View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)  
Old January 7th, 2008
sgt7546's Avatar
sgt7546 sgt7546 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location:
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(Allegheny County)
Posts: 391
Rep Power: 13
sgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud ofsgt7546 has much to be proud of
Default Re: OC in Philly/ and ATF hasseling me

Quote:
Originally Posted by awdv6turbo View Post
I have a ? I am not sure but is just owning the same type of firearm that is used in a crime enough for them to even get a warrant? Wouldn't they need a little more then that. I know at this point it doesn't matter because he already allowed them access to the firearm but I am just curious. Also not saying I would or wouldn't be a hard ass and ask for a warrant I am really just thinking ( typing ) out loud here is all. Just seems a little to broad to check all the registered firearms in the area that are the same with out more info to go on? But I also never claimed to be too smart either so???????????
awdv6turbo,

You are absolutely right that owning the same caliber of handgun would not be enough to get a warrant, in fact without articulable probable cause, no warrant would be issued. (IMO) base on cases I've been involved with, the ATF was working with more specific information past just the caliber, which that information they were not going to reveal. They obviously didn't consider this man as a suspect, because if they suspected him of murdering a Police Officer, the response would of been more than just six agents waiting outside. In this case it appears that ATF were checking with owners of this particular type of handgun, to verify that the lawful owner was still in possession of said gun, IE: not stolen, as we all know, some people have reservations about reporting a handgun as stolen.
(just my two cents, I had no involvement in this case)
__________________
No signature required.

Last edited by sgt7546; January 7th, 2008 at 02:53 AM. Reason: grammar....as usual
Reply With Quote