Gun groups sue feds over terror watchlist

[LittleLebowski]

It's almost like "I have nothing to hide" is not going to keep the government from misusing information about you.

I can readily envision a future in which people in certain states on a secret list are tracked to see if they go to gunshows.



Several gun rights groups sued the federal government last week over alleged constitutional violations made against gun owners.

Gun Owners of America and others allege the Department of Justice illegally uses the federal NICS background check system with a secret database containing names linked to suspected terrorists to monitor gun owners – a violation of several constitutional rights, according to the complaint filed Dec. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. (http://www.guns.com/2015/12/29/gun-groups-sue-feds-over-terror-watchlist/)

[ranger]

One of the men I work with sent in a US passport renewal - he had to go meet with federal agents to explain "why" he owned so many guns - they had a list of his guns? Leads to question of how does the government know how many guns he has? I am sure he got flagged because he travels for business overseas but this type of tracking of gun owners I thought was illegal. Fits in with comments above.

[TGS]

One of the men I work with sent in a US passport renewal - he had to go meet with federal agents to explain "why" he owned so many guns - they had a list of his guns? Leads to question of how does the government know how many guns he has? I am sure he got flagged because he travels for business overseas but this type of tracking of gun owners I thought was illegal. Fits in with comments above.

You brought this up before, and many of us asked follow-up questions that I don't believe you ever answered (unless I missed them or have forgotten).

I'd still be curious to hear those answers.

ETA: My bad.....we never asked questions, per say, but questioned the validity of the story.

[HCM]

One of the men I work with sent in a US passport renewal - he had to go meet with federal agents to explain "why" he owned so many guns - they had a list of his guns? Leads to question of how does the government know how many guns he has? I am sure he got flagged because he travels for business overseas but this type of tracking of gun owners I thought was illegal. Fits in with comments above.

Yes what was the outcome of this ?

[HCM]

I can readily envision a future in which people in certain states on a secret list are tracked to see if they go to gunshows.



I don't see a basis for the federal government doing this but the California DOJ has been or at least was doing this for years. Looking for CA tags at Reno NV gun shows and stopping those vehicles after they crossed back into CA.

Do a google search for CA DOJ Agent Ignatius "Iggy" Chinn.

[ranger]

Yes what was the outcome of this ?

I urged the employee to contact his Senators and Representatives - I do not think he did. Getting contacted by Federal agents was very unnerving for him (would be for most of us - me included but I would have contacted my Senators and Reps and documented the apparent flagrant issue of "weapons registration"). He had to go meet face to face with Federal agents (I had a hard time getting a specific Federal agency out of him - again, he was rattled) for an interview reference his multiple firearms and the foreign countries he visited (he has a technical background and visited countries for work that are on the watch lists - he is an older white male American citizen by birth). The agents had a very accurate and detailed list of his firearms. He said the agents were pretty rude when he went back later to pick up his approved Passport.

I know that some here on the forum find this story unbelievable or such but this gentlemen works with me daily, has no reason to make up such a story, and was very rattled by the whole event. I suspect that he got flagged due to the foreign locations he visited - that part I understand, I was dismayed by the accurate list of personal firearms produced.

[CS Tactical]

I don't see a basis for the federal government doing this but the California DOJ has been or at least was doing this for years. Looking for CA tags at Reno NV gun shows and stopping those vehicles after they crossed back into CA.

Do a google search for CA DOJ Agent Ignatius "Iggy" Chinn.


Yes they have been...

[TGS]

I urged the employee to contact his Senators and Representatives - I do not think he did. Getting contacted by Federal agents was very unnerving for him (would be for most of us - me included but I would have contacted my Senators and Reps and documented the apparent flagrant issue of "weapons registration"). He had to go meet face to face with Federal agents (I had a hard time getting a specific Federal agency out of him - again, he was rattled) for an interview reference his multiple firearms and the foreign countries he visited (he has a technical background and visited countries for work that are on the watch lists - he is an older white male American citizen by birth). The agents had a very accurate and detailed list of his firearms. He said the agents were pretty rude when he went back later to pick up his approved Passport.

I know that some here on the forum find this story unbelievable or such but this gentlemen works with me daily, has no reason to make up such a story, and was very rattled by the whole event. I suspect that he got flagged due to the foreign locations he visited - that part I understand, I was dismayed by the accurate list of personal firearms produced.

A continuous lack of details makes me even more skeptical.

[ranger]

A continuous lack of details makes me even more skeptical.

Please enjoy your skepticism - Happy New Year! If "Jawja" means Georgia, maybe we can discuss over a cup of coffee or such and I can better reassure you.

[rauchman]

Is there a preferred response if one finds themselves being confronted by Feds in a situation such as this? Does one tell the Feds to go "F" themselves, stay mute, have them talk to your lawyer, cooperate (this option makes my skin crawl), other?

[Josh Runkle]

Is there a preferred response if one finds themselves being confronted by Feds in a situation such as this? Does one tell the Feds to go "F" themselves, stay mute, have them talk to your lawyer, cooperate (this option makes my skin crawl), other?

I would not invite them inside, period. Even if they were asking about information about someone else. There's no reason for them to come in my house...nothing is gained by me having them come inside. While I commit no crimes I am aware of, allowing any law enforcement entity inside my home simply provides information about myself. The right not to self-incriminate (5th amendment) is a constitutional right that should be exercised just as strongly as the second amendment. Obviously, I let friends who work in LE in my home, that's not the same as LE interacting with me on "official business".

If they asked me questions about myself, I would simply say, "No, thank you." And I would leave. They can choose to hold me for 24 hrs or charge me. Regardless, even if I was charged with some outrageous crime, and I had an obvious alibi, I would still wait for my attorney to interact with police. There is absolutely zero benefit to speaking with law enforcement when you are being accused or are being asked of your involvement in a crime.

Remember the Miranda Rights that you must be told if you are charged with something: Anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you. There is zero guarantee that anything you say will ever be used to help yourself.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[JodyH]

Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to the Feds, not the alleged criminal act they were investigating.
There is no upside to voluntarily giving information to the Feds without a lawyer present to filter it through.

[HCM]

I would not invite them inside, period. Even if they were asking about information about someone else. There's no reason for them to come in my house...nothing is gained by me having them come inside. While I commit no crimes I am aware of, allowing any law enforcement entity inside my home simply provides information about myself. The right not to self-incriminate (5th amendment) is a constitutional right that should be exercised just as strongly as the second amendment. Obviously, I let friends who work in LE in my home, that's not the same as LE interacting with me on "official business".

If they asked me questions about myself, I would simply say, "No, thank you." And I would leave. They can choose to hold me for 24 hrs or charge me. Regardless, even if I was charged with some outrageous crime, and I had an obvious alibi, I would still wait for my attorney to interact with police. There is absolutely zero benefit to speaking with law enforcement when you are being accused or are being asked of your involvement in a crime.

Remember the Miranda Rights that you must be told if you are charged with something: Anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you. There is zero guarantee that anything you say will ever be used to help yourself.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

In the instance of Rangers co-worker - they called him in for an interview - they did not come to his house.

As a general rule, coming to someone's house to do an interview vs bringing them into the office is something an investigator would do to interview a witness rather than a suspect.

LEOs need to tell you if you are under arrest or otherwise detained and not free to leave. Miranda warning only apply if 1) the suspect in custody and 2) they want to ask the suspect something they potentially want to use in court. If I arrest you and I don't need to ask you anything I don't need to mirandize you.

[HCM]

Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to the Feds, not the alleged criminal act they were investigating.
There is no upside to voluntarily giving information to the Feds without a lawyer present to filter it through.

Not lying helps.

[HCM]

I urged the employee to contact his Senators and Representatives - I do not think he did. Getting contacted by Federal agents was very unnerving for him (would be for most of us - me included but I would have contacted my Senators and Reps and documented the apparent flagrant issue of "weapons registration"). He had to go meet face to face with Federal agents (I had a hard time getting a specific Federal agency out of him - again, he was rattled) for an interview reference his multiple firearms and the foreign countries he visited (he has a technical background and visited countries for work that are on the watch lists - he is an older white male American citizen by birth). The agents had a very accurate and detailed list of his firearms. He said the agents were pretty rude when he went back later to pick up his approved Passport.

I know that some here on the forum find this story unbelievable or such but this gentlemen works with me daily, has no reason to make up such a story, and was very rattled by the whole event. I suspect that he got flagged due to the foreign locations he visited - that part I understand, I was dismayed by the accurate list of personal firearms produced.

Ranger,

I believe you are accurately relaying what your co-worker is telling you.

However, I do not believe he is telling you the truth, certainly not the whole truth. The fact he cannot or will not tell you what agency these agents were with is a huge red /BS flag.

Whatever it is , he is likely too embarrassed to give you the real story. The holding his passport story, if true suggests he is into something far bigger than a personal firearms collection. ITAR ?

[JodyH]

Not lying helps.
There's lying and then there's misremembered details or inadvertent misstatements.
Both can be criminally prosecuted.

[TGS]

There's lying and then there's misremembered details or inadvertent misstatements.
Both can be criminally prosecuted.

When you're talking about complex ongoing investigations like Martha Stewart, an AUSA isn't going to charge 18 USC 1001 with simple misremembered statements because that won't stick. There's going to need to be some substance.....we're not talking about a post-shooting interview here.

Most of the time they won't even tack on justifiable 1001 charges because it's usually more a pain than its worth.

[Jeep]

When you're talking about complex ongoing investigations like Martha Stewart, an AUSA isn't going to charge 18 USC 1001 with simple misremembered statements because that won't stick. There's going to need to be some substance.....we're not talking about a post-shooting interview here.

Most of the time they won't even tack on justifiable 1001 charges because it's usually more a pain than its worth.

I think you are probably right about the "most of the time" part, but people have served hard time both for memory failures that the DA thought were lies and for telling the truth which the DA refused to believe. In addition, people have been put in jail for telling the truth, but not the "whole" truth as that truth is later conceived by a DA.

I believe in being a good citizen and trying to help law enforcement in most situations. That is also usually the smartest thing to do. However, if there is a decent chance that you could be charged with something then you should say nothing to anyone without a lawyer present. Even telling the truth could get you put in jail. Sometimes juries can stop a run-away train, but don't expect that to happen.

[TGS]

I think you are probably right about the "most of the time" part, but people have served hard time both for memory failures that the DA thought were lies and for telling the truth which the DA refused to believe. In addition, people have been put in jail for telling the truth, but not the "whole" truth as that truth is later conceived by a DA.

I believe in being a good citizen and trying to help law enforcement in most situations. That is also usually the smartest thing to do. However, if there is a decent chance that you could be charged with something then you should say nothing to anyone without a lawyer present. Even telling the truth could get you put in jail. Sometimes juries can stop a run-away train, but don't expect that to happen.

Yeah, but like I tried to say: I'm writing directly to "mis-remembering" or inadvertent misstatements and being charged with 18 USC 1001 (aka "Making False Statements"), which isn't very realistic. If being charged with 18 USC 1001 is a fear for anyone speaking to FLEOs, then you shouldn't be filling out any forms whatsoever for any federal agency or contracted "agent" of such....as by that line of thinking, a simple clerical error on a form will end with a US Magistrate Judge issuing a warrant for your arrest. That doesn't really happen.....there's a reason that if you make a clerical error and it is flagged for fraud, it is sent over to the agency's LE office and they investigate whether there was substantially reckless disregard for the truth with intention to cover up and/or avoid learning the truth. Do know that exculpatory no's (telling a FLEO you didn't do it, when you did) can land you a 1001 charge. Like HCM said, "not lying helps."

I'm not writing about making incriminating statements which get you jail-time, and I'm not saying it isn't smart to invoke your 5th Amendment rights.

[BJXDS]

It's almost like "I have nothing to hide" is not going to keep the government from misusing information about you.

I can readily envision a future in which people in certain states on a secret list are tracked to see if they go to gunshows.




Are you sure they are not doing it now? Eddie Snowden's (debatable traitor) revelations may prove only to be the tip of the iceberg. Look at the info available from a simple google search. In this information age we now live in, with all the data breaches, I fear NOTHING is off limits. Hell, China HACKED OPM and TS clearances. Topic for another day.

[11B10]

I would not invite them inside, period. Even if they were asking about information about someone else. There's no reason for them to come in my house...nothing is gained by me having them come inside. While I commit no crimes I am aware of, allowing any law enforcement entity inside my home simply provides information about myself. The right not to self-incriminate (5th amendment) is a constitutional right that should be exercised just as strongly as the second amendment. Obviously, I let friends who work in LE in my home, that's not the same as LE interacting with me on "official business".

If they asked me questions about myself, I would simply say, "No, thank you." And I would leave. They can choose to hold me for 24 hrs or charge me. Regardless, even if I was charged with some outrageous crime, and I had an obvious alibi, I would still wait for my attorney to interact with police. There is absolutely zero benefit to speaking with law enforcement when you are being accused or are being asked of your involvement in a crime.

Remember the Miranda Rights that you must be told if you are charged with something: Anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you. There is zero guarantee that anything you say will ever be used to help yourself.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc



In July, 2013, the SCOTUS ruled your SILENCE, as well as what you say, can be used against you in Salinas v. Texas. In plain English, you MUST declare - verbally state - your wish to remain silent. You CANNOT just stay silent (keep your mouth shut).

[Josh Runkle]

In July, 2013, the SCOTUS ruled your SILENCE, as well as what you say, can be used against you in Salinas v. Texas. In plain English, you MUST declare - verbally state - your wish to remain silent. You CANNOT just stay silent (keep your mouth shut).

Being that my sister is deaf and her husband is deaf and mute, I fear the world that he lives in. Sounds (pun intended) like he's fucked.

[TGS]

Being that my sister is deaf and her husband is deaf and mute, I fear the world that he lives in. Sounds (pun intended) like he's fucked.

Oh, come on dude.

Think that one over for a second. Please.

[HCM]

Being that my sister is deaf and her husband is deaf and mute, I fear the world that he lives in. Sounds (pun intended) like he's fucked.

No they wound use an ASL (American Sign Language ) translator just like someone who spoke a foreign language.

One of my former partners was fluent in ASL. He learned to sign because oldest son is deaf. It actually came in handy. We had a witness in a gang case who was a deaf mute and I beleive my partners ability to sign aided in gaining the witnesses cooperation.

[Josh Runkle]

Oh, come on dude.

Think that one over for a second. Please.

I was being pseudo-sarcastic.

The point is: there's always a reason to do or not do something, and the Supreme Court muddling their way in to the circumstances for when one does or does not have a right is something that should be left to individual cases and individual circumstances.

The very generalized statements within the bill of rights give excellent guidelines, being that they specifically give very little information, and we are on a day by day approach of continual encroachment upon those rights by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government and the agencies that serve them. Until we reverse course and head back to an area where we have severely reduced the government's power (through legal means...I'm not advocating anything else), then the government will continue to become more of a problem than the people they presume to defend us against.

The chances that the government prevents my death or severe harm by a terrorist or gangbanger are far lower than the chances that my gun ownership and strong opinions on the constitution get me branded a "right wing extremist" that somehow "presents a threat".

There are certainly some very good people that are well intentioned in the government, but the system itself, rather than the people who work for it, is the problem. When your country has 16 intelligence agencies instead of like one or two, eventually, there aren't enough enemies to look at, and new enemies must be found.

[TGS]

When your country has 16 intelligence agencies instead of like one or two, eventually, there aren't enough enemies to look at, and new enemies must be found.

IMO, you're looking at it wrong.

Be glad we have 16 members of the IC, each with very limited and narrow purveiws/missions, compared to 1 all-powerful, omniscient authority.

The former is chaotic and inefficient, but serves the purpose of the US Constitution. The latter is what we call despotic and uncontrollable.

[Josh Runkle]

IMO, you're looking at it wrong.

Be glad we have 16 members of the IC, each with very limited and narrow purveiws/missions, compared to 1 all-powerful, omniscient authority.

The former is chaotic and inefficient, but serves the purpose of the US Constitution. The latter is what we call despotic and uncontrollable.

Good point.

[SLG]

I urged the employee to contact his Senators and Representatives - I do not think he did. Getting contacted by Federal agents was very unnerving for him (would be for most of us - me included but I would have contacted my Senators and Reps and documented the apparent flagrant issue of "weapons registration"). He had to go meet face to face with Federal agents (I had a hard time getting a specific Federal agency out of him - again, he was rattled) for an interview reference his multiple firearms and the foreign countries he visited (he has a technical background and visited countries for work that are on the watch lists - he is an older white male American citizen by birth). The agents had a very accurate and detailed list of his firearms. He said the agents were pretty rude when he went back later to pick up his approved Passport.

I know that some here on the forum find this story unbelievable or such but this gentlemen works with me daily, has no reason to make up such a story, and was very rattled by the whole event. I suspect that he got flagged due to the foreign locations he visited - that part I understand, I was dismayed by the accurate list of personal firearms produced.

Like others, I don't doubt that is what you were told. However, since I've worked for both agencies that would seem to have purview over this matter, I would have to say that the story is clearly not complete. Not only is this not possible (as described), but I've never seen or heard of anything even remotely like it.

[Dagga Boy]

I am a bit leery of the story as well. With that said, when I had my issue with ATF, I was astounded at what they had...which was everything, including California State records and stuff from well after they were supposed to keep it on the border state stuff. Of course that was ATF. I do not know how much they are sharing, especially with stuff that are not supposed to be retaining.

My issue with all this is quite simple. If they are here on a visa and on a watch list, they need to be removed from the country. If they are citizens and there is an issue, I want to see a courtroom of some sort with a judge issuing an order and some sort of due process. After seeing a weaponized IRS and other agencies, my trust in who is going on lists that are denied rights based only on being placed on some list with no way to get off it, or address the issue in front of a judge.....I am not good with that at all.

[HCM]

I am a bit leery of the story as well. With that said, when I had my issue with ATF, I was astounded at what they had...which was everything, including California State records and stuff from well after they were supposed to keep it on the border state stuff. Of course that was ATF. I do not know how much they are sharing, especially with stuff that are not supposed to be retaining.

My issue with all this is quite simple. If they are here on a visa and on a watch list, they need to be removed from the country. If they are citizens and there is an issue, I want to see a courtroom of some sort with a judge issuing an order and some sort of due process. After seeing a weaponized IRS and other agencies, my trust in who is going on lists that are denied rights based only on being placed on some list with no way to get off it, or address the issue in front of a judge.....I am not good with that at all.

I agree 100% re: using watch lists or the "no fly" list to deny U.S. Citizens rights. The accuracy and standards for inclusion are too inconsistent.

[Jeep]

If they are citizens and there is an issue, I want to see a courtroom of some sort with a judge issuing an order and some sort of due process.

James Madison agreed with you: "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law . . . ." Two hundred and twenty four years later a lot of his successors apparently think that those words mean nothing so long as the cause is important enough or the right in question is disfavored enough in the salons of Georgetown or the among the gentry of the Upper West Side.