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.
Contacted by BATFE today!! *Update*
- Thread starter scndactive
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
member
- Joined
- May 21, 2009
- Messages
- 67
give them your lawyers name
have your lawyer send letter of representation,after that by law they cannot contact you they HAVE TO CONTACT ATTORNEY
have your lawyer send letter of representation,after that by law they cannot contact you they HAVE TO CONTACT ATTORNEY
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
9x23 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.
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.
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
Member
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.
Deanimator
Member
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
Member
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
???? 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".
Last edited:
Phatty
Member
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
Member
"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
- a 1949 opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
twinwillows
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 26
Just Curious, can anyone advise if the BATFE followup on multiple weapon purchases is going on outside the border states?
Bookworm
Member
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.
Assume those BATF agents know your internet handle, and are reading this forum as well.
gimlet1/21
Member
You have the right not to incriminate yourself, so don't.
waterhouse
Member
ETA
ost deleted since no longer needed.
Libertybell, welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy your time here.
ost deleted since no longer needed. Libertybell, welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
Did I miss something in my training?
Spreadfire Arms wrote:
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
Spreadfire Arms wrote:
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
Member
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
Member
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:
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:
Attachments
Deanimator
Member
Not "helping" WHOM?
- Status
