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

[BanjoGeek]

I heard a rumor that creating and using a UPIN can leave a citizen open to this type of treatment. Basically an inventory of any firearms purchased when a UPIN was entered and submitted on 4473.

OK, what is a UPIN?

 

[The Heretic]

OK, what is a UPIN?

Unique Personal Identification Number

 

[CamoDeafie]

OK, what is a UPIN?

Unique Personal ID Number. More so that with FBI and the ATF, you don't get wrongly denied for bg checks due to say, similar names.

Appeals and VAF | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Information and frequently asked questions about the NICS appeal process and the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF).

www.fbi.gov

 

[Knobgoblin]

OK, what is a UPIN?

Unique personal identification number

 

[The Heretic]

I was told by one of the Oregon State Police clerks that do the approvals/denials of gun purchasers that Oregon (only) keeps the purchase/sale records for five years. She said after that they are purged. During that five years the information regarding purchase/sales is available to other LEAs.

That is what they say, and that is probably what it looks like officially.

However, as I have mentioned previously over the years, it is almost impossible to purge data from a computer system, even if you want to. Data gets copied from system to system, backups are made (they have to back it up) and the backups are kept. Individuals make copies of the data for testing (of other software) and analysis, etc.

The same data is in so many places, in so many computers, that while their one system that they use for the stated purpose may not have the data after five years, I would get good money that given access to their computer systems, I could find copies of that data elsewhere.

And that is assuming that the data isn't copied for nefarious purposes - it would be so easy for someone with access to the data to copy it to a memory stick or other media and keep the data for whatever future usage the government feels is justified.

 

[Dr Prepper]

I think we NEED officers to be really involved in the local communities to the point where they are really inclined to not go along willy nilly to edict orders that imperil fellow city dwellers and KNOW they have another job waiting for them with fellow towns people if they NEED to tell their uppers to eff off and pound sand. KNOWING people have your back counts for a lot when it comes to bailing on a job.

And just yesterday I heard that an ENTIRE police force just gave their notice and walked off in solidarity. That's some humbling stuff right there.

Highlighting the problem, addressing it and getting it nation wide coverage and hopefully the sooner they break it the sooner they can fix it. That gal they hired is a major problem. Now every single potential future employer will easily be able to google her name and avoid employing her. Her only real option is a PAC position where she belongs and everyone can pander to her, Hopefully she's ineffectual there too.

I'm hoping all those officers already have good jobs lined up and will be a nice break from all the daily BS they had to do. Its good for a change of pace for the entire town to take responsibility and know that its time to cover your own arse for a change!

 

[Dr Prepper]

That is what they say, and that is probably what it looks like officially.

However, as I have mentioned previously over the years, it is almost impossible to purge data from a computer system, even if you want to. Data gets copied from system to system, backups are made (they have to back it up) and the backups are kept. Individuals make copies of the data for testing (of other software) and analysis, etc.

The same data is in so many places, in so many computers, that while their one system that they use for the stated purpose may not have the data after five years, I would get good money that given access to their computer systems, I could find copies of that data elsewhere.

And that is assuming that the data isn't copied for nefarious purposes - it would be so easy for someone with access to the data to copy it to a memory stick or other media and keep the data for whatever future usage the government feels is justified.

Well its not even a secret that many alphabet Dept's (OK maybe not many but a few) have legit full back door open access (insert innuendo/jokes here) to Microsoft operating systems etc. And probably have fished around and copied a lot of the stuff and buried it in Utah.
If old Eddy Snowshoes taught us anything its that they are tracking and copying absolutely everything by default. Bar none!

 

[Bushman]

I believe Washington only keeps a registry with a semi automatic rifle, not pistols or anything considered an "other", I may be mistaken though. Either way it's unconstitutional and hopefully with the recent Supreme Court ruling it can be struck down in court. There also has to be something done with these guys just arbitrarily showing up at your house, it's obvious they know it's going to scare people into compliance and that in itself should be deemed illegal.

Wrong, they register handguns.

 

[RobMa]

 

[Ura-Ki]

 

[RobMa]

 

[RobMa]

ATF Copying A&D Books | The Zelman Partisans

 

[JohnnyMac]

Saw this today. I have no idea of how legit it is and it is not dated, but if it's real, it's a good thing.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Saw this today. I have no idea of how legit it is and it is not dated, but if it's real, it's a good thing.


View attachment 1248081

View attachment 1248082

Looks legit to me. Klickitat county sheriff is even more pro citizen/2A rights than Benton imo. Both are great examples for other sheriff's offices to follow.

 

[RX-79G]

I missed it in this story where the ATF required the gun owner to comply. Did they threaten to arrest him if he did not show them his gun, or did they have a warrant?

If LE comes by to investigate a crime and asks to see something that might be evidence, I have the right to say yes or no.

Where in the article does it say that the ATF learned of the purchases through a central registry rather than the old fashioned way of following sales through FFL dealers' records?

 

[RobMa]

I missed it in this story where the AFT required the gun owner to comply. Did they threaten to arrest him if he did not show them his gun, or did they have a warrant?

If LE comes by to investigate a crime and asks to see something that might be evidence, I have the right to say yes or no.

Where in the article does it say that the ATF learned of the purchases through a central registry rather than the old fashioned way of following sales through FFL dealers' records?

They did not have warrant and they did not require him to comply, but they subtly threatened him by saying "otherwise we'll have to come back".

You only have the right to say no if they do not have a warrant, if they do have a warrant you must comply and give them access or face severe consequences including up to being shot and killed (thus referring to the aforementioned intimidation tactic of "otherwise we'll have to come back") because people who pay attention know that the AFT has a history of slaughtering people and families for not obeying.

Yes they could've obtained the information from the FFL about the individual firearms but we all know that it is a falsehood that the AFT does not have a registry and this is just another example of the high likelihood that indeed they used the de facto registry to obtain this individuals information.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

They did not have warrant and they did not require him to comply, but they subtly threatened him by saying "otherwise we'll have to come back".

But wasn't that a true statement? Not that the police are required to only make true statements or face any consequences for lying and it's not like they opened his screen door so his dog would run out just so they could shoot it or anything.

I get the added sensitivity given the context, but compared to a lot of police interactions that end up on video this one is pretty innocuous

 

[RobMa]

But wasn't that a true statement? Not that the police are required to only make true statements or face any consequences for lying and it's not like they opened his screen door so his dog would run out just so they could shoot it or anything.

I get the added sensitivity given the context, but compared to a lot of police interactions that end up on video this one is pretty innocuous

That may be the case, but the issue lies in the history of the AFT and the mere fact that they even use this interrogation tactic as a means in which to control the individual that they were questioning. It is not acceptable especially if the individual in question did not commit a crime.
This is what the senator was talking about when questioning Chipman "This is not minority report and you're not Tom Cruise" (paraphrasing)

 

[ilikegunspdx]

But wasn't that a true statement? Not that the police are required to only make true statements or face any consequences for lying and it's not like they opened his screen door so his dog would run out just so they could shoot it or anything.

I get the added sensitivity given the context, but compared to a lot of police interactions that end up on video this one is pretty innocuous

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.

 

[The Heretic]

If they came back with a warrant they would have access to other firearms and such.

So the owner was smart in cooperating, for the time being.