Hey guys,

I lived in Texas from about late 2005 until late 2008, in Del Rio.  While I was there I bought several receivers, AR and AK, plus an FN PS90, and some assorted other things.  Anyhow, I moved in November 2008 because the Air Force told me it was time to go.  Anyhow, I got a call this week from an ATF agent in Del Rio asking to see the receivers and PS90.  They had apparently driven by my house (for sale or rent if interested in living on Lake Amistad!) and called several times to a dead line.  They somehow got my number in Delaware and called.  They mostly wanted to know what I did with the receivers and the status of the PS90 which they referenced as a FN 57.  I have either built the receivers or have them in my safe waiting to be built.  I mentioned that I sold some of the ARs and the PS90.  The agent reminded me that I need to realize I cannot buy guns with the intention of selling them at a profit later without a license.  Lucky for me I had the guns a few years and I never came close to making a profit.  So, the agent said they might send a local agent out to look at my guns now located in Delaware.  

I called the dealer I used to transfer all the stuff and he said the ATF has been to all the local dealers four or five times in the last couple months.  He said the agents were from all over the country and mentioned Arkansas and New York specifically.  Has anyone heard about this lately?  Also, what legal things should I worry about if they want to come take a look at my stuff?

Thanks,
Spooky

ATF has stepped up it's operations in the southern US due to weapons making it across the border and being used by the drug cartels down in Mexico.  Apparently they're really liking the AR platform and the PS90's / 5.7 Pistols.   There have been several news stories about their stepped up operations the past few months.  They are actively looking for people who are buying firearms and reselling them and/or straw purchasers.

Yep, just part of the show of force/attempt to stop illegal gun sales/trafficing that is allegedly keeping the drug cartels well armed in Mexico.  So far the feds (Obama) say that instead of creating new gun bans, they just need to enforce the laws that have been on the books for years.  If they do that, they think they can stop or at least slow down the criminals.

I love the part about not selling something you bought for a profit.
That sould apply to anything then.....
If anyone has a mint 1967 Mustang I will gladly give them the original $1200 that it sold for.

That's what I was thinking...  Anyone want to sell me their M16 they bought in the 80's for what they paid for it?  I completely understand their logic with selling a high volume of guns and not having a license.  But I needed the money for other things and I had "unused" guns collecting dust in the safe so they were sold.

I understand this is related to the guns in Mexico thing.  I'm just wondering why they need to see the receivers and a specific gun?  If no receivers confiscated in Mexico are traced back to me why should I have to show them anything?  Can I tell them I won't let them see them?  I have nothing to hide so is it better to let them see the receivers?

And I wanted to see if anyone had any other stories from the area.  

FWIW the agent was very nice on the phone...  I fear for my four dogs

Spooky

I have an Idea, how about they lock down the border. That would cause smuggeling to come to an abrupt halt.

This is the most disturbing thread I think I have ever read.  What is it about buying and selling things over time that raises a flag?  All men do it, be with cars, guns, boats, watches, etc..  You buy things and then trade up or go a different route.  NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.  Why don't they stop some of the illegals from coming over here.  

Just got this email from NRA.. it includes the following that might explain your case:
In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"  Speaking of the Mexican border situation, NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

They can ask away to come in my house, but if they don't have a warrant......well you know what they can kiss.

you don't HAVE to show them anything. What you choose to do is up to you. If you do then just leave it at that. I wouldn't interview or sign anything w/out counsel. Have seen some threads on THR where they were sending forms to sign that basically amounted to illegal transfer business confessions. I'm sure they aren't out to get you, and that there are many stand up guys/gals @ ATF, but our Bill of Rights is there to protect the innocent. An honest citizen should have no questions about invoking their rights.

Bingo, very well put.  Also, anyone who willingly lets these jack booted thugs into their house without a warrent would be very misguided.  These people never have your best interests in mind.  Never let them do anything without following the rules that our fonders put in place.

We are doing that part of it, BP that is, ATF just likes to mess with guns and their owners.

How about just a modicum of thought and discretion, as opposed to casually tossing around hyperbolic epithets?  Referring to LEOs you know nothing about and who are just implementing a policy they didn't even enact as "jack booted thugs" is ridiculous.  Besides...real JBTs wouldn't be "asking" to see anything.  They'd be breaking your door in and doing whatever they pleased.

I would consult with a lawyer to make sure the get the wording exactly right when you tell them to FOAD.

They were doing this in 2008 as well.

i would consult a lawyer myself.

at most id meet them at the front door, outside with what they want to see.
Or better yet, ask to meet them with said firearms, at thier office.

I'd offer to email them a pic with me holding the firearm they want to see with a copy of today's newspaper.

i don't know if that will work....lol.

its just typical of the times...administration. like we didn't see this coming.
lets harrass the legal owners...that papered the gun.

whatever. sign of the times.

Let this be a lesson for anyone who does not think there is gun registration.

If you find yourself where you have no choice but to talk with them, do it in their office, and ONLY WITH IMMUNITY, in writing.

Make 'em work for it.

I would not try and wing this on your own. There are lots of ways for an innocent person to fall into a trap under this type of circumstance.

I would NOT EVER voluntarily talk to the police.

The friendly demeanor you noticed is a psychological tactic designed to disarm people and get them to put their guard down. You need to realize that the ATF is checking up on you in order to possibly find a reason to accuse you of a crime. That is what the ATF does.

Plus, if you voluntarily agree to talk to the ATF, you can quickly get yourself into legal trouble in ways that most people do not even realize. You may want to read this article: How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents. It explains why you should not talk to law enforcement.

Here is the short summary: Even if you believe that you are innocent of wrongdoing, you are absolutely not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing under federal criminal law. There are thousands of laws that you do not know about that you may have unintentionally violated. You may also unintentionally lie or make factual errors in telling your story to the ATF. This can cause you to go to prison for lying to the federal government (even if you make an honest mistake in telling your story). Also, if you voluntarily agree to talk to the ATF and they accuse you of a crime, and you then try to remain silent, you can be nailed via an adoptive admission under the federal rules of evidence. This little mistake can cost you your freedom.

You may want to talk to an attorney. You can even ask him to handle it in the most cost-effective manner possible, while providing maximum protection of your rights. You can even suggest a possible strategy, and see if he will agree to it. For instance, you might tell your attorney that you want to protect your legal rights to the maximum extent possible and do not want to talk to the ATF. You could then ask your attorney if he could contact the ATF agent and let him know that you are asserting your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This might only cost you a few hours in legal fees and might be well worth it if your attorney feels it is a good approach.

One other note. If more and more innocent Americans use attorneys to fight back against these types of intrusions on our freedom, government will feel less and less inclined to try these types of tactics against us.

Edited for grammar.

+1
This is some pretty good advice I think.

If you have nothing to hide or have not done anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about.  If you're doing something shady, then by all means you might want to take your right to silence and be quiet until you can talk to a lawyer.  But back on topic, if they come knocking and ask to see your collection.  You have the right to say "no."  You have the right to privacy.  If they had some sort of incriminating evidence on you, they will have a warrant.  And chances are when you tell them "no," they will put a mark by your name and might start watching some things you do.  To cops, feds, etc, if you choose to cooperate, it goes a long way.

You didn't read the link above, did you?

Is there some basis upon which you make these claims? When you claim a right to privacy provides protection in criminal cases, could you clarify what you are talking about? Is there a right to privacy in the US Constitution?

Perhaps you could explain, in light of the article linked above (which was written by an attorney), how your advice will protect the OP's legal rights.

By the way, the Fifth Amendment is designed to protect the innocent. Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing that the founding father's principal intent in drafting the Fifth Amendment was to protect the guilty. I'm not sure this is a wise position to take. I'm sure after fighting the most corrupt and shady government of their time, the founding fathers were doing everything they could to enable and empower the very forces that they had just overthrown.

He didn't say anything about a right to privacy providing protection in criminal cases.


Not explicitely.  But SCOTUS has repeatedly inferred one from Amendment 14, among other things.  So in practical legal term, yes...there is.

Thanks for the great advice...

Here are my thoughts as of now...

A) It does not appear that this is specifically targeted at me.  It looks to be a part of the initiative to stop the flow of guns to Mexico.  Apparently they started with the FFLs right smack on the border.

B) Three of the four ATF agents who reviewed my dealer's bound book could have cared less.  The fourth agent was worked up about the receivers I bought (5 over a three year period) and an FN PS90.  She asked what I was doing with them and what kind of person I was.  My dealer who is a retired Border Patrol agent and a current county sheriff's deputy said I was a good person and it wasn't really his business what I did with them after he transferred them.

C) The agent was going to talk to her supervisor and see what he says. It may effectively die there.  

D) I might speak to a lawyer just to cover myself if I get any follow up phone calls.  I might also call the NRA and see what they've heard about these types of requests recently.

Spooky

It was implied in his answer (which was a response to my my posting on why one does not normally talk to law enforcement regarding criminal investigations) and by the circumstances of the original posting. He said, "...if they come knocking and ask to see your collection ... [y]ou have the right to privacy...." He was referring to "they" coming knocking in light of ATF questioning the OP about his receivers. The ATF investigates federal crimes. Under the circumstances, it is very important that the OP not be mislead into thinking that some mysterious "right to privacy" will protect him from a criminal investigation by the ATF.

They are on a fishing trip.  Give them nothing.  Let your attorney handle any communication with any of the alphabet agencies.  They can make your life a nightmare.

It was not implied at all.  And you're muddying the waters significantly here.  Unless they're serving a warrant, when the BATFE (or any other law enforcement agency) is knocking on your door, whether or not it's being done in the course of a criminal investigation is irrelevant with regard to constitutionally-protected rights.  And the fact that the BATFE is trying to track where people's legally-acquired firearms have ended up does NOT make one the target of a criminal investigation.  In the case being discussed it has not even been established that a specific crime has occured for them to investigate.  BATFE does more than just investigate occurances of federal crime.  And LEOs question people in an official capacity all the time.  That does not make those people targets of criminal investigations, nor does it suspend constitutional rights.  If "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." does not protect you in the course of investigative action by the state...when exactly DOES it protect you?



Why?  I don't really see the point of that particular red herring...especially in light of you're referring to privacy rights as "some mysterious right to privacy".

I wasn't aware that I was muddying the waters. Let me state this as clearly as possible.

If law enforcement wants to talk to a person, I would strongly recommend that person seek competent legal counsel. That person's legal counsel needs to be the final arbiter of whether or not that person talks to law enforcement, whatever the motivations of law enforcement may be and whether or not that person is the target of a criminal investigation.



It is a "mysterious right" when mixing up the concept of a right to privacy with an investigation by ATF regarding firearms. The Supreme Court's rulings on the right to privacy are in a totally different area of the law than what is being discussed here. As far as I know, the right to privacy has been discovered for cases mainly involving sex, marriage, child-bearing, and child-rearing. I wasn't aware that the Supreme Court had extended the concept of the right to privacy to other areas of the law like the right to keep and bear arms. Feel free to educate me if this is the case.

When you start needlessly inferring that the subject is a criminal investigation from comments about rights in response to something about questions from LEOs...then yes, you're muddying the waters.


Not bad advice at all.  But also not really what I was taking issue with.


Gladly.  The concept of reasonable expectation of privacy is at the very heart of protections from governmental intrusions like "unreasonable search and seizure".  See, among others...

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)

Here is the NRA email that was referred to earlier:

In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"

Friday, June 19, 2009


NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation.  For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands.  But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics.  One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate."  That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply.  Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice.  Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent.  There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.
If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney.  NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information.  Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

I'm afraid you are the one inferring that.

However, when one is approached by law enforcement, one will never go wrong for assuming that one is a target of an investigation. On the other hand, if one incorrectly assumes that one is not a target of an investigation, things can go wrong very quickly.

As I mentioned previously, it may be in the OP's best interest to assume the worst and seek legal counsel.



Uhhh, as far as I know, the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a  different legal concept from the so-called "right of privacy." I think you are confusing two different concepts. Both concepts contain the word "privacy", but they are quite different in how they are applied. That now explains why you brought up the whole 4th Amendment issue in one of your prior posts when talking about the "right of privacy." I was waiting to see why you had raised the Fourth Amendment issue in this light. All those cases you cite have to do with the Fourth Amendment and the "reasonable expectation of privacy", but as far as I know, they have nothing to do with the so-called "right of privacy."

For clarification, the "right of privacy" has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. It has to do with sex, marriage, child-bearing, and child-rearing. Now, the "reasonable expectation of privacy" is quite important in regard to criminal matters as it relates to the Fourth Amendment.

Perhaps there is some nexus in the Supreme Court cases between the two concepts that I don't know about. Feel free to educate me. I am always a willing learner.

Completely false.  When I said...

"He didn't say anything about a right to privacy providing protection in criminal cases."

You replied...

"It was implied in his answer."

How you manage to contort that into ME drawing said inference is beyond me.


True.  But not what was being alleged originally.  You're attempting to move the goalposts now.



Wrong again.  BOTH concepts ("resonable expection of" and "right of") with regard to privacy are involved in those cases...not just one or the other.  For instance, writing for the majority in "Katz" Justice Stewart said...

"[The Fourth] Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. 4 Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. 5 But the protection of a person's general right to privacy - his right to be let alone by other people 6 - is, like the [389 U.S. 347, 351]   protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States."

So, while he's saying that there is no constitutionally-protected "general" right to privacy...the Fourth, among other amendments, do protect some specific privacy rights, as well as affording other protections.  When it is said that one has "a right to privacy" in the context of a law enforcement query regarding ones lawfully-acquired possessions, that certainly would involve Amendment IV and the right to privacy it protects...wouldn't you say?

Yes. I was hoping you would go there. There is an important distinction that I wanted to make.

In at least some cases, the "right of privacy" was created by the Supreme Court out of thin air in order to create new protections that do not exist in the Constitution. This was done in order to create Constitutional protections for things that had historically been socially unacceptable and for which there was not the legislative will to change (e.g.; abortion). This is also known as judicial activism.

In many of the so-called privacy cases, the Supreme Court did, in fact, create out of thin air the concept of the "right of privacy" and did, in fact, lump the Fourth Amendment (and other amendments) into that category as a way to justify their twisting of the Constitution, but when referring to the Fourth Amendment's protections, it may be prudent to refer to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" and not the "right of privacy" in order to  distinguish between those rights that actually exist in the Constitution and those rights that were created out of thin air by the Supreme Court in the name of judicial activism. This is the key distinction that I wanted to make.

If we want to be able to resist the attacks of those who have agendas that are hostile to the Constitution, we must never let them change the meanings of the Constitution or create new meanings out of thin air. This is part of an old technique where subverters of the existing order seek to overthrow the existing order by intentionally changing the meanings of words. I would strongly caution against going along with this technique. Hence, my utter revulsion at referring to the Fourth Amendment's protections as "the right of privacy."

Whoops. Missed this part.

When I said, "It was implied in his answer," I was referring to another poster who raised the issues of police coming to a person's door and under what circumstances the police would or would not have a warrant and under what circumstances the police would "start watching you." As far as I know, warrants and surveillance by the police are topics that encompass the concept of criminal investigations. These concepts were raised by another poster.

Then this is a classic lesson in being careful about what you wish for.


Roe v. Wade manufactured a far more generalized right to privacy based largely on the Due Process clause of Amendment XIV, which it then applied to the case.  That is quite different from the very specific rights being discussed here, and which are asserted to be protected by the 4th (among others).  Also, it did so 4 years AFTER the decision in Katz....and even later than other similar privacy rights decisions...so you're putting the cart before the horse.


There's no need to continue to draw such a distinction, as I never comingled the two to begin with.



See my first comment above.  Your knowledge of the relevant SCOTUS decisions and their releationships to one another...both substantive and temporal...is flawed at best.

You were referring to exactly the poster and post I said you were referring to.  He said "IF" they had incriminating evidence they'd have a warrant...as a way of indicating that in the situation under discussion they were not investigating based on such evidence.

You twist a lot.

Yes, there is. It is the key to understanding how the Supreme Court has twisted the Constitution into the mess it is today. Speaking of twisting, I think you may want to review carefully where we have come from and where we are going as far as how the Constitution has been twisted by the Supreme Court.



Oh, I don't think so.

The Supreme Court threw away the concepts of reason and logic in some of these privacy cases in the name of judicial activism. It is impossible to analyze such cases from the conventional use of reason and logic. I love it when people trip over themselves to try and find sense in these Supreme Court decisions. There is no sense to be found in them: only endless twisting by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps I should type slower for you.....

"I" never comingled the two concepts, and full well understand  the difference between them.  And yet, you keep harping on about it even though there's absolutely no indication that it serves any purpose.


I'm well versed in the history of tortured SCOTUS decisions on a wide array of issues.  Again, you're presuming to lecture in an area where there's no reason for you to.


It doesn't matter what you choose to think.  It only matters what is obviously and demonstrably true.


OK.  You've completely ignored every point made and case law fact presented to you.  Clearly you're not interested in defending your position.  Only in pointless obfuscation.  Good day.

TSRA issued an email alert on this issue today:

In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"
 
Friday, June 19, 2009
 
NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation.  For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands.  But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics.  One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate."  That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply.  Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice.  Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent.  There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney.  NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information.  Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.


[/b]

Report on arms smuggling to Mexico called incomplete

Report on arms smuggling to Mexico called incomplete

A Republican lawmaker takes exception to the conclusion that U.S. weapons fuel a rise in Mexico drug violence.
By Josh Meyer
June 20, 2009

Reporting from Washington –– A government audit of U.S. efforts to stop arms trafficking to Mexico was criticized Friday by a Republican lawmaker who said its conclusion that smuggled weapons from America were fueling the rise of violent Mexican drug cartels was based on incomplete data.

The report, released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, said that the United States lacked a coordinated strategy to stem the flow of smuggled weapons.

Designated immigration agents authorized to participate in drug enforcement
It listed a wide array of shortcomings, both operational and legal, that it said had allowed thousands of weapons made or sold in the United States to find their way to the cartels.

One of its findings was that more than 90% of the firearms traced by authorities after being seized in Mexico over the last three years came from the United States.

At a hearing held Friday to discuss the report, Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) praised its primary author for undertaking such a comprehensive and timely analysis.

But Mack said he was also "troubled by the fact that the report makes conclusions based on opinions and assumptions rather than facts."

"I don't know that the report itself is something that we should put a lot of value in," Mack said.

Mack noted that out of the 30,000 firearms seized in Mexico in fiscal 2008, the report says only 7,200 were submitted for tracing.

"Where did the other 22,000 guns that were seized come from? Venezuela? Europe? Ecuador? Nicaragua?" Mack asked, adding that the incomplete sample undermined some of the report's broader conclusions.

The report acknowledges that its findings are based on a percentage of the seized guns.

But lead author Jess T. Ford, the GAO's director of international affairs and trade, told the committee that he stood by the conclusions.

In prepared testimony summarizing the report, Ford said that "available evidence indicates a large percentage of the firearms fueling Mexican drug violence originated in the United States, including a growing number of increasingly lethal weapons."

The report cites U.S. law enforcement officials as saying that their "experience and observations corroborated that most of the firearms in Mexico had originated in the United States."

Ford said Mexico must provide more resources and training to its officers so they can submit more guns for tracing.

In an interview, Mack said he was concerned that the report's findings were being politicized by advocates of more restrictive laws on gun purchases, and he noted that the report itself makes such recommendations.

He said tighter controls on U.S. gun purchases were not the answer, and that the best way to stop the flow of firearms from the U.S. into Mexico would be to station more federal agents at the border to check for them.

Ford, under questioning during the hearing, agreed that the U.S. government needed to do a better job of inspecting southbound traffic for illegal weapons.

But "regardless of whether we know where 100% of the guns came from, I think we should be concerned that 20,000 of those guns" over a five-year period came from the U.S., Ford said, citing data from the report.

Apparently I'm not the only one getting a visit.  Top story on Drudge Report.

Link

Federal agents hunt for guns, one house at a time

By DANE SCHILLER Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

June 30, 2009, 9:36PM

In front of a run-down shack in north Houston, federal agents step from a government sedan into 102-degree heat and face a critical question: How can the woman living here buy four high-end handguns in one day?

The house is worth $35,000. A screen dangles by a wall-unit air conditioner. Porch swing slats are smashed, the smattering of grass is flattened by cars and burned yellow by sun.

“I’ll do the talking on this one,” agent Tim Sloan, of South Carolina, told partner Brian Tumiel, of New York.

Success on the front lines of a government blitz on gunrunners supplying Mexican drug cartels with Houston weaponry hinges on logging heavy miles and knocking on countless doors. Dozens of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — sent here from around the country — are needed to follow what ATF acting director Kenneth Melson described as a “massive number of investigative leads.”

All told, Mexican officials in 2008 asked federal agents to trace the origins of more than 7,500 firearms recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. Most of them were traced back to Texas, California and Arizona.

Among other things, the agents are combing neighborhoods and asking people about suspicious purchases as well as seeking explanations as to how their guns ended up used in murders, kidnappings and other crimes in Mexico.

“Ever turning up the heat on cartels, our law enforcement and military partners in the government of Mexico have been working more closely with the ATF by sharing information and intelligence,” Melson said Tuesday during a firearms-trafficking summit in New Mexico.
Firearms dealers visited

The ATF recently dispatched 100 veteran agents to its Houston division, which reaches to the border.

The mission is especially challenging because, officials say, that while Houston is the number one point of origin for weapons traced back to the United States from Mexico, the government can’t compile databases on gun owners under federal law.

Agents instead review firearms dealers’ records in person.

People who are legally in the United States and have clean criminal records, but are facing economic problems are often recruited by traffickers to buy weapons on their behalf in order to shield themselves from scrutiny.

Knocks at the door of the shack that looked to be the definition of hard times went unanswered.

“I am out of here,” Sloan said a few moments later, as a pit bull lazily sauntered from the back yard. “I don’t like pit bulls walking up behind me.”
Best information source

On second thought, Sloan switched to Spanish and interviewed a neighbor.

The neighbor said the woman left a month ago after a fight with her husband or boyfriend, who still lived there with what she called “other degenerates.”

“An angry ex-girlfriend or wife is the best person in the world, the greatest source of information,” Sloan said.

The night before, the duo were in a stakeout where they watched a weapons sale.

They also combined efforts with the Drug Enforcement Administration for an aircraft to stealthily follow traffickers to the border.

On this day, agents weren’t wearing raid jackets or combat boots and weren’t armed with warrants.

Guns were hidden under civilian shirts.

Another tip took agents on a 30-minute drive from the shack to a sprawling home with a pool in the back and an American flag out front.

It turned out two handguns, of a type drug gangsters prefer, were bought by a pastor for target practice.

Some stories, they say, are hard to believe.

The lamest so far came from a police officer: He said he bought a few military-style rifles, left them in his car and — on the same night — forgot to lock a door. He couldn’t explain why he didn’t file a police report or why he visited Mexico the day after the alleged theft.

[email protected]

saw that as well today. almost makes you want to go make a multiple HG purchase to waste their time unfortunately, the grilling I would get would be from the Mrs.

Talk to a lawyer, preferably a gun friendly one.  ATF agents don't care if you are innocent or not.  It's all about numbers to them, makes them look good to the boss.  And they will entrap you, they don't care how many lives they ruin.  They have tried to get me twice and the only thing I ever did was get an FFL.  They are assholes with a capital a.

How did they try to get you?

They sent a guy in the store that was old enough to buy 22 shells for a rifle but not a pistol.  I asked to see his drivers license and explained the law so he said it was for a rifle.  I sold him a box.

A few days later he showed up again, this time it was after hours but I was still there.  It took me a while to answer the door and I think they had given up.  When I opened the door there were about six guys headed back to the car.  They all looked like NFL players and this kid again.  One was coming from behind the store.

The kid was the only one to come in and he asked for pistol ammo this time, 38  I think.  I asked for his license again and asked why his friends didn't come in and buy the ammo, he showed me his wire.  I gave him back his license told him to get out and never come back.  Long story short,  I gave up my license so I wouldn't have to deal with them.  Its not worth going to prison for.  Fuck the atf.

Beleive what you want.  It's no skn off my nose.  Fuck the atf and fuck DanParker.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/jim_jeffries/jim4.txt

Copied from

James H. Jeffries, III

       "There is no wholly satisfactory substitute for brains, but
silence does pretty well."    Anonymous

       Probably one of the least favorite events for any Federal
Firearms Licensee (hereafter "FFL") is a visit from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereafter "BATF").  This can occur
in one of at least six very different ways and your legal rights
and recommended responses vary accordingly.

       For purposes of the following discussion I will assume that
you are a law-abiding licensed dealer or collector who tries to
comply honestly with the federal firearms laws.  If some of the
discussion below seems excessively cautious, or even hostile to
BATF, it is based on real world experience with an agency which has
been found by Congress, by various federal judges and juries, by
other federal and local law enforcement agencies, and even by some
Presidents to be inept, indifferent to citizens' rights, and
capable of the most outrageous abuses of the law.

       BATF operates under the rationale of requiring you to comply
with the law.  I operate under the rationale of requiring BATF to
comply with the law.  I required this of BATF as a federal
prosecutor for almost 30 years, and I require it as a private
citizen and as a lawyer.  You should require it as an FFL.

       A non-licensee has no legal duty whatsoever to talk to or
otherwise cooperate with a BATF agent (or any other governmental
official).  It is a sad commentary on our times and the state of
our federal government (and especially BATF) that the appropriate
legal advice from a defense lawyer to a non-licensee confronted by
a federal or state law enforcement officer can be capsulized in a
single sentence called RULE ONE: Silence is golden; or what part of
"no" don't you understand?

       If you are an FFL, however, additional considerations come
into play.