The ATF Strike Again

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/259046731.html

Authorities partially closed a downtown Minneapolis freeway briefly Tuesday morning as they executed a “high risk” traffic stop to detain a motorist who allegedly brandished a gun at another driver.

Turns out the driver who displayed the handgun was an agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, a State Patrol report said.

The incident began about 6:40 a.m. on eastbound I-694 in Brooklyn Park, where a motorist called police to report that another driver was displaying a gun.

The motorist followed the gun-toting driver east to I-94, and then south on I-94 into Minneapolis.

Police caught up to that driver on I-94 at Olson Hwy. and blocked two of the southbound lanes for a short time while making an arrest. That was enough to cause traffic to jam up back to West Broadway.

The State Patrol took the man with the gun into custody. He was questioned and released after officers learned he was an ATF agent who was carrying proper credentials.

His name was not released per Minnesota State Statue 13.82, which states that data would reveal the identity of an undercover law enforcement officer can be kept private.

The incident is under investigation.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Wait... so he was an "undercover" ATF agent, flingin' his gat around, and expects nothing bad to happen??

Well, obviously whoever he is undercover with, his cover is blown, since he was probably at least a few hours late to work.

**dementedwombat**

Makes me wonder about the specifics of the phrase "displaying a gun". I know there have been several times I have been driving to the shooting range and start loading spare magazines at stoplights. Might have to reconsider that particular habit.

**LordofHats**

Oh ATF. You are so adorable. If only you weren't supposed to be a law enforcement agency I'd enjoy your shenanigans as being worthy of a Hollywood B comedy staring Will Farrel or Jack Black.

Makes me wonder about the specifics of the phrase "displaying a gun". I know there have been several times I have been driving to the shooting range and start loading spare magazines at stoplights. Might have to reconsider that particular habit.

Probably a wise idea. Unless your an ATF agent, something might happen to you

**daedalus**

dementedwombat wrote:
Makes me wonder about the specifics of the phrase "displaying a gun". I know there have been several times I have been driving to the shooting range and start loading spare magazines at stoplights. Might have to reconsider that particular habit.

Unless you're in Texas, that seems like a premature time to do such a thing.

From what I understand of Texas, it would be suspicious to not be doing that at an intersection, even simply as a matter of good sense and patriotism.

**Ouze**

The average ATF agent couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the sole. Unfortunately, that's just the way our political system wants them, so it's not going to change anytime soon.

dementedwombat wrote:
Makes me wonder about the specifics of the phrase "displaying a gun". I know there have been several times I have been driving to the shooting range and start loading spare magazines at stoplights. Might have to reconsider that particular habit.

I'm not sure how it is in your state, but it's unlawful in mine to have a loaded firearm within hands reach in your vehicle unless you have a CCW. My 30 seconds of googling seem to show that's not the case in Idaho but you might want to look into it.

Regardless of jurisdiction, if you were seen doing that by a police officer under his arrest quota, you could technically be charged with brandishing. I would not recommend that habit unless you move to Texas, as Daedalus says.

**LordofHats**

Please. Sometimes I question if they even know which end of the gun shoots;

**dementedwombat**

Note that by "loading spare magazines" I meant taking an empty magazine and filling them with bullets. That might be a slightly safer thing to do.

I'm not a completely irresponsible gun owner. Honest. I'm at least 75% responsible most of the time (getting yelled at by a gunnery sergeant because your safety wasn't engaged even though there was no magazine in the weapon tends to impress on one the finer points of firearm handling) .

**Ouze**

Yeah, my above posts were presuming that the gun was also in the immediate vicinity. If it's in the trunk or in a case or you have a CCW I think you're fine.

**Seaward**

He did not shoot himself or innocent bystanders. This is an ATF success story.

**Dreadclaw69**

LordofHats wrote:
Please. Sometimes I question if they even know which end of the gun shoots;

At least that picture could have consequences. Holder is still in contempt, and still hasn't disclosed all documents as requested. Now imagine a citizen pulling that stunt.

Ouze wrote:
I'm not sure how it is in your state, but it's unlawful in mine to have a loaded firearm within hands reach in your vehicle unless you have a CCW. My 30 seconds of googling seem to show that's not the case in Idaho but you might want to look into it.

Regardless of jurisdiction, if you were seen doing that by a police officer under his arrest quota, you could technically be charged with brandishing. I would not recommend that habit unless you move to Texas, as Daedalus says.

Yeah, I would really check into the law on this. The definition of 'firearm' can vary from State to State, with the possibility that magazines and/or suppressors being defined as firearms.

Seaward wrote:
He did not shoot himself or innocent bystanders. This is an ATF success story.

Maybe he was just looking for the Cartel member who forgot part of the shipment. "Hey! Did you leave this behind? Why are you screaming?? Oh

"

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Oh ATF. You are so adorable. If only you weren't supposed to be a law enforcement agency I'd enjoy your shenanigans as being worthy of a Hollywood B comedy staring Will Farrel or Jack Black.

Makes me wonder about the specifics of the phrase "displaying a gun". I know there have been several times I have been driving to the shooting range and start loading spare magazines at stoplights. Might have to reconsider that particular habit.

Probably a wise idea. Unless your an ATF agent, something might happen to you

At least they didn't shoot anyone, this time.

**LordofHats**

I don't know. He's an undercover agent. He might have iced someone last week

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, my above posts were presuming that the gun was also in the immediate vicinity. If it's in the trunk or in a case or you have a CCW I think you're fine.

At the least a cop could argue that loading a magazine could be reasonable cause to assume that you had a gun within reach and pull you over. You might not get a ticket, but it would still be a hassle (and depending on how bad his day was or of he is a 'nobody should have guns' cop) he might just find something to write you up for

**Co'tor Shas**

Anyone know what he was actually doing?

**Frazzled**

Do we realy want to know? Remember what is seen cannot be unseen....

**NuggzTheNinja**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Anyone know what he was actually doing?

Probably going for this, trying to win an inter-agency competition:

**kronk**

dementedwombat wrote:
Makes me wonder about the specifics of the phrase "displaying a gun". I know there have been several times I have been driving to the shooting range and start loading spare magazines at stoplights. Might have to reconsider that particular habit.

Someone might call you out on brandishing. Just keep it put away until you get to the range.

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
dementedwombat wrote:
Makes me wonder about the specifics of the phrase "displaying a gun". I know there have been several times I have been driving to the shooting range and start loading spare magazines at stoplights. Might have to reconsider that particular habit.

Someone might call you out on brandishing. Just keep it put away until you get to the range.

Or terroristic threat. It depends. Where you staring at the person next to you and laughing manically while doing so? If not, why not?

**d-usa**

One thing to keep in mind when dealing with the police:

It doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal; it matters how big of an donkey-cave the cop wants to be today.

**Frazzled**

Finally we agree on something.

**Jihadin**

Someone might call you out on brandishing. Just keep it put away until you get to the range.

Or the other brandish and we have a shoot out, Can escalate to "Heat" mode going up the street

**kronk**

Jihadin wrote:
Someone might call you out on brandishing. Just keep it put away until you get to the range.

Or the other brandish and we have a shoot out, Can escalate to "Heat" mode going up the street

Well, yeah. That's one way to live your life!

**Nostromodamus**

Cool, another case for the file to show to idiots who claim only the police and government are responsible enough to have firearms.

**Krellnus**

Ouze wrote:
Regardless of jurisdiction, if you were seen doing that by a police officer under his arrest quota, you could technically be charged with brandishing. I would not recommend that habit unless you move to Texas, as Daedalus says.

Wait a second, your police have arrest quotas? What the actual frell? That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

**LordofHats**

Krellnus wrote:

Wait a second, your police have arrest quotas? What the actual frell? That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Officially no. Unofficially, several jurisdictions have policies that 'encourage' the police to act like they do. It works out exactly how you'd expect.

**Grey Templar**

Its a side effect of budgets allocating funds based on police activity.

The more tickets or arrests that get made, the more funds they get allocated.

Couple that with the general rule that a cop, for example, pull you over unless its worth his time. You may be technically speeding by going 5 miles over the limit, but normally its not worth pulling you over for that. But if they could use a few more tickets handed out, he'll do it to meet expectations.

**dementedwombat**

Indeed. My father has much experience with California highway patrol members. One time he got pulled over for having insufficiently visible taillights because he just pulled onto the highway from a dirt road (it was a long time ago) and his lights were covered in dust. Another time he got pulled over because apparently you are only allowed to change lanes once per 10 miles "for safety reasons". I'm almost certain he took that one to court.

**LordofHats**

Another time he got pulled over because apparently you are only allowed to change lanes once per 10 miles "for safety reasons". I'm almost certain he took that one to court.

If that's a law, I can only imagine it was put on the books to give cops a reason to pull people over XD

**dementedwombat**

Makes me wonder what happens when you pull onto the highway and the two right side lanes both either end or turn into exit ramps within 5 miles.