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

[jimmyraythomason]

CC why hold up your hand in class if you don't want to be called on?

 

[Deanimator]

Inhibiting an ongoing investigation (that of the dealer)may just be that reason.

Please define "inhibiting".

"Obstruction of justice" has an actual legal definition. NOWHERE in that definition will you find refusing to speak to law enforcement without benefit of counsel. Neither will you find refusing to consent to a warrantless search of your person, automobile or dwelling.

Refusing to speak without counsel and refusing consent to a warrantless search are NOT:

reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime or imminent crime.
probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
an admission of guilt.

The laws protecting people's rights actually mean things and actually have a real purpose. LEOs don't have to like that. They just have to obey them. When they don't, there are consequences.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Again you miss the point I'm trying to make. I used the word "inhibiting" instead of "obstruction of justice" for a reason. OOJ is, as you said, a legal CHARGE itself and is enough for arrest. Inhibiting by refusing to answer a few simple questions may just put you on the map that you weren't previously on. It might turn a person from a potential witness into a "person of interest".

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

by refusing to answer a few simple questions may just put you on the map that you weren't previously on. It might turn a person from a potential witness into a "person of interest"

+1

You did the right thing man, and answered their questions. Some gun dealer out there is doing fishy stuff and deserves to be brought to justice.

 

[walker944]

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.

JimmyRay - I guess I missed your point too. I understood your statement to imply I was potentially inhibiting an ongoing investigation of a FFL holder??? Did i miss something? If anything, several folks here think I went way too far to help the investigation, and even possibly put myself in potential jeopardy. Please clarify.

 

[2RCO]

Looks to me that the OP may have saved himself alot of hassle by proving he didn't own the PS90 in question. I'm guessing the gun was backtraced to the FFL porbably along with several others.

In a case like this I would have complied witht the request. The BATFE is not inherently evil. Lawyering up wouldn't have been a horrible idea in the situation but the OP has clear documentation of his purchase etc..

People always forget on these forums how much Lawyering up can cost. ---Sometimes you lawyer up other times when it is easy to prove you are innocent you skip it.

 

[Deanimator]

Inhibiting by refusing to answer a few simple questions may just put you on the map that you weren't previously on. It might turn a person from a potential witness into a "person of interest".

"Refusing to answer a few simple questions" WITHOUT BENEFIT OF COUNSEL "inhibits" NOTHING.

If they INSIST that you speak without a lawyer present, that's prima facie evidence that they're not on the level. The only POSSIBLE reason for them to not want you to have counsel present is a desire to take advantage of a perceived ignorance of your legal rights on your part.

What is it that they don't want an INFORMED listener to hear?

If not allowing somebody to bully you into giving up your rights makes you a "person of interest", you were already a person of interest before they said a word to you.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Walker944,no I think by being co-operative you saved yourself a major headache. What I meant to say and apparently didn't was that,by NOT answering(which you did answer) you may have caused red flags to go up. In my opinion, which isn't worth much, you did the right thing.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Looks to me that the OP may have saved himself alot of hassle by proving he didn't own the PS90 in question. I'm guessing the gun was backtraced to the FFL porbably along with several others.

Your guess might be right. Maybe. Possibly. Could be a "lie"(fishing bait) perpetrated by the Feds. Besides, it isn't up to you to prove you are not guilty. It is up to the Feds to prove you are guilty. If they had proof the OP bought that gun and sold it to a Mexican, he'd be up on charges already.

No, this is nothing but a fishing expedition.

Woody

 

[Deanimator]

People always forget on these forums how much Lawyering up can cost.

If you're not a lawyer and don't talk to a lawyer, how do you know IF you need a lawyer?

This stuff just boggles my mind. It's like saying, "I'll get a colonoscopy when I think I might have colon cancer."

I work VERY hard to have NO contact with the police. Apparently some people have so MANY run-ins with the cops that they THINK they know when the police are trying to deceive them or are violating their rights. Maybe they do, but if you're being questioned by the cops THAT often, you're probably doing something wrong.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Deanimator, I have been one of the loudest advocates for exercising ones civil rights on these forums. A quick check of my posts will prove that. A line has to be drawn between exercising a right and being foolhardy. In my view it is foolhardy to challenge an entity who has the ability to make your life miserable simply because you have a right to.

 

[Deanimator]

What I meant to say and apparently didn't was that,by NOT answering(which you did answer) you may have caused red flags to go up.

What "red flags" go up when you offer to talk to them in your lawyer's office? That you're not gullible?
That you know or at least care about your legal rights?

Why would that bother any HONEST LEO?

 

[Art Eatman]

The primary thought for the thread was the desirability of maintaining records of firearms transactions...