ATF at Your door

This is the place to post your news and reviews on anything that's firearm related (rifles, magazines, ammo, barrels, holsters, training classes, optics, etc). Please try to make the reviews as thorough as possible and include pictures, or links to pictures if possible, as well as price(s). Some syndicated content will go here as well.
User avatar
Joe_Blacke
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 473
Joined: May 15th, 2018, 7:59 pm
Reputation: 1

Re: ATF at Your door

#31

Post by Joe_Blacke »

paulgt2164 wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:51 pm
Joe_Blacke wrote:
I don’t see not having a warrant as a problem. I’d be glad they don’t.

You’re fixated on multiple cops there. They are there for one reason. Officer safety. They obviously know the person they are going to talk to is most likely armed. It’s basic tactics.

Hell when my smoke alarm went off, and the neighbors called the cops thinking it was a burglar alarm, 5 cops showed up.

You say there is negative outcomes for complying. What are they? There is no improper search. They are lawfully allowed to come and ask all based on the multiple sale form.
You obviously don't see having a warrant as not an issue - because you apparently are happily waiving your rights in exchange for "LE" harassing / hassling / fishing at your expense.

And you are lawfully allowed to tell them you don't consent. Like I said - you seem perfectly happy to comply and waive your rights - obviously many of us here find more value in those rights than you do.
I’m happy that they don’t have a warrant. It means they only have RS.

Having your house searched with a warrant is a horrible experience. It allows them to search anywhere those items could be located. Anything they find that has nothing to do with the warrant is now legally obtained and can be prosecuted. In my experience that includes stupid things includes family members medications that were being held onto after the family member died.

I never said you couldn’t deny consent. Never said you had to consent either. Said in this particular set of circumstances I would show them the guns.


User avatar
paulgt2164
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 785
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 9:40 am
Reputation: 17
Location: Phoenix

Re: ATF at Your door

#32

Post by paulgt2164 »

Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:54 pm

You do realize that on the Multiple sale form it states your name, address and the guns you are buying. That is the same thing as registration.

RS is the lowest level in the stand of proof. You’re equating it to PC which it is not. RS is very easy to satisfy. All I need are articulable facts.

I am aware, but you are aware that the person in the video wasn't legally required to "show proof of registration" correct? There is a big difference than your info being recorded at the time of sale for a firearm, and the laws that state you have to have physical registration to operate a motor vehicle on pubic roads.

You are really grabbing at straws here skipper.

I am completely aware of what RS is. So what are the facts for suspicion for these agents to be on the dudes doorstep asking for consent to search? Because like I stated before - I am unaware of any precedence that makes multiple firearms purchase legally "suspicious" (newsflash - cause there isn't any.....) Just because a report is generated - doesn't mean someone is "suspicious" in a legal sense.

The fact of the matter is - they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. Period. Harassing and intimidating a law abiding citizen into agreeing to a search isn't right.

You can comply and consent all you want - but you asked why. I am pretty sure a couple people here have made it abundantly clear why the majority here probably wouldn't consent.

You trying to argue the points of why someone would not consent by using your interpretation of things and that isn't how it works. RS , PC, and Warrants aren't hard to understand and the fact those dinguses showed up in the video without a warrant shows that they weren't or wouldn't be able to get one - and had to resort to shady tactics to go fishing. Law Enforcement shouldn't be trying to circumvent legal due process through harassment and intimidation in hopes of getting lucky - plain and simple.
Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:59 pm
I’m happy that they don’t have a warrant. It means they only have RS.

I never said you couldn’t deny consent. Never said you had to consent either. Said in this particular set of circumstances I would show them the guns.
Lets be real, In this circumstance they didn't even have RS - they were just "going fishing." It is painfully obvious. They just pulled a report, and decided to go knock on doors.
TheAccountant
Banned
Banned
Posts: 766
Joined: August 6th, 2018, 11:38 pm
Reputation: -2

Re: ATF at Your door

#33

Post by TheAccountant »

Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:54 pm
paulgt2164 wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:47 pm
Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:31 pm Buying multiple guns has been deemed a suspicious act. The fact a multiple sale form is completed is and of itself RS by legal standards. It’s very easy to show RS as it fits the same pattern of gun traffickers and illegal sellers.

There is no RS for just having a car. RS would have to apply to a traffic violation using that car.

And RS doesn't get you a warrant. The can be suspicious all they want, just like they can try to weasel past due process - but no evidence means no PC and no warrant. This doesn't mean I have to participate or comply - as I am totally within my legal rights to tell them to take a hike (as people should.)

Your little example you presented as "similar" when it was not.
Joe_Blacke wrote: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.
First up - there isn't a "registration" for firearms, nor a law requiring it in the example of the video. So that alone debunks your example. Secondly, there were no reports of a crime being committed, observed, or witnessed with the person in the video - unlike your car example.

Also, show me where buying multiple firearms is deemed legally a "suspicious act." Just because a report is generated, doesn't make it so. I am unaware of any ruling, or any legal activity setting that precedence. There are many completely legal things that generate a "report" and aren't considered legally "suspicious." I am pretty sure if those officers went to a judge and said "Your Honor, Mt. So&So , with no criminal record, bought two handguns and we want a PC warrant" they would be laughed out of the office. That is why they were there intimidating / begging.

My adjustment on your scenario still stands.
You do realize that on the Multiple sale form it states your name, address and the guns you are buying. That is the same thing as registration.

RS is the lowest level in the stand of proof. You’re equating it to PC which it is not. RS is very easy to satisfy. All I need are articulable facts.
You have to have articulable facts that a crime is about to be or was committed. Purchasing any amount of firearms isn’t a crime, so the purchase itself cannot be the only fact that gives rise to reasonable suspicion.
User avatar
Joe_Blacke
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 473
Joined: May 15th, 2018, 7:59 pm
Reputation: 1

Re: ATF at Your door

#34

Post by Joe_Blacke »

paulgt2164 wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:03 pm
Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:54 pm

You do realize that on the Multiple sale form it states your name, address and the guns you are buying. That is the same thing as registration.

RS is the lowest level in the stand of proof. You’re equating it to PC which it is not. RS is very easy to satisfy. All I need are articulable facts.

I am aware, but you are aware that the person in the video wasn't legally required to "show proof of registration" correct? There is a big difference than your info being recorded at the time of sale for a firearm, and the laws that state you have to have physical registration to operate a motor vehicle on pubic roads.

You are really grabbing at straws here skipper.

I am completely aware of what RS is. So what are the facts for suspicion for these agents to be on the dudes doorstep asking for consent to search? Because like I stated before - I am unaware of any precedence that makes multiple firearms purchase legally "suspicious" (newsflash - cause there isn't any.....)

The fact of the matter is - they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. Period. Harassing and intimidating a law abiding citizen into agreeing to a search isn't right.

You can comply and consent all you want - but you asked why. I am pretty sure a couple people here have made it abundantly clear why the majority here probably wouldn't consent.

You trying to argue the points of why someone would not consent by using your interpretation of things and that isn't how it works. RS , PC, and Warrants aren't hard to understand and the fact those dinguses showed up in the video without a warrant shows that they weren't or wouldn't be able to get one - and had to resort to shady tactics to go fishing.
You haven’t indicated in Any response that you understand RS. The form alone is RS. Current gun laws established to limit gun trafficking gives them the right to come ask absent any RS. Besides all of that, the police can come at any time and talk to you about anything even without RS. Doesn’t mean you have to talk to them.

It seems you while argument is “don’t comply because they may come back and ask again”. Well guess what, not complying doesn’t change that. They can come back and ask again anyway. More than likely they will use your refusal as another item they would add into a warrant request assuming they have other evidence.

Whether they should be there or not to enforce these types of laws is a political issue. As of now it is perfectly legal.
User avatar
Joe_Blacke
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 473
Joined: May 15th, 2018, 7:59 pm
Reputation: 1

Re: ATF at Your door

#35

Post by Joe_Blacke »

TheAccountant wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:17 pm
Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:54 pm
paulgt2164 wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:47 pm


And RS doesn't get you a warrant. The can be suspicious all they want, just like they can try to weasel past due process - but no evidence means no PC and no warrant. This doesn't mean I have to participate or comply - as I am totally within my legal rights to tell them to take a hike (as people should.)

Your little example you presented as "similar" when it was not.



First up - there isn't a "registration" for firearms, nor a law requiring it in the example of the video. So that alone debunks your example. Secondly, there were no reports of a crime being committed, observed, or witnessed with the person in the video - unlike your car example.

Also, show me where buying multiple firearms is deemed legally a "suspicious act." Just because a report is generated, doesn't make it so. I am unaware of any ruling, or any legal activity setting that precedence. There are many completely legal things that generate a "report" and aren't considered legally "suspicious." I am pretty sure if those officers went to a judge and said "Your Honor, Mt. So&So , with no criminal record, bought two handguns and we want a PC warrant" they would be laughed out of the office. That is why they were there intimidating / begging.

My adjustment on your scenario still stands.
You do realize that on the Multiple sale form it states your name, address and the guns you are buying. That is the same thing as registration.

RS is the lowest level in the stand of proof. You’re equating it to PC which it is not. RS is very easy to satisfy. All I need are articulable facts.
You have to have articulable facts that a crime is about to be or was committed. Purchasing any amount of firearms isn’t a crime, so the purchase itself cannot be the only fact that gives rise to reasonable suspicion.

Yep. Easily articulable facts. But only that there is the “potential” of a crime. Your definition is close to PC-Facts that a crime was committed and this person was the one who committed the acts. PC is the standard for arrest or a warrant. RS is just the standard to investigate.

“Reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, and it doesn't require anywhere near 50% certainty that the detainee has done something illegal.“. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... icion.html

Purchasing multiple guns isn’t a crime. However, we have historical evidence that people involved in gunrunning make multiple purchases. People most likely to be involved in gunrunning will make multiple purchases.

Doesn’t mean that everyone that makes multiple purchases is a gun runner. It just means you fall into a pattern. If called out in court it is easily defended:

Follows a similar pattern of those who are involved in illegal gun running

Lives in an area known for gun running

Lives in an area that allows for unrecorded face to face transfers

Lives in an area that has forums and other online websites where one can advertise guns for sale.


All of that are articulable facts. All are reason to investigate.
Last edited by Joe_Blacke on July 20th, 2022, 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
paulgt2164
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 785
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 9:40 am
Reputation: 17
Location: Phoenix

Re: ATF at Your door

#36

Post by paulgt2164 »

Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:17 pm You haven’t indicated in Any response that you understand RS. The form alone is RS. Current gun laws established to limit gun trafficking gives them the right to come ask absent any RS. Besides all of that, the police can come at any time and talk to you about anything even without RS. Doesn’t mean you have to talk to them.

It seems you while argument is “don’t comply because they may come back and ask again”. Well guess what, not complying doesn’t change that. They can come back and ask again anyway. More than likely they will use your refusal as another item they would add into a warrant request assuming they have other evidence.

Whether they should be there or not to enforce these types of laws is a political issue. As of now it is perfectly legal.
The form isn't legally RS, sorry. It is literally a form documenting gun purchasing habits. Nowhere on the form, nor in the agencies explanation of the form does it state the buyer is under RS. The reasons given for the form do not imply suspicion. The reasons listed by the ATF for the existence of that form are :

Tracing - which is AFTER a crime is committed.
Investigative - which doesn't imply a crime has been committed or is believed to have been, just is there for tracking trends
Welfare - which in this case doesn't apply as there is no evidence or suspicion that the person is a danger to themselves or others.

None of those qualify for RS - sorry. This form is just another way for "registration" to exist despite their claims it doesn't.

They can add all the not-complying they want. Until they have actual, documented reasonable suspicion suggesting someone is potentially committing a crime - they won't/shouldn't get a warrant.
Last edited by paulgt2164 on July 20th, 2022, 9:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
paulgt2164
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 785
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 9:40 am
Reputation: 17
Location: Phoenix

Re: ATF at Your door

#37

Post by paulgt2164 »

Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:25 pm
Yep. Easily articulable facts. But only that there is the “potential” of a crime. Your definition is close to PC-Facts that a crime was committed and this person was the one who committed the acts. PC is the standard for arrest or a warrant. RS is just the standard to investigate.

Purchasing multiple guns isn’t a crime. However, we have historical evidence that people involved in gunrunning make multiple purchases. People most likely to be involved in gunrunning will make multiple purchases.

Doesn’t mean that everyone that makes multiple purchases is a gun runner. It just means you fall into a pattern. If called out in court it is easily defended:

Follows a similar pattern of those who are involved in illegal gun running

Lives in an area known for gun running

Lives in an area that allows for unrecorded face to face transfers

Lives in an area that has forums and other online websites where one can advertise guns for sale.


All of that are articulable facts. All are reason to investigate.

You must have learned a new phrase today "Articulable Fact."

I will help you out with the definition,
The officer must have more than a hunch, or gut-feeling, to conduct an investigative detention and search. The legal standard requires officers to have a reasonable belief that is based on specific and articulable facts. Thus, the officer, in a court of law, must be able to describe in detail what caused their officer ears to perk up and alert them to criminal activity.
None of the situations you list above as a "articulable fact" wouldn't stand as more than a "hunch" - therefore I don't think legally they would fall under "articulable fact." Also, the usage of "reasonable" - as it is a common thing when talking about RS and PC.

Simplistically, Just because I own a fast car, and I live in an area with a bunch of speeding/racing - doesn't mean I am worthy of investigation for those things.

In regards to the video - I am pretty sure most of those reasons don't exist where he lived in Delaware. They were "fishing."


No one is saying what these officers did is "illegal" we are just saying it is an abuse of power, and it isn't "right."
Last edited by paulgt2164 on July 20th, 2022, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Joe_Blacke
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 473
Joined: May 15th, 2018, 7:59 pm
Reputation: 1

Re: ATF at Your door

#38

Post by Joe_Blacke »

paulgt2164 wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:44 pm
Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:25 pm
Yep. Easily articulable facts. But only that there is the “potential” of a crime. Your definition is close to PC-Facts that a crime was committed and this person was the one who committed the acts. PC is the standard for arrest or a warrant. RS is just the standard to investigate.

Purchasing multiple guns isn’t a crime. However, we have historical evidence that people involved in gunrunning make multiple purchases. People most likely to be involved in gunrunning will make multiple purchases.

Doesn’t mean that everyone that makes multiple purchases is a gun runner. It just means you fall into a pattern. If called out in court it is easily defended:

Follows a similar pattern of those who are involved in illegal gun running

Lives in an area known for gun running

Lives in an area that allows for unrecorded face to face transfers

Lives in an area that has forums and other online websites where one can advertise guns for sale.


All of that are articulable facts. All are reason to investigate.


You must have learned a new phrase today "Articulable Fact."

I will help you out with the definition,
The officer must have more than a hunch, or gut-feeling, to conduct an investigative detention and search. The legal standard requires officers to have a reasonable belief that is based on specific and articulable facts. Thus, the officer, in a court of law, must be able to describe in detail what caused their officer ears to perk up and alert them to criminal activity.
None of the situations you list above as a "articulable fact" wouldn't stand as more than a "hunch" - therefore I don't think legally they would fall under "articulable fact." Also, the usage of "reasonable" - as it is a common thing when talking about RS and PC.

Simplistically, Just because I own a fast car, and I live in an area with a bunch of speeding/racing - doesn't mean I am worthy of investigation for those things.

In regards to the video - I am pretty sure most of those reasons don't exist where he lived in Delaware . They were "fishing."


No one is saying what these officers did is "illegal" we are just saying it is an abuse of power, and it isn't "right."
And here I thought I learned the meaning of RS and PC back in the Academy. All that criminal law, case law, arrests, and courtroom testimony all for nothing!

I’ll be sure to let everyone know someone from the internet thinks we’re wrong.
User avatar
paulgt2164
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 785
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 9:40 am
Reputation: 17
Location: Phoenix

Re: ATF at Your door

#39

Post by paulgt2164 »

Ahhh, "back in the Academy"

So that explains why you are completely complacent with waiving your rights to law enforcement agencies - you might all be in the same "club."

Probably explains why you think merely the area someone lives and what they legally own are enough to "investigate" without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Also explains why you don't think the "officers" in Delaware were doing anything "wrong" too.



Lol.

Yes, let them all know that intimidating people into agreeing to a search, based on no factual evidence or suspicion of wrong-doing is wrong. I am sure many already know this though.
User avatar
paulgt2164
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 785
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 9:40 am
Reputation: 17
Location: Phoenix

Re: ATF at Your door

#40

Post by paulgt2164 »

TheAccountant wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:17 pm You have to have articulable facts that a crime is about to be or was committed. Purchasing any amount of firearms isn’t a crime, so the purchase itself cannot be the only fact that gives rise to reasonable suspicion.
Pretty sure buying guns and living in a "gun friendly" state or an area where straw purchases are high doesn't denote as "articulable fact" - but hey - he was supposedly "in the academy" so................
User avatar
pneuby
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: July 28th, 2018, 10:01 am
Reputation: 8
Location: Phoenix

Re: ATF at Your door

#41

Post by pneuby »

Wow, this one done exploded, LOL. How about saving us the trouble of quoting the ENTIRE POST right above you. Rather, take an extra few moments and clip out the salient points you are referencing.

Now then, this is more news-to-me that may also be to others. It's from a blogger I subscribe to, who just posted about this same original event (emphasis mine)....

(For review, GCA 68 requires dealers to submit to F Troop a multiple-purchase report whenever an unlicensed individual purchase two or more handguns from them within five business days. With no basis in statute, in 2011, F Troop extended the reporting requirement to autoloading, centerfire rifles with detachable magazines in the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. Savvy gunners usually either split their frequent purchases among dealers or ask sympathetic dealers to delay the additional transfer beyond the window of five business days. I'm unaware of any requirement for F Troop to follow up on each report. Personally, I know only one person who made the simultaneous purchase of two handguns of the same model, knowing that a multiple-purchase report would be generated, and that person was never contacted by F Troop.)
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 8816
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 8
Location: Peoria

Re: ATF at Your door

#42

Post by Suck My Glock »

Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 1:19 pm 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.
If they were actual law enforcement,...
If they were not the enemy,...
If, if if,...

Your answer is reasonable,...but this agency is neither reasonable or even legal. NEVER GIVE THE ENEMY AN EVEN BREAK. Any and all minutes and hours they spend going round and round with you or me doing the legal judo thing are minutes and hours they are not spending shooting dogs and phucking Lady Liberty in the bung hole.

I'm entirely happy to be an obstructionist stick in the mud for these cheese-diks. Phuck em'.
User avatar
paulgt2164
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 785
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 9:40 am
Reputation: 17
Location: Phoenix

Re: ATF at Your door

#43

Post by paulgt2164 »

The funny thing is Mr. i WeNt tO tHe AcAdeMy's statement of "not complying would be far worse as I can guarantee you would be flagged for further investigation"

IE - Make them do their damn job instead of fishing by coercing consent for a search they don't have any factual business doing.

The one good thing about the proliferation of things like doorbell cameras and cloud connected easy to setup home security is now these a**holes can be recorded easier, and these "visits" can be sent viral on the internet so that way this type of behavior is thrust into the the mainstream and the general public can learn about their rights.

Funnily enough, after this event has become mainstream - the ATF nor the local law enforcement want to talk about it. That tells you plenty.

I don't care if by some extent what the dingles in Delaware is legal - that doesn't make it right. As for Mr. Academy's list of supposed "Facts" as being admissible as sufficient cause for investigation - living in a state with high amounts of straw purchases, trafficking, etc - Delaware isn't on those lists according to the ATF - they have all the actual info right on their website which is just a further demonstration of these "officers" just harassing a law abiding citizen.
TheAccountant
Banned
Banned
Posts: 766
Joined: August 6th, 2018, 11:38 pm
Reputation: -2

Re: ATF at Your door

#44

Post by TheAccountant »

Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:25 pm
TheAccountant wrote: July 20th, 2022, 4:17 pm
Joe_Blacke wrote: July 20th, 2022, 3:54 pm

You do realize that on the Multiple sale form it states your name, address and the guns you are buying. That is the same thing as registration.

RS is the lowest level in the stand of proof. You’re equating it to PC which it is not. RS is very easy to satisfy. All I need are articulable facts.
You have to have articulable facts that a crime is about to be or was committed. Purchasing any amount of firearms isn’t a crime, so the purchase itself cannot be the only fact that gives rise to reasonable suspicion.

Yep. Easily articulable facts. But only that there is the “potential” of a crime. Your definition is close to PC-Facts that a crime was committed and this person was the one who committed the acts. PC is the standard for arrest or a warrant. RS is just the standard to investigate.

“Reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, and it doesn't require anywhere near 50% certainty that the detainee has done something illegal.“. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... icion.html

Purchasing multiple guns isn’t a crime. However, we have historical evidence that people involved in gunrunning make multiple purchases. People most likely to be involved in gunrunning will make multiple purchases.

Doesn’t mean that everyone that makes multiple purchases is a gun runner. It just means you fall into a pattern. If called out in court it is easily defended:

Follows a similar pattern of those who are involved in illegal gun running

Lives in an area known for gun running

Lives in an area that allows for unrecorded face to face transfers

Lives in an area that has forums and other online websites where one can advertise guns for sale.


All of that are articulable facts. All are reason to investigate.
All of those apply to 7 million people that live in Arizona. From the MCAO:

Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.

That’s reasonable suspicion, not PC.
User avatar
Joe_Blacke
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 473
Joined: May 15th, 2018, 7:59 pm
Reputation: 1

Re: ATF at Your door

#45

Post by Joe_Blacke »

The standard is what a reasonable officer believes. That is also based on training and experience. To an officer is it “more than a hunch”. Is how the court looks at it.

A person doesn’t have powers to investigate crime. Only the police can investigate/arrest. Hence the standard is a reasonable officer.

Of the people in AZ, how many make multiple gun purchases? What model? Is it one commonly purchased by runners? Does this person have a history of multiple purchases that stands out from an average person (did they buy 12 cheap Lorcins for example)? Have they made multiple purchases is a short period of time? Do they buy only from FFLs who have problems with compliance inspections or have sold multiple guns that have previously been used in crimes? Has this person previously bought a gun that was later traced to a crime?

These are the things cops look at. One or two may not mean anything. The more that get answered wrongly, the more the smoke starts to look like fire. Until you actually see the “fire” (crime) you live in the world of suspicion and act accordingly.

None of these is evidence of a crime, but the start to possibly develop a pattern or profile. That is why the RS standard exists. If cops couldn’t investigate until they have evidence enough for arrest, almost no arrests would get made.

What a cop can do with RS is dependent on a lot of things. When it comes to someone in their home, they are limited to basically asking questions and permission. That is what happened in this video. As of now we don’t have the full backstory as to what caused them to do the check. It may be he won the multiple sale lotto and got randomly drawn for a visit/inspection. Maybe the SAC wants a follow up on every multiple sale. Maybe there was other things that led up to RS and made LE want to go ask. Right now we simply don’t know.

As of yet I still don’t see not complying with their request being a better option. It might be more satisfying, but nothing more. You can paint with a broad brush, and hate all cops (which seems to be the favored position on sites like these), or even the ATF as a whole. But I’ll prefer to look at the individual and their actions. Hence my stance on their politeness and demeanor. They didn’t give the vibe that they were gun hating, citizen hating, zealots.

As I look at all these mass shootings, I see the need for something more proactive happen before the shooting starts to interrupt the planning/execution cycle. Pretty much all these shooters had something identifiable as to being a ticking time bomb. Sadly it only comes out after people are dead. How to find the bad guy in the sea of non-bad guys is the ultimate needle/haystack. Especially doing it without violating civil rights. No real investigative tool exists. Unless there is a way to actually stop the shooter before they can hurt others, the only option that government would take is more legislation, more regulation and less freedom.
Post Reply