What if the ATF comes to your house?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your lawyer is clueless, or angling for a fee.

First, such a blanket statement is obviously wrong, "never" is a very long time.

Second, my own experience in working with ATFE is that its agents, like those of every other police department I've worked with, OFTEN do knock and talks. There are lots and lots of reasons for this, including wrongful, career "enhancing" ideas by their superiors.

I say he's clueless, because anything and everything seen by consent can be used as evidence, too. Actually consent is often broader in scope- if the warrant is to look for "rifles", they can't look in places rifles can't fit. But if you give consent, they can look anywhere you consent to.

The wonderful thing about consent is that YOU CONTROL IT. If they ask to see X, you show them X, it's over. They have seen what they came to see. You have cooperated.

If they then ask to see Y, you might start with the less cooperative path. "You said you wanted to see X, I showed it to you. My lawyer said not to show you anything without a warrant, I'll take that advice now, sorry. "
 
No warrant, all they'll see is the front door. I may offer them a few diet cokes from the mini fridge next to the front door though if it's hot outside just because I'm nice like that.

Anyways, if they're targeting me for anything, they're barking up the wrong tree. My collection, if you can even call it that, is worth less than a new Glock.
 
Just let them in, if you decline or tell them you are going to call a lawyer they will think something is up.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less if they think I'm the point man for an alien invasion from the Pleiades.

I don't want ANY contact with them, and will have none not SPECIFICALLY required by law. I will not "shoot the breeze" with them under any circumstances. They've got nothing to say that I want to hear, nor do I want them in my home saying it.

They will not enter without a warrant.
We will not talk without a lawyer present.
PERIOD

I have to obey the law and so do they. If they don't, there are consequences.
 
Your lawyer is clueless, or angling for a fee.
Click to expand...
So, how long have you been a lawyer?

Advising someone to not seek legal counsel when they are potentially the subject of an investigation or a "fishing expedition" is like advising someone to perform brain surgery on himself. Mistakes are typically about as recoverable as an inverted flat spin in a P-39.
 
As an fyi, for >99% of you, the ATF wouldn't come to your door if they were interested. Neither would any of the other agencies that regulate other stuff (like EPA, IRS, FDA, CPSC). They'll send a letter with a deadline for a response. You are much more likely to get a subpoena to appear somewhere than you are to get a visit.
 
sanerkeki and staghounds haven't been paying attention to what we are saying.

If they have a legitimate reason to search, they won't show up without a warrant. If you refuse to let them in because they don't have one, they don't magically become empowered with some piece of probable cause they didn't already have. It doesn't make it easier for them to get a warrant just because you stood on your rights.

Investigators of all types get paid to be creative. Look at it this way. If an agent keeps going out on routine inquiries and coming back empty handed, say 0 for 10, and his boss asks him, "Why didn't you get inside?", and he replies; "I didn't have a warrant.", what do you think the boss will tell him? "We NEVER have a warrant. It's your job to complete the investigation anyway. Be creative. Use your charm. Tell them they are under investigation for child pornography. I don't care how you get them to let you in, just make it happen. That's what everyone else here does. 0 for 10 is unacceptable. I need 7 or 8 for 10. Make it happen."

You can be one of the 8. I will be one of the other 2.
 
Unless you hold a firearms license (including a C&R) there's really no reason at all for them to even know you exist. They don't go around checking people's gun safes at home. If you are a license holder you will already be familiar with the procedure for checking of bound books and the like. If you are not a license holder, and the feds come knocking, it isn't for tea. Politely but firmly deny any request to do any searches. Don't physically try to stop them or resist. Give no statements. Call your lawyer.

The wonderful thing about consent is that YOU CONTROL IT.
Click to expand...

Not really. When you start down that road you're entering a Byzantine array of often conflicting case law. And I don't mean a few cases, I mean tens of thousands of them. Millions of printed words, plus more in the secondary sources. Most lawyers don't even know enough to safely navigate these waters. That's why anyone who knows anything about this area of law will tell you it's a bad idea to play this game. If the police have a good reason to search they will already have a warrant. Do not consent, but do call a lawyer.

For example, the ATFE agents say they want to see the three ARs you bought last month at the gun show, to make sure you're not reselling. ...

ATFE is law enforcement, aren't we in favour of that?
Click to expand...

Are we in favor of having the feds "check on" citizens who buy guns legally? No, we are not. Not at all. Not even a little tiny bit. We oppose that. And I think I speak for more than the royal "we" in this case. We very much oppose that. We oppose it with every tiny fiber of our being. We will never consent to it. Not just because it's foolish to consent to any search, but because the notion that law enforcement has some right to perform "check up" searches on private homes is anathema to the Bill of Rights and as deeply anti-American as it is possible to be. They do that sort of thing in countries where people are SUBJECTS and have no rights.
 
Last edited:
I've only been a lawyer in two states since 1987.

Been a state prosecutor almost all of that time.

I'm not advising anyone to not get counsel.

I'm not advising anyone anything, I'm not anyone's lawyer.

And I'm assuming that the original questioner meant what he asked- what if the ATFE came to the house and asked to see his newly purchased guns. NOT asked to search the house, but asked to see specific guns.

There are plenty of reasons that might happen. They might, unknown to the buyer or the seller, be stolen guns- refusal to show them to law enforcement could look like consciousness of guilt.

The agents might have been told (by one of the questioner's enemies, for example) that the questioner has sold the guns unlawfully, and they are verifying that isn't true.

They might be checking up on the dealer, to see if the serial numbers he said he sold you are the ones you actually bought.

For all we know, the questioner has had his guns stolen without knowing it, and the agents are there to restore them to him!

They might be on some general task, remember the Richmond gun show thing?

What I am saying is that if law enforcement people show up at your door and ask you something, you should be polite and try to comply if what they ask seems reasonable to you.

If the police came to your door and asked you if you'd seen a murderer walk by, you wouldn't say "I'll tell you on the witness stand".

Just because you have rights doesn't mean you have to die in the last ditch to enforce every last one.

And you absolutely do control your consent. If the agent says "I want to look at Colt AR SN XXX", and you say "Sure, I'll get it for you, wait right here", there isn't any case law I've ever seen that gives the agent any authority to do anything more than wait on the porch, unless you consent to more.
 
ATFE is law enforcement, aren't we in favour of that?
Click to expand...

the ATF enforces laws against victimless crimes. I'm not in favour of criminalizing victimless behavior, thus I am not in favour of the ATF. Nothing against the agents personally, they just happen to enforce pointless laws.
 
As an fyi, for >99% of you, the ATF wouldn't come to your door if they were interested. Neither would any of the other agencies that regulate other stuff (like EPA, IRS, FDA, CPSC). They'll send a letter with a deadline for a response. You are much more likely to get a subpoena to appear somewhere than you are to get a visit.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the links that I posted.

You should.
 
Nothing against the agents personally, they just happen to enforce pointless laws.
Click to expand...

+1

Plus, I'm still sore from the whole 'agency policy for lying under oath'. If they come to my door, I figure I'd have some reason to expect them.
 
What I am saying is that if law enforcement people show up at your door and ask you something, you should be polite and try to comply if what they ask seems reasonable to you.
Click to expand...
And how would a non-lawyer KNOW if it really WAS "reasonable"? He wouldn't. That's the point... and sometimes the idea when LEOs show up without warrants.

My lawyer's been a lawyer just about as long as you have, was a prosecutor and says EXACTLY the opposite. Don't consent to ANYTHING. Don't talk without a lawyer present.

A prosecutor's interests are 180deg diametrically opposed to that of the person being questioned by LEO's.
 
My lawyer's been a lawyer just about as long as you have, was a prosecutor and says EXACTLY the opposite. Don't consent to ANYTHING. Don't talk without a lawyer present.
Click to expand...

Question: "The police are here. They want to talk to me. What should I do?"

Answer: "Make no statement to the police under any circumstances."

- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson


That's good enough for me.

staghounds makes a good point, but he's a prosecutor so he has a little different view it seems. Certainly there are cases where it's perfectly fine to cooperate with LE, but the problem is that most of us don't know when that is and it's a horrible time to start playing lawyer when they show up. That is the point of Justice Jackson's quote, we won't know when it's OK.

If I see a crime and I'm a witness, absolutely not involved in any way? Maybe I speak to the police, maybe.

When they show up at my house asking for things? Not a chance.
 
Last edited:
Plus, I'm still sore from the whole 'agency policy for lying under oath'.
Click to expand...
That is all the reason which I will ever need to never "trust" them, and to only have the absolute minimum dealings with them SPECIFICALLY required by law.

Only a fool would trust the employees of an agency which had PERJURY as an OFFICIAL policy and made an OFFICIAL training video on how to lie under oath.
 
If the police came to your door and asked you if you'd seen a murderer walk by, you wouldn't say "I'll tell you on the witness stand".
Click to expand...

There's a universe of difference between saying "he went thataway" and allowing a warrantless search of your property. Assuming you are a DA, you would certainly know that. And to suggest otherwise in this thread is highly disturbing. But again, a reminder to us all why we need counsel.

There are plenty of reasons that might happen. They might, unknown to the buyer or the seller, be stolen guns- refusal to show them to law enforcement could look like consciousness of guilt.
Click to expand...

This is rubbish. Under no circumstances will an insistence on Constitutional rights be held against a criminal defendant in court. In fact it sounds like the precise sort of nonsense an LEO might try to suggest to coerce cooperation. And it's precisely why you need to get a lawyer post haste when they come knocking. They cannot be trusted.

The agents might have been told (by one of the questioner's enemies, for example) that the questioner has sold the guns unlawfully, and they are verifying that isn't true.
Click to expand...

Then they can get a warrant.

They might be checking up on the dealer, to see if the serial numbers he said he sold you are the ones you actually bought.
Click to expand...

Then they can get a warrant.

For all we know, the questioner has had his guns stolen without knowing it, and the agents are there to restore them to him!
Click to expand...

And maybe Ed McMahon is waiting in the bushes to give the suspect (you keep saying "questioner") a million dollars.

They might be on some general task, remember the Richmond gun show thing?
Click to expand...

We surely do. And you think that is going to make anyone here feel more comfortable with our federal friends?

If they think the arms are evidence in a criminal investigation they can get a warrant. That's what the system is set up for. It's not being rude to insist that officers follow the very laws they have SWORN TO UPHOLD.

And you absolutely do control your consent. If the agent says "I want to look at Colt AR SN XXX", and you say "Sure, I'll get it for you, wait right here", there isn't any case law I've ever seen that gives the agent any authority to do anything more than wait on the porch, unless you consent to more.
Click to expand...

Again, if you are a DA you know perfectly well that LEO's and agents will leverage more consent from the initial consent. They're extremely skilled at it. The next thing the hapless suspect knows, he will have let them come inside and opened his gun safe for them. The sanctum sanctorum laid bare for the state with no hint of a warrant. They're not there to do the suspect any favors, again as you well know. They're fishing, and the suspect is on the menu.

Beside which, WHAT RIGHT do officers have to demand to see any firearm any of us own? None, as far as I can see. If they believe the arm to be evidence they can follow lawful procedures to obtain it. Otherwise there is no way on this Earth I'm going to consent to a search--LEAST OF ALL a search of my most prized and valued property!
 
Last edited:
I very much agree. I feel like staghounds, as a prosecutor, has had plenty of professional benefit from investigators being creative in ways to get consent, and has come to like their point of view. I've taken law classes from a couple of prosecutors. His idea of being good to the police seems to favor one side of the aisle much more than the other. You're a prosecutor. That changes EVERYTHING?!

Withholding information about a murder you witnessed is obstruction of justice. Calling an investigator's bluff and making him get a warrant or get lost is standing up for your rights. Their general tasks are their problem. They do not cancel my rights. Just because their boss wants them to make checkmarks on a list doesn't mean I have to help them. They certainly won't help ME if the tables are turned.

Even if all they want to see is my guns, not the interior of my home, it doesn't mean that their motives are in my interests. Just because I'm standing on my rights doesn't mean I'm being rude.
 
The Fed's record isn't very honorable...

I seem to recall that the Supreme Court held that any federal officer can tell you any lie they want, even during the course of an investigation, and you have no grounds for action against them. So, in effect, they could say something along the lines of, "We have information that your AR-15 was illegally converted to full auto. If you let us see it, we can clear this up." It could be a complete fabrication, and you can't do a thing about it. They can lie to you with impunity.

On the other hand, the more you talk, the more opportunities you're giving them to hang you on some minor discrepancy between what you said one time and what you said another time, or based on some disagreement between your recollection of events and someone else's recollection.

I know that law enforcement officers have a tough job to do, but they've put themselves in this position. Personally, I would express some sort of support for police in general, then explain that, since officials can lie without penalty yet I can be charged with perjury or obstruction on the slightest pretence, I'm not cooperating.

Sorry, but the feds put themselves in this position. If they wanted the cooperation of a free people, they'd have remembered that a free people have rights. They did this to themselves by doing it to us.

- - - Yoda
 
I wolud have to agree with chuckusaret, atf does not make friendly visits and they will have a warrant, and they will enter and search, keep you mouth shut and call your attorney before answering any questions. Atf has become a rogue agency you have to right to an attorney use it. Sometimes a rokie local law enforcement officer may try to search without a warrant following up bougus leads...no warrant...no entry and call his supervisor and file a complant.....if he doesent have probable cause to get a search warrant he has no probable cause to be at you door.
 
Tell 'em, "Come back with a warrant, I'll be waiting right here with my attorney."
As far as what they might be interested in, I would be less concerned about the guns I own than the guns I used to own. That is why everything I sell goes through an FFL, or if it's FTF in my state I keep a record of it.
 
The idea that you should never even talk to a LEO without an attorney is not only stupid, it can help a criminal. Everyone likes scenarios, so here is one. Suppose you see a car drive up on the sidewalk and kill some school children. The car drives off. You got the license number but when asked by the police for help you refuse, saying that you won't talk without a lawyer present! The killer gets away. Now don't you feel good about that?

Jim
 
The idea that you should never even talk to a LEO without an attorney is not only stupid, it can help a criminal.
Click to expand...
I'll NEVER talk to the cops without a lawyer where I could by ANY stretch of the imagination be considered a suspect or a "person of interest".

You don't have to like that. You just need to accept that there's NOTHING you can do about it.

I can't be bullied into giving up my rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Visits by the ATF
Replies
19
Views
1K
chinacave
C
B
  • Locked
House panel approves ATF fee hike, due to ATF mismanagement.
Replies
5
Views
526
Art Eatman
A
K
  • Locked
NY State regulations
Replies
7
Views
384
hermannr
H
S
  • Locked
Contacted by BATFE today!!
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
159
Views
13K
rbernie
rbernie
C
  • Locked
FFL'S in Vermont/VSP
Replies
7
Views
423
w1mnk
W
Back
Top