ATF visits

phique2000

phique2000

Happy to be here
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
251
Location
mt. holly, nc
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I looked and couldn't find any threads.
I think we've all seen the videos of the ATF agents appearing at some guys door to check if he still has the 2 guns he recently purchased. They say they are just making sure it wasn't a straw purchase.
They have all the info on the purchased weapons. Now I thought that when a firearm is purchased, after the background check is done and approved, the info on the purchase is supposed to be destroyed so the government doesn't have a record of the guns you bought, akin to firearm registration. If this is true, isn't it illegal for those ATF agents to have that information.
I am willing to be properly educated.
Phil
 
phique2000 said:
I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I looked and couldn't find any threads.
I think we've all seen the videos of the ATF agents appearing at some guys door to check if he still has the 2 guns he recently purchased. They say they are just making sure it wasn't a straw purchase.
They have all the info on the purchased weapons. Now I thought that when a firearm is purchased, after the background check is done and approved, the info on the purchase is supposed to be destroyed so the government doesn't have a record of the guns you bought, akin to firearm registration. If this is true, isn't it illegal for those ATF agents to have that information.
I am willing to be properly educated.
Phil
Click to expand...
The paperwork they have is most likely related to multiple handgun sales. If you purchase multiple handguns within a 5 business day period the dealer is required to report, via a multiple handgun sale form. These are then sent to the local LEO and the ATF.
 
phique2000 said:
Now I thought that when a firearm is purchased, after the background check is done and approved, the info on the purchase is supposed to be destroyed so the government doesn't have a record of the guns you bought, akin to firearm registration.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you thought that but it is not true. 4473s stay on site at the FFL until the business dissolves and then they are turned over to the ATF.
 
Bigdave0924 said:
I don’t know why you thought that but it is not true. 4473s stay on site at the FFL until the business dissolves and then they are turned over to the ATF.
Click to expand...
Yes the entire matter is a bit nuanced, the electronic record of the check does get "destroyed" in a manner of speaking by not being permanently saved (hopefully) but the paper record stays.
 
Stogies said:
Yes the entire matter is a bit nuanced, the electronic record of the check does get "destroyed" in a manner of speaking by not being permanently saved (hopefully) but the paper record stays.
Click to expand...


The electronic record of the background check is supposed to be deleted within 90 days, but they have been caught not deleting them several times since Brady was passed. Nothing ever gets done about it other than a hand slap in a congressional hearing or some such.

So, who really knows if they are deleting them or not?
 
phique2000 said:
I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I looked and couldn't find any threads.
I think we've all seen the videos of the ATF agents appearing at some guys door to check if he still has the 2 guns he recently purchased. They say they are just making sure it wasn't a straw purchase.
They have all the info on the purchased weapons. Now I thought that when a firearm is purchased, after the background check is done and approved, the info on the purchase is supposed to be destroyed so the government doesn't have a record of the guns you bought, akin to firearm registration. If this is true, isn't it illegal for those ATF agents to have that information.
I am willing to be properly educated.
Phil
Click to expand...
https://www.caucusroom.com/users/cqFZ9YdvgpP5EYQEh


It’s called “Knock and Talk” and is intended to gain entrance to a residence in order to find "evidence in plain sight’ which can be used in a probable cause affidavit for a search/arrest warrant. Best response is “Get Of My lawn” and then call your lawyer.
 
o2l said:
It’s called “Knock and Talk” and is intended to gain entrance to a residence in order to find "evidence in plain sight’ which can be used in a probable cause affidavit for a search/arrest warrant. Best response is “Get Of My lawn” and then call your lawyer.
Click to expand...
I will have to see if I can find it again and post it. I read something about how in NC the privacy statutes include curtilage and how that pretty well precludes the in plain sight argument because even if it is in the open it’s still an area of reasonable expectation of privacy. However, you are right, do not let cops of any flavor inside. Do not talk to them. “No situation is so bad that it can’t be made worse by the presence of cops”, Herschel Smith at The Captains Journal.
 
noway2 said:
I will have to see if I can find it again and post it. I read something about how in NC the privacy statutes include curtilage and how that pretty well precludes the in plain sight argument because even if it is in the open it’s still an area of reasonable expectation of privacy. However, you are right, do not let cops of any flavor inside. Do not talk to them. “No situation is so bad that it can’t be made worse by the presence of cops”, Herschel Smith at The Captains Journal.
Click to expand...
As it relates to knock and talks, as long as the officers come straight to the door that a "reasonably respectful citizen unfamiliar with the home would believe is the appropriate door at which to knock", then whatever is in plain view in the curtilage along that route is still fair game. Likewise, if there is a front door, and also door around back or under a carport or in a garage, going to the door around back or into the carport or garage will likely be considered a warrantless search (requiring probable cause and exigent circumstances), unless it is very obvious that the front door is inaccessible or disfavored for use by the occupant (like a "USE SIDE DOOR" sign). If you want to avoid a knock and talk and the resulting potential for plain sight issues, put up "No Trespassing" signs at the street. Then, the police will no longer have an implied right to be anywhere on your property absent a warrant, emergency or invite.
 
Put up cameras too. Can’t see in your home if your talking behind a closed door via a ring camera system AND it is recorded too
 
Last edited:
@East of Here I found this case that pretty much agrees with your analysis: https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2019/19-59.html It gets into some fine details like going around to the side or the back of the house, like you mentioned, but then upon moving off the front porch they smelled MJ and then (wrongfully) assumed that gave them reasonable suspicion and grounds to obtain a warrant. They also said they saw MJ plants through a crack / slot in the boards of the basement and claimed it was plain sight. The trial court agreed with this assessment, but the appellate court overturned it.,

The case also discusses the no trespassing sign and makes the point that a sign is an obvious expression of privacy, the absence of a sign does not imply permission.
 
noway2 said:
@East of Here I found this case that pretty much agrees with your analysis: https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2019/19-59.html It gets into some fine details like going around to the side or the back of the house, like you mentioned, but then upon moving off the front porch they smelled MJ and then (wrongfully) assumed that gave them reasonable suspicion and grounds to obtain a warrant. They also said they saw MJ plants through a crack / slot in the boards of the basement and claimed it was plain sight. The trial court agreed with this assessment, but the appellate court overturned it.,

The case also discusses the no trespassing sign and makes the point that a sign is an obvious expression of privacy, the absence of a sign does not imply permission.
Click to expand...
This area of the law is still not 100% fleshed out, due to the cases/issues being so fact dependent, but it is getting there pretty quick. The last few years have seen a lot of good cases and issues addressed. The current trend has the appellate courts (state and federal) mostly tightening up the protection on 4th Amendment issues, which is good. It also seems like the latest hot area of appellate interest and activity is in the area of warrantless searches incident to arrest.
 
o2l said:
https://www.caucusroom.com/users/cqFZ9YdvgpP5EYQEh


It’s called “Knock and Talk” and is intended to gain entrance to a residence in order to find "evidence in plain sight’ which can be used in a probable cause affidavit for a search/arrest warrant. Best response is “Get Of My lawn” and then call your lawyer.
Click to expand...
I spent 6 or 8 weeks at Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) Charleston, SC bank in 2008ish. The whole thing was non stop training on how to trick people into incriminating themselves and then how to testify on the witness stand without blowing the case that you built off of nothing... It made me realize how horrible the system really is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom