Contacted by BATFE today!! *Update*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please keep my quotes in context.

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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"?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Sorry - You are wrong!

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top