Why the fear of the BATF?

[BSA1]

Why the feat of the BATF?

Recently someone asked a question about a mental health committment when he was a juvenile would prohibit purchase of a firearm. The answers generally were to hire a lawyer. I did a web search and found the same general answer to a same previous question on THR.

No one suggested simply calling the BATF. I was going to to but the thread was closed.

Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help?

As a career government bureaucrat I was the most knowledgable about the policies of my particular department not a lawyer from the street. In fact odds were I would get a phone call from that lawyer asking about our policy on a certan issue.

So it would make the most sense simply to call the local BATF office and ask them the question. The advice would be correct and best of all free.

Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help?

Is there a fear that by contacting the BATF the caller will be added to a list to investigate, raid their home or otherwise harrass?

Does anyone have any documented prove of this happening?

We have all heard the Internet stories which are very one sided and lacking in facts. If the fear is the government will now know you own a gun you better put your tinfoil hat on cause they already do.

 

[Ryanxia]

It could also be they suggest a lawyer because they will give you the most honest answer. There are numerous occasions where people have asked their local LEO and gotten false information (whether on purpose or because police generally aren't up to date on all the gun laws).

I've also heard first hand accounts of the ATF being less than gun rights friendly

I'm sure someone will offer a better answer but just my 2 cents.

 

[Sam1911]

With the caveat that I've never called the BATFE about anything... my understanding is that if you do manage to get an answer over the phone (and you likely won't), the answer is non-binding. It is far better to get an opinion in written form. My further understanding is that even written opinions are not truly "binding" but that they do generally protect the person to whom they are addressed ... though possibly not anyone else.

So, saying that the information you'd get by calling the local field office would be "correct" is far overstating the facts.

I think the broader reason is that what the law strictly says, and what the BATFE interpretation of the law are often thought to diverge, and what the BATFE "recommends" (whether or not they can enforce that recommendation), may be different. Asking a knowledgeable attorney might be thought to be a way of getting a more disinterested opinion about what the questioner's true standing under the law is.

I don't think anyone (well... most of us ) have any fear of being "put on a list" for calling and asking a question. The issue has more to do with official obfuscation, inconsistency, and contradiction.

 

[Carne Frio]

This is how "they" at BATFE have been protecting you.
http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html

 

[Art Eatman]

Inconsistency: Some (not all) BATFE employees behave in an anti-gun-owner fashion. Some have different interpretations of a rule (IRS is the same in that).

When a powerful bureaucracy is inconsistent in its statements and actions, being trusting is foolish.

 

[dogtown tom]

BSA1 ....Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help? ....

Its not fear of angering the beast, but fear of getting a wrong answer.
A short list of bad info that I've received from ATF in the last few years:

-Handguns cannot be mailed by anyone through the USPS.
-Firearm shipments can only be shipped to the dealers premises address.
-All firearm shipments must be shipped to a licensed dealer.
-1911 frames are pistols and not "other firearms".
-The shipping dealer is required to enclose a copy of his FFL with the firearm.

There's more, just search on this or any other forum.

I HAVE also received excellent information from ATF........by IOI's that understand that simply citing regulations keeps them from giving bad information. My first IOI would never just give me a yes or no answer....instead he would tell me what citation from the US Code applied to my question.

 

[CoRoMo]

Once Posted by TexasRifleman:

But this is the ATF, a government agency who decreed that every 14 inch shoestring in the United States was an illegal machinegun. It took them 2 years to realize what they had done and back off of their statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem here is that you are not dealing with simply "the police".

This is an agency that has publicly admitted to training it's agents to lie, whose motto is "Always Think Forfeiture" and who has tried in every way possible to demonize firearms and shooters, especially those who engage in legal private sales.

You simply can't risk dealing with an agency like this on the hope that "it will all turn out OK".

Care must be taken in any dealings with them. I have no doubt that many of their agents are good honest people, but the agency as a whole has a reputation for being extremely dishonest, so it would be very naive to not exercise caution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of training for ATF special agents and state and local task force officers, ATF purchased a number of Leatherman tool kits engraved with the words ‘ATF – Asset Forfeiture’ and ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ for distribution to the participants. These training aids were designed to increase awareness of the asset forfeiture concept so that persons who do not regularly employ the strategy as part of a criminal investigation might be reminded to consider it.

nuff said

 

[dogrunner]

Well, you could roughly start with the Ballough case in MD thirty some odd years back, pass thru the Branch Dividian compound, add in the Ruby Ridge affair and tack up the Fast and Furious debacle as 'rough' examples of a LE agency out of any reasonable semblance of control or civilized behavior.

I'm sure there are a lotta other incidents that haven't seen the massive negative publicity of those cited, but I'll ad a commentary made to me by a close friend that is a retired Federal LEO.....succinctly that the agency had a long standing history of hiring the dregs of the LEO community! That said, I have known several that were outstanding and dedicated employees......still, that MUCH heat has it's origins in both failed law and policy. It evidences a consistent lack of leadership (or the WRONG kind of leadership) and a disdain for the basic law of the land itself!

 

[Tirod]

As a career government bureaucrat I was the most knowledgable about the policies of my particular department not a lawyer from the street.

Policies aren't law, and you didn't have the authority to interpret them by your own discretion and imprison citizens until proven innocent.

And bureaucrats don't formulate regulations that impact the nation's citizenry with the force of law, like the California Air Resources Board.

Bluntly, it's naive to think that bureaucrats and LEO's are dispassionate, even handed and fair in dealing with the public at all. There are many, yes. And there are those who aren't, who condemn private property to sell out to a corporation for the municipality to gather taxable revenue, who deliberately allow illegal sales of firearms that wind up in the hands of drug terrorists who kill other officers, who charge convention fees to the taxpayer in a ruse to cover their on-the-clock vacation.

No, some of us would just leave the government out of it entirely. I guess we're a bit jaded about our fellow citizens having our best interests in mind.

We now recognize that others will take advantage of us at any opportunity. Entirely the reason we support the Second Amendment, ya know. Fundamental.

 

[jungle]

Public approval of congress is about 14%. Why would anyone think approval of the giant and unneeded bureaucracies they have created, like the ATF and IRS to name but two, is any higher?

We fully understand that government does not grant rights, it can only diminish them.

We are not afraid of this, our reaction is one of disgust and loathing.

 

[Sky]

This is how "they" at BATFE have been protecting you.
http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html

Is one heck of a disgrace if the incidences are true. But we can not believe all that is posted on the web....

Seems like once upon a time long long ago in a place called Nuremberg there were some guys who just said they were just following orders. Who knows maybe one day the policy writers for the BTAF will face the same type of hearings; doubt it though, Nuremberg took a war to get a judgement and I just do no see that happening here.

I have been dealing with some immigration issues this last year for a friend. 'Besides going through a 10 minute rotary answering service disguised in every way possible to keep you from talking to a real live person' my experience with a real talking person seems to be, " call one and get an answer, call again and speak with a different person and get a different answer". So unless you are lucky with the call it is pot luck on getting the proper info. I can only assume it would be the same with BTAF. Either way I am not planning on calling them even if Red Dawn happens in my back yard.

It is a shame when a government agency loses the trust of the citizens and stirs up so much angst.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Several things:

[1] The involuntary commitment question you referred to is a lot more complicated than a phone call to BATF can reasonably deal with. The exact facts matter a great deal, and both state law and federal law could be issues.

[2] When one calls a governmental agency, the person on the phone might not be a lawyer. And even if he or she is a lawyer, he or she is not your lawyer.

[3] In the course of my career I've dealt with a number of governmental agencies on behalf of clients. There are some things to call them to ask about and some things not to. And for information that one can really rely on, one needs to follow a reasonably formal process to get an official, written opinion.

[4] In my view, and based on more than 30 years as a lawyer, not calling a regulatory agency is not necessarily about paranoia or fear that the government might find something out about you. It's that some questions are really outside the scope of what you can expect a guy on the telephone to be able to fully and accurately answer.

 

[Joeyp]

Look at any government agency that enforces policy and you have an entity with nearly unlimited resources to prosecute you. While the average person has very limited resources to defend themselves. If you happen to prevail legally you may still be harrased or pursued further civilly. I used to wonder why the US has so many laws on the books and concluded that it is so they can turn almost anyone into a felon if necessary.

 

[mr.scott]

JoeyP you nailed it. Laws aren't created to protect us, they are created to control us.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Several things:

[1] The involuntary commitment question you referred to is a lot more complicated than a phone call to BATF can reasonably deal with. The exact facts matter a great deal, and both state law and federal law could be issues.

[2] When one calls a governmental agency, the person on the phone might not be a lawyer. And even if he or she is a lawyer, he or she is not your lawyer.

[3] In the course of my career I've dealt with a number of governmental agencies on behalf of clients. There are some things to call them to ask about and some things not to. And for information that one can really rely on, one needs to follow a reasonably formal process to get an official, written opinion.

[4] In my view, and based on more than 30 years as a lawyer, not calling a regulatory agency is not necessarily about paranoia or fear that the government might find something out about you. It's that some questions are really outside the scope of what you can expect a guy on the telephone to be able to fully and accurately answer.

Add to it that they admit to 'failing to explain the full letter of the law'
and that many times you run into agents who have no clue what the LAW says, only the Dept. regs.

 

[medalguy]

Let me provide my own personal experience.

A good many years ago I was an FFL and SOT. On numerous occasions I had BATFE enforcement agents come to my shop, or call me on the phone, asking for clarification of the law on Title II weapons. They were using me as their source to understand what was legal and what was not. Imagine them asking me, a "civilian", for clarification to a question that you had posed to them. Would you want to rely on that information in a legal proceeding against you later?

On another instance, two BATFE enforcement agents came to my shop requesting to "borrow" a machine gun I owned as inventory, stating that they needed to use it in an attemped sting operation. Let's see, they wanted me to give them a weapon registered to me? Not very damn likely.

As Frank said, there are just some things you need to get either from your own attorney who is looking out for your interests, or you want to get in writing from the BATFE legal office.

Oh, another reason to fear them? They can put you in jail and force you to exhaust all your resources defending yourself, right or wrong.

 

[BSA1]

Thank you for some very interesting replies. The responses are basically as follows and I will state that I do not feel of them are wrong since they are the posters personal opinion:

1. The BATF will not correctly answer your question, either by being deliberately dishonest, incompetent or anti-gun mission.

2. Never trust the answer you get on the telephone. Makes dang good sense to me. A written request will get a written response.

3. Only a lawyer can correctly interpret law, rules and regulations. I have a lot of doubts about this theory. What is not mentioned is a lawyer costs money, a good lawyer even more money (and who wants a bad lawyer?). So first I must find a lawyer that specializes in gun rights, pay a retainer up front and then his fee for the research which could easily be several hours ($$$$). And then if the lawyer’s advice is wrong he doesn’t go to jail I do…

4. The website of alleged abuses by the BATF does not withstand verificiation. I crosschecked most of the cases on Google or Yahoo and could not find independent reporting of the incidents. The articles were all very one sided and lacked enough information to form opinion. In one case the gun owners subsequently slipped of his electronic monitoring device and became a fugitive from justice. I am not saying the BATF conducts illegal raids and abuses its authority only that the website used is worthless.

5. Mistrust of the Federal Government is at all time low. Ding, ding , ding. Speaking for myself I find this to be true.

So here is my problem. I have a C&R license and I have a question regarding it. I don’t have the money to pay a lawyer for researching my question. Where do I turn?

 

[dogtown tom]

Ask away!!!!!!!

BSA1
So here is my problem. I have a C&R license and I have a question regarding it. I don’t have the money to pay a lawyer for researching my question. Where do I turn?

Ummmm................THR is every bit as reliable as your local ATF office.

Heck, we'll even post the applicable citation from ATF regulations.

What's your question?

 

[BSA1]

It involves purchasing and reselling C&R guns. Is it allowed, can I make a profit, how many guns before I become a business? I got my license for my own use but co-workers are asking me about ordering guns for them.

 

[Shadow 7D]

And most often, unlike the ATF, we even post the LAW that covers the regulation.
Consider, my congressman just put out a shotgun Email about BAFTE AGENTS and industry inspectors demanding FFL's logbooks and 4473's and attempting to remove them from the business premiss.

THIS IS ILLEGAL, grossly, and those FFL's that complied are now in VIOLATION of ATF regulations....

Incompetence? malice? what?

 

[Shadow 7D]

You are a collector
ONLY A COLLECTOR
you can not engage in the Business of dealing in firearms (FFL 1)

BUT, you are allowed to purchase and sell weapons in order to improve your collection
purchasing a crate of mosins, then putting the crate out at the gunshow will attract attention, BUT is perfectly legal (if less than tasteful to some, and that can cause legal troubles) if the point of purchasing the crate was to improve your collection, and you are disposing of those that fail to improve your collection.

as for price, you can make or loose as much money as you wish, so long as you are not in the business of selling and buying guns.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Only a lawyer can correctly interpret law, rules and regulations. I have a lot of doubts about this theory. What is not mentioned is a lawyer costs money, a good lawyer even more money (and who wants a bad lawyer?). So first I must find a lawyer that specializes in gun rights, pay a retainer up front and then his fee for the research which could easily be several hours ($$$$). And then if the lawyer’s advice is wrong he doesn’t go to jail I do…

[1] Of course it's not only a lawyer who can interpret law. But it is what we've been educated to do, and it is what we do for a living. If we're not doing a good job of it, we'll soon find ourselves without clients. And then we won't be making a living at it anymore.

[2] Yes, lawyers cost money. That's how we make our livings. On the other hand, what's at stake for you? Your property? Your freedom? And it's been my experience that it costs less to have a lawyer try to help keep you out of trouble than to try to get you out of trouble once you've gotten yourself into it. It's up to you.

[3] Your lawyer works for and represents you. If you run into problems, your lawyer will be there to try to help fix things. A governmental regulatory agency does not work for or represent you, so if you run into problems you can't expect them to try to help fix them.

 

[Cosmoline]

Why all the fear of asking the BATF for help?

I think it's appropriate to send a *formal* request to that agency if you are an FFL holder or other professional who has a technical question and has consulted with counsel. Otherwise you should not be communicating with them at all. They're not there to help. They exist to enforce the strongly anti-gun legislation passed by Congress over the years. They don't exist to help people own more firearms or shoot straighter.

Does anyone have any documented prove of this happening?

Of people being put in prison based on what they admitted to the agency? Oh heck yeah. Let me be very clear about this. Anything you say to any agency can and will be used against you. There is no privilege, no special confidential relationship, and no obligation on their part to protect you from the implications. So if you call and ask if your 14" full auto AK is legal they may well get your address and arrest you. That's not paranoia, it's common sense. Lots and lots of folks in prison lack common sense.

 

[JRH6856]

'Besides going through a 10 minute rotary answering service disguised in every way possible to keep you from talking to a real live person' my experience with a real talking person seems to be, " call one and get an answer, call again and speak with a different person and get a different answer".

So, you're saying you would have been better off sticking with the answering service? Maybe the designer knew something...

 

[Sky]

So, you're saying you would have been better off sticking with the answering service? Maybe the designer knew something...

hahaha could not get there from the rotary but one lady informed me the prior info I had received from a male respondant was incorrect and really did help. Did what she said by eliminating about 5 government forms and was successful by saving some money bundling.