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.
My credibility is not in question here, my arguments are not based on whether you believe I am a credible individual or not. This is not a trial, this is a discussion regarding the actions of this individual and the FBI.
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.
I see, so ignore the fact that videotape is edited etc to make people and situations look different than they are... something the press is notorious for. I know of nobody that has any media savvy that likes camera's or microphone's shoved in their faces. Was it openly public knowledge the FBI was following up on owners of .223 rifles at the time? They weren't hiding it, but weren't advertising it either... lest not that I saw in any reporting, so maybe they wanted to keep a low profile... most investigators aren't out to be the center of attention, and it has nothing to do with them doing things wrong. But of course, mean old government is just out to screw the little guy.... and take away his gun. Wrong. A standard investigation, agents doing their job, and some live one wants to make a federal case out of what should have been a 15 minute civil conversation. But no, start quoting remember Ruby Ridge and the governments out to get me, and turn what should be nothing more than a quick conversation into a confrontation for no other reason than paranoia. This man could have simply told the officers, nope, I won't talk to you, instead of jerking them around.
OBTW, your insults aren't helping your credibility, either.
I have not insulted anyone, other than calling the actions of this person a JERK, which is description of his actions.
You don't know judges then, in DC/Maryland in the middle of this spree, you are indeed in denial if you think they could not find a judge to sign the form if they wanted. Judges are just people, and they come in all bents, and you think there isn't one sitting that would have signed it? I guarantee if they wanted to, they would have gotten one.
I see, so I guess you think feds questioning of Taliban Johnny violated your creed? Sorry, the guy had a right to call the media, no one said he didn't. This was an investigation into what obviously was a terrorist attack, so yes, it was a bit more than just an average everyday auto accident investigation. In case you haven't noticed the big hole in NYC and the 3000+ dead.
I never said what this guy did was illegal, I said it was uncivil! Big difference. The class of "conservative" and I use that term very very lightly, that perpetuates a hatred and distrust of government does no one any good. A couple of agents want to check the serial number on your gun, let em. They are doing their jobs, why intentionally take a defensive and confrontational stand? There is no reason for it. Let em in, offer them a drink let them check the numbers and they are on their way... but no, greet them with a wire, and shove a camera in their face, and make sure you jerk them around as much as possible. Yea, this guys behavior was really admirable... NOT.
Extra-minor technical sub-nit:
Except for a .410 gauge.
Sorry, but even JERKS have Constitutional rights. Martial law was NOT declared, those rights were NOT suspended, and calling WITNESSES in to overlook the actions of the agents was simply prudence on his part.
It those "officers" were such upstanding examples of law enforcement, THEN WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO HIDE. Why were they so worried about a few OTHER citizens watching them do their jobs??
It wasn't in the "mainstream" press, but it was widely known amongst gun-owners. A good friend in Ohio told me he had heard about it, and wondered "what's up?" It was hardly a secret.
so maybe they wanted to keep a low profile
Kinda hard to do when you're contacting everybody in the area who's purchased an AR from an FFL. I believe there's only one reason I didn't get a visit from these fine public servants: I haven't purchased an AR from an FFL. Funny thing: Mohammad and Malvo didn't either. At least not on the books.
make a federal case out of what should have been a 15 minute civil conversation.
Hah. If the FBI is involved, it's already a federal case. (i know, it's also a figure of speech...) If the poor, oppressed little agents hadn't got all bent out of shape, this would have been nothing more than a "15 minute civil conversation." They could have put on the best show of professionalism since Eliot Ness. Instead, they pitched a hissy-fit, because they couldn't control every aspect of the situation. I have precisely zero sympathy for them.
This man could have simply told the officers, nope, I won't talk to you, instead of jerking them around.
I don't think he was jerking anyone around. He was allowing them to conduct their investigation, whilst ensuring his own safety from an agency with a less than sterling reputation.
"Buffoonery" and "idiocy" are usually considered insults.
So I've distilled my comments down these comments and one question:
When agents/officers are the targets of investigation, they are the very often the first and foremost to "lawyer up", decline comment, cite "an ongoing investigation", etc...
I've never heard of any agent cooperating with an investigation against them. In fact, in the recent case of the Boy Scout being shot, the investigator was told he'd lose all friends in the bureau if he pursued the case.
My question to you is: If they won't cooperate, why should anyone else?
Moronic statement. You guess wrong.
Sorry, the guy had a right to call the media, no one said he didn't. This was an investigation into what obviously was a terrorist attack, so yes, it was a bit more than just an average everyday auto accident investigation. In case you haven't noticed the big hole in NYC and the 3000+ dead.
Great stuff! Trying to equate a simple serial number check for which they tried to make an appointment with the war on terror. LOL Stoop to any level to defend a goofy position.
A couple of agents want to check the serial number on your gun, let em.
He did, but he had a healthy skepticism that his property would be returned so he had witnesses there. Whats the problem? If they have no improper intentions, why do they care if someone witnesses the procedure?
I guess you are uninformed about the property seizures carried out routinely by goverment agents in the WOD where no charges are ever filed but the property is never returned. Sometimes even after a judge tells the government to return it. Sometimes you have to sue the government to get your property returned, at your own expense. They know that it will cost you ten times the value of the property in legal fees to make them comply. You need a reality check.
You are speaking from some far off keyboard, not knowing the fellow that you are calling a jerk, and very unfortunately for you, you are wrong. We here in Maryland were living what you were reading, and are now posting, about.
Sorry, he was not a jerk.
The investigators were investigating innocent people while police call-takers were hanging up on the snipers and/or referring them to the toll-free "task force" phone number...
We are just going to disagree on this one, maybe you missed my many posts, his actions in my oppinion in this instance were indeed those of a Jerk. He may be the salt of the earth in every other action, but here, in this case, this is indeed how they come across.
The investigators were investigating innocent people while police call-takers were hanging up on the snipers and/or referring them to the toll-free "task force" phone number...
I see, so your stand is that you think that law enforcement should not have checked on known guns matching the type used by the sniper? Do you honestly think that they should not have followed up on them? I don't know what keyboard you are typing from, but this is a very reasonable to do. Your associate could have told them "no". He didn't, instead he decided to jerk them around, for no real benefit or purpose. How many gun owners visited by law enforcement had their guns unwillfully taken? There was no need to take a confrontational stand. What should have been a 10-20 minute conversation, and should have been civil was instantly turned into a confrontational one, for no purpose whatsoever.
You pick and choose your battles, and here this man created one for no reason. His fellow citizens are being killed in the streets and he wants to play games. I am hard pressed to believe this persons actions reflect in the least the actions of any civil human being in a similar situation that has any concern for his fellow citizens at all. I can just see George Washington or any other founding father antagonizing some sherriff who visits his door after a spat of killings around his home asking if he may see his gun behaving like this man... NOT. There was no reason for this antagonistic approach, none what so ever.
I will take your words that this man is a fine person, but his actions in this instance, to me, do not represent fine upstanding nor moral behavior.
We are just going to disagree on this one, maybe you missed my many posts, his actions in my oppinion in this instance were indeed those of a Jerk. He may be the salt of the earth in every other action, but here, in this case, this is indeed how they come across.
The investigators were investigating innocent people while police call-takers were hanging up on the snipers and/or referring them to the toll-free "task force" phone number...
I see, so your stand is that you think that law enforcement should not have checked on known guns matching the type used by the sniper? Do you honestly think that they should not have followed up on them? I don't know what keyboard you are typing from, but this is a very reasonable to do. Your associate could have told them "no". He didn't, instead he decided to jerk them around, for no real benefit or purpose. How many gun owners visited by law enforcement had their guns unwillfully taken? There was no need to take a confrontational stand. What should have been a 10-20 minute conversation, and should have been civil was instantly turned into a confrontational one, for no purpose whatsoever.
You pick and choose your battles, and here this man created one for no reason. His fellow citizens are being killed in the streets and he wants to play games. I am hard pressed to believe this persons actions reflect in the least the actions of any civil human being in a similar situation that has any concern for his fellow citizens at all. I can just see George Washington or any other founding father antagonizing some sherriff who visits his door after a spat of killings around his home asking if he may see his gun behaving like this man... NOT. There was no reason for this antagonistic approach, none what so ever.
I will take your words that this man is a fine person, but his actions in this instance, to me, do not represent fine upstanding nor moral behavior.
There is no state which prohibits you from taping your own conversations. The prohibition, in some states is from secretly taping the conversation of others (eavesdropping). Some states have held this applies to your own coversation if the other person is unaware of the taping. Most states have overuled this and now permit secret taping of your own conversation, finding that the other person had no expectation of privacy if the were talking to you.
Do me a favor. Please post this quote of yours on your profile page so you may, from this point forward, be dismissed outright in almost any discussion on FR.
Allow me to make it short, simple and easy for you. From post #143:
A couple of agents want to check the serial number on your gun, let em.
Checkmate! End of arguing with HamiltonJay!
LOL! I sure hope there are a lot more gun owners and freedom lovers out there with the nads to be "uncivil" when faced with a similar situation. Turn on the spotlights! Roll the cameras! Let those that can't take the light slink off into the darkness.
I am of the the "class of conservative" not prone to bed wetting nor the kind that cannot wait to lick the hands of their masters.
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.