Posted on 02/17/2006 11:16:14 AM PST by SonofLiberty1
Congress Told of ATF Seizures, Threats to Gun Buyers By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer February 17, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), allegedly acting without warrants or legislative authority to do so, seized firearms from at least 50 gun show patrons in Virginia according to congressional testimony and an agency document made public Wednesday. Witnesses also testified that African-American and female gun buyers in Richmond, Va., and Pittsburgh, Pa., were profiled based on their race or sex and some in Pittsburgh were threatened with arrest by ATF agents for alleged actions that are not violations of law.
Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over ATF. While he supports the agency's mission, Coble questions some of its tactics.
"ATF reports that 206 [gun show] participants were stopped and interviewed while it confiscated firearms from another 50 participants," Coble said, referring to gun shows in Richmond, Va. "Although most of the firearms were ultimately returned, the purchasers were notified via official letter from ATF that [they] were ordered to appear at the local ATF office to discuss their transactions. In addition, the letter explained that failure to appear could result in an arrest warrant being issued for the alleged charges."
The form letter had blanks for the name of the gun show patron and the date and time they were ordered to appear at the ATF field office, but cited no authority for the gun confiscations or the mandatory office visits.
"An investigation has revealed that you may have violated Title 18 U.S.C. Section 924(a)(1)(A), a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to five years," the letter began. The U.S. Code citation refers, in this instance, to knowingly making a false statement on the ATF Form 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-The-Counter," which is completed for each firearm purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL).
"The firearm that you purchased is being taken into ATF custody," the letter continued, citing no authority for the seizure.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) said the ATF letter and the reported interrogation of lawful gun buyers raise "serious questions."
"There's a way to have a sting operation that's legal. This dragnet, apparent dragnet, however, is not the way it ought to be done," Scott said. "You have to show probable cause and it can be done. But you ought not just stop people without probable cause and without any indication of guilt."
John White, a former law enforcement officer who is now an FFL operating under the business name "The Gunsmith," said female customers who approached his sales area at the Richmond shows were immediately targeted by the "undercover" officers.
"If a woman showed up at my table, she was surrounded by law enforcement," White recalled. "If the lady walked off and suddenly stopped, they would have bumped into each other. Their surveillance methods were pitiful.
"Every woman that makes a purchase, every woman who comes to my table to buy a gun was automatically [treated as] a straw purchaser," White said. (A "straw purchaser" is a person who can otherwise legally purchase a firearm, but who does so with the intent to illegally provide it to an ineligible buyer such as a convicted felon or an illegal alien. "Straw purchases" are illegal.)
As Cybercast News Service initially reported, ATF agents working with as many as 400 state, county and city police officers near Richmond, Va., conducted so-called "residency checks" on individuals who purchased firearms from the Showmasters Gun Show Aug. 13 and 14, 2005. Uniformed officers went to the homes of prospective gun buyers, while they waited for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background checks to be completed and questioned family members and neighbors about the gun buyers' firearm purchasing habits.
In a subsequent report, Cybercast News Service detailed that ATF had conducted at least seven similar gun show "sting operations" targeting Richmond-area residents since July of 2004. ATF refused to discuss any of the operations with Cybercast News Service and refused to provide any documentation in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the sponsors of the Richmond gun shows.
Suzanne McComas, a licensed private investigator who has worked with the America's Most Wanted television program, was hired by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to gather information about ATF's Richmond operations. During her investigation, she learned that the agency had been conducting "residency checks" in at least one other U.S. city, but using different and "much more intimidating" tactics.
"At Pittsburgh, the Firearms Task Force there that's also headed by the ATF, instead of doing residency checks immediately, they're collecting the 4473 with the purchaser's address on it, then they go knock at the door about a week later and ask, 'Could we see the gun that you bought?'" McComas explained. "There's absolutely no process involved, there's no reason for them to do it. If you cannot produce the gun, they ask you for the sale paperwork. If you refuse to produce the paperwork they put you under arrest for a 'straw purchase.'"
Federal law requires licensed gun dealers to complete an ATF Form 4473 for each firearm sold through their business, in addition to any forms required by the state, county and/or city where they do business. Private sales between individuals, who are not engaged in the firearms trade as a business, are subject to no such federal recordkeeping requirements. Therefore a gun show purchaser could legally sell or even give the gun they purchased to someone else yet have no paperwork to meet the ATF's demand.
"You and I know that, but [a woman who bought a gun and then gave or sold it to someone else, both legally] probably doesn't," McComas told Cybercast News Service. "If she can't produce it, they arrest her for a straw purchase and her life turns into a living hell until she can prove otherwise. It's zero probable cause except for the fact that they thought it was a straw purchase because she was black and she was young and she was female."
McComas questioned not only the legality of the ATF tactics in Pittsburgh, but also the methodology.
"When I asked them what their criteria was for the people that they collected the 4473s on at the Pittsburgh show, the answer I got back was, 'If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. That's all we need,'" McComas continued. "Translation: Under 30 and black, period. That's all they were looking for. Anyone who meets those criteria, they're doing a follow-up on."
She said that, as in Richmond, agents in Pittsburgh were also engaged in activities that gun dealers believe were designed to discourage lawful purchases by minorities.
"Anyone who was a minority, they picked up their 'tail,' if you will, and just followed them through the gun show. When they stopped at a table, the agents would literally stand on one side or the other and watch what they were doing. If they started to purchase a gun [the agents] would ask them why they were buying it, what were they buying it for, what did they need that gun for," McComas related. "It was ridiculous. There was absolutely no reason for it other than the color of their skin."
Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) said he had not intended to attend the hearing, which was held immediately after a subcommittee vote on an unrelated bill, but stayed because he was fascinated by the witnesses' testimony.
"These must be the dumbest ATF agents in the entire agency," Delahunt said. "I am absolutely shocked that they could be that stupid.
"It's almost to the point that it's difficult to believe," he added. "I have never heard of an experience like the ones you recount, but you all seem to be in agreement. It's just mind-boggling."
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) expressed curiosity that federal law enforcement officers would not know that the actions described by White and McComas violate federal statutes.
"Did anybody mention that it is a federal crime to deny women or minorities their civil rights?" Feeney asked. "Did anybody mention to the ATF that denying civil rights, including the right to bear arms, is a federal crime?"
Feeney suggested that, since ATF had refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act requests from the gun show promoters, the subcommittee should request the information they were seeking. Coble noted that such a letter had already been sent.
ATF representatives present at Wednesday's hearing reluctantly identified themselves by raising their hands when asked to do so by Coble. They would not respond to the new allegations raised in the hearing, but referred questions to their press office. ATF officials are expected to testify on the issues raised Wednesday in a second hearing scheduled for Feb. 28.
Is it my imagination or did I read somewhere that ATFE has been moved from Treasury to Justice?
Gotta love those super sensitive primers they use to induce "slam-fire" in semi-auto's, then arrest the owner for having an "illegal machine gun".
Several victims, and a proven strategy for ATFE when they want to "get" some one.
Press eats it up too.
Keep counting, to infinity will not be enough, but it will occupy your time!
When it comes to our RKBA those organizations support an edited version of the constitution.
ATFE duties were split.
The taxing authority is still under treasury.
Running the gun control act, abusing dealers, making it difficult for citizens to buy the guns they want, etc., is now under DOJ and AG Gonzo
What's so sad is that you feel you have to qualify your remarks these days, "I am not one of those 'militia' freaks." The government, the left and the leftist media have all painted law abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights as dangerous militia freaks with deadly arsenals.
There's only one reason why one would not want another to be able to defend themselves...
The GOA is just such an organization. They want ALL unConstitutional gun laws gone. Not just being "allowed" to "register" to marginally exercise a Right.
I'm aware of his shennanigans. The entire administration isn't really very friendly to the RTKBA.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that our entire government from the top down to the local level needs a low level format to wipe the slate clean.
Repealing the ENTIRE NFA-34 is seen as virtually impossible after sixty years of constant propaganda supporting it.
Getting the public to accept that it must be administered in a fair and even handed manner appears very possible, but still not easy.
You know the old saying, about half a loaf being better than none.
I believe we have the transcripts of both cases posted in our "resources" section.
We don't have much of a "chat board", but we are probably the best source on the web for PDF files of original documents regarding ATF/E and NFA issues.
It takes a fair amount of time to sort through the available evidence, but if anyone takes the time they cannot honestly conclude that ATFE should not be revamped, and many of it's people fired or prosecuted.
Relevant quotes from Dalton:
Finally, the government argues that the Gun Control Act, of which section 922(o) is a part, should not be viewed as repealing the National Firearms Act, citing a provision of the Gun Control Act passed in 1968 to that effect. The court in Rock Island Armory rejected the same government argument, observing that "the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986). Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986 and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis."
The government is correct that a statute is repealed by implication only when that statute and a later statute are irreconcilable. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 533, 549-51 (1974). In our view, however, that is exactly the situation here. Sections 5861(d) and (e) punish the failure to register a machinegun at the same time that the government refuses to accept this required registration due to the ban imposed by section 922(o). As a result of section 922(o), compliance with section 5861 is impossible.
Accordingly, we vacate Dalton's conviction and reverse with instructions to dismiss the indictment. In so doing, we recognize that the illegal possession of a machinegun is a most serious matter. However, it is precisely because this conduct raises such grave concerns that the government must exercise its prosecuting responsibility with care. The decision to proceed under an inapplicable statute has resulted in a constitutionally infirm conviction. VACATED AND REMANDED.
And from U.S. v RIA:
The enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o) in 1986 removed the constitutional legitimacy of registration as an aid to tax collection. This is because the government interprets and enforces sec. 922(o) to disallow registration, and refuses to collect the tax. Farmer v. Higgins, 907 F.2d 1041, 1042-44 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. - , III S.Ct. 753, 112 L.Ed.2d 773 (1991). Thus, sec. 922(o) undercut the constitutional basis of registration which had been the rule since Sonzinsky.
Finally, the prosecution quotes an enactment passed in 1968 that the provisions of Title I of the Gun Control Act shall not modify or affect the National Firearms Act. (Footnote 15) However, the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986). (Footnote 16) Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).
In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED
She looks a lot better after losing all that weight. I am sure that if you were extremely rich it would be no problem to get her to lose the pants.
If against our Rights, then that course would be set as well. Not a happy course, but at least it would be final.
Well here you go, Democrats supporting the people's right to keep and bare arms. Go figure.
I'll bet the people leading the ATF are Clinton holdovers that Bush should have canned just like he should have canned the DOJ lawyers in brought in his men.
What if you purchased a gun prior to becoming a Mass resident? Does Assachusetts require the registration of all guns owned by its residents?
I used to live in (The Peoples Republic of) New Jersey, which is a lousy place to be a gun owner, and even it didn't/doesn't have such a requirement - of course, you can't own an "assault weapon" but that's a different subject. I could go back to NJ with a bunch of handguns that I bought while a non-resident, and not need to register any of them (but if I wanted a new one, I'd need the approval of the local PD). There's little liberty there, but it isn't a total tyranny (though that's being worked on, diligently).
They specify "unregistered". I don't know if registered in another state is good enough. If you are a Mass. resident, you'd best get it registered here pronto. I'm sure the local constabulary would have yer ass at that point.
If a US government action is taking place that involves a US citizen, or MAY involve a US citizen, a warrant should be mandatory. PERIOD.
If we bend on this, why not bend on the right to a speedy trial, or due process? Heck, let's just do away with the standards of the Constitution all together and just jail anyone that whomever is in power deems a threat.
Mike
POWs deserve a speedy trial?
Respectfully, you confuse civil acts with acts of war.
Again: when a person in Germany, who is not a citizen of the U.S. calls people, which U.S. judge has the authority to grant a warrant to wiretap? None. This is foreign policy. That he happens to call someone in the U.S. from time to time, should not make him immune to military surveillance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.