A DHS question

[drillsgt]

I think it's fair to assume that those who possess firearms are more likely to shoot someone than someone who does not possess a firearm.
Just like folks who go to the bank wearing a scream mask are probably more likely to rob it than not.

The bulletin is not very informative

I guess it depends on how you define "possess". If you kill your mother to gain access to her firearms to then commit the murders at Newtown, you didn't really possess them as I would define it. At the time of the murder you did indeed have them in hand but you acquired them through murder/theft. The anti-gunners in public health have been pushing this association since it became popular to get gun research published. The old a gun in the home is 43 more times likely to result in injury and death etc. Statistically discredited but still thrown around often.

 

[printcraft]

If you're an LEO and this "bulletin" came in you should probably be a little humiliated that those on high think you're an idiot and need to be told this.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^
The feds putting this stuff out are the same bunch that won't look twice at mid eastern males at the airport
but assume anyone with a Gadsen flag sticker on their truck should be immediately detained and searched
and that returning American military vets are all potential terrorists in waiting.

While the bulletin never clarifies what constitutes a “large” or “unusual” quantity of weapons or ammunition, it does say that such a quantity would “arouse suspicion in a reasonable person.”

There is that "common sense" "reasonable" gun law crap.

Large quantity of ammunition should raise suspicions???
Soon they will put out a bulletin (if not already done) that someone with
"large quantites of canned goods" could possible be a domestic terrorist.

 

[Destro]

People with access to cars are more likely to do a drive by. We should report people with cars.

it says nothing about "reporting" anybody. If law enforcement is looking for those involved in a drive by, those with cars/access to cars are more likely to do it than those that do not.

 

[rugertoter]

Anyone know anything about this ?
Spoof or one of those things we find out in a year was true ???
Took a look and found no Dupes so if it is, Ooopps

Feds Say Possession of ?Large Amounts? of Weapons May Indicate Terrorist Activity | Public Intelligence

They have been thinking that for years.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is a general bulletin. It's no different than thebulletins that say to look out for people who buy a truckload of fertilizer,yet live in an apartment in New York. Sure, he might have a legit reason, butit would be more suspicious than someone who didn't have a truckload of it.

How about a homeless person buying 50 packs of lithiumbatteries? Guy owns nothing that runs on batteries but what does he need themfor.

The bulletin is not saying that everyone who owns 1000firearms is a threat, it's saying that, along with other potential indicators,possession of large amounts of firearms could be a sign of something else.

Example; the police raid human traffickers home and find 100 WASR 10's and 50,000 rounds,that should raise flags for anybody who knows anything about guns. Sure he has a RIGHT to own 100 WASR’s, but lawenforcement would not be doing their job if they were not suspicious of them.

Some old rocket scientist's collection Winchester 1873’srifles is not what they are talking about.

That last sentence sums up nicely what I believe to be your understanding of the issue. It is true that finding weapons sufficient to arm a company of troops in the process of arresting people for another serious crime should raise questions. The two problems are that 1., this standard will likely be applied to anyone found to be in possession of what the officer(s) on the scene believe to be an excessive number of guns or rounds of ammunition (perhaps any number expressed with a positive integer), and 2., that while I can agree with the notion that a truly large number of weapons/ammunition in combination with other established criminal activity merits suspicion, the likelihood is that we will see this consideration supposedly reserved for rare instances go down the same path as no-knock raids which are now in vogue for anything more serious than an overdue library fine and the other criminal activity being the type of bogus fabrication we see with the omniscient nose of officer chompy being used to nullify the Fourth Amendment. In principle I would agree with you, but I cannot bring myself to honestly consider the possibility that in practice it would work that way.

 

[Destro]

That last sentence sums up nicely what I believe to be your understanding of the issue. It is true that finding weapons sufficient to arm a company of troops in the process of arresting people for another serious crime should raise questions. The two problems are that 1., this standard will likely be applied to anyone found to be in possession of what the officer(s) on the scene believe to be an excessive number of guns or rounds of ammunition (perhaps any number expressed with a positive integer), and 2., that while I can agree with the notion that a truly large number of weapons/ammunition in combination with other established criminal activity merits suspicion, the likelihood is that we will see this consideration supposedly reserved for rare instances go down the same path as no-knock raids which are now in vogue for anything more serious than an overdue library fine and the other criminal activity being the type of bogus fabrication we see with the omniscient nose of officer chompy being used to nullify the Fourth Amendment. In principle I would agree with you, but I cannot bring myself to honestly consider the possibility that in practice it would work that way.

we found an inch of common ground, awesome!

 

[IndyDave1776]

we found an inch of common ground, awesome!

Indeed so! My guess is that we also suffer from the tendency to dig into a position and in the course of debate move farther from center than one actually is such that had we discussed a number of things over lunch rather than over the internet we are likely not as far apart as we often end up on the screen.

 

[CarmelHP]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^
The feds putting this stuff out are the same bunch that won't look twice at mid eastern males at the airport
but assume anyone with a Gadsen flag sticker on their truck should be immediately detained and searched
and that returning American military vets are all potential terrorists in waiting.

Which tells you what the real purpose is, suppressing dissent, not catching or stopping terrorists.

 

[Destro]

Indeed so! My guess is that we also suffer from the tendency to dig into a position and in the course of debate move farther from center than one actually is such that had we discussed a number of things over lunch rather than over the internet we are likely not as far apart as we often end up on the screen.

the WWW doesn't always convey what the spoken word can

 

[FadedCalicoJack]

Yes, I received a letter from the ATFE after a purchase of 3,000 rounds of 5.56mm (was split between myself and two fellow soldiers). I then contacted our local field office (I was stationed in KY at the time), and spoke with a Special Agent. Seemed as though they are concerned of citizens building an arsenal. We spoke for a bit, he was cordial, polite, and professional. Explained everything and nothing further came of it. If you're not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[printcraft]

Yes, I received a letter from the ATFE after a purchase of 3,000 rounds of 5.56mm (was split between myself and two fellow soldiers). I then contacted our local field office (I was stationed in KY at the time), and spoke with a Special Agent. Seemed as though they are concerned of citizens building an arsenal. We spoke for a bit, he was cordial, polite, and professional. Explained everything and nothing further came of it. If you're not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Caleb]

If acquiring large amounts of ammunition is a sign of "terrorist activity", then the DHS is the biggest fish in that pond.

shark, actually...

 

[FadedCalicoJack]

shark, actually...

Agreed.

 

[aaron580]

Yes, I received a letter from the ATFE after a purchase of 3,000 rounds of 5.56mm (was split between myself and two fellow soldiers). I then contacted our local field office (I was stationed in KY at the time), and spoke with a Special Agent. Seemed as though they are concerned of citizens building an arsenal. We spoke for a bit, he was cordial, polite, and professional. Explained everything and nothing further came of it. If you're not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about.

That seems a little far fetched to me. Ive ordered that much a couple of times just for myself and never received a letter...

 

[futureofwar]

Wouldn't that make almost every government agency possible terrorists, since even Social Security has a lare number of guns??

Anyone know anything about this ?
Spoof or one of those things we find out in a year was true ???
Took a look and found no Dupes so if it is, Ooopps

Feds Say Possession of ?Large Amounts? of Weapons May Indicate Terrorist Activity | Public Intelligence