ATF Violates Citizen Rights Again!

[butleraaronm]

Looks like an updated bill is being reintroduced in congress that would move the ATF's responsibilities directly to the states. The bill is a rewrite of Matt Gaetz's old bill to abolish the ATF. Looks liks a dozen reps are moving it forward currently.

 

[Member 24198]

Yeah, that is kinda my point; what do you consider a "mistake"? The ATF is in charge of firearms laws enforcement (ignoring their other duties for the sake of brevity), so all such enforcement actions can be seen as a constitutional infringement. If you hold that view then pretty much by definition 100% of their raids are illegitimate.

On the other hand if all you are concerned with is the laws on the books (and not their constitutional validity) then we now have to argue about specific enforcement actions on a case-by-case basis to categorize each one separately. Then we have to debate an acceptable error rate.

And even that is kinda ignoring the real issue, as most people have the biggest issues with the overt use of unreasonable force. And not just with the ATF. There should be no mistakes like this at all, as such use of force is facially incorrect. The ATF is the one choosing to roll on a non-threat in full tactical gear for no other reason other than they can.

I'm ok with criminals not having guns and getting stomped on by whatever agency is doing the stomping. So if they get 99 felons doing bad things and make a mistake once, I can get over a mistake.

 

[RVTECH]

OK - I am NO fan of the ATF, or any three letter 'abbreviations'

This 'raid' appears to have been completely unwarranted, excessive et al. I am in no way arguing for or supporting what they did.

HOWEVER - when the Lib Doll mentioned they took his cell phone as it was 'part of the investigation' is it POSSIBLE he said something on it that possibly precipitated the raid ? Maybe he was 'talking chit' and about things he shouldn't have been - and it was misinterpreted?

Case in point - a guy I know in LaPine was recently 'visited' by THREE members of a 3 letter 'organization' for a phone call he made to a 'Government organization' to complain about a certain person.

OK, when they showed up (three vehicles) they did not have a 'warrant' , there was no 'raid' but they did accuse him of 'threatening' the person he spoke about on the phone. He did not let them past his fence, and demanded they play the phone convo recording to which there was NO evidence of a threat and they left peacefully.

My point being IF he had not taken some sort of self rightious, 'puffed up' 'Ahm an Amurican' attitude, and NEVER made what was a totally 'pointless' call this would have NEVER happened. Now he is most likely on their 'radar' and had better keep his mouth shut.

 

[butleraaronm]

OK - I am NO fan of the ATF, or any three letter 'abbreviations'

This 'raid' appears to have been completely unwarranted, excessive et al. I am in no way arguing for or supporting what they did.

HOWEVER - when the Lib Doll mentioned they took his cell phone as it was 'part of the investigation' is it POSSIBLE he said something on it that possibly precipitated the raid ? Maybe he was 'talking chit' and about things he shouldn't have been - and it was misinterpreted?

Case in point - a guy I know in LaPine was recently 'visited' by THREE members of a 3 letter 'organization' for a phone call he made to a 'Government organization' to complain about a certain person.

OK, when they showed up (three vehicles) they did not have a 'warrant' , there was no 'raid' but they did accuse him of 'threatening' the person he spoke about on the phone. He did not let them past his fence, and demanded they play the phone convo recording to which there was NO evidence of a threat and they left peacefully.

My point being IF he had not taken some sort of self rightious, 'puffed up' 'Ahm an Amurican' attitude, and NEVER made what was a totally 'pointless' call this would have NEVER happened. Now he is most likely on their 'radar' and had better keep his mouth shut.

Free . . . Free at last! The deep state always makes me feel so warm, fuzzy, and especially safe

 

[lucusloc]

I'm ok with criminals not having guns and getting stomped on by whatever agency is doing the stomping. So if they get 99 felons doing bad things and make a mistake once, I can get over a mistake.

Yep, and that can be the root source of a disagreement, we have to agree on the terms of the raid. I too am fine with criminals not having guns, but I fall on the side that if you have lost your "gun rights" you should probably lose your "free reign" rights too and you should be under some sort of controlled supervision (not necessarily jail). There are too many other non-controlled things that are just as dangerous as guns. There should be no reason to raid criminals for only gun charges.

But that is not the only viewpoint, and if you are happy with gun possession laws for otherwise-free criminals then the ATF serves a necessary purpose to enforce that.

And then we have otherwise legal "illegal" possession, like lack of FOID cards in Illinois (which, incidentally, cannot be used against prohibited persons as that violates constitutional prohibitions on self incrimination). Now granted the ATF does not enforce state laws like that, but they do enforce similar laws like NFA tax laws. And they will raid -and kill- people over those laws.

But the point is that assumptions on what a good raid is will differ wildly.

 

[Member 24198]

Yep, and that can be the root source of a disagreement, we have to agree on the terms of the raid. I too am fine with criminals not having guns, but I fall on the side that if you have lost your "gun rights" you should probably lose your "free reign" rights too and you should be under some sort of controlled supervision (not necessarily jail). There are too many other non-controlled things that are just as dangerous as guns. There should be no reason to raid criminals for only gun charges.

But that is not the only viewpoint, and if you are happy with gun possession laws for otherwise-free criminals then the ATF serves a necessary purpose to enforce that.

And then we have otherwise legal "illegal" possession, like lack of FOID cards in Illinois (which, incidentally, cannot be used against prohibited persons as that violates constitutional prohibitions on self incrimination). Now granted the ATF does not enforce state laws like that, but they do enforce similar laws like NFA tax laws. And they will raid -and kill- people over those laws.

But the point is that assumptions on what a good raid is will differ wildly.

I'm all for them being abolished and not getting to do any raids. I also don't believe we should have no knock raids. I also believe that if you're a felon and can't own guns, you should not be walking around.

 

[lucusloc]

OK - I am NO fan of the ATF, or any three letter 'abbreviations'

This 'raid' appears to have been completely unwarranted, excessive et al. I am in no way arguing for or supporting what they did.

HOWEVER - when the Lib Doll mentioned they took his cell phone as it was 'part of the investigation' is it POSSIBLE he said something on it that possibly precipitated the raid ? Maybe he was 'talking chit' and about things he shouldn't have been - and it was misinterpreted?

Case in point - a guy I know in LaPine was recently 'visited' by THREE members of a 3 letter 'organization' for a phone call he made to a 'Government organization' to complain about a certain person.

OK, when they showed up (three vehicles) they did not have a 'warrant' , there was no 'raid' but they did accuse him of 'threatening' the person he spoke about on the phone. He did not let them past his fence, and demanded they play the phone convo recording to which there was NO evidence of a threat and they left peacefully.

My point being IF he had not taken some sort of self rightious, 'puffed up' 'Ahm an Amurican' attitude, and NEVER made what was a totally 'pointless' call this would have NEVER happened. Now he is most likely on their 'radar' and had better keep his mouth shut.

And I would view that as a blatant violation of free speech rights by intimidation. It's all how you slice the interaction and what you view as acceptable government action.

 

[lucusloc]

I'm all for them being abolished and not getting to do any raids. I also don't believe we should have no knock raids. I also believe that if you're a felon and can't own guns, you should not be walking around.

Agreed, and I'm not being argumentative, just pointing out that there is nuance here, and if you don't agree on that nuance then you could be arguing in circles past each other. Better to find the root cause of the disconnect and sort that out than spin wheels on "how many valid raids are there?"

 

[bradsteen]

So, let me see if I have this straight....
The subject of the raid is in lawful possession of a large number of guns. ATF gets a warrant based on "intel" that somehow indicates he's somehow involved in drug and arms trafficking. No further details are available about this Intel due to the warrant being sealed. He, his wife, and his daughters exit the home and are detained. His 15yo son is in another part of the house, which they flashbang and raid. The son is kept within the home and separated from his parents for approximately 30 min. Canine teams search the home, and allegedly leave a mess (feces, etc). There's also damage to the home from the flashbang and other aspects of the raid. The ATF does not charge the subject of the raid with any crime, leading us to conclude that nothing incriminating was found. They blame the raid on the Intel being bad.

My first concern is the sealed warrant. We have a 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this situation we have no means of validating whether the search was reasonable because the details are not disclosed. So we have to basically take the government and the judge at their word that the grounds for the search were reasonable. So many questions deserve answers:

• Was the evidence presented to the judge based on a single source or multiple sources?
• Was the evidence presented to the judge from anonymous sources, known informants, or intelligence gathered separately?
• What was the credibility rating of the source(s)?
• Had they previously provided data that panned out, or had previous data proved faulty, or was this a first time for this source?

I get that sealed warrants are intended to protect sources and methods and/or ongoing investigations, but the lack of transparency leaves the door wide open for abuse.

The second issue I have is the raid tactics that are consistently used by ATF and others against persons with no history of violent behavior. Kicking down the door of a person who is known to be armed is a high-risk tactic both for the officers involved and the suspect, especially early in the morning when the subject is likely to be sleeping. That kind of action should be a last resort to be used against those with a history of violent behavior or who have communicated threats against law enforcement. They should be using methods and tactics that create the least potential for injury or death of either party (i.e. arresting him when he's on the way to work and not in his home where all of his firearms are).

My third issue is them detaining the 15yo and keeping him separated from the parents for 30 min. If this allegation is true I wonder what transpired in that timeframe. Did they try to question the kid while he was in shock from the raid? Could be nothing but it seems suspicious to me. I wouldn't put it past them to try intimidating the son into disclosing information about the father, then writing it up in the official report that he volunteered the info.

I'm normally the first to give LE the benefit of the doubt, but after seeing multiple high visibility raids with obvious concerning behavior it's hard not to draw negative conclusions.

 

[butleraaronm]

So, let me see if I have this straight....
The subject of the raid is in lawful possession of a large number of guns. ATF gets a warrant based on "intel" that somehow indicates he's somehow involved in drug and arms trafficking. No further details are available about this Intel due to the warrant being sealed. He, his wife, and his daughters exit the home and are detained. His 15yo son is in another part of the house, which they flashbang and raid. The son is kept within the home and separated from his parents for approximately 30 min. Canine teams search the home, and allegedly leave a mess (feces, etc). There's also damage to the hole from the flashbang and other aspects of the raid. The ATF does not charge the subject of the raid with any crime, leading us to conclude that nothing incriminating was found. They blame the raid on the Intel being bad.
My first concern is the sealed warrant. We have a 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizure.

In this situation we have no means of validating whether the search was reasonable because the details are not disclosed. So we have to basically take the government and the judge at their word that the grounds for the search were reasonable. So many questions deserve answers:

• Was the evidence presented to the judge based on a single source or multiple sources?
• Was the evidence presented to the judge from anonymous sources, known informants, or intelligence gathered separately?
• What was the credibility rating of the source(s)?
• Had they previously provided data that panned out, or had previous data proved faulty, or was this a first time for this source?

I get that sealed warrants are intended to protect sources and methods and/or ongoing investigations, but the lack of transparency leaves the door wide open for abuse.

The second issue I have is the raid tactics that are consistently used by ATF and others against persons with no history of violent behavior. Kicking down the door of a person who is known to be armed is a high-risk tactic both for the officers involved and the suspect, especially early in the morning when the subject is likely to be sleeping. That kind of action should be a last resort to be used against those with a history of violent behavior or who have communicated threats against law enforcement. They should be using methods and tactics that create the least potential for injury or death of either party (i.e. arresting him when he's on the way to work and not in his home where all of his firearms are).
My third issue is them detaining the 15yo and keeping him separated from the parents for 30 min. If this allegation is true I wonder what transpired in that timeframe. Did they try to question the kid while he was in shock from the raid? Could be nothing but it seems suspicious to me. I wouldn't put it past them to try intimidating the son into disclosing information about the father, then writing it up in the official report that he volunteered the info.
I'm normally the first to give LE the benefit of the doubt, but after seeing multiple high visibility raids with obvious concerning behavior it's hard not to draw negative conclusions.

Thanks for taking the time to type that up

 

[The Heretic]

I'm not saying he's guilty or not guilty. What I am saying is that we have one side of the story.

I am all for hearing the four "W"s (Who, Why, When, Where) from the gov, but when it comes to the ATF, I am inclined to consider them (the ATF that is) guilty until proven innocent, and the citizen innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[butleraaronm]

I am all for hearing the four "W"s (Who, Why, When, Where) from the gov, but when it comes to the ATF, I am inclined to consider them (the ATF that is) guilty until proven innocent, and the citizen innocent until proven guilty.

Based on their founding, history, weaponization by the executive branch, and callous disregard for Americans constitutional rights . . . I am in that same place as well.

 

[RVTECH]

And I would view that as a blatant violation of free speech rights by intimidation.

I agree completely as he in fact did NOT 'threaten' anyone.

He did describe the encounter as very intimidating, how they were trying to put 'words into his mouth' and essentially trying to get him to 'incriminate' himself.

My point being however why even make a call and express your 'free speech' to someone at the other end who is of no consequence, cannot change anything and might only get you 'investigated' as in this case ?

If you have a legitimate complaint about something, have an 'issue' you believe needs resolution or other concern then BY ALL MEANS handle it in the proper manner, with the proper authorities - but if not keep your mouth shut.

 

[butleraaronm]

NAGR full interview with Mark

View: https://youtu.be/mJMCeWLYzts?si=9aMiMZaNeuTKn4mE

 

[ma96782]

RE : The ATF
One doesn't have to always be looking at the ATF (or Police) to see VIOLATIONS of the Constitution on a regular basis.

Consider this. Yup.....look at where various Anti-gun laws begin.

Rrrrright.....it'll take years....to get a US Supreme Court decision.

View: https://youtu.be/43vJTspaWi0?si=OUC1pg6bjFDkMJSs

And....there will be NO PUNISHMENT for those who enacted the LAW.

Aloha, Mark

 

[butleraaronm]

RE : The ATF
One doesn't have to always be looking at the ATF (or Police) to see VIOLATIONS of the Constitution on a regular basis.

Consider this. Yup.....look at where various Anti-gun laws begin.

Rrrrright.....it'll take years....to get a US Supreme Court decision.

View: https://youtu.be/43vJTspaWi0?si=OUC1pg6bjFDkMJSs

And....there will be NO PUNISHMENT for those who enacted the LAW.

Aloha, Mark

I heard about this . . . Hawaii is "special"

 

[butleraaronm]

RE : The ATF
One doesn't have to always be looking at the ATF (or Police) to see VIOLATIONS of the Constitution on a regular basis.

Consider this. Yup.....look at where various Anti-gun laws begin.

Rrrrright.....it'll take years....to get a US Supreme Court decision.

View: https://youtu.be/43vJTspaWi0?si=OUC1pg6bjFDkMJSs

And....there will be NO PUNISHMENT for those who enacted the LAW.

Aloha, Mark

I posted this on X and tagged all the relevant parties asking them to take action against the ATF

 

[butleraaronm]

My post on X. Please like, repost, and comment on X to try and get some traction.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873100376502878587

View: https://x.com/WornOutInUSA/status/1873100376502878587?t=qOO43sRMz9UHsmohEVmA0w&s=19

 

[Koda]

My post on X. Please like, repost, and comment on X to try and get some traction.