OC in Philly/ and ATF hasseling me

[DaveM55]

Originally Posted by sgt7546

thats the beauty of these forms, we can agree to disagree.

No we can't. LOL

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by wewo

Um, if the gun is in the home (presumably it was since it was in a box), or on his person, or even in his trunk he is protected by the Fourth Amendment. By that I mean they do not even get to see it (i.e. seize it temporarily). I dont blame the O.P. for voluntarily complying, but he certainly could have refused and there was nothing the ATF could legally do (Stress on the word legally).

Footnote 52] The prime example is the home, so that for entries either to search or to arrest, ''the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.'' Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 212 (1981). And see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).

Like I said I'm sure the court would hold the Exigent circumstances existed and that would be the shooting of a police officer in an area where the OP owned a 9MM which was the murder weapon and could have been stolen from his home without his knowledge. And the quotes I posted were from case law handed down by the Supreme Court