LEO checking what guns you own just beacuse?

[Jason Flare]

OP - when you sit down with this young cop, tell him that this BS ends here and now, or you'll go after his badge. Tell him he broke the law, show him the relevant mgl citations and tell him you have access to lawyers that would love to chew him up and spit him out. He sounds like he's trying to be Mr. Big. Now's the time to set some limits.

I basically agree with this approach.

I agree with the approach but I never mention the word, "lawyer." My style would be to give him a simple explanation of the law with a copy of the statute.

I might follow it up with, "This isn't how we're going to act, correct?" And wait for an answer.

Just my personal preference since once the lawyer card is played I may have to spend several thousand dollars to follow through.

 

[vicorjh]

Start with a non-aggressive response.

Complicated. Consider resolving this using kids gloves. Yes, he's in the wrong. However, if I understand this correctly, you are dating his sister. The last thing you need is at this point is for you to escalate the confrontation with the family popo. All the while, starting a personal vendetta of sorts.

If he/she has a hard-on about this, don't bring it up yourself. Let it slide for the moment and wait for a moment of opportunity. If the family doesn't resolve this for you (confronting him as being rude or arrogant), let him bring it up again. Don't bait him but instead, in the meantime, be cordial with him. Let him start the conversation. By then, you'll be able to respond calmly and with ++authority. This will be your opportunity to confront him with the legality of matter. Again, with kid gloves.

At that point, you've given him fair warning. Depending on the response, you are now in a better position to be able to decide the next steps (hopefully keeping the peace with your GF and the family).

 

[wahsben]

Gun owners wouldn't mind sharing the information if they weren't treated like criminals by the state and by the anti's.
Before all this gun control most if not all people didn't mind others knowing they owned guns.

Only criminals should be finger printed not people exercising a right.

That's the thing. I don't see it as personal information. It just doesn't bother me that people know I own guns. I guess i'm in the minority here on this point.

 

[mark056]

OP - when you sit down with this young cop, tell him that this BS ends here and now, or you'll go after his badge. Tell him he broke the law, show him the relevant mgl citations and tell him you have access to lawyers that would love to chew him up and spit him out. He sounds like he's trying to be Mr. Big. Now's the time to set some limits.

I agree with Len and also with Woodstock's post...but now I'm going to call you to task:

You already knew the answer to the question because you had already contacted an attorney and sought legal advice, furthermore you decided to post your privileged communication with the attorney and included the attorney's name on the internet, but not your name. If you already had an answer, then why did you post or bother with the second post? I'm guessing you are well under 30 and maybe under 25, not the most mature guy in the world, deciding to potentially share this with 16,000 of your internet BFFs.

If I misread the relationship, all the more reason not to even get involved in this crap.

Thing of it is, your GF's bro is a young JBT in the making and is waaay out of line. He needs an attitude adjustment now, but I'm trying figure out which one of you is the most immature, him or you for the way you approached this thread...maybe you deserve each other, and then there is his sister who ratted out her brother to you. If she rats out her brother, her own flesh and blood, will she rat out her BF...maybe you all deserve each other, I honestly don't know.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Too true, never mention the "lawyer" or "attorney" word inless You are ready to pull the trigger so to speak, they are not cheap for one reason and for another their client is always a 2nd or 3rd priority, the court and other legal professionals IE cops will always come first. Its in 7 CJS


CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM at section 4 which reads:
Volume 7, Section 4 - Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter."

I agree with the approach but I never mention the word, "lawyer." My style would be to give him a simple explanation of the law with a copy of the statute.

I might follow it up with, "This isn't how we're going to act, correct?" And wait for an answer.

Just my personal preference since once the lawyer card is played I may have to spend several thousand dollars to follow through.

 

[todd c]

The op said its his gf sisters bf.

 

[Keeper]

That's the thing. I don't see it as personal information. It just doesn't bother me that people know I own guns. I guess i'm in the minority here on this point.

(emphasis mine)

A key part of the problem with the laws we wind up with in this country is all the people who share your mentality. "I don't have a problem with it, so nobody else should either." . . . "I don't care if people know I own guns, so why not post the records on the internet?" (i.e., not personal info.) Which leads to things like: "I only need a double barrel for clays, so why have guns with more than two rounds?" . . . "I don't own a gun so why should anyone else." . . . "We know who has guns and how many, so just go get them."

Not everyone supports your RKBA so it's not too hard to imagine long term implications of incrementally more widespread disclosure.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that there people have very real and justified desires to maintain privacy? It's so fundamental, there's a constitutional amendment for it. It's hard to imagine anyone on this forum not realizing enough about the implications to at least be able to say, "It doesn't bother me, but I understand we need to protect the right to privacy. LEO's should not have access to people's firearms inventory without a warrant."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/1...home-gun-owner-named-on-journal-news-website/

 

[mark056]

The op said its his gf sisters bf.

Hone your critical reading skills that's not what he said.

 

[bobsher]

I was in the office of a shift commander (social visit, friend of mine) when the dispatcher brought in a list of the guns the FRB thought I owned at the time because "he thought I would find it interesting".

So, there does not appear to be any need to certify to the FRB that the request is for official purposes - the fact that it is coming from an LE agency appears to be enough.

Similarly, my wife once got a call from a police officer who ran my plate because he wanted to find out where the good matches were at. (and yeah, I know I just ended a sentence with a preposition....so it be).

The grammar police will soon be visiting you. They know where you're at.

 

[Glock23ONME]

I agree with Len and also with Woodstock's post...but now I'm going to call you to task:

You already knew the answer to the question because you had already contacted an attorney and sought legal advice, furthermore you decided to post your privileged communication with the attorney and included the attorney's name on the internet, but not your name. If you already had an answer, then why did you post or bother with the second post? I'm guessing you are well under 30 and maybe under 25, not the most mature guy in the world, deciding to potentially share this with 16,000 of your internet BFFs.

If I misread the relationship, all the more reason not to even get involved in this crap.

Thing of it is, your GF's bro is a young JBT in the making and is waaay out of line. He needs an attitude adjustment now, but I'm trying figure out which one of you is the most immature, him or you for the way you approached this thread...maybe you deserve each other, and then there is his sister who ratted out her brother to you. If she rats out her brother, her own flesh and blood, will she rat out her BF...maybe you all deserve each other, I honestly don't know.

I disn't already know the information as I said I emailed this guy last night during the post once someone posted the MGL. I can show you the time stamped email if you'd like?

 

[mark056]

I disn't already know the information as I said I emailed this guy last night during the post once someone posted the MGL. I can show you the time stamped email if you'd like?

Well don't you think you jumped the gun a bit? Also you waited to give us the typical NES "back story" and frankly I would never post private correspondence between myself and an attorney on the internet. But that's just me. It's okay to pursue multiple avenues of approach, but the primary point is that you weren't upfront from the get-go and asked a general question that a lot of people have a question about, but you had an ulterior motive which makes you deceptive and frankly less than upfront. This is my perspective and it something you might want to think about. Maybe it doesn't matter one whit to and is merely a "back story" in my business, we call it a motive.

 

[Glock23ONME]

First off my girlfriend told me this information after I asked her if she thought her father would be cool with going to the range. She simply stated after that "we were at the dinner table and so and so started rattling off the guns you own and I told him yes I know what he has mind your own buisness" there was no ratting out of anyone.

I'm a 27 year old home owner on a single income. I work full time and im a part time student. I would like to think I'm pretty mature. I'm wondering if you can explain how im immature for asking if it was legal then posting information that a lawyer shared with me promptly after starting the post. I'm immature because I shared legal advice from a pro-gun lawyer for anyone who might have this problem in the future with maybe a non family in-law LEO?

 

[Roscoe]

.

 

[Glock23ONME]

The reason I try not to give a back story in my post is so people will stick to the facts. Yes it's legal no it's not. Why does it matter if it's any type of relation? The facts are the facts. Then someone said its not legal but show me where they can be prosicuted or something to that nature. I couldn't find anywhere on line where the penalty so I emailed the ma gun safety lawer for some insight. What's my alterior motive? That I wanted facts Infront of me if I have to confront this gung ho kid when he starts yelling ya huh ya huh like a brat. Not to mention the second you have a badge in the family anything that person says because truth because their a cop that's their job what would the simple civilian know about the law.

 

[mark056]

First off my girlfriend told me this information after I asked her if she thought her father would be cool with going to the range. She simply stated after that "we were at the dinner table and so and so started rattling off the guns you own and I told him yes I know what he has mind your own buisness" there was no ratting out of anyone.

I'm a 27 year old home owner on a single income. I work full time and im a part time student. I would like to think I'm pretty mature. I'm wondering if you can explain how im immature for asking if it was legal then posting information that a lawyer shared with me promptly after starting the post. I'm immature because I shared legal advice from a pro-gun lawyer for anyone who might have this problem in the future with maybe a non family in-law LEO?

Your mature if you say so, but IMO if nothing else you are deceptive and if you can't see my point, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a butthurt 27 year old. This was not handled well from the get-go and getting into a flame war with you is not going to solve your problem and you have a problem, do what Woodstock suggests and what Len and I endorse. As a general rule never post legal correspondence on the internet because it can come back to haunt you in many different ways and if you can't figure that out, then I really don't have the time or patience to explain it to you, except to say that unwittingly you have opened the door to revealing who your really are, and you have now given sufficient information about yourself that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who you are, and who the young cop it. Forget legality, privacy and all that stuff, the potential exists and if somebody wanted to do it bad enough, you've opened the crack in the door wide enough, believe me, and that's all I'm gonna say, and I can assure I don't wear a tin foil hat.

 

[Glock23ONME]

I honestly don't understand how this would come back to haunt me? I never gave this kids name up to anyone the lawyer included. The only reason the lawyer knew my name is because is in the only email I have. I also worded the email to the lawyer that it was a situation having nothing to do with me or anyone I knew.

 

[namedpipes]

I honestly don't understand how this would come back to haunt me? I never gave this kids name up to anyone the lawyer included. The only reason the lawyer knew my name is because is in the only email I have. I also worded the email to the lawyer that it was a situation having nothing to do with me or anyone I knew.

In terms of opsec, this mission is blown.

But everyone is making too big a deal of it. Just talk it out with the guy. If he makes it a problem, THEN is the time to get official.

This isn't some stranger that figured out you might own guns and checked you out. This is potential family probably just being protective, inappropriately. He might be a part of the rest of your life.

 

[MisterHappy]

Gee, I wonder why the officer might think you knew about matches?

.

Len,

Even I was able to figure it out, in the Stop & Shop parking lot, and I'm not a Trained Law Enforcement Professional.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len,

Even I was able to figure it out, in the Stop & Shop parking lot, and I'm not a Trained Law Enforcement Professional.

Yup. The LMAO emoticons were placed there because I know what Rob's license plate was . . . dead giveaway.

 

[PATRON]

I just want to know if any one with a badge in the state of Massachusetts can legally look up specifically which and how many firearms I own. Just for their own personal knowledge. Also if they are allowed to go around and disclose that information with anyone they choose.

Shit son,you live in MA you have no rights.Wait,you do have the right to spend a shit load of money for a laywer to fight for your rights.

 

[Squire]

In terms of opsec, this mission is blown.

Right: "I withheld information from a lawyer (a conversation that is privileged, by law), but posted everything about the relationships, circumstances, ages, but the names on a public forum."

 

[GPP]

I'm surprised that a denial by the owner/spouse would mean end of story. NES conventional wisdom says a search warrant would be obtained and all your drywall would get smashed in until the cops were satisfied.

Nope. The "list" isnt enough PC for a SW (at least with the clerks I work with that sign my SWs). If I was able to articulate better PC ( named witness saying he/she saw a MK-19 in the arresteds house that night for example) in my SW affidavit, id have a better shot at the SW being granted, but its not as easy or simple as everyone thinks.

 

[browniee]

SCREW THEM AND THEIR BULL CRAP LAWS.

 

[Chet0729]

Unfortunately guns you sell don't get removed from your list either. I have a friend who is a LEO and I asked him to look up what the state thought I had. He didn't have to do anything special, it was on 1 of about 5 screens that came up with an inquiry that would be run on a traffic stop. There were guns on the list that I had sold previously. Plates are so easy to run now from within the cruiser that is happens all the time.

 

[GPP]

Unfortunately guns you sell don't get removed from your list either. I have a friend who is a LEO and I asked him to look up what the state thought I had. He didn't have to do anything special, it was on 1 of about 5 screens that came up with an inquiry that would be run on a traffic stop. There were guns on the list that I had sold previously. Plates are so easy to run now from within the cruiser that is happens all the time.

Correct! Ive had no less than 9 NES members meet me at work, and sit with me at my desk while I printed out their "list" for them, and they all had the same issue. The list is just a recording of a transaction ( I know, I know, its a list of registered guns lol) that the LTC holder has conducted since having their FID/LTC. It doesnt account for shit youve sold or traded or loaned or leased to someone. In fact, theres no accountability at all for whats on your "list". Thats why it really isnt good for shit (yet). Hey man, wheres that .45 thats listed here on your list of lists? I dont know saucy fur. End of story.

 

[Squire]

Correct! Ive had no less than 9 NES members meet me at work, and sit with me at my desk while I printed out their "list" for them, and they all had the same issue. The list is just a recording of a transaction ( I know, I know, its a list of registered guns lol) that the LTC holder has conducted since having their FID/LTC. It doesnt account for shit youve sold or traded or loaned or leased to someone. In fact, theres no accountability at all for whats on your "list". Thats why it really isnt good for shit (yet). Hey man, wheres that .45 thats listed here on your list of lists? I dont know saucy fur. End of story.

It's used to scope order of magnitude. When liberal Statists start cracking down on "domestic terrorism" (ie, gun ownership), those who have done 100 transactions will be at the top of list, whereas the person who has trasferred a single hand-gun in the post Obama or Newtown scare won't get SWATed with a no-knock until later.

 

[Lank]

It's used to scope order of magnitude. When liberal Statists start cracking down on "domestic terrorism" (ie, gun ownership), those who have done 100 transactions will be at the top of list, whereas the person who has trasferred a single hand-gun in the post Obama or Newtown scare won't get SWATed with a no-knock until later.[/QUOTE

Buy in MA, Store in secure location in Free State(s). Problem solved. Extra cost? Yup. We manage to survive in an Orwellian progressive nanny state. Adapt or perish.

 

[GPP]

It's used to scope order of magnitude. When liberal Statists start cracking down on "domestic terrorism" (ie, gun ownership), those who have done 100 transactions will be at the top of list, whereas the person who has trasferred a single hand-gun in the post Obama or Newtown scare won't get SWATed with a no-knock until later.

Oh. Well its good to know that someone knows what the "list" is for. I for one, feel better.
Tinfoil much?

 

[In God We Trust]

Yes. And why are you worried about it

 

[Squire]

Thats why it really isnt good for shit (yet).

Oh. Well its good to know that someone knows what the "list" is for. I for one, feel better.
Tinfoil much?

How is it Tinfoil when by your own implication the list could be used for something useful (like identifying very active gun transaction participants), if not already?

I understand if it makes LEO feel more prepared when they get a call to investigate to get "situational" information on what they might encounter. That's real value of the list currently (although completely Unconstitutional).

The only direction that the use of this information can go is that which infringes even further on 4th Amendment (much less 2nd Amendment) Rights.

In your hypothetical,

Hey man, wheres that .45 thats listed here on your list of lists? I dont know saucy fur. End of story.

I highly doubt that the situation suggested here would end with "End of Story".