ATF at Your door

[paulgt2164]

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.

Let them try to get a warrant.

You are overlooking the giant problem here. They obviously can't get a warrant and know it. That is why they are asking ever so nicely and that is why they showed up with three "officers."

If I call in a suspicious person, a neighbor's domestic situation, or someone walking down the street with a gun - they won't send three officers. So why show up to a house in an "normal" or "affluent" neighborhood with three "officers" to question a law abiding citizen, with no RS? If you can't admit there is some intimidation factor going on - you are blind.

They have zero reason to be there - if they did - guess what - they would have a warrant and wouldn't have to beg. That is the whole point of why this is wrong. There is zero proof this person has committed any crime, so there is zero RS and if there is zero RS there can't be PC. No PC = No Warrant.

If there was any evidence whatsoever that the person in the video was doing something illegal with firearms then they wouldn't be asking nicely. Fact of the matter is they had zero reason to actually be there hassling this guy.

The ATF isn't known for just walking away cause you complied, it just means you are on their "radar." This has been recorded many times.

Your expectation of "negative" outcomes applies to compliance or not. The chance of a negative outcome is possible either way. The difference is if you let them conduct an improper search, which is just allowing more chance for "negative outcomes." How many times has it been documented that Officers will fabricate something to get a result? Point being - if you tell them to go get a warrant you don't give them that opportunity.Then they have to go through the process. If you say "Derpity Derp here is my property" then you have given them more avenues to circumvent due process, as you just gave consent for the search. Granted, the chances of them "fabricating" a reason to go further is slim - but it is still a chance.

They are paid to do a job - that job isn't harassing and hassling law abiding citizens by "going fishing" and trying to intimidate someone into giving consent to search.

 

[paulgt2164]

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.

This isn't a similar situation.

There wasn't any "reports" of suspicious activity- so there is no RS. These "officers" just showed up cause he legally bought a couple guns in one transaction or a certain time period.

The similar situation would be you get pulled over by a cop for having a car, and then he asks you to search the vehicle cause you own a car.

For once, TheAccountant is right.

 

[QuietM4]

My educated guess is the gun shop the firearms were purchased from may be throwing up red flags…maybe the shop has a huge increase in the number of Sale Of Multiple Handgun forms they are submitting, so the ATF has begun investigating the matter, e.g the gun shop averages 10 Sale of Multiple Handgun forms per year, but has submitted 37 in the past 2 months, and they are now checking on each person who purchased the guns to ensure the purchases are legit and not an organized ring of straw purchasers (like Operation Fast and Furious).

 

[Joe_Blacke]

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.

This isn't a similar situation.

There wasn't any "reports" of suspicious activity- so there is no RS. These "officers" just showed up cause he legally bought a couple guns in one transaction or a certain time period.

The similar situation would be you get pulled over by a cop for having a car, and then he asks you to search the vehicle cause you own a car.

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.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

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.

Let them try to get a warrant.

You are overlooking the giant problem here. They obviously can't get a warrant and know it. That is why they are asking ever so nicely and that is why they showed up with three "officers."

If I call in a suspicious person, a neighbor's domestic situation, or someone walking down the street with a gun - they won't send three officers. So why show up to a house in an "normal" or "affluent" neighborhood with three "officers" to question a law abiding citizen, with no RS? If you can't admit there is some intimidation factor going on - you are blind.

They have zero reason to be there - if they did - guess what - they would have a warrant and wouldn't have to beg. That is the whole point of why this is wrong. There is zero proof this person has committed any crime, so there is zero RS and if there is zero RS there can't be PC. No PC = No Warrant.

If there was any evidence whatsoever that the person in the video was doing something illegal with firearms then they wouldn't be asking nicely. Fact of the matter is they had zero reason to actually be there hassling this guy.

The ATF isn't known for just walking away cause you complied, it just means you are on their "radar." This has been recorded many times.

Your expectation of "negative" outcomes applies to compliance or not. The chance of a negative outcome is possible either way. The difference is if you let them conduct an improper search, which is just allowing more chance for "negative outcomes." How many times has it been documented that Officers will fabricate something to get a result? Point being - if you tell them to go get a warrant you don't give them that opportunity.Then they have to go through the process. If you say "Derpity Derp here is my property" then you have given them more avenues to circumvent due process, as you just gave consent for the search. Granted, the chances of them "fabricating" a reason to go further is slim - but it is still a chance.

They are paid to do a job - that job isn't harassing and hassling law abiding citizens by "going fishing" and trying to intimidate someone into giving consent to search.

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.

 

[TheAccountant]

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.

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.

So you don’t answer my question because it’s not about the situation at hand, but then make up an utterly retarded scenario and want to discuss that?

 

[paulgt2164]

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.

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.

 

[TheAccountant]

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.

This isn't a similar situation.

There wasn't any "reports" of suspicious activity- so there is no RS. These "officers" just showed up cause he legally bought a couple guns in one transaction or a certain time period.

The similar situation would be you get pulled over by a cop for having a car, and then he asks you to search the vehicle cause you own a car.

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.

I’m sorry, what? Purchasing multiple guns is reasonable suspicion that someone is illegally trafficking firearms because a form that the government made up was filled out because the government requires it? Not even close. I really hope you’re just a mall security guard that always dreamed of being a cop and not actually a cop, otherwise I think I’ve lost what little respect I had left for cops.

 

[paulgt2164]

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.

The fact of the matter is - they had zero reasonable suspicion of this person, and they showed up to his house with three officers and harassed / intimidated him into complying to a search that is based on zero evidence of wrong-doing.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

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.

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.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

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.

 

[paulgt2164]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

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.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

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/what-reasonable-suspicion.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.

 

[paulgt2164]

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.

 

[paulgt2164]

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."

 

[Joe_Blacke]

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.

 

[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.

 

[paulgt2164]

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................