ATF with their over reach told to pound sand.

[justletmein]

Why is it clearly unconstitutional to ask a question?

Why would an officer on the side of the highway talking to a possible intoxicated driver be any different? Do you have less constitutional rights on the highway?

A better analogy would be an officer going to a liquor store and getting a list of their receipts, then going to people's houses who showed up as purchasing a bottle and waiting for them to pull up in their vehicle and questioning if they're intoxicated. Do you think that's OK?

[tvc184]

A better analogy would be an officer going to a liquor store and getting a list of their receipts, then going to people's houses who showed up as purchasing a bottle and waiting for them to pull up in their vehicle and questioning if they're intoxicated. Do you think that's OK?

No because the possession of alcohol is not a crime and there is no reasonable suspicion of the person being intoxicated.

[hpdrifter]

No because the possession of alcohol is not a crime and there is no reasonable suspicion of the person being intoxicated.

all they'd have to do is watch. if there was oooonnnne little mistep,..."sir".

[justletmein]

No because the possession of alcohol is not a crime and there is no reasonable suspicion of the person being intoxicated.

Yes, because the ATF has randomly decided that the bottle of Jack your receipt showed you buying had too short of a neck and now it's illegal.

[tvc184]

all they'd have to do is watch. if there was oooonnnne little mistep,..."sir".

And what, he then walks up and asks if you have been drinking and you say no.

[justletmein]

Yes, because the ATF has randomly decided that the bottle of Jack your receipt showed you buying had too short of a neck and now it's illegal.

...or in this case it came with a rapid fire shot glass they've now decided is illegal all on their own.

[tvc184]

Yes, because the ATF has randomly decided that the bottle of Jack your receipt showed you buying had too short of a neck and now it's illegal.

While your analogy of interpreting the law is interesting, there still has to be such a law. There isn’t for short neck bottles of whiskey but there is for a machine gun.

I am assuming that’s what your analogy was in reference to.

[hpdrifter]

And what, he then walks up and asks if you have been drinking and you say no.

then the do a sobriety test. Public intoxication.

[100%TtId]

If you want to know the actual lawful answer….

It is because in the Supreme Court Miranda decision and subsequent decisions, depends on the person being in custody. Otherwise it is a conversation with your consent. Anybody can walk up to anybody else and have a conversation. If you don’t want to take part in that conversation, don’t.

Yes, I do want the actual lawful answer, that why I asked.

I have the right to remain silent, of course, but I’m prohibited from lying to a federal agent prior to or after custody. The agent, who’s not bound by the same requirement and can lie to me about anything, including implying that I should answer his questions that may incriminate me.

If I can be punished for lying to a government agent, then the government agent should not be able to lie to me.

I’m protected by the constitution and the ATF is bound by it.

[tvc184]

Yes, I do want the actual lawful answer, that why I asked.

I have the right to remain silent, of course, but I’m prohibited from lying to a federal agent prior to or after custody. The agent, who’s not bound by the same requirement and can lie to me about anything, including implying that I should answer his questions that may incriminate me.

If I can be punished for lying to a government agent, then the government agent should not be able to lie to me.

I’m protected by the constitution and the ATF is bound by it.

That is a valid argument. SCOTUS has already addressed it in Frazier v. Cupp. They can certainly address it at a later date. It was an 8-0 decision in favor of the police however.

Frazier was picked up for murder and told that he and his cousin were suspects. It was prior to Miranda, so he was not specifically given those rights but Frazier was told that if he made any statement it could be used against him.

The police told Frazier that his cousin had already been picked up and admitted involvement in the murder. After that, Frazier confessed and signed the confession.

SCOTUS ruled that saying the cousin had confessed did not coerce the confession. The cousin did later confess.

The police can’t lie about your rights, they can’t coerce you into a confession and they can’t make deals. They can likely say things like they were recovered in DNA evidence from the scene when they didn’t.

While someone might not like a SCOTUS decision, that decision unless overturned by them later, is the law.

Obviously the ATF is bound by the Constitution. There’s a couple of cases that might be heard in the next SCOTUS session or two questioning their authority and also a government passing a ban on semi-automatic weapons and magazine capacity bans.

[M16]

Shouldn’t the government have to pay you for something that was legal that they later decided was illegal? Isn’t there a just takings clause in the constitution? What if you buy a vehicle that is perfectly legal. The government decides that the vehicle puts out too much pollution at a later date. Then sends jackboots to your house and tells you give them the keys or they will jail you if caught driving it?

[Duckologist]

No because the possession of alcohol is not a crime and there is no reasonable suspicion of the person being intoxicated.

The possession of those triggers is not a crime. There is no law that says it is. ATF cannot just wake up one day and declare you are a criminal because they said so.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

Shouldn’t the government have to pay you for something that was legal that they later decided was illegal? Isn’t there a just takings clause in the constitution? What if you buy a vehicle that is perfectly legal. The government decides that the vehicle puts out too much pollution at a later date. Then sends jackboots to your house and tells you give them the keys or they will jail you if caught driving it?

Under the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment, probably not. That is the eminent domain clause that says the government can’t take property for public use without compensation.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

First, they are not forcibly taking it and secondly, it isn’t for public use. They are requiring you to registry it. You have the option to get rid of it so as to avoid registration but that’s a different issue in my opinion.

More than likely any such of a grievance would be under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process clause.

They are not likely going to concede the point however. I’m sure they would deny it, forcing a lawsuit. It would have to be a class action lawsuit because who wants to spend thousands of dollars to force the government to pay you $50 for a brace.

You ask a great question but I don’t think you’ll be able to use the Fifth Amendment taking clause. The Fourteenth Amendment however…..

[tvc184]

The possession of those triggers is not a crime. There is no law that says it is. ATF cannot just wake up one day and declare you are a criminal because they said so.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

That argument is not valid. I am not siding with ATF but there is a law. The ATF interpretation might not be valid but there is most definitely a law.

It is the United States Code definition of a machine gun.

[hpdrifter]

Under the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment, probably not. That is the eminent domain clause that says the government can’t take property for public use without compensation.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

First, they are not forcibly taking it and secondly, it isn’t for public use. They are requiring you to registry it. You have the option to get rid of it so as to avoid registration but that’s a different issue in my opinion.

More than likely any such of a grievance would be under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process clause.

They are not likely going to concede the point however. I’m sure they would deny it, forcing a lawsuit. It would have to be a class action lawsuit because who wants to spend thousands of dollars to force the government to pay you $50 for a brace.

You ask a great question but I don’t think you’ll be able to use the Fifth Amendment taking clause. The Fourteenth Amendment however…..

who is going to buy it?.....if it's illegal. you wanna sell to criminals?