A Personal Visit from the MD State Police…

[MJD438]

To say do not let the state police in (with or without a warrant); do not produce the rifle (which they already know you have), or worse yet to lie to the officer and say I sold of lost it etc., etc., is pure ignorance, if not criminal.

With the exception of your comment about lying to an officer, I have to ask - have you read the 4th Amendment? It is not criminal to require that our government respect the limits imposed upon it. One's mere purchase of a firearm does not open one's home to warrantless searching, nor does it constitute an agreement to show said firearm to LE on demand.

 

[Eviljagtech]

If anyone is paraoid about 10/1.

Make an inventory sheet, and have it notarized before 10/1 at your local bank for free.

How would you cover unmarked firearms, like parts kit ak47's and 80% AR builds? Also, I don't remember you having to keep all your paper work (I do have my Serials written and Pic's of my guns incase of theft), but most of the paper work for my guns is, well somewhere in my room. If this happened to me and they asked for paper work they would have gotten the Scooby look.

 

[sprocket80]

MJD,
No disrespect meant but you should re-read the 4th ammendment.


At the point when the MSP showed up at the OP's door they were not violating his 4th ammendment rights at all. It says we have a right to be secure in our homes, papers, etc against unreasonable search and seizure and without specific warrant. Was their visit unreasonable? Absolutely not. They were conducting an investigation into what is clearly a documented improperly handled firearm sale by a Virginia ffl dealer. Did they even search? No, but they could have....and without violating his rights had he acted elusive or combative. They came with a specific purpose and had the OP got indignant they could have construed that as probable cause (again within the 4th ammendment--probable cause) to enter his home and search for violations which may or may not have been specifically listed on a warrant had they brought one. But they showed the man respect deserved by a model citizen and left.

When you exhibit suspicious or combative behavior toward an officer during an investigation you escalate the situation from him investigating a past static possible infraction to a pursuing probable current crime. The officer is going to respond accordingly. Blind anger directed at a police officer is the behavior of a criminal. My point is that when you are contacted, questioned, confronted, or whatever verb you choose to describe the encounter...by a police officer, comply. Don't act like a criminal unless you are one. Answer questions briefly and nothing more.

Its senseless to discuss the minutia of the OPs 4th ammendment rights being trampled-- or not-while the officers are investigating MD laws-- which we can all agree--definitely violate his 2nd Ammendment rights. If you know any police officers or talk to any at length, you will find the vast majority are conservatives and Republicans. They know these laws are wrong and balk at harassing upright, God fearing, patriot citizens like us.

 

[marte616]

"Blind anger directed at a police officer is the behavior of a criminal."

I respectfully disagree....that is not the behaviour of a criminal....it is indignation.

you have the righty to be angry, outright offended and appalled that your rights are being INFRINGED!

And the cops need to understand that any law abiding citizen would be offended, and would respond in sort. And if they use that as a pretext for a search, they are mot worth the badge they wear.

 

[zoostation]

They were conducting an investigation into what is clearly a documented improperly handled firearm sale by a Virginia ffl dealer.

You may want to read up some on what you are posting about before drawing that conclusion.

 

[fidelity]

MJD,
No disrespect meant but you should re-read the 4th ammendment.

I'm not sure where the confusion is here. If rousted at 6 am in the morning with a similar line of inquiry, I would simply tell the officers that I'm not awake and would be happy to help them with their inquiry later in the day when I am more alert and in the presence of my attorney, whom I would need to call during business hours. I've worked with two lawyers in a shared practice locally - so would be happy to provide their names if asked. I would ask the officers for a business card or number so I can contact them. I would be courteous as they are due this respect.

I do think that these troopers are covering all bases in case the firearms in question are in fact deemed regulated (although I think in the cases that have been discussed here, it's questionable that they would) and seeking to also protect the firearm owner (as they may conclude that possession without prior paperwork after Oct 1 could lead to confiscation). However working through my attorney will likely provide me protection down the road should a future MD AG decide to more harshly treat gun owners whom they think performed cash & carry purchases that should have been screen via the 77r process.

This being said, it's unlikely that I'll get a 6 am knock given that I don't have firearms that I didn't get through a MD FFL and none in a putatively grey area as per NICS check vs the full MD twerk.

 

[MJD438]

MJD,
No disrespect meant but you should re-read the 4th ammendment.


At the point when the MSP showed up at the OP's door they were not violating his 4th ammendment rights at all. It says we have a right to be secure in our homes, papers, etc against unreasonable search and seizure and without specific warrant. Was their visit unreasonable? Absolutely not. They were conducting an investigation into what is clearly a documented improperly handled firearm sale by a Virginia ffl dealer. Did they even search? No, but they could have....and without violating his rights had he acted elusive or combative. They came with a specific purpose and had the OP got indignant they could have construed that as probable cause (again within the 4th ammendment--probable cause) to enter his home and search for violations which may or may not have been specifically listed on a warrant had they brought one. But they showed the man respect deserved by a model citizen and left.

When you exhibit suspicious or combative behavior toward an officer during an investigation you escalate the situation from him investigating a past static possible infraction to a pursuing probable current crime. The officer is going to respond accordingly. Blind anger directed at a police officer is the behavior of a criminal. My point is that when you are contacted, questioned, confronted, or whatever verb you choose to describe the encounter...by a police officer, comply. Don't act like a criminal unless you are one. Answer questions briefly and nothing more.

Its senseless to discuss the minutia of the OPs 4th ammendment rights being trampled-- or not-while the officers are investigating MD laws-- which we can all agree--definitely violate his 2nd Ammendment rights. If you know any police officers or talk to any at length, you will find the vast majority are conservatives and Republicans. They know these laws are wrong and balk at harassing upright, God fearing, patriot citizens like us.

You stated previously (and are now changing the base of debate/argument with your rebuttal):

To say do not let the state police in (with or without a warrant); do not produce the rifle (which they already know you have), or worse yet to lie to the officer and say I sold of lost it etc., etc., is pure ignorance, if not criminal.

My advice to you remains - read the 4th Amendment. Anyone stating that they would, if they had been in the OP's position,:

1. Neither let the state police in (without a warrant, since a warrant would negate the 4th Amendment protections specifically limited to the contents of said warrant); nor,
2. Produce the rifle (again, without a warrant, since a warrant would negate the 4th Amendment protections specifically limited to the contents of said warrant),

is not acting "criminal". Demanding a warrant may create "suspicion" in the minds of the officers, but it does not, automagically, create an exigent circumstance for a search, nor is it a crime.



Your latter blanket statement (the one that I quoted) was written in such a way as to apply to all encounters, not the specific encounter covered by this thread. I will agree with you that there was no violation of the OP's 4th Amendment-protected rights, ONCE the OP consented to the activities posted.


When I am "contacted, questioned, confronted, or whatever verb you choose to describe the encounter...by a police officer", I will comply in such a manner that protects the rights of myself and my family that is consistent with response to a "lawful" order. A request to produce a firearm without a warrant is not a lawful order and I would not comply. A request to interview me is a request for a conversation, not a lawful order to answer; I would answer personal identification questions and defer all other answers (i.e., assert my rights as protected under the 5th Amendment) until I have the presence and advice of legal counsel.

In regards to my red bolding, please provide a cite for the "clearly...documented improperly handled firearm sale". Personally, I have seen no evidence that such is the case. All I have seen/read is that MSP personnel have visited several houses with the common element being recent purchases of long arms from the same Virginia dealer. I can find nothing in the media or other locations on the internet which states that said dealer was being investigated by the ATF for any wrongdoing.

 

[smokering]

My disclaimer....swiped from the comedian Dennis Miller...this is just my opinion; I may be wrong.

You are....lurk more post less.

 

[Lex Armarum]

MJD,
No disrespect meant but you should re-read the 4th ammendment.


At the point when the MSP showed up at the OP's door they were not violating his 4th ammendment rights at all. It says we have a right to be secure in our homes, papers, etc against unreasonable search and seizure and without specific warrant. Was their visit unreasonable? Absolutely not. They were conducting an investigation into what is clearly a documented improperly handled firearm sale by a Virginia ffl dealer. Did they even search? No, but they could have....and without violating his rights had he acted elusive or combative. They came with a specific purpose and had the OP got indignant they could have construed that as probable cause (again within the 4th ammendment--probable cause) to enter his home and search for violations which may or may not have been specifically listed on a warrant had they brought one. But they showed the man respect deserved by a model citizen and left.

When you exhibit suspicious or combative behavior toward an officer during an investigation you escalate the situation from him investigating a past static possible infraction to a pursuing probable current crime. The officer is going to respond accordingly. Blind anger directed at a police officer is the behavior of a criminal. My point is that when you are contacted, questioned, confronted, or whatever verb you choose to describe the encounter...by a police officer, comply. Don't act like a criminal unless you are one. Answer questions briefly and nothing more.

Its senseless to discuss the minutia of the OPs 4th ammendment rights being trampled-- or not-while the officers are investigating MD laws-- which we can all agree--definitely violate his 2nd Ammendment rights. If you know any police officers or talk to any at length, you will find the vast majority are conservatives and Republicans. They know these laws are wrong and balk at harassing upright, God fearing, patriot citizens like us.

You really have no idea of what you're talking about either factually nor legally. Please stop.

 

[Ab_Normal]

You really have no idea of what you're talking about either factually nor legally. Please stop.

Mucho grassyass.

 

[hvymax]

You stated previously (and are now changing the base of debate/argument with your rebuttal):



My advice to you remains - read the 4th Amendment. Anyone stating that they would, if they had been in the OP's position,:

1. Neither let the state police in (without a warrant, since a warrant would negate the 4th Amendment protections specifically limited to the contents of said warrant); nor,
2. Produce the rifle (again, without a warrant, since a warrant would negate the 4th Amendment protections specifically limited to the contents of said warrant),

is not acting "criminal". Demanding a warrant may create "suspicion" in the minds of the officers, but it does not, automagically, create an exigent circumstance for a search, nor is it a crime.



Your latter blanket statement (the one that I quoted) was written in such a way as to apply to all encounters, not the specific encounter covered by this thread. I will agree with you that there was no violation of the OP's 4th Amendment-protected rights, ONCE the OP consented to the activities posted.


When I am "contacted, questioned, confronted, or whatever verb you choose to describe the encounter...by a police officer", I will comply in such a manner that protects the rights of myself and my family that is consistent with response to a "lawful" order. A request to produce a firearm without a warrant is not a lawful order and I would not comply. A request to interview me is a request for a conversation, not a lawful order to answer; I would answer personal identification questions and defer all other answers (i.e., assert my rights as protected under the 5th Amendment) until I have the presence and advice of legal counsel.

In regards to my red bolding, please provide a cite for the "clearly...documented improperly handled firearm sale". Personally, I have seen no evidence that such is the case. All I have seen/read is that MSP personnel have visited several houses with the common element being recent purchases of long arms from the same Virginia dealer. I can find nothing in the media or other locations on the internet which states that said dealer was being investigated by the ATF for any wrongdoing.

The purchase of non restricted firearms per MD from a VA dealer which is totally legal.

 

[TapRackBang]

Did they even search? No, but they could have....and without violating his rights had he acted elusive or combative.

So if they come knocking at my door and I don't answer, that's "probable cause" to bust my door down and search my house?
That would be if it wasn't .

They know these laws are wrong and balk at harassing upright, God fearing, patriot citizens like us.

You don't speak for me, nor for them. These two troopers apparently didn't balk much, and went well beyond simply investigating the single rifle in-question. Sounds like the were only following orders. And went so far as to literally ask "Papiere bitte."

 

[vinjet700]

You really have no idea of what you're talking about either factually nor legally. Please stop.

 

[TapRackBang]

U R doing it wrong!

Like THIS:

 

[hvymax]

You may want to read up some on what you are posting about before drawing that conclusion.

You really have no idea of what you're talking about either factually nor legally. Please stop.

I guess we know Gansler's screen name.

 

[MJD438]

You really have no idea of what you're talking about either factually nor legally. Please stop.

Dammit, RS, now I have water all over my keyboard (I have to learn to stop drinking while reading MDS...).

 

[rbird7282]

which is why i would say that there's a case to be made that a 556 is a copy of a 551. not that i necessarily agree with it, but if we're trying to figure out their logic...

You're assuming they are using logic?

 

[janklow]

You're assuming they are using logic?

or whatever passes for it, anyway

 

[sprocket80]

I dont know how to include quoted previous post sections, but will respond to two errors I may have my (In my opinion).
(1) As I said intially...I had only read a few pages into the thread before my post. Let me clarify my two vague assertions:
My knowledge of the facts of the MSP officers' visit was based on what he said in the OP's first post. Indid not read any of his follow up posts. That said...whether it was initially made understandable immediately to the OP or not, if it was 6am and he was a half asleep or whatever his mental state; the ATF obviously considered the original purchase and sale by the VA ffl improper. The OP said the officers eventually conveyed that to him. So on this limited information... some just implied, I did not have all then facts. But even by this limited amount of info, my statement about the officer conducting an investigation into what was clearly an improper and documented improper is about as correct as it could be. The ATF obviously thought it was improper (by MD laws) so they notified the MSP. Clearly it was improper. And clearly it was documented. I admit I made common sense assumptions as to the actual events which---while being nly assumptions/deductions, were informational correct.

(2) While I am not one of the two officers that visited the OP or a state trooper, I know a few.... and I ate lunch that day with an ATF employee/MD resident (we did not talk about this incident). Any statement I made about the ATF not caring about MD laws is a generalization. Their funding and focus in federal. My statement about most officers being conservatives is also a blanket statement based on the officers I know and have personally had friendly discussions with. I apologize to any liberal, civil rights hating police officers I may have offended.

I did say in my first post that not allowing an officer to search without a warrant was criminal. I ran two sentences together and that is wrong.

Rusty, thanks for pointing out what I said in my disclaimer that I had not read the entire thread. And as in your disclaimer-nothing I say is legal advice.
If everything in this country and state was concise and beyond misinterpretation...we would not need lawyers and you would be out of a job. Every lawyer argues that he is right...thus the need for lawyers. While not a lurker, I am a member; I just dont follow the 2A threads. I apologize for invading your little world. Good luck chasing ambulances or this forum.

 

[swinokur]

U R doing it wrong!

Like THIS:

No you're doing it wrong too!
.
.