old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,836
Can ATF be prosecuted for covering up the ring doorbell?
No. No, no, no. There was no question in that entire paragraph. It was three sentences, and I looked at each one of them again. No question mark anywhere,.I know what ATF has written......and the question posed was "Can I buy a case of Mosins, keep one and sell the rest?"
ATF response was "No, you are acquiring with the intent to resell, requiring an 01 FFL".
The warrant doesn't seem to be a no-knock warrant. And it's a daytime warrant from 6AM-10AM, if I remember correctly. But, yeah, it looks like they came in at 6AM expecting them to be asleep.
He appears to be one of the typical dealing firearms without a license guys. I could see buying a case of used Walthers, and keeping the ones with the collector value you want and selling the rest. To buy 24 Glock model 45 handguns in a period of 1-2 years, it's hard to make the argument that you're not buying them to resell.
Why they singled him out instead of the other guys you see at the gun show? Maybe he's just the lucky one. Maybe he was the only one this open about it. Maybe to make an example of him. I don't know.
I'll be the first to say I don't agree with the law. But if there's any truth to the warrant at all, it looks like he broke the law. Not in a gray area, but all the way into the black.
I don't see how covering the doorbell camera should be protected by qualified immunity... clearly the idea was to prevent the occupants from knowing LE was at the door... making it more likely that they would be the first to fire. If you had a wood door (as opposed to a security door) and a doorbell camera, and somebody was pounding on your door before the sun came up and covered the doorbell camera, what would you do? Many people would reasonably decide that whoever was outside was clearly not there to bring them some tea and cookies, and just shoot through the door.qualified immunity
www.law.cornell.edu
I don't see how covering the doorbell camera should be protected by qualified immunity... clearly the idea was to prevent the occupants from knowing LE was at the door... making it more likely that they would be the first to fire. If you had a wood door (as opposed to a security door) and a doorbell camera, and somebody was pounding on your door before the sun came up and covered the doorbell camera, what would you do? Many people would reasonably decide that whoever was outside was clearly not there to bring them some tea and cookies, and just shoot through the door.
$$ I would assume.Do you have any idea why he decided to continue flipping while failing to renew his license?
Can ATF be prosecuted for covering up the ring doorbell?
qualified immunity
www.law.cornell.edu
^^^THIS^^^ This was the same thought I shared in our other thread on this subject. There are some cases where it is advantageous to serve a search warrant while the subject of the investigation is present, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. The objects likely listed in the search warrant would be firearms and records of firearms transactions. Those things are not going anywhere, and you don't need the subject to be present in order to find them.why not execute a home search warrant during work hours when the principal is away but a spouse is home to be served? calmer, easier and safer for all. “innocent until proven guilty.” if sales were cash transactions and guns were already sold, what was object of a home search warrant as opposed to an arrest warrant? why not flip this prominent member of society to find the ultimate end users?
Pretty much "NO". What crime do you think may have been committed by covering up the doorbell? On civil side, I doubt that there would be basis for a lawsuit resulting from the covering of the doorbell camera. The nice agents could eaily argue a rational basis for doing so, as it would help conceal their entry, which is an objective of a "no knock" warrant.
There's no application of "Qualified Immunity" to a criminal prosecution. As to the nice agents having any civil liability for covering the doorbell, there may well be an issue of Qualified Immunity, but before getting there, a plaintiff would have to show a cause of action resulting from the covering of the doorbell camera. Don't see where they can do that based on the facts of the case.
They may be able to argue an unreasonable seizure based on the manner the warrant was served, the trier of fact gets to determine if that was the case.
$0.02 fine for excessive logic.why not execute a home search warrant during work hours when the principal is away but a spouse is home to be served? calmer, easier and safer for all. “innocent until proven guilty.” if sales were cash transactions and guns were already sold, what was object of a home search warrant as opposed to an arrest warrant? why not flip this prominent member of society to find the ultimate end users?
@dogtown tom said he didn't need to flip guns.$$ I would assume.
It may not have been his choice.Do you have any idea why he decided to continue flipping while failing to renew his license?
No.Can ATF be prosecuted for covering up the ring doorbell?
Qualified immunity has zippity do dah to do with covering or disabling a Ring doorbell or any other video or security camera.qualified immunity
www.law.cornell.edu
Argument for what exactly?"IF" I were a lawyer, the covering of the ring doorbell would be one of my arguments.
Unlikely.In the end, the taxpayers will paying the family millions, for yet another ATF screw up.
Yes, yes, yes.........because I wasn't referring to your "?". Remember writing this? ....."wayneinFL said: You know someone who has been convicted based on something like this?"No. No, no, no. There was no question in that entire paragraph. It was three sentences, and I looked at each one of them again. No question mark anywhere,.
ATF's vigerous enforcement isn't really a gray area. If ATF believes you are engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without an FFL they will go after you. If you are unsure if you need an FFL then read this: Do I Need a License to Buy and Sell Firearms GuideSince it isn't clear, I'll explain- my point was to acknowledge the gray areas and this stepped way over the gray area "all the way into the black".
Oh please. If you have no argument, at least attempt a better strawman argument than that. Thats weak sauce. Instead of whining about me knowing the regulations, what stops you from doing the same?I know you don't think there are gray areas, because you're Dogtown Tom and you're the bulldog that chewed into every word of the manual they gave you and you know the law.
Nothing in ATF regs prohibits you from profiting off the sale of a firearm from your collection. And AGAIN, it's a pattern of behavior that ATF may determine is "engaging in the business".But there is a gray area in which there are varying degrees of the government's ability to prove intent to profit. It starts somewhere around I post my P7 for sale for $501, because I'll be damned if I'll take less than the $500 I paid for it 15 years ago. It ends somewhere around where the ATF is sending you cease and desist letters to stop selling that table full of new guns at the gun show.
Federal firearms laws and ATF regulations are in black and white. What you may think is a "gray area" may not be what ATF considers a gray area or what the courts consider a gray area. If you want to dance in that gray area, knock yourself out. But don't be surprised when ATF shoots your dog.That was the basic point.
How do you think that plan worked out?Now, if you want ignore that point and take my hypothetical example of something in the middle and add specific what-ifs to it to prove me wrong, enjoy yourself. But don't stop at "what if you kept one and sold the rest today". Put them all on a table at a gun show, in front of a sign that says "no questions asked", next to a ledger marked "gun profits Wayne intends to make", and a stack of business cards for "Wayne's Undocumented Gun Shop", and have me driving erratically to evade the ATF. Make it interesting.
Argument for what exactly?
"IF" I were a police officer, disabling a video camera would be done before I ever knocked on the door. The advantage it gives to the person viewing is a disadvantage to the safety of the officers.
It's not suspicious and is standard practice on police forced entry.
Unlikely.
If the basis of "the raid" was lawful, then the likelihood of a civil suit or settlement is virtually zero.
Correct. I've posted about him before. He was a successful CPA, Realtor, owned a very successful gun accessory company and was a reserve police officer. He was a mainstay at Dallas/Ft. Worth area gun shows for thirty years. He was always horsetrading for scopes, red dots, gun parts and guns.@dogtown tom said he didn't need to flip guns.
Would you make that same argument on a drug raid? No.A lawyer is going to argue that had they not disabled the ring doorbell. The homeowner would've seen that it was the police/ATF.
"Could've" also started shooting through the door.This could've given him a chance to come out unarmed and ask why they were breaking his door down at 6 am.
Even with a camera the homeowner would not know. There are numerous instances of fake police raids.By covering up the camera, he woke up to someone breaking down his door. He also had no idea it was the ATF, so he grabbed his gun to defend himself and his family.
I think so too. I understand why police raids are done in the early hours of the morning, but this wasn't a raid to make an arrest, but to search.I understand why they think it's a good idea to break the camera. I also think it's a bad idea and has led to more than one mistake.
Yet this wasn't the wrong house.I can guarantee you that this will cost taxpayers millions.
Understand the difference between:Going back to the case of Nagants, a C&R license would allow you to sell off the ones you didn't want to keep.
Please be careful with your analysis here.A lawyer is going to argue that had they not disabled the ring doorbell. The homeowner would've seen that it was the police/ATF.
This could've given him a chance to come out unarmed and ask why they were breaking his door down at 6 am.
By covering up the camera, he woke up to someone breaking down his door. He also had no idea it was the ATF, so he grabbed his gun to defend himself and his family.
I understand why they think it's a good idea to break the camera. I also think it's a bad idea and has led to more than one mistake.
Cops Destroy Ring Doorbell at Wrong House
Details: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2023/03/16/cops-destroy-ring-doorbell-at-wrong-house/Video to submit? https://forms.gle/HmwnDQKvwvYPxe967For busine...youtu.be
I can guarantee you that this will cost taxpayers millions.