Just had a visit from the ATF & Homeland Security!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Am I being arrested, detained or am I free to go?"

If "arrested, detained", call lawyer.

If "free to go", please get off my property. Then call your lawyer.



You NEVER EVER EVER talk to cops without an attorney present. How many pages make up the Federal Firearms law, plus your local Uniform Firearms Code/Act? Have you read every single one of those pages? Of course not. I hope they don't manage to use YOUR SIGNED AFFIDAVIT to bust you on some bull**** technicality, hidden on page 99ZZX, Sub-paragraph X2.

Very poorly handled, imo. I can't imagine that anyone would behave in this manner. Remember, Randy Weaver allegedly cut a eight of wood off a shotgun stock and they blew away his wife and kids. Let's pray you didn't sign your own warrant, arrest or what-may.

DONT TALK TO COPS WITHOUT YOUR LAWYER PRESENT <--- Rule #1
 
ICE would be the lead agency in regards to the exportation of firearms.

There is nothing to stop an unscrupulous dealer from adding another gun to 4473.

You handled this well instead of "say nothing to LE they are trying to screw you".
 
Wondering why the OP bought three handguns one day and three years later he has none of them.:scrutiny:

I'm sure there is a legit reason just seems odd to me but I don't sell guns and that is probably why.

If the BAFTE comes to my house to ask questions, they will get no answers nor an invitation inside.
 
If they can transfer 100 agents to Houston to investigate the BS claims that the 7500 guns from the US are going to Mexican cartels, perhaps those agents would be better used to stop the 12 million Mexican citizens from being in, or entering this country.
 
Wondering why the OP bought three handguns one day and three years later he has none of them.
Click to expand...

Good catch, model of 1905. There is a story there, but it goes way beyond the confines of this thread. Certainly nothing illegal, but a story none-the-less. Maybe some other time, on another thread...
 
Actually, I rarely sell a gun. Two large safes is my evidence of that. However, circumstances at the time dictated a different fate for those guns.
 
I don't think I would have thought anything of it. But I'm military, and I would probably be more concerned that something would affect my clearance. I do know where all of my receipts are, though the ink has faded on most of them to illegibility. I keep serial numbers on anything that I might need to use one day for insurance purposes, though I really ought to put it on an encrypted flash drive.
 
The OP doesn't owe ANYONE explanations for either why he bought three the same day, nor why he no longer has them, much less the government.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if folks really go the gist of the visit - the OP was visited by agents asking about a gun HE DID NOT BUY but was listed as purchased by him by the dealer. There may be a reason the agents are asking about this particular gun - perhaps it was used in a crime. I think it's in his best interests to be up front and cooperative, as he was. Sure, he could be obstructive and tell the agents to leave and call his lawyer. I think that would make for him MANY more problems and costs.

I think if a crook dealer has involved you in a firearms felony, it's best to be honest and clear it up. There's a level of paranoia that can be protective and healthy, but then there's the level that's just as helpful as shooting yourself in the foot. Don't go there.
 
Not every interaction with the authorities need a lawyer, assuming you're not being investigated or detained.

I don't even see anything wrong with letting them search a bag or car or garage, if you truly don't have anything to hide and they're polite and clean about it. YMMV, of course, and I agree you're completely right for demanding warrants.

I for one would tell them to go pound sand and come back with a warrant if they showed the slightest hint of anything but courtesy. In my case, getting a warrant would just be wasting their time anyway, because I'd want them to think twice about wasting my time despite me actually having nothing to hide.

There is a line between caution and paranoia. Showing them a receipt and a smile under the OP's circumstances are well on the pleasantly cautious side. What could they gain from that that they couldn't with a lawyer present? They'd see the receipt either way, whether you show it to them then or call a lawyer and end forced to show it as evidence for the defense.

Since a lawyer would mostly just be a witness anyway, it's still a good idea to record the encounter if you can. ATF still has a record of... 'embellishing' when it comes to excuses for prying.

Just remember that if you always tell the truth, you never have to remember what you told them.
 
Last edited:
Lots of anti government paranoia here isnt there. Theres always some conspiracy. Yeah stuff has happened in the past and will happen in the future. But the thing about law enforcement, more than any other profession, is that when a few bad apples mess things up, everyones automatically involved. Everyone thinks Ruby Ridge is going to happen to them.

But just to be safe, dont announce new births because some lady will kidnap your newborn at the hospital. Dont let the plumber in because he's actually a serial killer.

But the fact that some of you guys wont even help law enforcement with an investigation without a lawyer or warrant is just plain sad. I can truthfully tell you that the vast majority of LEOs I know, fed and local, are very pro 2A. I cant think of any antis actually. But that might be because of my location, things might e different other places. There are cops who actually just want to help out the community and have no interest in "keeping the peasants down".

But being a LEO I get to see some stuff that others dont. Ive seen some ATF footage of crooked dealers. Video of some lady "buying" a gun at the store who is afraid to even touch the thing, but her two thug looking friends are practically drooling at the sight of the weapon. But its good to know that you guys wont help with that investigation while letting that dealer sell guns to gangs and further giving the antis more ammunition to take us down.
 
But the fact that some of you guys wont even help law enforcement with an investigation without a lawyer or warrant is just plain sad.
Click to expand...
Not coincidentally, anti-gun people say it's "sad" that many of us carry concealed firearms for self-defense. They don't have my best interests at heart either.

I suspect that you didn't help Richard Jewell with his legal fees after he tried to "help" the FBI. I always find it interesting when people tell strangers to do things which can get them into serious trouble, for which THEY will suffer utterly no consequences, no matter what happens.

The only person who knows why that BATFE agent (or FBI agent, or cop) is interviewing you is HIM, and he's allowed to lie about it. Talking to law enforcement without counsel present in circumstances where you could be a defendant in a criminal case (and not know it) is like performing brain surgery on yourself. Your first mistake is likely going to be your last.

Whenever I see people tell others to waive VERY important legal protections on nothing more than unjustified TRUST of a total stranger, whose motivations are TOTALLY unknown to them, I suspect malice.

There's ZERO downside to having legal representation when talking to law enforcement about substantive matters, and a literal INFINITY of potential downsides to not having legal counsel.
 
"BATFE in particular has a problematic past in this regard. In fact, they once went so far as to produce an OFFICIAL training video in which they EXPLICITLY directed agents to lie under oath regarding the NFA record keeping system. Their record in terms of Brady is horrendous."​

I'd be really surprised if this was true about the video. Under the Giglio and Henthorn rulings (check out, e.g., http://www.911jobforums.com/showthread.php?p=465893) any agent who has a history of "lack of candor," much less lies under oath effectively can't be a agent, because any agency records about the lack of candor and related disciplinary records are discoverable before trial and that all comes in at trial. In weighing whether to believe the agent, the jury can even consider accusations against the agent for which they were cleared.

"There's ZERO downside to having legal representation when talking to law enforcement about substantive matters, and a literal INFINITY of potential downsides to not having legal counsel."​

Zero downside except for additional time and expense of hiring legal counsel. And maybe creating the perception that you are the bad guy and putting the focus on you, in which case, you'd better be clean.

You know, most agents aren't wandering around looking to jail innocent gun owners. They're just trying to lock up the bad guys. The great, great majority of people we interview are witnesses, not subjects of the investigation.

And if you're not a target of the investigation and are served with a grand jury subpoena to testify, you don't get to have your lawyer with you when you're testifying to the grand jury. And if they think you are lying to them, they can indict you all on their own, even without the prosecutor asking them to do so.

We don't have all the details here, because agents are wise not to share all the details of their investigation, but say they were concerned about this mysterious third gun, which (let's imagine) they know was used in a crime in Mexico. They're just trying to figure out who the guy is who sold it to the criminal. Let's assume you didn't (if you know you sold the gun to a criminal, yes, you need a lawyer!). Now, assume the dealer is being cooperative and insists that you bought the third gun and, on the other hand, you're being a jerk to the agents and saying "I'm not telling you jack -- come back with a warrant and stop stinking up my property!" Who looks guilty and who looks like a witness? Who do you think is now the target of the investigation?
 
Now, assume the dealer is being cooperative and insists that you bought the third gun and, on the other hand, you're being a jerk to the agents and saying "I'm not telling you jack -- come back with a warrant and stop stinking up my property!" Who looks guilty and who looks like a witness? Who do you think is now the target of the investigation?
Click to expand...

And that's exactly why I was coorperative. I had nothing to hide and did not want to be perceived as being guilty of anything. The mere act of being defiant to them, when being told I was not being investigated (whether true or not), would have been perceived as me being aggressive and potentially trying to hide or cover up wrong doings. Absolutely no reason for me to go there. That could potentially bring a great deal of trouble, aggrevation, and worry for my family and have the investigation spot light of the ATF & ICE shown squarely in my eyes. I don't want or need that!!
 
"BATFE in particular has a problematic past in this regard. In fact, they once went so far as to produce an OFFICIAL training video in which they EXPLICITLY directed agents to lie under oath regarding the NFA record keeping system. Their record in terms of Brady is horrendous."
Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if this was true about the video. Under the Giglio and Henthorn rulings (check out, e.g., ) any agent who has a history of "lack of candor," much less lies under oath effectively can't be a agent, because any agency records about the lack of candor and related disciplinary records are discoverable before trial and that all comes in at trial. In weighing whether to believe the agent, the jury can even consider accusations against the agent for which they were cleared.
Click to expand...
It's 100% true. I've previously posted the relevant link(s) in the Legal section. They made a training video in which they instructed agents to ALWAYS testify that the NFA record keeping system was 100% accurate, stating at the same time that it was in fact NOT 100% accurate. I remember when they had to make a public statement calling it a "misunderstanding". Why "explain" something that never happened? The Brady rules have been a sheer nightmare for BATFE... along with the associations of some of its employees. A number of [then] BATF agents were involuntarily removed from the Clinton era church arson investigations because of their participation in the racially segregated "Good Old Boys Roundup", which not coincidentally was organized out of the Oklahoma City BATF office, by a serving BATF supervisor, on government time, using government resources, with invitations on agency letterhead.


"There's ZERO downside to having legal representation when talking to law enforcement about substantive matters, and a literal INFINITY of potential downsides to not having legal counsel."
Click to expand...

Zero downside except for additional time and expense of hiring legal counsel. And maybe creating the perception that you are the bad guy and putting the focus on you, in which case, you'd better be clean.
Click to expand...
Hiring counsel to PREVENT becoming a suspect is ALWAYS cheaper than hiring counsel to UNDO being a suspect because you've falsely incriminated yourself.

Their "perception" is of ZERO interest to me. The law and my rights are what matter. They can "perceive" anything they want. What they'd better OBEY is the law.

You'd better be "clean", REGARDLESS.

You know, most agents aren't wandering around looking to jail innocent gun owners. They're just trying to lock up the bad guys. The great, great majority of people we interview are witnesses, not subjects of the investigation.
Click to expand...
Notice that you said "MOST". I'm betting that a lawyer has a LOT better chance of knowing if THAT agent is part of the "most" or of the "few". You seem not to want me to know which it is.

And if you're not a target of the investigation and are served with a grand jury subpoena to testify, you don't get to have your lawyer with you when you're testifying to the grand jury. And if they think you are lying to them, they can indict you all on their own, even without the prosecutor asking them to do so.
Click to expand...
And if I have a lawyer, he'll tell me what TRUTHFUL things to say and not say before that grand jury. That seems to bother you.

We don't have all the details here
Click to expand...
The only details we need are that the OP doesn't REALLY know why he's being interviewed, and may NEVER. That being the case, the ONLY reason for him to not seek competent legal counsel is a desire to see his rights NOT be protected.

Now, assume the dealer is being cooperative and insists that you bought the third gun and, on the other hand, you're being a jerk to the agents and saying "I'm not telling you jack -- come back with a warrant and stop stinking up my property!" Who looks guilty and who looks like a witness? Who do you think is now the target of the investigation?
Click to expand...
Interesting... protecting one's own legal and constitutional rights now makes one a "jerk"?

The OP's the only one who [with benefit of counsel] is going to protect his own interests. Clearly, that's the farthest thing from your mind.
 
How many of you "never talk to the feds" people have actually had any interaction with them, and were 'screwed' because of it?

Seems like a lot of armchair rhetoric - and I've got an attorney and have been through the wringer (though not on a federal level).
 
There are some lovely kids that live next door. I expect the authorities would use that by starting a conversation about one of the kids going missing and come ask me if I saw anything odd. Even if I saw the guy who took the kids, I wouldn't say anything because the cops are probably just trying to get at my guns and not really find the kid.

/sarcasm

The fact is not all cops/feds are evil gun grabbers out for you and your guns. The OP made a judgement that talking to these agents was not going to be prejudicial to his interests. It is everyones choice to exercise their right not to speak with cops/feds but a little common sense goes a long way.
 
Somehow I can't see poking a bear with a sharp stick to be in anyone's best interest. Antagonism can take you from obscurity to a person of interest very quickly.
 
How many of you "never talk to the feds" people have actually had any interaction with them, and were 'screwed' because of it?
Click to expand...
A better question is how many people have AVOIDED problems by retaining competent legal counsel where appropriate. THAT seems to be the thing that really irks some people.
 
Somehow I can't see poking a bear with a sharp stick to be in anyone's best interest. Antagonism can take you from obscurity to a person of interest very quickly.
Click to expand...
Ever see the movie "Grizzly Man"? Think of the protagonist as the kind of person who talks to LEOs in a criminal investigation without benefit of counsel.
 
Would you look suspicious if you told an agent "Hey can you come back in about an hour I don't really know how this works and would rather have a friend sit in with us."

Friend being a lawyer...that doesn't seem to fishy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
ATF visited my dealer over multiple handgun purchases
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
222
Views
14K
Deanimator
Deanimator
A
  • Locked
ATF House visit part II:
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
9K
Cliff47
C
B
  • Locked
Hearing on BATFE Abuses (from NRA-ILA) Feb 15
Replies
13
Views
802
LAR-15
L
U
  • Locked
Mexican guns smuggled in from US
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
stickhauler
S
B
  • Locked
  • Poll
BATFE and Retaining Records
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
El Tejon
E
Back
Top