A friend of a friend got a call from BATF regarding his off-list purchase

[Plural of Mongoose]

I want to take this a step further. What if they show up at your place of business, which you own and has a variety of "thresholds"?

That still doesn't answer the question..

I have three thresholds in my house. And the garage / barn - which is NOT attached to the house - has five - if you include the garage doors.

Seriously - is the actual law that vague that nobody can answer this question other than a lawyer?

 

[SalemCat]

1) No. It's a straw purchase any time you're not the "actual purchaser".
2) Not from a dealer. That would be a straw purchase; see above.

The crime is "making a false statement in acquisition of a firearm from a licensee", for answering "yes" on the 4473, where it asks if you're the actual purchaser. You can buy it for yourself, or as a bona fide gift, but you can't buy on behalf of someone else. It doesn't matter if he can legally own it or not.

There are some fine lines here, to be sure. Folks buy guns, legally, all the time. Folks sell guns, legally, all the time. Folks have been buying AR's when they see a low price and then resell them immediately to make a buck. Is that a "Straw Purchase"? No idea.

 

[mctrinket]

If a federal agent is calling to ask you if you purchased or had a transfer done of X on this specific date, from this specific FFL--isn't it reasonable to presume he/she already knows the answers to all these questions, since a paper trail is generated with ever firearms transfer?

I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just wondering.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

What should of his answer been?

He should have said, "I don't want to talk to you." End of conversation.

 

[Terminator03]

The law only applies to dealers. No pistol are illegal to own in Massachusetts unless it's non AWB compliant or you live in one of those area's that restrict certain firearms.

What I don't understand is when you purchase something from a firearms dealer there is a paper trail with that purchase. So why would it be wrong to answer "Yes" if a law enforcement agent asks you to confirm that you indeed did purchase XXX on XXX date if that was there only question as someone previously posted.

If a federal agent is calling to ask you if you purchased or had a transfer done of X on this specific date, from this specific FFL--isn't it reasonable to presume he/she already knows the answers to all these questions, since a paper trail is generated with ever firearms transfer?

I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just wondering.

This is exactly why I was asking what I did. Clearly if they are knocking on your door, they already KNOW that you bought the gun, so at that point "how" you answer their questions could in fact incriminate YOU.

cmacclel, I'm aware that the law only really applies to the FFL, and that the guns are technically legal to own, but I wonder if they have have any way of charging you for some type of "conspiracy" type charge if they could prove you knew it was not legal for sale in this state and sought to buy it from a dealer that would break the law? This could be where "how you answer" their questions could make a BIG difference in your life.

 

[Terminator03]

"Silence is Golden" Yeah, Just like the song.

Yep, or just like those videos "Don't talk to the police!" - ever!

 

[center442]

I was wondering this also! WTF is the guy supposed to say? Lying to a federal agent is a crime itself, so if you say "no" you are screwed. If you say "come back with a warrant", they will, and do you really want to invite that situation?

If you have a C&R FFL you agree to certain things (inspection, record-keeping) as a condition of holding that license. I would produce my records pertaining to my C&R guns if I were asked to do so. Info on my other non-C&R guns? No, sorry BATFE, not part of my responsibility to furnish you with that information, and I'll only do so in a court of law. If you show up with a warrant to search my premises I'm definitely not talking to you. Nothing I say to you while you conduct your search is going to help my case. If the search leads to evidence of a crime I'll be answering those questions from a witness stand. I'll be damned if I'm going to provide firewood to help someone burn me at the stake.

If a federal agent is calling to ask you if you purchased or had a transfer done of X on this specific date, from this specific FFL--isn't it reasonable to presume he/she already knows the answers to all these questions, since a paper trail is generated with ever firearms transfer?

I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just wondering.

That's precisely what I was getting at with my earlier post. My sense is that the state is looking to intimidate Mike (and other dealers) and is collaborating with the Feds to do so. Sounds to me like the state is like the little punk on the schoolground who threatens to sic his big brother on you. In this case, "big brother" is happy to help.

I only met Mike one time. He seemed like a standup guy. If a defense fund gets started I would happily kick in some money.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Warren v. District of Columbia would suggest otherwise.

Warren v. DC only held that they couldn't be required to protect someone. It doesn't mean they couldn't try and do their jobs.

 

[theGringo]

Warren v. DC only held that they couldn't be required to protect someone. It doesn't mean they couldn't try and do their jobs.

Somehow, I don't find that reassuring.

 

[Serapis]

Warren v. District of Columbia would suggest otherwise.

That's not always the outcome at trials especially in civil cases. I can tell you many if towns have been sued and had to pay. It's not so black and white.

Hell, Look at Heller. That really doesn't mean anything in some states like MA.

 

[Serapis]

Don't let anyone kid you, getting a warrant is not as simple as many make you think it is!!

This isn't ****ING TV!!!!!

Very true.

 

[cekim]

If you have a C&R FFL you agree to certain things (inspection, record-keeping) as a condition of holding that license. I would produce my records pertaining to my C&R guns if I were asked to do so. Info on my other non-C&R guns? No, sorry BATFE, not part of my responsibility to furnish you with that information, and I'll only do so in a court of law. If you show up with a warrant to search my premises I'm definitely not talking to you. Nothing I say to you while you conduct your search is going to help my case. If the search leads to evidence of a crime I'll be answering those questions from a witness stand. I'll be damned if I'm going to provide firewood to help someone burn me at the stake.



That's precisely what I was getting at with my earlier post. My sense is that the state is looking to intimidate Mike (and other dealers) and is collaborating with the Feds to do so. Sounds to me like the state is like the little punk on the schoolground who threatens to sic his big brother on you. In this case, "big brother" is happy to help.

I only met Mike one time. He seemed like a standup guy. If a defense fund gets started I would happily kick in some money.

This is an incorrect characterization of your obligations as a C&R holder. It does not permit warrantless inspection of your records or guns in your home.

Neither does NFA.

 

[swatgig]

In reference to your second statement, does knowingly purchasing an "off list" gun constitute probable cause for criminal activity?

I'd be happy to discuss this off-list. (informally - no strings attached)

 

[OfficerObie59]

Just want to share a story with you guys.
I was once calling from home on a land line a mobile number in Russia and the area code there was 911. No idea how I messed up but I ended up making a 911 call. I realized that when a 911 operator answered it. So I just said – sorry, wrong number. Guess what, 5 minutes later 2 police cruisers were in front of my house and the police were knocking on my door. Think if I had not let them in they would have broken in anyway. Because they were looking for a person who might have made that call. Though I told them right away that I had. They went through every room, basement and the garage asking tons of questions like Who slept in this bed?, What is this for? (pointing at a self-made bike stand in the garage), Why is a car with out-of-state plates in the garage? etc.
Wonder what you would do in such a situation? Tell them to go away and come back with a warrant?

The 911 call is the exigent circumstance there. They thought maybe someone else in the house called about you.

Yeah, though I have heard and experienced many more reasonable stories than that. No offense to Goga, but it is also possible there was some perception that isn't in that story.

911 hang-ups often get a visit unless you are living in a collapsed progressive holding tank like Detroit or LA, but more often than not, they knock, you say, "oops" and they say "have a nice day".

I had a fun phone that decided to "auto-complete" 9+hangup as 911. Learned the hard way that I needed a new phone. They were professional and did not kick my door, shoot my dog or even ask to come in.

Had 2 visits when my son was young and learning about phones. They came to the door. I apologized that my son had dialed them. They said it happens all the time and left.

Any 911 call to my police department requires a response per agency policy. Whether or not the party communicates over the line it was accidental or whether they just hang up determines whether the blue lights come on.

I've actually had a few medical emergencies as the result of 911 hang-ups, and quite a few domestics where a party has been legitimately assaulted that resulted as part of a "Sorry, wrong number" hang up.

The vast majority of cops are hoping it's truly accidental so they can get back to drinking coffee. Accidential 911 calls are not a place where cops want to come in your house just to fish around. That said, if no one answers the door, call the fire deaprtment because we'll be spreading the door frame.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Tell that to Bushmaster that paid $500,000 to settle the DC sniper case.

Different legal theory WRT to the manufacturer. And sometimes is far cheaper to settle than to fight the case and win.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Ok.

So I'm wondering what would the property have to do with it? The buildings are NOT attached to each other. Does that make any difference?

What really matters is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that structure. The fact they're not connected to your dwelling is irrelevent to that determination.

Don't forget, the police can always secure the scene--meaning they can surround your house or property--and then get an arrest warrant that will allow them to come in. If arrest is imminent, one needs to make the calculus whether you should simply go outside and give yourself up or whether you want to make the cops wait for a warrant which will allow forced entry to the inside of the home.

It seems like nobody can really answer this question - which in my mind means: The police can enter your home - or any building on your property - at will. They just need the proper excuse (like I see in the TV shows all the time " we heard somebody screaming inside the house - so we entered")

Well yeah, if the laws don't matter and cops are willing to lie, the police can do just about anything they want to.

In the case above, the charges will likely get tossed after there's no sceaming woman found in the home.

 

[Mudfish]

Something tells me that once you answer and confirm for BATFE the next thing you will get is a subpoena to testify in this trial.

Could they seize the guns in question as an exhibit for the court?

 

[OfficerObie59]

That still doesn't answer the question..

I have three thresholds in my house. And the garage / barn - which is NOT attached to the house - has five - if you include the garage doors.

Seriously - is the actual law that vague that nobody can answer this question other than a lawyer?

Warren v. District of Columbia would suggest otherwise.

Indeed.

Holy shit. I was not aware of this.

All the more reason to always protect yourself in the home and not have cops interfere.

Keep reading:

City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero Joseph Lozito who subdued killer Maksim Gelman and was stabbed seven times in process - NYPOST.com

Amazing Serial Killer Survival Story - YouTube

Yeah, provided the suit is limited to a federal §1983 claim based on substantive due process. There are also exceptions to that rule.

State tort remedies can be a whole different ballgame. I think the MA Tort Claims Act does not confer a duty to protect individuals, but it doesn't mean a person won't sue to try and illicit a settlement or try to change the case law, costing a municipal defendant legal fees.

 

[theGringo]

Yeah, provided the suit is limited to a federal §1983 claim based on substantive due process. There are also exceptions to that rule.

State tort remedies can be a whole different ballgame. I think the MA Tort Claims Act does not confer a duty to protect individuals, but it doesn't mean a person won't sue to try and illicit a settlement or try to change the case law, costing a municipal defendant legal fees.

So I guess, yeah, you can always sue somebody (or a surviving family member can, if you die) and hope for the best.

 

[Serapis]

Its like getting found innocent in criminal court and having to pay 500k in civil court.

 

[MassHack]

Could the victims be considered unsuitable? Next renewal period?

 

[Serapis]

Could the victims be considered unsuitable? Next renewal period?

Anything is possible with that...

 

[not new guy]

I'd be interested in hearing any other third or fourth hand accounts of these calls or visits if they're out there and willing to be shared.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Different legal theory WRT to the manufacturer. And sometimes is far cheaper to settle than to fight the case and win.

Understood. The store settled for $2M.

 

[center442]

This is an incorrect characterization of your obligations as a C&R holder. It does not permit warrantless inspection of your records or guns in your home.

Neither does NFA.

Understood, which is why I specified info/records, which I believe are subject to routine inspection. There were some C&R holders on here a while back who were subject to a "routine" check of their records by BATFE. The records can be inspected in the home or in a BATFE office. I would prefer that my records be inspected in their office and some other neutral place. If they suspect malfeasance, they're going to be showing up with a warrant...which is the only way they're entering my home.

Apologies if my post gave the wrong impression.

 

[cekim]

Understood, which is why I specified info/records, which I believe are subject to routine inspection. There were some C&R holders on here a while back who were subject to a "routine" check of their records by BATFE. The records can be inspected in the home or in a BATFE office. I would prefer that my records be inspected in their office and some other neutral place. If they suspect malfeasance, they're going to be showing up with a warrant...which is the only way they're entering my home.

Apologies if my post gave the wrong impression.

Unless they have a warrant it is YOUR CHOICE, where they are inspected for an 03.

This is not the case for other types of FFL, 01/07/10/etc... Where they can and do expect to show up unannounced.

With NFA, once your 2A, 5A, 4A and 14A rights are done being violated to get the tax stamp , from that point forward, it is no different than any other gun, er, ah, almost... You can't cross state lines without a 5320, so your freedom to move between the several states is impaired. But other than that... , there are no implications to your rights at home.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Thanks for the C+R info, I didn't know that and that's why I haven't got one yet. Warrantless searches scare me. Good to know it's a choice.

 

[Smash05]

There are some fine lines here, to be sure. Folks buy guns, legally, all the time. Folks sell guns, legally, all the time. Folks have been buying AR's when they see a low price and then resell them immediately to make a buck. Is that a "Straw Purchase"? No idea.

No.

http://www.dontlie.org/straw_purchasing.cfm


You could intend to purchase a firearm with the intent to resell to someone who you know to not be a PP. The issue arises where it s done with an intent to circumvent the law.

Read instructions for 11a.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf


Note how there has to be intent to circumvent. Saying, "my buddy would love his, I'm gonna buy it and see if he wants to buy it from me.?" Is not illegal unless your buddy is a PP or has directed you to do so in order to avoid the 4473 process.

 

[KBCraig]

Read instructions for 11a.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf


Note how there has to be intent to circumvent. Saying, "my buddy would love his, I'm gonna buy it and see if he wants to buy it from me.?" Is not illegal unless your buddy is a PP or has directed you to do so in order to avoid the 4473 process.

Yes, please do read the instructions for 11.a; it says absolutely nothing about prohibited persons. It is a straw purchase any time you're not the actual transferee/buyer no matter if the person you're buying for is prohibited or not!

 

[Smash05]

Yes, please do read the instructions for 11.a; it says absolutely nothing about prohibited persons. It is a straw purchase any time you're not the actual transferee/buyer no matter if the person you're buying for is prohibited or not!

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.


Really? Nothing about prohibited person in there?