ATF agents and eBay purchase

[readysetgo]

ATF gave firearms to the cartel?

If Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was able, he would answer a resounding YES!

[mooner760HD]

ATF gave firearms to the cartel?

Yes, a bunch of criminals that are given authority.

[SVT-40]

Because during that period of time that the person is "not free to leave". They are in CUSTODY. And as such they are arrested/detained.

I think you are confused putting "custody" before a "detention" or "arrest". All are "seizures", but are different.


When someone is "detained" "arrested" or taken into "custody" they have been "seized" withing the meaning of the Forth Amendment. (Whren v. US)

However a LEO only needs a "Reasonable Suspicion" that the person or occupants of a vehicle are involved in criminal activity to make a detention.

That standard is much less then the standard for an arrest which requires "probable Cause".

When a LEO stops a vehicle for a vehicle Code violation, the stop is legal as there is a underlying "crime" (vehicle Code Infraction). That is a temporary "detention".

Reid v. Georgia states:
"The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition of searches and seizures that are not supported by some objective justification governs all seizures of the person, "including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest".

Also see US v. Hensley:
"If the Police have a Reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a "Terry" stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.

Atwater v. Lago Vista included misdemeanor crimes.
Arkansas v. Sullivan included traffic infractions.

In Terry v. Ohio it was held that "Police may stop a pedestrian for temporary investigation on the same standard "reasonable suspicion" of criminality".

[colossians323]

ATF gave firearms to the cartel

Thats my thought too.

Back to the thread....................did we figure out who has the biggest member yet?

[SVT-40]

I guess I just can't quite put my finger on where you stand on some of these issues. I know from previous posts that you seem knowledgeable and fair. But I'll hope that you would never justify or support someone being arrested for possession of stolen property just because they wouldn't allow leo's to accompany them into their house and into say, their safe to observe them retrieving stolen gun parts they had innocently and unknowingly purchased on eBay.

Where I "stand' is on all parties being "reasonable".

Not answering the door, because the Police are knocking isn't reasonable.

The Police forcing their way inside a persons residence without a warrant unless there is some exigency isn't reasonable.

The OP in this thread handled himself in a reasonable fashion, as did the LEO's who came to his home looking to recover stolen property.


The main problem with these type of threads is because the "hypotheticals" and "histrionics" used just can't be made into reality. that's because every situation is different and even extremely small differences can result in vastly different outcomes.

In police work there isn't a "check list" on how to recover property. LEO's develop through their training, education and most importantly their experience as to how to deal with the public.

Most do a good job, and as in this situation they explained the situation to the OP in a manner in which caused him to comply and help them recover the item with a minimal amount of intrusion.

In addition the OP helped the Agents by printing up the requested information.

It was always my goal when I was working to at least leave those I talked with a understanding as to why I was talking with them. That works with reasonable people.

The problem is dealing with unreasonable people. Because no matter how much you explain the reasons, basis and cause for your actions they just refuse to understand.

Just like some here who make wild inaccurate claims about the law even though they have absolutely zero actual training, education or experience in anything remotely related. It just boggles the mind.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. I always try to be fair. I may occasionally miss the mark, but I do try!!

[pacrat]

Seems to be some very conflicted individuals trying to gain relevance for their opinions, by demeaning claims of ignorance of "LEGAL DEFINITIONS" by those of differing opinion. Yet being either reluctant or incapable of posting any definitive proof of the credence of their own opinion.

Then when presented with factual confirmation in the form of the preeminent LEGAL DICTIONARY, that that claimed ignorance is nothing more than a deflection.

They then claim that the "LEGAL DEFINITIONS" included in that preeminent "LEGAL DICTIONARY". Don't apply in Ca.

I and many other citizens are aware that for all practical purposes. The state of Ca has seceded from the US on matters of Immigration and 2A Constitutional protections. I was until now not aware that LE in Ca has seceded from the English Language. And have "LEGAL DEFINITIONS" for words that are not printed in any English Language Legal Dictionaries.

You pacrat, have zero training, education or experience in the area of search and seizure. So it's no wonder your opinions are so far off of reality.

Since when is "I wuz a PoPo, I know stuff, Yu no a PoPo, Yu know nuffin" or the ever present "Cuz I said so" a viable discussion tactic???

IMHO, GBA comes closest

There is a constitutional difference between the two. There are even different types of arrest. I have been temporarily arrested during a vehicle search. I drove away with a ticket.

BINGO

There are different types of "ARREST". But they all have one thing in common. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IS "ARRESTED". That is IMO the logical reasoning for LEGAL DICTIONARIES to class them as synonyms.

During a Detention ARREST, reasonable suspicion is required. Not requiring an officer to state why your "freedom of movement" was arrested. And must be a "Temporary arrest of your freedom of movement", which time frame varies by state.

During a Custodial ARREST, probable cause must be present. When placed in a Custodial Arrest. A citizen is advised of the "charge" that their "freedom of movement" is based on. And only after being advised of WHY their freedom of movement was arrested. Are they given their Miranda Rights.

For all intents and purposes anytime your "Freedom of Movement" is ARRESTED under color of authority. You are "DETAINED/ARRESTED/IN CUSTODY"

And while away from keyboard, SVT-40 aptly added "SEIZED" to the list of SYNONYMOUS LEGAL TERMS. With this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Because during that period of time that the person is "not free to leave". They are in CUSTODY. And as such they are arrested/detained.

.................................................. .................................................. .............

I think you are confused putting "custody" before a "detention" or "arrest". All are "seizures", but are different.


When someone is "detained" "arrested" or taken into "custody" they have been "seized" withing the meaning of the Forth Amendment. (Whren v. US)

Even though I confused nothing. Doesn't matter the order I used them in a sentence. The context of the sentence is showing them as synonymous. Refreshing that he finally agrees with me on the Legal Definitions.

And finally explained that the difference in them has nothing to do with definitions. But everything to do with Legal Applications.

But just couldn't help but finishing in a demeaning manner. Even after agreeing that what I posted was correct.

Just like some here who make wild inaccurate claims about the law even though they have absolutely zero actual training, education or experience in anything remotely related. It just boggles the mind.

Oh Yeah,----- that's right.

"He wuz a PoPo, He know stuff, I no a PoPo, I know nuffin"


BYE!

[audiophil2]

ATF gave firearms to the cartel?

No. ATF threatened to revoke ffls from dealers if they refused to sell to the cartels. ATF just blackmailed. Since this is not part of the thread I will not go into details but I have first hand knowledge since I was carrying barrets and m2s to landscaping trailers filled with lawnmowers knowing full well the buyers were not eradicating gophers.

[The War Wagon]

If you have bought any firearm parts from a seller in Bradford, PA, you could be one of the lucky winners[emoji23]

BRADFORD, PA?!

I can be there in a little over 2 hours. Who needs a righteous @$$kicking up there?!

[EvoXguy]

Guy on arfcom posted about 2 atf guys coming to his house in regards to a stolen M&P 9mm slide he bought off ebay.

[Jaysol33]

Got a visit from the ATF too this morning. It was for a Sig 229 complete slide that I bought on eBay 2 years ago. He did mentioned that it was stolen from a gun store. The agent was very friendly and was thankful for my cooperation.

[seanbo]

Ask if they have a warrant, if not then they can stay outside. You're lucky it ended up as well as it did. Your dog could have been shot and your compounded could have been burned to the ground.

[MajorSideburns]

Sounds like the ATF is VERY nervous about the negative publicity and subsequent lawsuits should any of their lost firearms parts be traced to the use in a crime. This sounds like the beginning of a new scandal. It's amazing they are paying in-person visits to the supposed thousands of suspected buyers. If only they put in half as much effort rounding up illegal guns and parts that were already under their own surveillance during their Fast and Furious years, some US Border Patrol agents might still be alive today

[caliberetta]

Normal people response: open door, “Hello can I help you?”

Calguns response: Yell “Ruby Ridge!” through the door followed by “Show me your warrant!”.

Sometimes I wonder about some people in here are flat out nutcase.
.

[boopiejones]

Just meet with ATF regarding this same issue.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1078983

No problems no hassle. They are just trying to recover the stolen property.

Op. Did eBay refund you your money?
I just opened a claim with them

[Jess B. Guy]