I received a letter from the ATF

[red442joe]

sniff, sniff....VerticalScope?

Joe

 

[po18guy]

Go to a machine shop and get two pounds of shavings. Send it to the ATF with a note : "Here they are - sorry for the poor condition."

 

[Yarome]

Yes, if you previously had legally purchased a "solvent trap"/ suppressor kit with cash FTF, the ATF wouldn't know you have it and you wouldn't get a letter. However, since they've decreed parts are supressors, and they want full build details now, tooling you want to use, materials, specs etc, I'm not sure how much good it would have done you. If you intend on remaining technically lawful that is

I was speaking more in general terms as always being "good policy". Not just hearing safety device component related, but you're right. Using the newer form 1, it's listed and you're on paper. It's unavoidable.

As you mentioned, though, it would save someone from the additional radar hit (aka red flag) and having to deal with the seperate issue of clearing yet another ATF induced infringment. That's significant, IMHO.

With the caveat that my personal believe is that "red flags" under your name have a cummulative effect as far as federal agencies are concerned. YMMV

 

[bradsteen]

+1 on the "consult an attorney" recommendation. While I agree that this is a complete overreach of government, I also don't have a spare $250,000 or more lying around to cover legal fees for fighting that overreach in court, which IMO is the only fight against said overreach one has a prayer of winning. The giant we call the federal government is slow and cumbersome, but don't mistake that for an unwillingness to act. When it chooses to do so, you will probably not walk away unscathed.

Then again, if you are willing to take one for the team and be the next Bruen, I respect your tenacity and will happily donate to support your legal cause.

 

[Martini_Up]

What would Thomas Jefferson say?

 

[Dungannon]

So what's your point in quoting me? Isn't that basically what I said?

You attributed signatures to "his secretary (Oops, sorry, I mean Administrative Assistant)"

My point is that anyone acting on behalf of a supervisor or manager is an employee specifically designated to do so. In my 32 years of federal service in the Army and Bureau of Land Management, I don't know of [nor have ever heard of] a secretary or administrative assistant signing documents as 'acting' for a supervisor or manager. My administrative assistant could sign for the receipt of certified or registered mail, FedEx deliveries, etc. but in her own capacity but not as someone acting in my position.

 

[bradsteen]

What would Thomas Jefferson say?

Well, at first he'd probably be wondering why he's suddenly alive again, and who you are, and why you're dressed in such odd clothing. Then he would be really distracted by the cars, giant buildings, planes, space travel, cell phones, etc.

After all that he'd most likely ask why the people allowed it to get this bad in the first place. IIRC, when asked what form of government they were creating Washington responded with "a republic, if you can keep it". The most important of the checks and balances we have are the people themselves, and we (collectively the American people, not the fine folks on this forum) have failed miserably over the last 200 years to keep its politicians from trampling rights and hold them accountable.

I got the impression from history books that he was a problem solver, so I suspect he would quickly recognize the advantages we have to right the ship of government (access to mass communications platforms, digital media, advertising, etc.) and ask why we are not using them more effectively. I doubt he would dispair that our country is lost and without hope, but I'm sure he would recognize the lack of leadership and tell us to find better representation.

 

[jbett98]

What would Thomas Jefferson say?

Send me back, and be quick about it.

 

[Flopsweat]

You attributed signatures to "his secretary (Oops, sorry, I mean Administrative Assistant)"

My point is that anyone acting on behalf of a supervisor or manager is an employee specifically designated to do so. In my 32 years of federal service in the Army and Bureau of Land Management, I don't know of [nor have ever heard of] a secretary or administrative assistant signing documents as 'acting' for a supervisor or manager. My administrative assistant could sign for the receipt of certified or registered mail, FedEx deliveries, etc. but in her own capacity but not as someone acting in my position.

Not too long ago, it used to be common for businesspeople to dictate a letter to their secretaries for them to type up, submit for signature and mail out. Often just above the signature, there would appear the secretary's initials and the boss's initials, separated by a colon. For example, if the secretary was Ann Belinda Carson and the boss was David Edward Fillmore, just above the signature would appear:

abc:def

This was tradition for decades, if not centuries. Given the above, it's not such a stretch that @Cavedweller might use the term "secretary" where you might not have.

C'mon guys, hug it out.

 

[Cavedweller]

You attributed signatures to "his secretary (Oops, sorry, I mean Administrative Assistant)"

My point is that anyone acting on behalf of a supervisor or manager is an employee specifically designated to do so. In my 32 years of federal service in the Army and Bureau of Land Management, I don't know of [nor have ever heard of] a secretary or administrative assistant signing documents as 'acting' for a supervisor or manager. My administrative assistant could sign for the receipt of certified or registered mail, FedEx deliveries, etc. but in her own capacity but not as someone acting in my position.

I understand what you are saying. But, in my experience, if the signatory were acting, it would say "acting" in the signature block, and the individual would sign above their own name. Which is not quite the same as just signing "for" someone. Acting seems to indicate a temporary transfer of authority, as during a supervisor's absence, whereas the "for" just indicates that a subordinate was instructed to do this particular task, and send the correspondence in the superior's name. Could be differences in organizational practices, I suppose.

C'mon guys, hug it out.

 

[jbett98]

 

[Diamondback]

I understand what you are saying. But, in my experience, if the signatory were acting, it would say "acting" in the signature block, and the individual would sign above their own name. Which is not quite the same as just signing "for" someone. Acting seems to indicate a temporary transfer of authority, as during a supervisor's absence, whereas the "for" just indicates that a subordinate was instructed to do this particular task, and send the correspondence in the superior's name. Could be differences in organizational practices, I suppose.

This occasionally happens when I have to to sign things "as agent of" for my mother.

 

[Xaevian]

 

[antisocialist541]

Punks with badges. Defund the ATF.

 

[Yarome]

The real RifleRemedy2000 from gunboober has come forward and contacted Washington Gun Law guy.

Looks like ATF came knocking with a full on search warrant. Interesting listen.

 

[JBauer]

Long story short, I get a missed delivery attempt notification for a certified letter in my mailbox the other day, with the sender being listed as "Department of Justice." Naturally, I started getting nervous thinking about what "I did wrong." After a night of tossing and turning I went to the post office to pick up the letter, and it was actually from the ATF. I'll post the scans and let it speak for itself. Of course, I'd rather not be on their radar, but I'm not worried about it at all. The ATF can go pound sand. I'm more annoyed that they went through all this effort to harass me instead of actually fighting real crimes. Hey, at least now I know which agent is monitoring me. Hi, John!

Has anyone else ever gotten a letter from them?


Also, I have no idea why it has the word "For" handwritten by the agent's info.

View attachment 1265782 View attachment 1265783

Boating accident, lost it. Interesting to see that gunbroker.com leaves or gives enough information about YOU that the ATF can find you.

 

[Rick4570]

just don't buy anything from gunbroker. there are many people who have bought items from gunbroker that do not meet the atf smell test that have recieved either letters from the atf or a visit from them. so either gunbroker is giving up names or the vendor using gunbroker. either way customers are getting Ratted Out at gunbroker.

 

[lucky guy]

Certified junk mail. Too funny.

I guess another option would be to simply not claim the certified mail. After 15 days its returned to sender. They may or may not resend it regular mail and make the "assumption" you have been duly informed, but If they can''t document receipt, it never happened, right.

Junk mail huh? Certified mail from a federal LE agency on a specific firearm-related transaction and a required tax pmt is junk mail? Maybe, but I bet you a beer that if the OP ignores that certified letter they will serve him a notice personally one way or another.

Why doesn't the OP just call the special agent and see why he sent the letter and what he needs? Might just be a notice to those who they can't connect to a license or tax stamp from the vendor's records. If they want a copy of the docs, send them and forget it. Why draw more attention to himself by refusing the letter and creating more unnecessary work for them?

Over the years I've talked by phone to the agents in Seattle (not DC) about transfer and ownership things. They seemed pretty reasonable to me at the time and not looking for trouble or gotcha's from me. And they might just think the same about the DC crowd as we do, or worse.

Cheers!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Junk mail huh? Certified mail from a federal LE agency on a specific firearm-related transaction and a required tax pmt is junk mail? Maybe, but I bet you a beer that if the OP ignores that certified letter they will serve him a notice personally one way or another.

Why doesn't the OP just call the special agent and see why he sent the letter and what he needs? Might just be a notice to those who they can't connect to a license or tax stamp from the vendor's records. If they want a copy of the docs, send them and forget it. Why draw more attention to himself by refusing the letter and creating more unnecessary work for them?

Over the years I've talked by phone to the agents in Seattle (not DC) about transfer and ownership things. They seemed pretty reasonable to me at the time and not looking for trouble or gotcha's from me. And they might just think the same about the DC crowd as we do, or worse.

Cheers!

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is what the WA gun law attorney said. They are contacting you because they think you are guilty of a crime and are fishing for info. regarding that. Putting yourself in a position to provide them such fishing info (it's pretty well guaranteed you will be asked tons of questions) should not be taken lightly IMO.

Betting that the person is a "good guy" is a gamble to be sure. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't.

I always like the saying, "it's not that I don't want to cooperate with you it's that I am unable to talk with you until I talk to my attorney".

At a minimum I would expect these questions listed below because that is what they are asking others. But they can ask you any questions they want, some of which may seem unrelated or innocent questions and they may or may not be that. A skilled "fisherman" though can get you talking like you are just BSing with a "good guy". But in reality they are collecting info that can be used against you. The more you say the greater your risk. A huge gamble doing that imo. But everyone can do what they prefer.

It's a scavenger hunt for them and in some cases they want to get leverage over you so you will give up info on others, and then they will do the same with them, and so on. By talking you may well give them "leverage" ( I mean perceived leverage and intimidation, not real legal leverage) over you.



The WA gun law guy said on one of the videos that he can provide them evidence of destruction of the device or the device upon the guarantee there will be no prosecution now or in the future. Can't remember which of the many videos it was though.

 

[Xaevian]

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is what the WA gun law attorney said. They are contacting you because they think you are guilty of a crime and are fishing for info. regarding that. Putting yourself in a position to provide them such fishing info (it's pretty well guaranteed you will be asked tons of questions) should not be taken lightly IMO.

Betting that the person is a "good guy" is a gamble to be sure. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't.

I always like the saying, "it's not that I don't want to cooperate with you it's that I am unable to talk with you until I talk to my attorney".

At a minimum I would expect these questions listed below because that is what they are asking others. But they can ask you any questions they want, some of which may seem unrelated or innocent questions and they may or may not be that. A skilled "fisherman" though can get you talking like you are just BSing with a "good guy". But in reality they are collecting info that can be used against you. The more you say the greater your risk. A huge gamble doing that imo. But everyone can do what they prefer.

It's a scavenger hunt for them and in some cases they want to get leverage over you so you will give up info on others, and then they will do the same with them, and so on. By talking you may well give them "leverage" ( I mean perceived leverage and intimidation, not real legal leverage) over you.

View attachment 1276852
View attachment 1276853
The WA gun law guy said on one of the videos that he can provide them evidence of destruction of the device or the device upon the guarantee there will be no prosecution now or in the future. Can't remember which of the many videos it was though.

This, 100%. I already provided that insight and info. Feel free to call the agent in charge, but doing so puts you in their game and they are way better at it than most people. They are not looking for a pen pal or a shooting buddy, guaranteed.