Armed ATF Agents Show up at Gun Owner's Home Unannounced, to Inspect Lawfully Purchased Guns

[Old Dog]

ATF supervisors seem to be clearly emboldened by the current administration as well as the virulent anti-gun sentiment in Congress and the mainstream media.

There is so much wrong with the concept of federal agents (and shame on the state trooper who would accompany them) trespassing, unannounced, on a fishing expedition on private property, requesting to view someone's legally acquired private property, with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause, no warrant for search or arrest, no criminal charges filed...

If anyone here does not have a problem with this, one has to wonder about commitment to the concept of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

Finally, these types of actions are more like check-in-the-box, law-enforcing theater actions -- clearly not effective, and apparently, done more for show.

One would think that with all the technology available, a federal agency could come up with stealthier, more effective strategies to prevent or investigate straw purchases -- and above all, strategies that might actually be able to be justified under our Constitution.

 

[arakboss]

If the pup shooters visit and snuff me out, I hope my wife gets even half this amount.

Tigard to pay $3.8 million in police shooting settlement

Officer Gabriel Maldonado killed Jacob Macduff on Jan. 6, 2021, as Macduff sat in his pickup truck parked outside the apartment complex where he lived, according to one of the attorneys representing Macduff’s mother. City leaders have pledged to make changes within the police department.

www.google.com

 

[RX-79G]

If the guy who said it believes they have a 100% chance of getting a warrant to search the guys house then it's a true statement for the person who said it.

If he believes it's less than 100%, then it is a bluff, entrapment, lie, whatever you want to call it.

I'm no legal expert but I would guess that a judge giving them a search warrant based on him buying two guns in one day (which is legal) and zero evidence of any crime is probably pretty much 0%.

It was a fishing expedition done on the first day the new head of atf takes office, and nothing more.

Whether it was a rogue agent trying to make a name for the new boss or whether it was a directive from the new boss to crank up quotas I don't know. I strongly suspect the latter.

How about trying to trace a stolen gun or evidence from a crime, neither of which have anything to do with the guy in the video. This is done all the time, so its weird to assume this guy is the target. They only wanted to see one gun.

 

[The Heretic]

How about trying to trace a stolen gun or evidence from a crime, neither of which have anything to do with the guy in the video. This is done all the time, so its weird to assume this guy is the target. They only wanted to see one gun.

IIRC from the vid, it was specifically about straw purchases

 

[ilikegunspdx]

How about trying to trace a stolen gun or evidence from a crime, neither of which have anything to do with the guy in the video. This is done all the time, so its weird to assume this guy is the target. They only wanted to see one gun.

I don't understand what u are saying. You are saying the lawful gun owner is not the target? It was also more than one gun btw.

 

[RobMa]

How about trying to trace a stolen gun or evidence from a crime, neither of which have anything to do with the guy in the video. This is done all the time, so its weird to assume this guy is the target. They only wanted to see one gun.

They didn't ask for one specific gun they wanted to see multiple, they only settled for seeing one gun. And it is for this reason that it seems to me to be a fishing expedition.

 

[RX-79G]

They didn't ask for one specific gun they wanted to see multiple, they only settled for seeing one gun. And it is for this reason that it seems to me to be a fishing expedition.

Or, he bought those guns from an FFL that seems to be involved in many straw sales. That would have nothing to do with the guy, unless he was one of those purchasers.

FFLs that make a business of straw sales are a real problem.

 

[RobMa]

Or, he bought those guns from an FFL that seems to be involved in many straw sales. That would have nothing to do with the guy, unless he was one of those purchasers.

FFLs that make a business of straw sales are a real problem.

I think most of us would agree with the idea of cracking down on FFL's who make a business of being complicit in straw purchases, it gives us all a bad name. Nonetheless, it cannot be used as an excuse to do something that might be construed as unconstitutional. The ends justify the means is not an acceptable methodology nor mindset.

 

[RX-79G]

I think most of us would agree with the idea of cracking down on FFL's who make a business of being complicit in straw purchases, it gives us all a bad name. Nonetheless, it cannot be used as an excuse to do something that might be construed as unconstitutional. The ends justify the means is not an acceptable methodology nor mindset.

Either something is unconstitional or not. I don't know what is being "construed", other than the statement of fact that "if you don't do it volunarily, we'll have to come back with a warrant". That is just normal stuff.

I get that we all are a little touchy about gun stuff, but a cop might come to your house to ask about a stereo, minibike, car, whatever. They do this largely without warrants because warrants are a huge pain in everyone's butt, increase the cost to taxpayers and take police off the street to do paperwork. You can choose to volunteer to help LE find bad guys, or you can do your best to make society that much harder to function.

I rather doubt ATF agents are going to become more just in their duties if gun owners always treat them like jerks - regardless if some of them have it coming or not.


This "news item" seems like a nothing burger.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Went back to the first post, read the linked article read the transcripts watched the video, looked at other articles about this and for the life of me I cannot see a single thing illegal about any of this.
Does it suck? Sure
Is it a cause for concern, maybe.
But is it illegal? No

Making a huge deal over the fact that the federal law-enforcement offices were armed is just silly, they were not trespassing because there's nothing illegal about walking up to somebody's door and ringing the bell or knocking on it and he didn't ask them to leave. If he asked him to leave and they didn't, sure, that would've been trespassing. But he didn't. So, no trespassing

Also, I can't believe that anybody would actually find "if you don't tell us we'll have to come back" menacing or intimidating. Really? Dude, I've been listening to the Grateful Dead forever! If you got a warrant I guess you got to come in but if you don't, later gator

 

[RobMa]

Either something is unconstitional or not. I don't know what is being "construed", other than the statement of fact that "if you don't do it volunarily, we'll have to come back with a warrant". That is just normal stuff.

I get that we all are a little touchy about gun stuff, but a cop might come to your house to ask about a stereo, minibike, car, whatever. They do this largely without warrants because warrants are a huge pain in everyone's butt, increase the cost to taxpayers and take police off the street to do paperwork. You can choose to volunteer to help LE find bad guys, or you can do your best to make society that much harder to function.

I rather doubt ATF agents are going to become more just in their duties if gun owners always treat them like jerks - regardless if some of them have it coming or not.


This "news item" seems like a nothing burger.

"Once you walk down this path forever will it dominate you"

 

[aksu747]

I rather doubt ATF agents are going to become more just in their duties if gun owners always treat them like jerks - regardless if some of them have it coming or not.

All of them(ATF) have it coming, they exist solely to enforce unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd amendment.

 

[RX-79G]

"Once you walk down this path forever will it dominate you"

You could say this about standing in line at the checkout.

 

[RX-79G]

All of them(ATF) have it coming, they exist solely to enforce unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd amendment.

Except no judge, founding father, president or anyone who knows the law agrees with you. The US started off with limits on the 2nd amendment (and all amendments) and has never changed that stance. Revisionist history doesn't make it suddenly okay to break the law or designate the people that enforce the laws passed by YOUR representative government criminals.

You don't like the laws the ATF enforces? Do something to change the laws AND the dismal reputation gun owners have in the US.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Except no judge, founding father, president or anyone who knows the law agrees with you. The US started off with limits on the 2nd amendment (and all amendments) and has never changed that stance. Revisionist history doesn't make it suddenly okay to break the law or designate the people that enforce the laws passed by YOUR representative government criminals.

You don't like the laws the ATF enforces? Do something to change the laws AND the dismal reputation gun owners have in the US.

Please tell us what "limits" and "restrictions" on "arms" were there in the Bill of Rights' 2nd Amendment.


From Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary definition of "Arms"
"1. Weapons of offence, or armour of defence."

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=Arms

Edit. Point of fact, the ATF came into existence as part of the IRS (Revenue Service) in the 1930s after the NFA 1934 law. Prior to that, I do not know of any Federal "gun control" law, outside the whole Indian wars thing and the post Civil War period with some States barring blacks from having any arms....

 

[RX-79G]

Please tell us what "limits" and "restrictions" on "arms" were there in the Bill of Rights' 2nd Amendment.


From Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary definition of "Arms"
"1. Weapons of offence, or armour of defence."

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=Arms

All sorts of people were prevented from being armed, and disarming people under arrest has always been the norm.

Those are just as much "infringements" as requiring at least a 16" barrel on a rifle.

 

[CamoDeafie]

All sorts of people were prevented from being armed, and disarming people under arrest has always been the norm.

Was the gun owner in question being arrested? no? So... thats moving the goalposts again.

Those are just as much "infringements" as requiring at least a 16" barrel on a rifle.

And in each and every court case related to these prior to the NFA and ATF, as far as I can best recall, the Courts have upheld the 2A rights of most people (with the notable exception of the Native Americans for a long time)

 

[RobMa]

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You could say this about standing in line at the checkout.

I was this post old today when I discovered that RobMa decided to block me

 

[RX-79G]

Was the gun owner in question being arrested? no? So... thats moving the goalposts again.




And in each and every court case related to these prior to the NFA and ATF, as far as I can best recall, the Courts have upheld the 2A rights of most people (with the notable exception of the Native Americans for a long time)

Pressor vs Illinois, US vs Cruikshank, State vs. Buzzard, Haile vs State 1882, Fife vs. Sate 1876,. All 19th century Federal court cases appear to limit 2nd amendment rights. So I don't know where you're getting your information. Probably youtube.