publius
Member
Funny, I found that the Pajamahadeen had higher standards of accuracy than Dan Blather when it came to old typewriters...
Outrage in Richmond VA
- Thread starter Leatherneck
- Start date
- Status
Cacique500
Member
I listened to the interview on Cam & Company this afternnon and they interviewed the CNS guy again. He said he's going to be writing a followup in the near future and will have additional info.
He also alluded to the fact that the ATF has installed hidden cameras at the Richmond gunshows since May of last year. The reason they found this out is that two ATF technicians were going to install hidden cameras at the Dulles gunshow...they were questioned by the property manager and said that they had permission of the promoter (which she did not give) and fortunately the property manager saw what they were up to and asked them to leave.
He also said that there have been 'off the record' talks with a few congressmen that are very interested in what happened in Richmond.
He also alluded to the fact that the ATF has installed hidden cameras at the Richmond gunshows since May of last year. The reason they found this out is that two ATF technicians were going to install hidden cameras at the Dulles gunshow...they were questioned by the property manager and said that they had permission of the promoter (which she did not give) and fortunately the property manager saw what they were up to and asked them to leave.
He also said that there have been 'off the record' talks with a few congressmen that are very interested in what happened in Richmond.
JohnBT
Member
"Not sure if there is a reasonable expectation to privacy when it comes to those records (besides the admonition against computerizing them and creating a de facto registration scheme). IRS can look at your tax records. Social Security has access to SSA records. TSA can look at travel information."
And BATFE can look at your 4473.
But none of them can discuss the contents, your personal information, with your neighbors and relatives. And therein lies the problem, because the reports so far say that is exactly what they did do and it appears to me, and I'm not a lawyer BTW, they're in violation of the sections of U.S. Code pertaining to gun sales.
I'm sure the lawyers can find a few hooks to hang their hats on. The politicians aren't going to like the adverse publicity - or maybe they will - Virginia is electing a Governor this year.
Hot damn, it's an election year boys - lean on 'em hard.
John
And BATFE can look at your 4473.
But none of them can discuss the contents, your personal information, with your neighbors and relatives. And therein lies the problem, because the reports so far say that is exactly what they did do and it appears to me, and I'm not a lawyer BTW, they're in violation of the sections of U.S. Code pertaining to gun sales.
I'm sure the lawyers can find a few hooks to hang their hats on. The politicians aren't going to like the adverse publicity - or maybe they will - Virginia is electing a Governor this year.
Hot damn, it's an election year boys - lean on 'em hard.
John
As much as I dislike lawyers, it won't take a particularly good lawyer to "find a hook to hang his hat on." Almost any lawyer will do. This proves that the BATF, like any other government agency, is NOT loaded with the sharpest knives in the drawer. I can't wait to see how this train wreck plays out. The BATF really screwed the pooch on this one.
cropcirclewalker
member
So, since I pasted a link to the fuzzy photos of all the .gov autos in the parking lot and asked someone who I thought was in the loop and had access to provide some disclosure.............
Mr. DMF thinks I print tinhatted conspiracy laden BS
Mr. Double Maduro Thinks that I have shown myself to be a person of low character and small mind who should be ashamed.
So I was reluctant to post my feeling of incredulity at Mr. KLR's post. Seemingly others have felt it too, so here goes.
So here we have a captive audience. The dealer has already verified the identification of the buyer using a .gov issued ID. If anything is being audited it would be the system of issuing .gov ID. They have the dealer and the seller at the same place, both waiting for an hour. Usually those .gov issued IDs have a photo. How hard would it have been to summon the buyer into a little room, shine a big bright light into his face and grill him about his .gov issued ID? No, they had to have 400 Police issued Crown Vics that probably get 12 mpg drive all over the megopolis verifying addresses. Most people wrongly (in my opinion) put their socialist security number on the 4473, (even though the privacy act of 1974 prohibits it's being required) , and the 4473 even says it's voluntary.
So the minions of the strongest, most powerful, most technologically advanced nation in the history of the world has 400 beat cops driving all over the megopolis at $2.61 per gallon verifying addresses, while the suspected culprit (citizen) stood outside the door waiting for an hour? Sorry, Increduluous.
It is obvious to me that some in .gov (present company excluded, of course) should all be fired and replaced with people who know who their employer is. Us.
No, wait, fire them all and replace them when there was an obvious need. (which there isn't)
Mr. DMF thinks I print tinhatted conspiracy laden BS
Mr. Double Maduro Thinks that I have shown myself to be a person of low character and small mind who should be ashamed.
So I was reluctant to post my feeling of incredulity at Mr. KLR's post. Seemingly others have felt it too, so here goes.
Strains credulity.
So here we have a captive audience. The dealer has already verified the identification of the buyer using a .gov issued ID. If anything is being audited it would be the system of issuing .gov ID. They have the dealer and the seller at the same place, both waiting for an hour. Usually those .gov issued IDs have a photo. How hard would it have been to summon the buyer into a little room, shine a big bright light into his face and grill him about his .gov issued ID? No, they had to have 400 Police issued Crown Vics that probably get 12 mpg drive all over the megopolis verifying addresses. Most people wrongly (in my opinion) put their socialist security number on the 4473, (even though the privacy act of 1974 prohibits it's being required) , and the 4473 even says it's voluntary.
So the minions of the strongest, most powerful, most technologically advanced nation in the history of the world has 400 beat cops driving all over the megopolis at $2.61 per gallon verifying addresses, while the suspected culprit (citizen) stood outside the door waiting for an hour? Sorry, Increduluous.
How does the saying go? "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread"? Into the breach goes another .gov apologist. Incredulous. MSM (I like to call it the "Managed Media") has far less credibility than alternative media. CBS? gimmeabreak.
It is obvious to me that some in .gov (present company excluded, of course) should all be fired and replaced with people who know who their employer is. Us.
No, wait, fire them all and replace them when there was an obvious need. (which there isn't)
spartacus2002
Member
Update from VCDL:
"NRA's Cam Edwards show interviewed the reporter from CNSnews.com that broke the story. I learned some new information from his interview, which I expect to be in a follow up article he is working on. There were two people that CNSnews.com chased down (one with VCDL's help) who had the police come to their house while awaiting a background check. Both were so intimidated, that they did not want to be identified in any way."
"NRA's Cam Edwards show interviewed the reporter from CNSnews.com that broke the story. I learned some new information from his interview, which I expect to be in a follow up article he is working on. There were two people that CNSnews.com chased down (one with VCDL's help) who had the police come to their house while awaiting a background check. Both were so intimidated, that they did not want to be identified in any way."
I've been following this thread with extreme interest since I followed the link from AM, and with some posters, I'm quite dissapointed.
I wish to say this to all the nay-sayers, proof will come, COUNT ON IT!! Right now I just can't give anything away, when I find out it's alright, rest assured, I WILL POST!!
And yes, I said I was the tip of the iceberg in the interview, because until I spoke with others, I thought I was the only person who had been harassed. To all the nay-sayers, just wait until it happens to you, or someone you know, at whatever show you attend, in whatever state you live. And you had better believe it will, if this isn't persued to the highest level and stopped.
I'm a member at quite a few firearms boards under the user-names SIXPACK, or Quicklime, I urge the nay-sayers to please check out the type of threads I post. Never in my time on any of these boards have I posted anything of this sort. As a matter of fact, I tend to let topics like this pass.
When I got back from the show that saturday, I was incensed and felt violated. I don't think anyone who hasn't been through the type of harassment I went through that day, can know exactly how I felt. I definately wasn't going to let this thing go, and I still won't!
Being that I'm a member of the VCDL, they were the first people I contacted. The others were a result of that conversation. I felt the need for as many people to hear about this as possible, to try and stop this before it got worse. That is the only reason I allowed my name to be broadcast all over the place, I would have prefered anonymity.
There is one mistake in the CNS article though. I wasn't able to get my drivers license back until the following tuesday, that's when I had the time to get to the DMV.
If this whole incident seems a little un-realistic, I would have thought the very same thing, until it happened to me. As I said before proof will come, it's just a matter of timing.
Sincerely, James R. Lalime.
I wish to say this to all the nay-sayers, proof will come, COUNT ON IT!! Right now I just can't give anything away, when I find out it's alright, rest assured, I WILL POST!!
And yes, I said I was the tip of the iceberg in the interview, because until I spoke with others, I thought I was the only person who had been harassed. To all the nay-sayers, just wait until it happens to you, or someone you know, at whatever show you attend, in whatever state you live. And you had better believe it will, if this isn't persued to the highest level and stopped.
I'm a member at quite a few firearms boards under the user-names SIXPACK, or Quicklime, I urge the nay-sayers to please check out the type of threads I post. Never in my time on any of these boards have I posted anything of this sort. As a matter of fact, I tend to let topics like this pass.
When I got back from the show that saturday, I was incensed and felt violated. I don't think anyone who hasn't been through the type of harassment I went through that day, can know exactly how I felt. I definately wasn't going to let this thing go, and I still won't!
Being that I'm a member of the VCDL, they were the first people I contacted. The others were a result of that conversation. I felt the need for as many people to hear about this as possible, to try and stop this before it got worse. That is the only reason I allowed my name to be broadcast all over the place, I would have prefered anonymity.
There is one mistake in the CNS article though. I wasn't able to get my drivers license back until the following tuesday, that's when I had the time to get to the DMV.
If this whole incident seems a little un-realistic, I would have thought the very same thing, until it happened to me. As I said before proof will come, it's just a matter of timing.
Sincerely, James R. Lalime.
mmike87
Member
Representitive Virgil Goode was very interested.
KLR
Member
Cropcirclewalker:
You neglect the fact that I was replying to Tory's post. I was replying to his implication that one needs suspicion of falsification and that without such suspicion there was no point to the interviews. Put more succinctly: there was information to be gained regarding the truth of the data provided. Period. I see no need to re-print the "ostensible end" stuff. Not sure why you are incredulous or credulity is strained.
You wrote:
Light+Tiny Room is verging on custodial. In fact, I would regard it as custodial, preferring to err on the side of caution.
Oh yeah, people who are doing bad things frequently lie. Asking them (harsh lighting or not) isn't always an effective technique.
BTW- the ".gov" schtick is childish. Thought it during the Drega stuff and haven't changed my opinion. What did you call it in the pre-internet days?
Cropcirclewalker's patented, bright light, custodial, might as well be an interrogation technique.
Excellent idea.
You neglect the fact that I was replying to Tory's post. I was replying to his implication that one needs suspicion of falsification and that without such suspicion there was no point to the interviews. Put more succinctly: there was information to be gained regarding the truth of the data provided. Period. I see no need to re-print the "ostensible end" stuff. Not sure why you are incredulous or credulity is strained.
You wrote:
You aren't auditing the issuing of IDs (although that might not be a bad idea). ID's can be obtained using false information, out of date information, or be counterfeited. A lot of states allow you to claim one address and have the ID mailed to a PO Box. It has lead to wholesale fraud (mostly by illegal immigrants) in states like Michigan. Virginia has had a problem although I don't know if they mail the IDs to boxes or not. The only way to verify the information during the gun show (assuming you want to do so) is to expend shoe leather and the soon to be mentioned gasoline. In fact, agents/officers working ID fraud cases have to go to the location in question at some point.
Light+Tiny Room is verging on custodial. In fact, I would regard it as custodial, preferring to err on the side of caution.
Oh yeah, people who are doing bad things frequently lie. Asking them (harsh lighting or not) isn't always an effective technique.
BTW- the ".gov" schtick is childish. Thought it during the Drega stuff and haven't changed my opinion. What did you call it in the pre-internet days?
From the photos, looked like a mix of several different vehicles and there seems to be some dispute as to the number.
Irrelevant information.
Again, we are back to your alternative:
Cropcirclewalker's patented, bright light, custodial, might as well be an interrogation technique.
Excellent idea.
Specious reasoning and reading comprehension
"The agents performed field interviews. "Interrogation" tends to imply some sort of custodial situation."
In your mind, perhaps. There is no such requirement in the legal definition:
Interrogation: The formal or systematic questioning of a person, esp. intensive questioning by the police, usu. of a person arrested for or suspected of committing a crime. Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) 2004.
Got that - "questioning;" is the element, not a "custodial situation." Next error:
"One means of verifying the health of a system (accuracy of the data provided) is by taking samples. As the data came in, ATF was checking it."
Patent falsehood. The BATFE was NOT "sampling," confirming or in any other way verifying the "data." It was advertising privileged information by telling neighbors and other third parties about firearms purchases in violation of law. It did so not to "sample" but to intimidate, harass and annoy. Grasp the concept.
"The "ostensible end" (health of the 4473 system) would seem to be well served by sampling and such sampling would be conducive to that end."
Law and logic hold otherwise, your disingenous rationalization notwithstanding.
"Not aware of any requirement for suspicion of falsification."
Not aware of much then, are you? Including your own excuse: "One means of verifying the health of a system (accuracy of the data provided) is by taking samples."
If you don't suspect the purchaser is lying - despite the provision of TWO forms of state-issued ID - then just what IS your basis for this rampant, random interrogation program?
"The agents performed field interviews. "Interrogation" tends to imply some sort of custodial situation."
In your mind, perhaps. There is no such requirement in the legal definition:
Interrogation: The formal or systematic questioning of a person, esp. intensive questioning by the police, usu. of a person arrested for or suspected of committing a crime. Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) 2004.
Got that - "questioning;" is the element, not a "custodial situation." Next error:
"One means of verifying the health of a system (accuracy of the data provided) is by taking samples. As the data came in, ATF was checking it."
Patent falsehood. The BATFE was NOT "sampling," confirming or in any other way verifying the "data." It was advertising privileged information by telling neighbors and other third parties about firearms purchases in violation of law. It did so not to "sample" but to intimidate, harass and annoy. Grasp the concept.
"The "ostensible end" (health of the 4473 system) would seem to be well served by sampling and such sampling would be conducive to that end."
Law and logic hold otherwise, your disingenous rationalization notwithstanding.
"Not aware of any requirement for suspicion of falsification."
Not aware of much then, are you? Including your own excuse: "One means of verifying the health of a system (accuracy of the data provided) is by taking samples."
If you don't suspect the purchaser is lying - despite the provision of TWO forms of state-issued ID - then just what IS your basis for this rampant, random interrogation program?
The Freeholder
Member
Proof? Well, it isn't iron-clad and notarized, but how about pictures of the officers gathering in the parking lot? The picture quality isn't that good, but you can see enough, I think.
Of course, the folks who faked the moon landing could have done these up as well, I suppose.
Of course, the folks who faked the moon landing could have done these up as well, I suppose.
If you have a fake ID,it won't come up when they run the background check.
Just how dumb do you have to be to not understand that?
KLR babbled:
*You aren't auditing the issuing of IDs (although that might not be a bad idea). ID's can be obtained using false information, out of date information, or be counterfeited. A lot of states allow you to claim one address and have the ID mailed to a PO Box. It has lead to wholesale fraud (mostly by illegal immigrants) in states like Michigan. Virginia has had a problem although I don't know if they mail the IDs to boxes or not. The only way to verify the information during the gun show (assuming you want to do so) is to expend shoe leather and the soon to be mentioned gasoline. In fact, agents/officers working ID fraud cases have to go to the location in question at some point.*
How about height and weight checks to verify what you put down on the 4473 in those boxes?
Just how dumb do you have to be to not understand that?
KLR babbled:
*You aren't auditing the issuing of IDs (although that might not be a bad idea). ID's can be obtained using false information, out of date information, or be counterfeited. A lot of states allow you to claim one address and have the ID mailed to a PO Box. It has lead to wholesale fraud (mostly by illegal immigrants) in states like Michigan. Virginia has had a problem although I don't know if they mail the IDs to boxes or not. The only way to verify the information during the gun show (assuming you want to do so) is to expend shoe leather and the soon to be mentioned gasoline. In fact, agents/officers working ID fraud cases have to go to the location in question at some point.*
How about height and weight checks to verify what you put down on the 4473 in those boxes?
KLR
Member
Tory:
Blacks Law- great. I think I have a copy around here somewhere. In the real world, LE (generally) makes a distinction between an interview and an interrogation. I don't think that every interaction between LE and non-LE rises to the level of interrogation. You obviously think differently. Your definition from Black's includes the expression "usu. of a person arrested for or suspected of committing a crime." I believe it was you who referred to the situation as third party questioning. As the Black's definition does not read "always of a person arrested . . ." I guess there is some wiggle room.
So, you can divine what was in the hearts of the agents? You have a copy of the operations order directing them to "annoy, intimidate, and, oh yeah, ask a few questions?" Please, if you have the information, do share. We shall all surely grasp the concept after such information is bestowed upon us.
Having gone back through some of your recent posts, I can see that you often cannot address an issue without some venom and/or arrogance. This usually is accompanied by several multi-syllable words (nothing wrong with a good vocabulary, mind you). You have, in this case, effectively accused me of lying. Twice.
In the USENET newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.email" (among others) you can "killfile" people. This has much the same effect as adding someone to our own ignore list. This is frequenly written simply as "Plonk".
Tory . . . Plonk!
Blacks Law- great. I think I have a copy around here somewhere. In the real world, LE (generally) makes a distinction between an interview and an interrogation. I don't think that every interaction between LE and non-LE rises to the level of interrogation. You obviously think differently. Your definition from Black's includes the expression "usu. of a person arrested for or suspected of committing a crime." I believe it was you who referred to the situation as third party questioning. As the Black's definition does not read "always of a person arrested . . ." I guess there is some wiggle room.
So, you can divine what was in the hearts of the agents? You have a copy of the operations order directing them to "annoy, intimidate, and, oh yeah, ask a few questions?" Please, if you have the information, do share. We shall all surely grasp the concept after such information is bestowed upon us.
Having gone back through some of your recent posts, I can see that you often cannot address an issue without some venom and/or arrogance. This usually is accompanied by several multi-syllable words (nothing wrong with a good vocabulary, mind you). You have, in this case, effectively accused me of lying. Twice.
In the USENET newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.email" (among others) you can "killfile" people. This has much the same effect as adding someone to our own ignore list. This is frequenly written simply as "Plonk".
Tory . . . Plonk!
In response to Mr. Cropcirclewalker's posting above...
I'd like to remind our THR family that not all .gov folks are the Boogie Man. Some of us, in fact, are quite nice, honorable people you wouldn't mind spending an afternoon at the range with.
(Right, Frosty?)
Folks are getting wrapped around the axle on this thread. How's 'bout we wait until the dust settles to see what plays out?
I'd like to remind our THR family that not all .gov folks are the Boogie Man. Some of us, in fact, are quite nice, honorable people you wouldn't mind spending an afternoon at the range with.
(Right, Frosty?)
Folks are getting wrapped around the axle on this thread. How's 'bout we wait until the dust settles to see what plays out?
KLR
Member
Steelcore:
You wrote (I won't be so insulting as to say "babbled"):
Can I assume that you mean the fake ID will not hit as a legitimate one and will be discovered as false during the check?
If so:
For those of us who have worked identity theft cases, we know that bad guys can create fake IDs with information from a real person. They can use the fake ID with your information to open accounts, deposit bad checks, withdraw the funds and leave you holding the bag.
So, bearing that in mind- is it still a "dumb" concept?
You wrote (I won't be so insulting as to say "babbled"):
Can I assume that you mean the fake ID will not hit as a legitimate one and will be discovered as false during the check?
If so:
For those of us who have worked identity theft cases, we know that bad guys can create fake IDs with information from a real person. They can use the fake ID with your information to open accounts, deposit bad checks, withdraw the funds and leave you holding the bag.
So, bearing that in mind- is it still a "dumb" concept?
cropcirclewalker
member
In response to Mr. Gewehr98's post above.
Please do not misunderstand.......
I do not hate the people that work for .gov.
Most, if not all of them are probably nice, honorable guys that I would like to talk to at the range.
Trouble is, most of them are not authorized to be employed by the constitution.
They, and I, would be both happier if they worked in private employment where they served a useful and profitable purpose. That's capitalism, the reason we are all here typing away on our computers.
Good little socialists would still be trying to get a good nights sleep so that they could get an early start on their farming collective in the morning.
Please do not misunderstand.......
I do not hate the people that work for .gov.
Most, if not all of them are probably nice, honorable guys that I would like to talk to at the range.
Trouble is, most of them are not authorized to be employed by the constitution.
They, and I, would be both happier if they worked in private employment where they served a useful and profitable purpose. That's capitalism, the reason we are all here typing away on our computers.
Good little socialists would still be trying to get a good nights sleep so that they could get an early start on their farming collective in the morning.
Harve Curry
Member
RKBA enthusiast:
Could this happen here? Could you be one of the detainee's?
Ken Rineer
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050823a.html
ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 23, 2005
Listen to G. Gordon Liddy's Aug. 23 interview of CNSNews.com's Jeff Johnson
(CNSNews.com) - The federal agency that regulates U.S. gun dealers stands accused, along with at least three Virginia law enforcement agencies, of trying to shut down legal gun shows through alleged intimidation of gun buyers and sellers. The law enforcement organizations also allegedly broke the law by sharing gun buyers' information with members of the public.
Annette Gelles, owner of gun show sponsor Showmasters.us, told Cybercast News Service that at least 30 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) along with nearly 500 Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police officers were assigned to the ATF operation targeting her gun show on Aug. 13 and 14 at the Richmond International Raceway and Fairground Complex, outside Richmond, Va.
Gelles said four marked police cars were stationed at the main entrance to the raceway parking lot and more than 50 marked and unlabeled but obvious law enforcement vehicles were positioned just outside the public entrance to the building. The officers' presence, Gelles said, was intended to intimidate her customers.
"It's just a persecution thing. It's not really an attempt to solve crimes or stop them," Gelles said. "It's their way of trying to get rid of gun shows. That's the only way you can explain that large a police presence at the gun shows."
Gelles said ATF Resident Agent in Charge Brian Swann told her that the officers were part of a "Virginia State Police, ATF task force" and represented the "same amount of force that we've used in all the shows." The only difference in Gelles' case, Swann told her, was that the command post was established at the site of her gun show.
Virginia State Police (VSP) spokeswoman Corinne Geller told Cybercast News Service that her agency does participate in a task force with ATF and other Virginia law enforcement agencies. As part of the agreement that created the task force, Geller said, VSP agreed to refer questions regarding its operations to ATF.
Richmond Police spokeswoman Kirsten Nelson e-mailed her response to questions about the apparent sting operation.
"I have done some checking and as I said on the phone, the gun show was not in our jurisdiction," Nelson wrote, "so I have no record of our officers' participation."
Gelles said the participation of Richmond Police officers in the operation has already been documented, by Richmond Police officers.
"My own Richmond City Police officers that are there, that I hire for my security purposes, told me that they saw 14 (Richmond City Police officers) on Saturday in plain clothes," Gelles said.
Lt. Doug Perry with Henrico County Police acknowledged that his department's officers took part in the operation, but he would not say how many participated.
"We wouldn't normally release that anyway. That's part of our operational plan, the number of officers involved," Perry said. "We're not on overtime when we're doing that so it wouldn't be public information."
One gun show exhibitor said he counted 72 uniformed and plainclothes officers and agents in and around the vehicles near the entrance to the building. Gelles claimed that an unidentified officer tried to stop the exhibitor from counting the number of law enforcement personnel present, but walked away when the exhibitor refused.
While normal attendance at her two-day show is nearly 4,000, Gelles said she attracted approximately 2,300 the weekend of Aug. 13 and 14, costing Showmasters.us more than $7,000.
'There's no way that's legal'
"They did something else, which is highly illegal," Gelles charged. "They did something called a residency check."
Gelles explained that, when gun dealers took the paperwork to the Virginia State Police on-site office to complete the background checks on prospective buyers, ATF agents copied the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called "residency checks."
According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: "Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?
"If people weren't home they, in some cases, went to neighbors" to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.
"I'm not an attorney but, I'll tell you what, in my opinion that would be a violation of federal law," Van Cleave said. "To go off on a fishing trip with that information, much less sharing information like that with neighbors, there's no way that's legal."
Title 18 Section 923 of the U.S. Code concerns the licensing of gun dealers and appears to support Van Cleave's position. It contains the following restrictions on the information collected during the process of a gun purchase:
"(g)(3)(B) Except in the case of forms and contents thereof regarding a purchaser who is prohibited by [federal law] from receipt of a firearm, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall not disclose any such form or the contents thereof to any person or entity, and shall destroy each such form and any record of the contents thereof no more than 20 days from the date such form is received."
VSP's Geller could not comment on the "residency checks," but said the ATF did not get gun buyers' addresses from her agency. "I can assure you, they weren't getting it from our records," Geller said, "because we don't take addresses."
In fact, the "Department of State Police - Virginia Firearms Transaction Record" form asks for the purchaser's name, date of birth, Social Security or driver's license number and citizenship status. No other identifying information, such as addresses or telephone numbers is requested.
But ATF Form 4473, the "Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-The-Counter," does request the purchaser's address. Those forms are kept together as part of a "buyer's packet" when the VSP form is submitted for the NICS check.
Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Cybercast News Service that these types of allegations against ATF are exactly why GOA members opposed the NICS background check when it was initially proposed.
"Whenever you force good people to jump through hoops before they exercise their rights, you give rogue bureaucrats a chance to harass decent citizens," Pratt said.
"We have a Bill of Rights because government does not always act in our best interest," he continued. "Rather than being spied upon, the American people should be the ones questioning family members and neighbors - not of gun owners - but of these rogue bureaucrats."
ATF agent allegedly 'got quite rude' with gun show customer
James Lalime, who works part time for a gun dealer, was attending the Richmond show on his own. He had brought two firearms and part of a third from his personal collection to offer for sale at the show, which is legal and does not require a federal firearms license (FFL) or local business license.
Lalime claims a man approached him and verbally identified himself as an ATF agent but did not show his credentials or badge.
"He was accusing me of running a business and telling me that I needed to get a business license if I was going to sell firearms," Lalime charged.
The agent allegedly had state police check Lalime's driver's license and learned that it was suspended. He said he was placed in the back of a police car and questioned by the agent while the suspension was investigated.
"He kept asking me all kinds of questions: 'How often do you buy guns? When do you buy guns? When was the last time you bought a gun? How many guns did you buy the last time you bought guns?'" Lalime continued. "All that is irrelevant and I told him that. I said, 'That's my personal business.'"
Lalime was released when it was learned that his license was valid and the alleged suspension was caused by a computer error. He went back into the gun show and told Gelles about the encounter and she suggested that Lalime get the agent's name.
When he found the agent, who identified himself as Special Agent Brian McComas, Lalime claims McComas tried to intimidate him.
"He said, 'You know you're making a big deal about nothing,' and I said, 'No sir, I am not,'" Lalime explained. "Then he got right in my face, almost touching his chest to mine, in real threatening posture, and said, 'You're making a real big mistake.'"
Lalime claims Swann interrupted the confrontation and the two federal officers walked away. "Once I got over the initial shock, it really made me angry," Lalime said.
ATF is 'out of the residency check business'
Gelles and her attorneys were in Washington, D.C., Aug. 15 to meet with ATF officials and seek an explanation for what happened over the weekend. After talking with several people in the ATF headquarters, Gelles said she finally spoke with a supervisor, whom she would not identify, who assured her that ATF "is out of the residency check business, effective immediately."
She was hesitant to give further details about the meeting in the event that a lawsuit is filed over the agency's actions.
In addition to the $7,000 she said she lost from reduced attendance at the show, Gelles added that she has already spent more than $12,000 in legal fees trying to prevent a repeat of the ATF operation of Aug. 13 and 14 and other previous incidents of what she considers improper agency behavior.
Van Cleave said his groups will be "watching in Virginia with a microscope to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
"If they do it again, we'll get active in contacting the ATF, the police and the media," Van Cleave warned. "If they break their word on this and start this crap again, then we will be in touch with the media."
After more than a half-dozen calls by Cybercast News Service seeking comment for this article, an ATF spokesman said the agency was "still gathering information" about the events of Aug. 13 and 14 and would not be able to comment until sometime on Tuesday.
Could this happen here? Could you be one of the detainee's?
Ken Rineer
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050823a.html
ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 23, 2005
Listen to G. Gordon Liddy's Aug. 23 interview of CNSNews.com's Jeff Johnson
(CNSNews.com) - The federal agency that regulates U.S. gun dealers stands accused, along with at least three Virginia law enforcement agencies, of trying to shut down legal gun shows through alleged intimidation of gun buyers and sellers. The law enforcement organizations also allegedly broke the law by sharing gun buyers' information with members of the public.
Annette Gelles, owner of gun show sponsor Showmasters.us, told Cybercast News Service that at least 30 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) along with nearly 500 Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police officers were assigned to the ATF operation targeting her gun show on Aug. 13 and 14 at the Richmond International Raceway and Fairground Complex, outside Richmond, Va.
Gelles said four marked police cars were stationed at the main entrance to the raceway parking lot and more than 50 marked and unlabeled but obvious law enforcement vehicles were positioned just outside the public entrance to the building. The officers' presence, Gelles said, was intended to intimidate her customers.
"It's just a persecution thing. It's not really an attempt to solve crimes or stop them," Gelles said. "It's their way of trying to get rid of gun shows. That's the only way you can explain that large a police presence at the gun shows."
Gelles said ATF Resident Agent in Charge Brian Swann told her that the officers were part of a "Virginia State Police, ATF task force" and represented the "same amount of force that we've used in all the shows." The only difference in Gelles' case, Swann told her, was that the command post was established at the site of her gun show.
Virginia State Police (VSP) spokeswoman Corinne Geller told Cybercast News Service that her agency does participate in a task force with ATF and other Virginia law enforcement agencies. As part of the agreement that created the task force, Geller said, VSP agreed to refer questions regarding its operations to ATF.
Richmond Police spokeswoman Kirsten Nelson e-mailed her response to questions about the apparent sting operation.
"I have done some checking and as I said on the phone, the gun show was not in our jurisdiction," Nelson wrote, "so I have no record of our officers' participation."
Gelles said the participation of Richmond Police officers in the operation has already been documented, by Richmond Police officers.
"My own Richmond City Police officers that are there, that I hire for my security purposes, told me that they saw 14 (Richmond City Police officers) on Saturday in plain clothes," Gelles said.
Lt. Doug Perry with Henrico County Police acknowledged that his department's officers took part in the operation, but he would not say how many participated.
"We wouldn't normally release that anyway. That's part of our operational plan, the number of officers involved," Perry said. "We're not on overtime when we're doing that so it wouldn't be public information."
One gun show exhibitor said he counted 72 uniformed and plainclothes officers and agents in and around the vehicles near the entrance to the building. Gelles claimed that an unidentified officer tried to stop the exhibitor from counting the number of law enforcement personnel present, but walked away when the exhibitor refused.
While normal attendance at her two-day show is nearly 4,000, Gelles said she attracted approximately 2,300 the weekend of Aug. 13 and 14, costing Showmasters.us more than $7,000.
'There's no way that's legal'
"They did something else, which is highly illegal," Gelles charged. "They did something called a residency check."
Gelles explained that, when gun dealers took the paperwork to the Virginia State Police on-site office to complete the background checks on prospective buyers, ATF agents copied the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called "residency checks."
According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: "Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?
"If people weren't home they, in some cases, went to neighbors" to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.
"I'm not an attorney but, I'll tell you what, in my opinion that would be a violation of federal law," Van Cleave said. "To go off on a fishing trip with that information, much less sharing information like that with neighbors, there's no way that's legal."
Title 18 Section 923 of the U.S. Code concerns the licensing of gun dealers and appears to support Van Cleave's position. It contains the following restrictions on the information collected during the process of a gun purchase:
"(g)(3)(B) Except in the case of forms and contents thereof regarding a purchaser who is prohibited by [federal law] from receipt of a firearm, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall not disclose any such form or the contents thereof to any person or entity, and shall destroy each such form and any record of the contents thereof no more than 20 days from the date such form is received."
VSP's Geller could not comment on the "residency checks," but said the ATF did not get gun buyers' addresses from her agency. "I can assure you, they weren't getting it from our records," Geller said, "because we don't take addresses."
In fact, the "Department of State Police - Virginia Firearms Transaction Record" form asks for the purchaser's name, date of birth, Social Security or driver's license number and citizenship status. No other identifying information, such as addresses or telephone numbers is requested.
But ATF Form 4473, the "Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-The-Counter," does request the purchaser's address. Those forms are kept together as part of a "buyer's packet" when the VSP form is submitted for the NICS check.
Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Cybercast News Service that these types of allegations against ATF are exactly why GOA members opposed the NICS background check when it was initially proposed.
"Whenever you force good people to jump through hoops before they exercise their rights, you give rogue bureaucrats a chance to harass decent citizens," Pratt said.
"We have a Bill of Rights because government does not always act in our best interest," he continued. "Rather than being spied upon, the American people should be the ones questioning family members and neighbors - not of gun owners - but of these rogue bureaucrats."
ATF agent allegedly 'got quite rude' with gun show customer
James Lalime, who works part time for a gun dealer, was attending the Richmond show on his own. He had brought two firearms and part of a third from his personal collection to offer for sale at the show, which is legal and does not require a federal firearms license (FFL) or local business license.
Lalime claims a man approached him and verbally identified himself as an ATF agent but did not show his credentials or badge.
"He was accusing me of running a business and telling me that I needed to get a business license if I was going to sell firearms," Lalime charged.
The agent allegedly had state police check Lalime's driver's license and learned that it was suspended. He said he was placed in the back of a police car and questioned by the agent while the suspension was investigated.
"He kept asking me all kinds of questions: 'How often do you buy guns? When do you buy guns? When was the last time you bought a gun? How many guns did you buy the last time you bought guns?'" Lalime continued. "All that is irrelevant and I told him that. I said, 'That's my personal business.'"
Lalime was released when it was learned that his license was valid and the alleged suspension was caused by a computer error. He went back into the gun show and told Gelles about the encounter and she suggested that Lalime get the agent's name.
When he found the agent, who identified himself as Special Agent Brian McComas, Lalime claims McComas tried to intimidate him.
"He said, 'You know you're making a big deal about nothing,' and I said, 'No sir, I am not,'" Lalime explained. "Then he got right in my face, almost touching his chest to mine, in real threatening posture, and said, 'You're making a real big mistake.'"
Lalime claims Swann interrupted the confrontation and the two federal officers walked away. "Once I got over the initial shock, it really made me angry," Lalime said.
ATF is 'out of the residency check business'
Gelles and her attorneys were in Washington, D.C., Aug. 15 to meet with ATF officials and seek an explanation for what happened over the weekend. After talking with several people in the ATF headquarters, Gelles said she finally spoke with a supervisor, whom she would not identify, who assured her that ATF "is out of the residency check business, effective immediately."
She was hesitant to give further details about the meeting in the event that a lawsuit is filed over the agency's actions.
In addition to the $7,000 she said she lost from reduced attendance at the show, Gelles added that she has already spent more than $12,000 in legal fees trying to prevent a repeat of the ATF operation of Aug. 13 and 14 and other previous incidents of what she considers improper agency behavior.
Van Cleave said his groups will be "watching in Virginia with a microscope to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
"If they do it again, we'll get active in contacting the ATF, the police and the media," Van Cleave warned. "If they break their word on this and start this crap again, then we will be in touch with the media."
After more than a half-dozen calls by Cybercast News Service seeking comment for this article, an ATF spokesman said the agency was "still gathering information" about the events of Aug. 13 and 14 and would not be able to comment until sometime on Tuesday.
Double Maduro
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,125
Besides that, doesn't NICS check to see if you are a bad person and not that you are a valid person?
DM
cropcirclewalker
member
Yo, Mr. Gewehr98, we agree
Please don't get upset, but the constitution allows for the creation and maintenance of a Navy and
The raising of an Army, but that no appropriation to that purpose is to be for a period of longer than 2 years.........
Sorry, they forgot to mention the Air Force.
Perhaps in the penumbra?
Please don't get upset, but the constitution allows for the creation and maintenance of a Navy and
The raising of an Army, but that no appropriation to that purpose is to be for a period of longer than 2 years.........
Sorry, they forgot to mention the Air Force.
Perhaps in the penumbra?
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. Double Maduro
Your validity was supposed to have been checked when they issued you your .gov ID.
Have you decided yet whether or not this event/operation/sting/operation really happened yet?
Exactly!
Your validity was supposed to have been checked when they issued you your .gov ID.
Have you decided yet whether or not this event/operation/sting/operation really happened yet?
JohnBT
Member
What's NICS?
Virginia dealers call the State Police. The program was put in place in 1989.
I just saw this statement on the VSP site:
"The Virginia Firearms Transaction Program is provided on-site via laptop computers at selected high-volume gun show events by State Police personnel."
John
Virginia dealers call the State Police. The program was put in place in 1989.
I just saw this statement on the VSP site:
"The Virginia Firearms Transaction Program is provided on-site via laptop computers at selected high-volume gun show events by State Police personnel."
John
FPrice
Member
Gewehr98...
I almost missed your comment there, mainly because of what you said afterwards.
Too many people are trying to "prove" that they have the right take in this and "beat" the rest into compliant submission.
Does anyone here remember the old Rod Serling Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street"? I think the plot of that story applies here.
I almost missed your comment there, mainly because of what you said afterwards.
Too many people are trying to "prove" that they have the right take in this and "beat" the rest into compliant submission.
Does anyone here remember the old Rod Serling Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street"? I think the plot of that story applies here.
FPrice
Member
(from the above referenced Twilight Zone episode)
Note: This does not apply to what the BATFE appears to have done. It applies to our reactions.
""The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own - for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.""
With thanks to Rod Serling.
Note: This does not apply to what the BATFE appears to have done. It applies to our reactions.
""The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own - for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.""
With thanks to Rod Serling.
That has application how? Prejudice is an unjustified belief. ATFE's own record of actions, as found by Congress on multiple situations, serves to corroborate the eyewitness accounts of this incident. Basically, someone is asserting that they are doing something of which they have proven themselves capable time and again. That's not prejudice or an attempt at making someone a scapegoat.
- Status