FBI Agents 'Miffed' that Gun Owner Contacted Media

You repeat your error. The person killed was an analyst, not an agent. This is not helping your credibility.

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.

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.

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.

Anytime the government interacts with citizens, it should be open to anyone to see. You think this was an undercover operation? LOL.

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.

I agree with what you said except for this:

"We have already given up our liberty and freedoms simply because women and timid males"

It should have read something like stupid women and timid males.

Exclude us gun owning, wise women from your post. :)

Minor technical nit: There is no decimal point in a gauge designation...

Extra-minor technical sub-nit:

Except for a .410 gauge.

"He may be a fine human being, but his actions in this particular instance were those of a JERK."

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??

Was it openly public knowledge the FBI was following up on owners of .223 rifles at the time?

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.

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? Obviously you missed the earlier posts ...the 'why' was clearly answered there .... Waco ..Ruby Ridge ...FFL Gun Shop owners ... Congressman Hansen ... All Citizens that thought the feds they were dealing with read the same Constitution .... Wrong. You may knuckle under and enjoy brow beating behavoir from JBT's but real Americans fought and died so they wouldn't have to deal with these injustices. ""The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." H.L. Mencken

bump

I've been reading your comments here. And I disagree with you in so many ways, that to name them all would make for a very long post.

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?

I hope that given similar circumstances I would do the same thing.

I see, so I guess you think feds questioning of Taliban Johnny violated your creed?

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.

I'll just refer you back to my post #114. It seems you missed it.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Like you TOLD other people some days ago, according to councillor-wanna-be, you can't tape your own conversations in Maryland. Well maybe, just maybe you gave bad advice. Unsafe advice.

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.

A couple of agents want to check the serial number on your gun, let em.

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.

To: HamiltonJay
I've been reading your comments here. And I disagree with you in so many ways, that to name them all would make for a very long post.

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!

I never said what this guy did was illegal, I said it was uncivil! Big difference

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.

It's sickening, but he's already on their list.