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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."
Click to expand...
Some people would say that makes you a "jerk".

Keep it simple. Tell them you won't have anything to say to them without your lawyer present. Ask them where they'd like to meet with you and your lawyer. I suggest your lawyer's office.

And don't think for a second that some BATFE agents won't try stuff WITH a lawyer present. You'll just have somebody there who KNOWS they're playing games. One of them tried a bunch of impotent threats in a case my lawyer had. The lawyer literally laughed in his face because of his woeful ignorance of applicable law.
 
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!!
Click to expand...

This line of thinking is what will doom this country. You have a constitutional right to not say anything to the police. Use it or lose it.
 
At any point during the conversation, had I perceived that they were focusing their investigation on me, I would have ended it immediately and demanded my attorney be present for any further questioning. However, that is not at all how it went down. If it was a crime to purchase three guns at a gun show and actually have the receipt from the gun dealer, which details the transaction, then maybe I'd have gotten nervous and demanded my lawyer rights.

Deanimator: I understand what your trying to say and the point you are making, but there is more to consider in such situations. Would you demand to have an attorney present if you were pulled over by a traffic cop and questioned about your driving?
 
I went through a similar situation in the late 1970s. I got a call at work from the feds that were part of the IRS. They insisted that I was not in trouble but need to see me and aranged to meet me at my home after work. At the appointed time they arrived and identified them selves as marshalls investigating an IRS agent and wanted to compare my receipt(I had paid my taxes in person) to the receipt the agent had turned in. They were the same except the agent dated their copy 9 days later than mine. The marshalls asked if I would identify my copy of the receipt in court if called upon(they had been watching this person for awhile and thought they already had sufficient evidence). I agreed,they took my receipt giving me a receipt for it. I never heard from them again. No lawyer,no red flags,no problem.
 
I would say, I'll be glad to help with your investigation just as soon as you give me written transactional immunity guaranteeing that I'm not the target of your investigation, and will not be prosecuted for anything related to the guns which are the subject of the purchase, or with any testimony I offer. Until then, I wish you luck in catching the rogue dealer.

Since you sold them all, they could easily claim that you're a "dealer" operating without a dealer's license (FFL-1), which I believe is a felony! Law enforcement unfortunately cannot ever be your friend; at least not without written immunity.

You don't necessarily need a LAWYER. You need written immunity, since police are allowed to LIE to you, and in fact do so quite often with the full blessing of the law. "You're not in trouble here" is the oldest lie in the book.

This is very simple. If law enforcement would like more cooperation from citizens in their investigations, then they should champion and push through laws which say that police cannot lie to someone being interviewed and later use their statements and evidence against them. Then, we could actually BELIEVE them when they say "you're not in any trouble; we're investigating someone else".
 
Last edited:
Deanimator: I understand what your trying to say and the point you are making, but there is more to consider in such situations. Would you demand to have an attorney present if you were pulled over by a traffic cop and questioned about your driving?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, let's see:

What's the penalty for (for instance) failure to signal a lane change?

What's the penalty for (for instance) "being in the BUSINESS of selling firearms without an FFL"? Of course there's no FIXED definition of "BUSINESS" in this context, IS there? "Cleveland Scene" did a fascinating article on the activities of the BATF in this regard about ten years ago.

And lest there be any doubt, the instant the "conversation" veers away from alleged traffic infractions, the next thing out of my mouth is, "Am I free to leave? No? I have nothing further to say without my attorney present."
 
The concern that Deanimator and Bill Larry are describing is very real. When you are questioned by anyone purporting to be a law enforcement agent/officer, you do not KNOW the context of the discussion. You may infer or presume the context, and the officer/agent may give you some of that context, but I guarantee that you do not have all of the context.

In that light, it may prove prudent to safeguard yourself by exercising your rights. You clearly can choose to waive your rights, but the point is that you do not HAVE to, nor should you feel compelled to 'just to be seen as a good citizen'.

<shrug>

I've been interviewed a number of times in my life by agents, usually in the course of running investigations against others. I've never retained counsel for the interview. It was a judgment call on my part, based upon my knowledge and understanding of the context (however incomplete it was) as well as the demeanor of the agents. I was, and am, very comfortable answering basic questions without presence of counsel, but I was also quite willing to end the dialog at any point.
 
I would say, I'll be glad to help with your investigation just as soon as you give me written transactional immunity guaranteeing that I'm not the target of your investigation, and will not be prosecuted for anything related to the guns which are the subject of the purchase.
Click to expand...
But Doc, EVERYBODY knows to say THAT, don't they...?

It's amazing, the number of plumbers, truck drivers, fry cooks, etc. who think that they know how to protect their own legal and constitutional rights better than an attorney. It's also amazing, the number of malicious people who encourage them in this mistaken belief with the apparent intention of getting them into a bind.
 
Now, waitaminnit. Let's not start painting any dissenting opinion with the brush of malice. The fact that somebody disagrees with your position doesn't mean that they intend ill will on anyone.

We are, most of us, raised to believe in the rule of law. That implies a strong faith in those who uphold the law. It is hard for some folk to grok how you or anyone else could possibly feel differently. Their entire belief structure is based upon that notion, and trying to convince them otherwise is like arguing religion.

That doesn't make them evil, or imply malice on their part. It simply implies that they have never had that faith challenged, or that it's been challenged and withstood the test.
 
:D
I would say, I'll be glad to help with your investigation just as soon as you give me written transactional immunity guaranteeing that I'm not the target of your investigation, and will not be prosecuted for anything related to the guns which are the subject of the purchase.
Click to expand...

My guess is law enforcement folks are really willing and eager to fulfill this demand. :D Any knowledge of this ever actually occuring?
 
Now, waitaminnit. Let's not start painting any dissenting opinion with the brush of malice. The fact that somebody disagrees with your position doesn't mean that they intend ill will on anyone.
Click to expand...
The problem is that as likely as not, people who advise people to blindly waive their legal and constitutional rights are the FIRST ones to start talking about "tinfoil hats", "paranoia", "being jerks", "conspiracy theorists", "hatred of authority", "cop bashing", etc., etc., etc.

What DO you call it when somebody tries to BULLY somebody into giving up VERY important legal rights via ridicule and threats? And if telling somebody that they'll BECOME a suspect by seeking protection of counsel ISN'T a threat, what IS?
 
Any knowledge of this ever actually occuring?
Click to expand...
Remember the woman who went to jail for contempt because she wouldn't testify against Bill Clinton? As I recall, that was because she was given immunity. Therefore she couldn't claim that she feared self-incrimination because she had immunity from prosecution for acts described in her desired testimony.
 
What DO you call it when somebody tries to BULLY somebody into giving up VERY important legal rights via ridicule and threats? And if telling somebody that they'll BECOME a suspect by seeking protection of counsel ISN'T a threat, what IS?
Click to expand...
As I said:
Their entire belief structure is based upon that notion, and trying to convince them otherwise is like arguing religion.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that the folk that come to my door selling their particular flavor of spirituality are full of malice. They simply believe what they believe.

Same here.

Let's keep it High Road.
 
Also, just because you start talking doesn't mean you can't stop.

No offense, but most Feds aren't actual geniuses. Knowing the law, and knowing when someone is trying to play you are two different things.

I drive defensively. I can talk the same way. Of course, having been through the system, I may be more savvy than most when dealing with the authorities and their fishing expeditions.

There is no 'one size fits all' answer to a situation like this. Some people can handle it deftly, others might trip over their own tongue and blurt out that their stealing cable before the LEO says "hello".

To each his own - so long as you know your limitations, you can act accordingly.
 
I've read page 1 and not 2, 3, or 4, so if this has been stated already, my praises to whomever mentioned this for their insight:

Looks to me like the BATFE has found a way for you to "cooperate" with them by adding an extra gun or two to the list of guns you might have bought. It's enough to make you say, "Hey, I didn't buy that gun(or those guns)!" From that point on, the chase is on. Don't forget that these people are allowed to lie to you.

Woody
 
It would seem that the ATF had enough reason to bring charge of dealing without a federal license if they chose to. Antagonizing them may have given them the "want to".
 
It would seem that the ATF had enough reason to bring charge of dealing without a federal license if they chose to.
Click to expand...

I would hardly think selling 3 guns over a 3 year period is sufficient reason to be charged. I may be wrong though. If so, there are some selling here on THR that need to beware.
 
I would hardly think selling 3 guns over a 3 year period is sufficient reason to be charged.
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, there is no fixed definition of "doing business" when it comes to number of sales. This was very forcefully presented in "Cleveland Scene" in an article about questionable practices by [the then] BATF at gunshows. And do NOT for one instance imagine that "Cleveland Scene" is in any way pro-gun. Even they were shocked by the arbitrary and random nature of BATF enforcement actions. If they have the article on line, I'll post a link to it.

As promised:

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/gunning-for-trouble/Content?oid=1472561
 
Last edited:
walker944, while I tend to agree with you,we are talking about a federal agency with the power to bring such charges IF GIVEN A REASON TOO. Inhibiting an ongoing investigation (that of the dealer)may just be that reason.
 
It would seem that the ATF had enough reason to bring charge of dealing without a federal license if they chose to. Antagonizing them may have given them the "want to".
Click to expand...

Don't be fooled. "(W)ant to" has nothing to do with it. If they (The BATFE or any other alphabet agency) have the wherewithall, they will do it. Then again, they will make the wherewithall if it fits their agenda. The incident at Ruby Ridge comes to mind...

Woody
 
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