Contacted by BATFE today!!

[Deanimator]

There is a huge difference between me voluntarily approaching the police and giving a statement about a crime I witnessed and the police approaching me to ask questions about a crime they think I might be involved in.

And even more so when they are completely at liberty to ask you those questions in the context of a completely fictitious scenario, totally unrelated to their real investigation.

 

[eye5600]

I'm sure I would just show'em the guns, though in a manner that minimized their ability to scan look over house etc. In the OP's case, it's probably true that they were just checking to be sure that he was the real buyer, not a straw purchaser. The risk in confirming a legal transaction they already know about seems pretty small.

But....

It's not as if the black hats and the anti's haven't earned all the obstruction that they get. Gun owners might possibly be more inclined to accept a tad more government oversight if 1) all the oversight currently allowed wasn't consistently misused, e.g. databases compiled from info that should be discarded, 2) there weren't a lot of complicated laws that make compliance difficult, especially as many are completely arbitrary and/or nonsensical, 3) too much authority has been put in the hands of certain individuals (esp. local chiefs of police) who can rule on a whim, and 4) there is pretty much a zero-tolerance policy in gun law.

 

[waterhouse]

This seems to come up every time this topic comes up and it's one of the dumbest arguments ( please note I said the ARGUMENT was dumb, not the person making it) I've ever heard.

There is a huge difference between me voluntarily approaching the police and giving a statement about a crime I witnessed and the police approaching me to ask questions about a crime they think I might be involved in.

The third option is the police approaching you for information on a crime that they don't think you are involved in.

I'll agree that there is a huge difference, which is why I also included the example about the cops stopping by to ask about a vehicle and showing you a picture.



You don't know why they are asking about the vehicle. They could tell you it was involved in a kidnapping, but they may be lying, since they are allowed to do that.

So if you haven't seen the vehicle, your choices are to say "no" or ask them to come back when you have a lawyer present.

My argument is that the when the cops knock on your door, "don't answer their questions, ever, under any circumstances" may not always fit.

I think the OP did a great job. I would not encourage him to talk to the agents in this matter either. All I'm saying is that people should use judgment before deciding to talk to gov't officials, and not blindly follow blanket statements.

 

[waterhouse]

FWIW... I didn't single you out waterhouse, as being an 'ATF type'.
But if your one of the posters in THIS THREAD
who has dismissed others posts
about THIS particular matter as 'tin foil hat guys'....
I guess the shoe fits huh?
If NOT. My comments weren't about YOU.

You said this:

Right about now I bet there's a lot of law abiding gun owning lurkers here who just figured out that they have been duped with a back door gun registration.
I think it's safe to say we can all now with-out doubt call a NICS check a back door gun registration scheme.

I know for a fact that there is no gun registration through NICS. You say it is safe to say that there is, without a doubt.

You then go on to imply that people who blow off your above statement as preposterous (I don't care for the tin hat terminology, but generally what it translates to is "that is a crazy idea that isn't true") are ATF types and are not too bright.


I've been through this many times. People post that they are sure that their guns are registered through NICS, because someone from the police or gov't had a list of their guns.

Every time it comes up, it turns out to either be a case of STATE level (non-NICS) registration or multiple handgun sale forms.

And yet people still post that NICS is registration.

If you want to say that NICS is a registration of gun owners, I won't argue with you. But it is certainly not a registration of guns.

I'm not for any gun registration at all, but the "NICS registration" myth continues to be spread on the internet, and it is simply not true.

 

[scndactive]

I know at least in my locale, ANY time you are contacted by the PD even if you are the caller/complainant/victim your name will be ran through the system. Which leads me to the conclusion that making a statement ANY time could work against you. Case in point, one night when I was away, my wife called PD saying she saw the lights from flash lights in our pasture behind the house. She armed herself and stayed inside waiting for PD to show up. After they got there they took her personal info, and while they took her statement they also ran her name. Turns out she had a warrant for theft of service FROM THE PUPLIC LIBRARY for books her ex never returned five years ago. they didn't take her in, but told her to clear up the matter ASAP.

I am a firm believer in Dr. Duane's advice.

 

[Deanimator]

My argument is that the when the cops knock on your door, "don't answer their questions, ever, under any circumstances" may not always fit.

But not answering without a lawyer present can never GET you into trouble. They may not like it, but it's the law and the Constitution which matter, not their likes and dislikes.

Your duty is to answer truthfully, if legally required to, based on the advice of counsel. You've got no duty to be "helpful" beyond that.

 

[waterhouse]

But not answering without a lawyer present can never GET you into trouble. They may not like it, but it's the law and the Constitution which matter, not their likes and dislikes.

I agree.

 

[sernv99]

But not answering without a lawyer present can never GET you into trouble. They may not like it, but it's the law and the Constitution which matter, not their likes and dislikes.

Your duty is to answer truthfully, if legally required to, based on the advice of counsel. You've got no duty to be "helpful" beyond that.

what's next, calling your lawyer to help you tie your shoes? Write a check to pay your phone bill? Yeah, every gun owner should call a lawyer when approached by LE Why don't I call my mechanic to help me fill up my car up with gas.

you make it sound like all gun owners are morons and can't think for themselves. This tin foil hattery about some nickle and dime ATF agent or run of the mill LE officer trying to entrap a gun owner is far fetched. Get over it.

 

[runrabbitrun]

If you want to say that NICS is a registration of gun owners, I won't argue with you. But it is certainly not a registration of guns.

I'm not for any gun registration at all, but the "NICS registration" myth continues to be spread on the internet, and it is simply not true.

Fair enough waterhouse.
I'll revise my statement to say:
NICS seems to appear to be a backdoor registration of gun owners.

And just to clarify, my post # 144 was not a response to your post 143 at all.
It was a general response to the thread and the content of a few posters before.
Sorry if you took it to mean I was addressing you.

I'll close and add.
I can understand gun dealers not wanting
the myth to continue to spread.
That 'myth' can't be good for business.
Hopefully ALL you gun dealers are advising your customers
that in the event they purchase more than a couple
of guns a week from you.
You have a duty to report those guns you sold to the ATF via that special 'other form'.

It might cost you a few gun sales today, buy I imagine your customers
would be grateful to know that you just saved them the possible hassles
of ATF agents showing up at their doors on fishing expeditions.
In fact, I'd bet they would appreciate that information so much,
you'll have a customer for life.

Peace

 

[rbernie]

Too much bickering, too far from the OP.

Sadly, this one is done.