Consider This...

J

John/az2

New member
You are out in the hills at a popular off-road pit shooting your pre-ban (bayonet lug & flash hider) SKS/AK/AR-15 when two men approach you and identify themselves as ATF. They ask you for your papers that prove the gun you are shooting is a pre-ban. You didn't bring your's (who does? :D)

They pull out a hacksaw and give you a choice: hack off the offending parts, or be arrested.

What is wrong with this Constitutionally?

John/az

------------------
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited March 02, 1999).]
 
I think I'd raise the offending rifle and demand they drop the hacksaw and proceed to arrest (or make a citizens arrest of) them for impersonating federal agents or some such hooey.

That scenario would simply never happen. No ATF Agents (nor any other LEO) have the power to order you to destroy property. Furthermore, they'd be encouraging and facilitating the destruction of or tampering with evidence. At that point they'd become conspirators in your crime.

If that is supposed to be the equivalent of a Patrolmen telling you to dump out your beer and that he is going to follow you home... well, I just cannot imagine, under any circumstances, an ATF agent doing such a thing. (unless they were setting you up to be an informant.. which, nowadays, is still highly unlikely and required a real stretch for me to even come up with).

As far as your question: Constitutionally they have the power to arrest you for suspicion of a felony, but they would have to actually confirm that there was reason to believe that the weapon was illegal (moer than just, "It looks bad to me") before you were formally charged.

The hacksaw bit is just out of nowhere, so I am not sure how to comment on its constitutionality.

------------------
-Essayons
 
I know it seems a little far-fetched, but I have heard of it happening here locally. I will go back and verify the source and see if I can get some additional testimonies.

Continuing, I have been told that in order to identify a pre-ban from a post-ban the ATF must trace the serial number back to the manufacturer to verify the date of manufacture.

Could someone please shed some light on the way the ATF could distinguish on sight the "legality" of a pre-ban weapon as opposed to a post-ban?

Additionally, I would consider (in this situation) my line crossed...

John/az

------------------
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited March 02, 1999).]
 
I can find out on the internet what Serial number ranges for most manufacturers are pre-ban. It is almost inconcievable to me that ATF field agents don't already have a list compiled and probably an issued booklet that covers such things.

The thing is that serials numbers are not the only determining factor in a weapon's legality. Let's say that I own a reciever that is pre-ban, but I have never assembled it as a complete weapon.. I CANNOT build a weapon with pre-ban characteristics on that reciever. if you have a pre-ban reciever that was purchased from a manufacturer, distributor, or FFL after the magic date in 1994, it would be very easy for the ATF to prove that it could not be a legal "assualt weapon."
 
These things happened at the Ben Avery Shooting Range north of Phoenix. The dealer that told me about it had several people come back and tell him about it. I have no reason to believe that he would make up a story like that, and would not find such a thing that suprising. Things like this happen when weak men gain a little authority, as they suppose.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Great - I'm headed to that range this weekend. Good thing I don't have an excessive number of 'ugly' features on my guns. ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if these bozo's pulled this on a young guy / gal - they'd expect an older guy / gal to know what was going on, and they'd probably pass on that argument.

This is a good reason to have a good attorney, and to keep that attorney's business card with you at all times.
 
Okay, What does the ATF or any individual Agent gain from such an encounter? People do things for a reason, I see no logic behind that scenario... at all.

If you go to that range, bring a video camera, becuase that is the only way that I would believe such a thing happened.. and I'd probably still have my doubts.
 
Maybe young agents fast-tracking promotion?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Rob, unfortunately many of us have run into LEO's who get a little carried away. I know had it happen once with some undercover deputy Sheriffs at a political demonstration. I would suspect you can remember such an incident in your own life, no?

Generally I find LEO's very professional, but I think younger people have a tougher time with them. Partly because they deserve it (higher incidence of crime / stupidity), and partly because they're easier to push around. [Don't get carried away flaming me here, you younger TFL members. I did a number of very stupid things when I was younger - it goes with the territory, no? ;) )

I'll vote with DC. Probably a couple of young bozo's that were a little full of themselves. BATF doesn't have the best reputation, and you would think they'd finally figure that out and straighten up.
 
Again, How does it benefit the agents to get someone to destroy the evidence of a crime?

If they are looking for a promotion and they think there is a crime being committed, it is very simple:

"You are under Arrest."

None of this hacksaw business.

Even the mental picture of an ATF agent with a hacksaw is hard for me to grasp. After the accusations (100% Untrue BTW) that the ATF had cut down the infamous Randy Weaver guns, I would think that ATF agents avoid hacksaws like NYPD avoids plungers.

Someone please explain to me how even the most black-helicopter-seein'-right-winged-consipracy-theory-gun-nut makes a logical argument that such a scenario is realistic.

Jeff, you make the best argument against the believability: ATF knows that there are under the microscope, why would any of their Agents dare to pull such a stunt?
 
Rob...

You had me thinking you were right then ya blew it in your last paragraph:
"Jeff, you make the best argument against the believability: ATF
knows that there are under the microscope, why would any of their
Agents dare to pull such a stunt?"

Gary Hart and Bill Clinton come to mind as infamous "microscope ignorers" ;) Never ever underestimate the arrogance of the powerful

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited March 04, 1999).]
 
Careful, Rob. I think you're getting your panties in a twist! ;)

It does sound far fetched, I was incredulous when I heard it. Didn't Waco sound far fetched? What did they have to gain from that incident? What about Ruby ridge? What did the ATF have to gain by shooting a mother holding a baby? Or why was there an armed conflict over a slightly shorter than "legal" shotgun?

Don't these sound a little out of proportion?

Abuses happen all of the time.

Please let me know if my thinking is screwed up here, but I don't have the $ to buy the gun I would need to test such a story, and I'm not willing to drive up there to interview anyone, at this time.

Set me straight here.



------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Rob,

I don't want to step on your toes here, I respect you. I don't want to step on any LEO's toes.

But you asked what would they gain?

I'll answer with a question of my own. What would an LEO have to gain by hitting a man on a bicycle with a riot stick so hard that it gave the man a two inch laceration through his helmet and temporarily paralyzed his left leg? Not attempting to make any arrest. Leaving the man lying in the street, semiconscious, in the middle of the night. A car rolled by within six inches of this man's head. The man was rescued by friends and did not know what had happened to him as he never saw the cop. It was not until the cop started bragging about the "hippy he'd brained" several days later, that the man knew what had happened. This is not hearsay. The man was me. This happened to me in the spring of 1974 at Middle Georgia College in Cochran, Georgia. The cop, Walker Floyd, was an LEO employed by the Middle Georgia College Police. His chief was Robert(Bob) Raul.

What did he gain? He brained a hippy.

Oh, in case anyone checks this out, I almost left out one small detail-I was streaking. This was back during the original streaking craze and I had the misfortune to overhear Chief Raul's instructions to his force for the evening's "festivities." To paraphrase, for I certainly don't rememember word for word: "Arrest no one for simply streaking. If they are not harrassing individuals, destroying property, or violating other laws...leave them alone." I figured,"Hell, if they are not going to arrest me, I'll do it." It got by me that he didn't tell them not to try to kill anyone. Reckon he thought that went without saying. Thank God I decided to wear a helmet.

There are people who do illogical things for they are not guided by logic. There are people who do unethical things for they are not ethical. There are people who commit aggression for they are aggressive. Some of them are LEO's.

Other than that, I agree, the hacksaw business seems strange.
 
Heres what I see.
Someone relates an event.
Someone else doesnt believe it because of all reasons it would be totally out of character for someone to act like that.
Evev without the names it is kind of humorous isnt it.
To disbelieve ANY story because you cant see LEO abusing his power is stretching it.Male it the ATF and it becomes a definite possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top