ATF at Your door
- Thread starter Tenring
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
What would have happened if you no longer have the firearm?
Not a good situation and definitely something I need to think more about. But most likely if I was surprised by atf I would have probably done the same thing. A lot of stories where the innocent "disagrees" with law enforcement and ends up on the losing end. Regardless if in the right, just the act of defying the officer can put you in a life threatening situation.
Not a good situation and definitely something I need to think more about. But most likely if I was surprised by atf I would have probably done the same thing. A lot of stories where the innocent "disagrees" with law enforcement and ends up on the losing end. Regardless if in the right, just the act of defying the officer can put you in a life threatening situation.
Would the right answer be to decline and lawyer up?
Can go sideways as well. They proceed to arrest you and confiscate everything. You end up not guilty and can't get everything back because you don't have physical proof of purchase.
Can go sideways as well. They proceed to arrest you and confiscate everything. You end up not guilty and can't get everything back because you don't have physical proof of purchase.
If they came to my door politely asking, as they did here, I’d be happy to comply. No harm showing them I still possessed the same guns the form already tells them I own. Not complying would be far worse as I can guarantee you would be flagged for further investigation as straw purchase/unlicensed seller.
I’ve done multiple purchases before and honestly expected a visit at some point. As long as they are polite, not arrogant, badge heavy jerks, the best route is to let them do their job.
Now I wouldn’t let them inside. I wouldn’t let them hold the firearms, but just inspect the make/model/serial.
They are at least trying to be proactive. Finding the bad actors before bad stuff happens is a good thing.
I’ve done multiple purchases before and honestly expected a visit at some point. As long as they are polite, not arrogant, badge heavy jerks, the best route is to let them do their job.
Now I wouldn’t let them inside. I wouldn’t let them hold the firearms, but just inspect the make/model/serial.
They are at least trying to be proactive. Finding the bad actors before bad stuff happens is a good thing.
Joe_Blacke said:
And I'm sure you'd hand them over if they told you that one or more of those guns were reported stolen, even though you have receipt in hand for purchase. Yep, FUDDs are still out there.
Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day
Clyde
kenpoprofessor said:
Or maybe some people just don’t live paranoid lives. The reason they are there is because of the multiple sale. Hard to claim stolen in that case.
It’s easy to way over think stuff. If a Leo wants to have a voluntary interaction with me, it’s their demeanor and communication style that will determine my level of compliance.
For the most part they are just trying to do their job. Coming to my door and politely ASKING isn’t any type of violation. Coming to my door and telling me (absent a warrant), is a different matter.
Joe_Blacke said:
Lol,
They are being exactly "badge heavy jerks" - funny how you fail to realize this.
They are basically showing up at your door accusing you of a crime (even if they are "nice" about it) and demanding you to prove your innocence. The fact in the video Mr. ATF has two other people with them - all armed and in body armor, is an act of intimidation to further coerce you into complying with their illegal search fishing trip.
I have bought over 6 firearms from various dealers last month alone - and if they showed up at my door - the response (if I even answer) delivered through my intercom would be to inform them it the interaction was being recorded, go get a warrant, and I am calling my lawyer.
Their "proactive" doesn't include trampling on your rights, intimidation, and illegal search. They can be "proactive" through a multitude of actual legal and acceptable means - but this is by far the easiest for them to do.
Why actually "investigate" when they can just go knocking on lawfully abiding citizen's doors and hope to scare them into illegal searches hoping to get lucky? How many people are ignorant enough to actually invite them in - so that way they can look around your residence hoping you have some prescription drugs, or paraphernalia in sight to escalate the situation and stop more "gun crime?"
It isn't "paranoid" at all - it is called understanding our rights, understanding the limitations of their jobs, and realizing that what they are doing is wrong - plain and simple.
This:
...If, for instance, you decide to buy two handguns at the same time, the FFL is required to submit a form informing ATF of that purchase. You’re then on a list, and the ATF might show up at your door....
That said...
Exactly the route I took, recently, painful though it was.
Just because you bought it and have a receipt doesn't mean it can't be stolen. You think the cops can truly check EVERYTHING turned into pawnshops in the given 30days? OF course, if it WERE reported stolen, I would HOPE they have a warrant-in-hand to recover that specific gat. :roll:
...If, for instance, you decide to buy two handguns at the same time, the FFL is required to submit a form informing ATF of that purchase. You’re then on a list, and the ATF might show up at your door....
That said...
Joe_Blacke said:
Exactly the route I took, recently, painful though it was.
kenpoprofessor said:
Just because you bought it and have a receipt doesn't mean it can't be stolen. You think the cops can truly check EVERYTHING turned into pawnshops in the given 30days? OF course, if it WERE reported stolen, I would HOPE they have a warrant-in-hand to recover that specific gat. :roll:
paulgt2164 said:
They aren’t accusing you of anything.
Badge heavy is a manner of demeanor. It’s a lack of professionalism. These guys were polite and professional. I’ve had bad interactions with cops that are truly badge heavy (MCSO lake patrol being the worst offender I’ve ever witnessed, but Mesa PD has its share of winners).
Judging the whole story based on this ring cam is impossible. Very few multiple sales ever get flagged. My bet is something else was triggered to get them to come out. I’m not saying any laws were broken but the cops job is to investigate based on reasonable suspicion. I’d like to know more of the backstory as to why they felt RS in this case.
I understand why someone might be offended by being asked. But once you’ve been asked, what is the downside of complying (assuming you still had possession)? That they confirm that you still possess the guns they already know you bought? Maybe if you had sold one or more I could see declining as a possible decision.
Joe_Blacke said:
Yes, we don't know the whole story - but if there was more to it I think it would have went a different way. The dude is obviously not in violation of any laws or they wouldn't be asking "nicely."
So you think
"Mr So&So, we noticed you legally bought two guns last month - since we are trying to reduce gun crime can you go get them and show them to us to make sure you aren't breaking the law. We know this is a bit silly, and we know we aren't doing this the correct way, but Puhleeeezee pretty please let us inspect your legally obtained, legally owned, private property so that we know you aren't a criminal - I mean we "know" you aren't - but hey, we just want to make sure in that you aren't guilty so please prove it to us."
Isn't an accusation? Because it is. That means they think there is a chance you are violating the law. They are literally asking you to prove you are innocent.
As far as "badge heavy" goes - how is showing up with three armed people in body armor, to ask a citizen to prove their innocence with zero evidence or proof a crime has been committed not "badge heavy?"
The downside is the more people "comply" with this behavior - the more they will do it, and the more they will roll it into other things.
They know what I bought, I have zero criminal record, the guns were bought legally, and there is zero evidence to support other wise. That means go get a warrant - and they can't cause there is no legal ground to do so. They know this - that is why they show up "heavy" to intimidate. I interact with 2-3 officers daily - and if they showed up at my door I still wouldn't "comply."
Just imagine - "Mr. So&So, we noticed you went to the urgent care and were prescribed a controlled substance, do you still have those or did you properly dispose of them according to the law? We are going to have to check you did to make sure you didn't sell them."
How about :
"Mr. S0&So - we noticed that you registered a second car to your name, we are going to need to see that car, and the ID of all who drive it to make sure that the vehicle is properly insured and not being operated by unlicensed drivers....."
If you get pulled over for no reason - and the cop wants to search your vehicle, do you let them if they ask nicely?
Since apparently if someone is polite you just comply, can I come by your place and root through the fridge, take a dump in your bathroom, and have sex with your wife - I promise to ask nicely? I bet you won't let me - so why would you let the ATF have a peek at your legally owned private property?
paulgt2164 said:
Pretty much all cops are going to be in some sort of uniform, carrying guns and probably body armor. That doesn’t make them badge heavy.
They don’t have PC, so they don’t have a warrant. If they had PC, they wouldn’t be asking you.
So the question you ignored still stands. They know who you are. They know specifically which guns you bought. Showing them the guns are still in your possession doesn’t give them any information they don’t already have. So, assuming you are still in possession, what is the downside of complying? You would be denying them any possible PC for a warrant based on straw purchase or unlicensed seller. It also destroys RS based on the info they have. That is different than proving innocence (which actually isnt a legal term. It’s simply “not guilty” to which you refer).
Telling them to go away doesn’t remove RS and probably try to incentivize them to try and build PC for a warrant.
It seems just an emotional reaction and not logical at all. Complying doesn’t change being insulted. Neither does not complying. Complying destroys any investigation. Not complying causes further problems.
Joe_Blacke said:
You are failing your own logic here.
They don't have PC, and can't get a warrant - so that makes it "ok" to start knocking on doors asking to search? It doesn't - at all.
Also, why does it require three armed, armored officers to knock on a door in what appears to be an affluent neighborhood to ask a question to someone who has no criminal record? I will tell you why - intimidation. I guarantee they don't send three officers if the same owner called in a suspicious car, or person. They wouldn't send three officers if the person called in the neighbors having a domestic altercation. They wouldn't send three officers if that person called in and said the seen someone walking down the street with a gun.
The answer of why not comply is obvious. I think I have spent plenty of words typing it.
Because it isn't the right way to do things. Because they are accusing you of a crime "nicely" and that is not their job, nor is appropriate. They are hoping to circumvent due process and get lucky.
They know they can't do what they are doing through the proper legal avenues (warrant based on PC or RS) so they are relying on the ignorance and/or intimidation factor to gain access to your constitutionally protected property.
I will turn them away every time. They won't get a warrant because there isn't any PC or RS that is legally defensible. This is why they basically beg in the video, and why the roll up with three armed "officers."
If by some weird chance I ever do get this situation - after they leave I am talking to my lawyer, and filing a formal complaint with every agency involved to document the whole situation. If they keep harassing me - then I will look at my legal options there.
It is a similar tactic the EPA is using to go after small car shops. They intimidate them into agreeing to a search without warrant - and then "find" a bunch of things to fine these shops on, knowing they can't afford to fight. They ask "nicely" in hopes of f*cking you over.
You seem to operate in some sort of fantasy land where the ATF is actually "for good" and that every cop wants to "protect and serve" even when proof otherwise is right in front of your face. I interact with police daily - and while I do like most of them I end up working with - I also understand the truth of the matter, which is these days they aren't Andy and Barney from the Andy Griffith show. From a professional standpoint the police aren't your "friend." Nearly every interaction the average citizen has with law enforcement is regarding them trying to prove you did something wrong - regardless of if you did or not.
They don't pull you over to say "howdy" and they don't knock on your door to talk about the weather in a professional capacity. Your job as a citizen is to know the limitations of what they can do legally and justly and know your rights, just as they are supposed to follow procedure. As proven by this video - they will not only intimidate, but also beg to gain access to your private property that they would normally have to get a warrant for hoping the citizen is ignorant to their rights, and will agree to a search.
Where does that “logic” end? Are they allowed to come search your house as long as you’re not doing anything wrong? Maybe search your car? Bank records? What’s the harm in that if you’re not doing anything illegal? Complying just to avoid future potential harassment is a shitty reason to waive your rights.
paulgt2164 said:
No, I’m not failing my own logic. I just know the law. Especially as it pertains to voluntary contact. I also know how it differs from RS and PC.
You’ve only explained why you are offended by their presence. You haven’t explained why complying is bad except for the fact you interpret it as “proving your innocence”. This is a feeling, your opinion, and not factual. All of that takes place at the decision point of compliance/non-compliance. I’m asking what negative things happen to you once the action of compliance with their request happens.
Whether you comply or not the “unjust accusation” and the feelings associate with it don’t change. Your decision and actions come after that. So complying, you are offended but nothing further happens to you. Not complying also has you offended, doesn’t eliminate RS…possibly leads to them trying to get a warrant…and can lead to all sorts of further headaches.
TheAccountant said:
Those are different situations. The question was what would you do in this case.
The factors in my decision. Are simple:
They know me
They know where I live
They know what guns I’ve bought based on the form
They are polite and professional
They aren’t asking for anything beyond what is on the multiple sale form
Showing them the guns are in my possession doesn’t have cost me anything and removes a bunch of potential negative outcomes.
Complying doesn’t give them anything they don’t already have.
The whole interaction is being recorded by me.
The situation and facts determine my response.
A somewhat similar situation:
A cop pulls you over. Says he pulled you over because they had reports of someone driving a car with you make/model and license plate at excessive speeds. The cop never observed you driving at excessive speeds, and you weren’t actually speeding. Because of the reports, he does have RS for the stop. He’s wearing a uniform, body armor, and has a gun.
Are you going to refuse to show him your registration if he asks? You really weren’t breaking any laws. Being stopped for not breaking any traffic laws is offensive. So you would still feel like you’re being wrongly accused.
Interesting parts of the article that stood out to me:
I didn’t know that this process was part the Gun Control Act, but it is. If, for instance, you decide to buy two handguns at the same time, the FFL is required to submit a form informing ATF of that purchase. You’re then on a list, and the ATF might show up at your door with a list, asking to see your weapons. There are (apparently) three reasons for ATF to show demanding to see your recent purchases.
Tracing: If your legally purchased gun is later stolen, and then used in a crime, the ATF will show up asking questions. This seems perfectly reasonable.
Investigating multiple gun purchases. That is what happened in Delaware. The owner purchased his guns, the FFL filed out the paperwork, and AFT showed up at his door.
Conducting a welfare check. If you thought “Red Flags” were new, they are not.
Assuming ATF shows up with local cops in tow, do you have to let them in your home? No, not without a warrant. And if they have a warrant, they are required to hand you a copy. Do you have to show them the weapons you purchased? No, not without a warrant, and there has to be specificity in the warrant allowing for that.
The Delaware owner took the “I have nothing to hide” route and for him, it was the right route to take. The agents were respectful and didn’t demand to see more than one weapon. They didn’t demand to enter the residence, and they left, satisfied.
Bottom line, if you purchase more than one gun at a time, don’t be surprised if ATF shows up at your door.
I didn’t know that this process was part the Gun Control Act, but it is. If, for instance, you decide to buy two handguns at the same time, the FFL is required to submit a form informing ATF of that purchase. You’re then on a list, and the ATF might show up at your door with a list, asking to see your weapons. There are (apparently) three reasons for ATF to show demanding to see your recent purchases.
Tracing: If your legally purchased gun is later stolen, and then used in a crime, the ATF will show up asking questions. This seems perfectly reasonable.
Investigating multiple gun purchases. That is what happened in Delaware. The owner purchased his guns, the FFL filed out the paperwork, and AFT showed up at his door.
Conducting a welfare check. If you thought “Red Flags” were new, they are not.
Assuming ATF shows up with local cops in tow, do you have to let them in your home? No, not without a warrant. And if they have a warrant, they are required to hand you a copy. Do you have to show them the weapons you purchased? No, not without a warrant, and there has to be specificity in the warrant allowing for that.
The Delaware owner took the “I have nothing to hide” route and for him, it was the right route to take. The agents were respectful and didn’t demand to see more than one weapon. They didn’t demand to enter the residence, and they left, satisfied.
Bottom line, if you purchase more than one gun at a time, don’t be surprised if ATF shows up at your door.
Similar threads
Share this page
