Posted on 11/05/2002 3:31:42 AM PST by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Prior to the capture of "Beltway Sniper" suspects John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, an unconfirmed number of Maryland gun owners received surprise visits from the FBI as part of the investigation. One such gun owner had a surprise of his own for the agents when they arrived at his home.
Jeff Brown of Gaithersburg, Md., was "a little nervous" when he heard the voicemail message from an FBI agent on the sniper task force who wanted to "visit" Brown at his home to check a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle Brown purchased in 1993. Adding to that apprehension was the fact that Brown owns and drives a full-sized white panel van, the type of vehicle investigators believed the sniper was driving.
"I expected, actually, to be pulled over and spread-eagle on the street at some point," Brown told CNSNews.com Monday. "When he called, I knew their database had had a double hit. A white van and a .223 rifle? I knew they were coming."
In a subsequent telephone conversation, Metzger reportedly told Brown that agents merely wanted to verify the serial number of the rifle and confirm that it was, in fact, still physically in Brown's possession. The two scheduled an appointment to accomplish those goals.
But Brown later learned that the agents had tried at least once to make an unannounced visit, and only called because they were unable to catch him at home.
"Once I told some of my friends in the pro-gun community what was happening, they began to relate some stories to me about guys having their guns confiscated, for so-called 'ballistic fingerprinting,' and not getting their guns back," Brown explained. "I became alarmed."
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the attitude of the federal agents comes as a result of "years of accepting gun control as somehow useful for solving crimes."
"The [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] went to the stores and got the lists of gun owners that had something that could fire a .223. But, it didn't solve the crime," Pratt noted. "The only reason we find that gun registration is 'useful' is for confiscation."
FBI Agents 'Were Not Happy'
Brown's apprehension prompted him to contact an attorney, who instructed him on preparing for the visit. So, when FBI Special Agent Greg Metzger and his partner arrived at Brown's home for their scheduled meeting, they were greeted by Brown and his wife, Mary, along with reporters and photographers from various media outlets.
As Brown described the situation, the agents were "a little bit miffed."
"They were not happy," he observed. "They just were not interested in being around any cameras."
The agents asked Brown to step outside the home, away from the television crew, to talk.
"Can we, uh ... come here," one of the agents said to Brown. Obliging, Brown stepped away from the door to speak with the agents, but still within view of the camera.
Brown began recapping the agreement he had made with Special Agent Metzger. But when one of the agents realized Brown was wearing a wireless microphone, he stopped the conversation short.
"Do you have a microphone on?" the agent asked as he reached toward the microphone clipped to Brown's shirt. Brown backed away and continued talking, but the agent interrupted him again.
"Can you do me a favor?" the agent asked. "Can you take the apparatus off that you have on? I'd like to speak to you privately."
Brown complied, but only after summoning his wife to serve as a witness to the conversation with the agents. Out of the camera's view, and believing they could not be heard, the agents challenged Brown about the presence of the media.
"They were belligerent, at that point, with me. They weren't threatening me or pushing me around or touching me or anything like that, but their mannerisms and attitude quickly became offended and belligerent," Brown recalled. "I was thinking to myself, 'See, this is what I was afraid would happen if you guys came into my house, especially if I was alone.'"
'Don't You Know People Are Dying?'
Parts of the conversation picked up by the camera's long-range microphone confirm Brown's account of what happened next.
"Why didn't you give us a chance to do what we said we were going to do instead of ambushing us with the media? Why didn't you trust us?" one agent asked.
Brown said it was not so much the words the agents used, as their attitude and body language that made him uncomfortable.
"There was some lecturing about it," he said recalling one comment that did unnerve him.
"One thing they said was, 'Don't you know people are dying and we're just trying to do our job?'" Brown recalled, "Of course, the inference was that I didn't care that there were people dying and I was trying to interfere with them doing their job."
During that conversation, the agents reportedly admitted that they had seized other rifles, allegedly with permission, to compare them to the ballistic evidence gathered from the crime scenes.
"They said, from some people, they do 'request' to take the gun with them and do 'ballistic fingerprinting,' as they call it," Brown recalled. "I just did not want to have my gun disappear."
Pratt believes the agents "developed an attitude," because Brown challenged their attempts to violate his constitutional rights.
"The FBI is trying to put this guy on a guilt trip because he's 'not cooperating' with the system but it's a totally useless system," Pratt argued. "They just assume that gun owners [are] all a bunch of suspects just for being gun owners and they should behave accordingly."
'They Were Doing It On Purpose'
At the request of Special Agent Metzger, Brown instructed the media to stay outside his home, where they could see what was happening through a plate glass window. Brown had the unloaded weapon displayed in plain sight for the inspection.
The agents followed Brown and his wife inside and confirmed the serial number on the rifle as they had said they wanted to do. But that was not the end of the encounter.
"After they checked, they started [questioning Brown again], and that's when my wife stepped in and told them to leave," Brown said, noting that his wife formerly worked in law enforcement.
Mary Brown believed the agents were attempting to agitate her husband, hoping he would say or do something to justify their confiscation of his rifle.
"I could tell that they were doing it on purpose and I didn't like what they were doing to you," she told her husband. "So, I decided to just jump right in."
The agents left the couple's property, as they were ordered to do.
Jeff Brown does not believe the agents' reaction to the presence of the media, or their "brow-beating" tactics were justified.
"I'm not here to make them feel happy. I have to make sure my rights are not violated. I wanted to help, but this is not Nazi Germany," he explained. "I looked [Metzger] right in the eye and said ... 'I don't care whether you're upset about being ambushed by the media. I felt I needed some witnesses here with me.'"
Brown, a member of the National Rifle Association and former candidate for public office in Maryland, was also upset by what he perceived as a lack of honesty on the part of the FBI.
"[Metzger] wasn't upfront with me, and I didn't have any guilty feelings about [contacting the media]," Brown said. "They weren't truthful with me. They didn't tell me all the truth. They only told me the part they wanted to hear."
A Message to Gun Owners?
Debbie Weierman, a spokeswoman for the FBI, said the bureau would not respond to any questions about the encounter, because the probe into the multiple murders was still in progress.
"We're not going to be able to get into any kind of a dialogue with you regarding any aspect of our investigation," she said.
Pratt believes the response of the agents to the presence of the media shows that their main focus was not on finding the "Beltway Sniper," but rather on sending a message to gun owners.
"They know it's not about crime control because, if they were really interested in finding the perpetrator they would have kept moving. Obviously this guy wasn't the guy," Pratt concluded. "What it's really all about is showing that the feds are in control in a very totalitarian sense of the word."
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Good assumption. This is the same outfit (run by pretty much the same people) that slaughtered American citizens at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and just recently shot the face off an Eagle Scout in Maryland.
I'd say he's more than justified to be skeptical.
As for the FBI and their requirements, they can go pound sand. If they won't follow the US Constitution, we will elect someone to abolish them as an agency altogether.
That's what they came to do, and wind up gangbusted with cameras and microphones. For crying outloud how naive are you people? Do you not watch the news at all? Have you not seen "clever" editing make the most innoculous situation look bad? Don't blame the FBI agents because they know there are people constantly out there trying to make them look bad, and will use any means they can to do it including lying. I know of no law enforcement or investigative organization that wants camera's in their faces, I know of fewer private individuals that do!
Your "they have nothing to hide they wouldn't care about the recording" argument is nonsense. Fact is, this guy created a confrontational situation where one was not warranted or needed. Of course with a sniper already killing 1 FBI agent, they might not want their face on TV either... but I suppose, hey if criminals whack another FBI agent, who are we to care. What should have been a civil 10-15 minutes was turned needlessly into a confrontational circus. Sorry this man's behavior in this matter was reprehensible.
Walmart doesn't try cr*p like that in Texas, perhaps in part because they know we'd never put up with it.
Maybe your Walmart does because they know you'll put up with it.
BFD. If they don't plan to do anything wrong, then why the objection to recording their activities? You appear to have forgotten who works for whom, here.
The FBI created a confrontational event, by demanding to check up on this citizen's rifle. The citizen wanted to record the event, to ensure that it went no further than checking on his rifle. If the FBI had no evil intentions, they have no reason to object to the recording.
Of course with a sniper already killing 1 FBI agent,
Error of fact. The person killed was an analyst, not an agent. You do know the difference? And Oh, gee, the shooters had already killed a double handful or so regular citizens. Do they count, to you?
What should have been a civil 10-15 minutes was turned needlessly into a confrontational circus. By the FBI.
AB
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You should only say that while shaving.
What needed to done in the normal course of their duties that needed to be out of camera and microphone range? What precisely were they upset about?
Employees of the government have no need of secrecy when performing routine duties. Daylight is the best disinfectant.
All of those situations were attrocious, and I don't think anyone would disagree. Three actions in the last what? 8 years you site, out of the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of things the FBI does annually, and you assume this visit, triggered by terrorism against america is going to be the next Ruby Ridge or Waco? Yea, you're not paranoid with dillusions of self importance are you?
I'd say he's more than justified to be skeptical.
I would say if you are skeptical of statitical odds that are less than that of dying in the bathtub, that you are not justifiably skeptical, but unable to rationally understand statistical odds.
As for the FBI and their requirements, they can go pound sand. If they won't follow the US Constitution, we will elect someone to abolish them as an agency altogether
What unconstitutional action are you referring to? They asked if they could talk to the guy the guy said yes... there is no constitutional issue here... I got news for you, had they just wanted to be jerks, I guarantee these agents could have gotten a warrant and just showed up. This guy needlessly created a confrontational situation, he did not behave civilly and basically acted like a JERK in this instance.
Minor technical nit:
There is no decimal point in a gauge designation - that shotgun would be simply "12-gauge"; that's the number of lead balls that bore diameter you'd get from a pound of lead.
Caliber designations such as .22 or .45 (two of my favorites!) use the decimal point because they represent the bore diameter in decimal inches.
Usually.
I see, so you are investigating an ongoing investigation, a terrorist is killing people, and at least one of them has been an FBI agent, and you think that it is a good idea that the investigative procedures and investigators be broadcast to the entire world?? Bafoonery.
Employees of the government have no need of secrecy when perorming routine duties. Daylight is the best disinfectant.
See the paragraph above, we are not talking about a pencil pusher in some back office taking a bribe to change a zoning rule so some fat cat can tear down an orphanage to put up a walmart. We are talking about an active investigation into a terrorist attack where the enemy is still loose and killing.... yea, lets make sure every intimate detail of the investigation is broadcast over the airwaves... idiocy. Good think people like you weren't planning D-DAY, would have never gotten a foot hold in Europe.
F*** those bastards. They can murder or whatever they want, and in their minds, they are above the law. These are the same type of bastards we ran off with rifles after 1776.
I appreciate the technical correction, but now I'm more confused. What size lead shot/balls? What is the bore diameter of a 12-gauge in inches? Thanks for your patience. I think I'll Google the answer myself. Never mind.
Stay Safe AP !!
FBI agents are public officials. If their tactics are aboveboard, they can withstand public scrutiny. That's why we have the First Amendment.
Fact is, this guy created a confrontational situation where one was not warranted or needed.
It seems like the FBI agents were the ones escalating this situation:
But Brown later learned that the agents had tried at least once to make an unannounced visit, and only called because they were unable to catch him at home.
"Once I told some of my friends in the pro-gun community what was happening, they began to relate some stories to me about guys having their guns confiscated, for so-called 'ballistic fingerprinting,' and not getting their guns back," Brown explained. "I became alarmed."
By this time, there was ample information coming in about the Caprice that should have pointed to suspects OTHER THAN a law-abiding gun owner. But the FBI was running down these bogus leads anyway.
Of course with a sniper already killing 1 FBI agent, they might not want their face on TV either...
The sniper clearly was picking out random victims. TV exposure had nothing to do with it.
but I suppose, hey if criminals whack another FBI agent, who are we to care.
Now you're the one being a jerk.
What should have been a civil 10-15 minutes was turned needlessly into a confrontational circus. Sorry this man's behavior in this matter was reprehensible.
No, the reprehensible party was whoever decided to allow idiotic profiling to drive the entire investigation away from the prolific quanitity of leads coming in about perps in a Caprice. They should have nailed Muhammad by October 8th - if they had spent more time querying their own damn database instead of researching gun records and harassing law-abiding gun owners. Your indignation is severly misplaced, jack.
Owning a .223 caliber rifle and a white van constitute probable cause that a person may have committed a crime? I don't think so.
1) You repeat your error. The person killed was an analyst, not an agent. This is not helping your credibility.
2) Investigative procedures? You mean, reading the serial number off the receiver of a rifle. Oh, wow. Real secret procedure, that. Can't have the world knowing that FBI agents are able to read. As for the investigators themselves, this was in no way an undercover operation. There's a legitimate place for those, but this isn't it.
OBTW, your insults aren't helping your credibility, either.
Want to bet a judge would not have issued a warrant? You and I don't have to think such things do, but I guarantee you, if these agents wanted to they could have found a judge who would have approved it.
Fat chance. Simple ownership of a class of weapon that is legal is not probable cause unless it is coupled with additional evidence. And denying agents the ability to search is also not probable cause.
They were there to check the serial number on a firearm. Try not to make yourself look more foolish by trying to turn this into a top secret operation by the OSS during WW II.
Anytime the government interacts with citizens, it should be open to anyone to see. You think this was an undercover operation? LOL.
Goofy stuff you spout.
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.