolk as a whole, is very Paranoid...........There are always tons of cops at the Norfolk Show. Sometimes I think there are more cops there than patrons.....lol

I guess we should feel safe there while shopping.;)
 
"Let me say that when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100 percent accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true."
Click to expand...

There is no data base in the world that is 100% accurate. To state such a thing is to confer infallibility on human beings & their endeavors, which is impossible.

That statement seems to be fertile ground for any attorney to refute during cross-examination. "So, Agent Jones, your saying that there has NEVER been even a SINGLE error, ever, with the NFA Database?
 
That statement seems to be fertile ground for any attorney to refute during cross-examination. "So, Agent Jones, your saying that there has NEVER been even a SINGLE error, ever, with the NFA Database?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, that little stunt called into question dozens if not literally hundreds of NFA prosecutions. Does this sound "overblown"?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/735793/posts

Between that and the Good Old Boys Roundup, the BATF(E) destroyed its credibility for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Twiki357
  • Locked
ATF at local gun show
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
dogtown tom
dogtown tom
M
  • Locked
ATF Sting?
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
M2 Carbine
M
Craig_AR
  • Locked
ATF Raid on Airport Exec in Ark, 2 Wounded, 3/19/24
Replies
7
Views
1K
rust collector
R
P
  • Locked
government plant at gun show
Replies
14
Views
1K
Al Thompson
A
I
  • Locked
Are ATF often 'plainclothes' at gun shows?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
139
Views
8K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top