Lawful purchase of regulated items does NOT constitute "reasonable suspicion" that the buyer may have or be intending to perform a prohibited act. WTH, dude!
You wrote
Old Dog said: ↑
Never said they needed probable cause to ring your doorbell. But to conduct an investigation of an individual they do.
I responded "No, they don't. All that's needed is reasonable suspicion."
You assume a "lawful purchase of regulated items does NOT constitute "reasonable suspicion"........but IT AINT YOUR CALL.
The purpose of the law requiring dealers to report the multiple sale of handguns is to prevent illegal trafficking or unlicensed dealing in firearms. It defies logic and common freaking sense that ATF or local LE would ignore such reports and not use those reports to begin an investigation or as evidenced by the video to ring the doorbell and ask the buyer if he still has the guns in question. It ain't illegal, it ain't trespassing, it is allowed by law, it is official business and its been going on for over half a freaking century. It ain't even news. That you and others are just now incensed over this video shows just how out of touch you really are. Where was your anger in 1968? 2000? 2020?
If a police officer were to ring your doorbell, ask "have you seen a white male wearing no pants?".....you can either answer him or not. It matters not one bit whether the man is an 80yr old with Alzheimer's, the neighborhood flasher or a three year old on the loose. Not all are criminals. Asking questions is good police work. It MAY lead to an actual investigation, a search warrant and kicking in doors......but asking questions ain't illegal or improper.
I wasn't gonna return to the thread as (some might have detected) certain comments became annoying to me.
All I will say -- and this is totally off topic as far as gun myths go -- our judicial system is predicated on the presumption of innocence.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Using your cockeyed understanding, no one would ever be questioned, investigated or charged because of the "presumption of innocence".
What you fail to grasp is that this principle doesn't apply until a person is charged with a crime! Once again, you fail.
Agents of the state do NOT investigate citizens of our country solely due to the fact that the citizen made a lawful purchase of regulated items, even though other citizens may have violated the purchase laws of those regulated items. Again, lawful purchase of the regulated item(s) creates neither "reasonable suspicion" nor "probable cause" that a crime may have been committed or is about to be committed.
And no one has said that they do. As noted above, federal law DOES prohibit the dealing in firearms without a license or trafficking in firearms. Further, buying a firearm on behalf of another person IS ILLEGAL. As federal law requires reporting multiple sales, even you would agree that there's a reason Congress wanted such reporting. And guess why?
Is it just me, or do we have some here that can't see the bigger picture?
Dude, I've seen this big picture since 1968. Welcome to the party.
