• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Has anyone ever had tape concealing serial # removed by a cop?

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

If an officer has RAS that the gun is stolen, by all means, pull back the tape. It not, he must leave it there--or he is violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the the gun-owner.

If the law uses words like eradicate, deface, remove, or the like, tape away (IANAL). If the law restricts covering the SN, I am in trouble anyway, because my SN is on the slide, and the holster covers it. Dang.

Actually, once a LEO removes my weapon for his "safety," he should leave it in the holster, where he cannot read the SN. That is THE safest way to handle it.

During my stop, the officer removed the handgun from the holster, removed the magazine, and emptied the chamber. He then left the room, where he, no doubt, ran the numbers UNLAWFULLY.

I am still awaiting the results of my FOIA request. The communications department and the PD are dragging their heels. I have told them that I do not intend to sue, but they are predictably hesitant to turn over the proof that they broke the law.

I will get it eventually, and they will always know that I have it. That ought to help prevent future violations of my rights.

I think I should get a new gun whose numbers aren't in a database somewhere. Anyone want a Dan Wesson Pointman 2, lovingly used?
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:
I have a dirty little secret......

Whenever I get a new mattress, I tear off the tags.......:uhoh:

Do this mean I gits a whippin?? :celebrate

(oops, I mean :what:)
Unless you area dealer selling mattresses then you don't have anything to worry about. This entire BS deal about the matress tags was so blown out of proportion that they had to change the entire wording on them so that people that didn't bother to read the tag or law would maybe understand it. It has never been illegal for the end purchaser to remove the tags so you can get up and quit worrying about your whippin. :cuss:
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

PT111 wrote:
Alexcabbie wrote:
I have a dirty little secret......

Whenever I get a new mattress, I tear off the tags.......:uhoh:

Do this mean I gits a whippin?? :celebrate

(oops, I mean :what:)
Unless you area dealer selling mattresses then you don't have anything to worry about. This entire BS deal about the matress tags was so blown out of proportion that they had to change the entire wording on them so that people that didn't bother to read the tag or law would maybe understand it. It has never been illegal for the end purchaser to remove the tags so you can get up and quit worrying about your whippin. :cuss:

The comment was so obviously a jape at the tempest in a tea-pot this thread has become.

I'm not about to tape over or otherwise obscure the serial number on my weapon, my bike, my computer or anything else. As far as unconstitutional databases go, the best solution is to tape an "I VOTED" sticker to your jacket. These can be gotten right after you VOTE.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
SNIP If an officer has RAS that the gun is stolen, by all means, pull back the tape. It not, he must leave it there--or he is violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the the gun-owner.

Well,I think that is the point. The tape itself may provide RAS, in the cop's view, and possibly the courts', that there is something illegal going on. Stolen gun, altered or deleted serial number, etc. Essentially, "What is this fellow hiding? A stolen gun? An altered serial number? He's hiding something with this tape."

Druggies use masking fragances in their car. I have seen the presence of a heavy masking fragrance in more than one 4A appellate court opinion.* It is no stretch at all to suppose that tape is masking an altered serial number. I don't think thecop's first thought will be, "Oh, this is a fellow taping hisserial number solely to exercise his 4th Amendment rights." It is not like there are tons of gun owners outthere doing it to the point that it is a commonoccurrence.

Given the legal landscape, I strongly suspect any cop who pulled off the tape would find a friend in the court onhis RAS claim. And this assumes it evengoes that far. With very few exceptions,OCers don't arrested. And, ifone does, an unaltered serial number is not going to come up in a suppression hearing, mainlybecause it was evidence of nothing--the serial number wasn't altered.

I can't recall any cases where the serial number led back to an honestly purchased but previously stolen gun. Or, if there was such, I kinda doubt there has been enough where a court is going to recognize itas a real ongoing threat that has to be minimized. I don't think there will be a lot of support in the courts for covering a serial number to avoid being mistaken as a gun thief.

NOTE: None of the foregoing appliesto states, if any, where covering the serial number is illegal. That would be its own offense, independent of actually altering or erasing the serial number.


*Never seen the fragance be the only thing, mind you. Always in the presence of other factors that gave suspicion of drugs in the car, factors like nervousness, answers that didn't add up,and so forth.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

I suppose I could (should) summarize my position thus:

It has been widely reported that it is a common practice to (often speciously) claim 'officer safety' in order to pull an end run around the 4th's protections against unwarranted seizures of property. Once in the officers possession, a second end-run maneuver is pulled when the officer exercises a 'plain view' doctrine to 'search' the serial number.

All of this is done either because the officer is just too lazy to do things right (get a warrant if he does indeed have RAS/PC), or he KNOWS he can't get a warrant because he has no RAS/PC, and he just doesn't care about our rights or obeying the law (read: operation within the restrictions placed upon his limited authority by the Constitution) and he's going to do what he wants to get the bad guys...the end justifies the means.

Placing a strip of tape over the S/N blocks the attempted end-run around the protections of the 4th by forcing them to take the affirmative steps of either actively removing the tape (illegally) absent RAS/PC, or going through the hassle of getting a proper warrant to do so legally by proving (or at least making a good case for) RAS/PC to a judge.

Using the presence of the tape as RAS/PC is a circular argument, because the tape would never have come into play had the firearm remained in the safest place possible...in the holster. It's like the case going on in Connecticut right now where an OC'er was arrested at a pool hall for Disorderly Conduct, when in fact it was another patron who was doing all the yelling about the gun. Though the charges were dropped, the initial line of logic on the police's part was that HE was the one who was Disorderly because 'THE GUN' (booga-booga) attracted the attention/raised the ire of the other patron..."had you not worn the gun, this never would have happened.":banghead: That's a BS line of reasoning and they know it.:cuss:

Claiming 'plain view' to run a S/N is just as specious when it is the direct actions of the officer (removing the sidearm from it's holster) that BROUGHT it into the alleged 'plain view'. Ergo, the tape. It's a defense against judically sanctioned end-runs around 4th amendment protections.
 

Ole Man Dan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
35
Location
, ,
imported post

eye95: Keep in mind that most of our weapon purchases are already in the ATF Database.

A number of years ago,in the mid-80s, I was contacted by ATF tracking a 9mm that I bought at one gun shop and later sold at another gun shop.
(My name came up as the original purchaser, and not until I
told them where I sold it did they locate that transaction.)
ATF knew that I had purchased a lot of weapons so they checked to see if I was doing 'Straw Man' purchases.
(Those nifty sheets we fill out when we purchase a firearm all go to ATF)
The investigation came a half dozen years later.
It seems that somewhere along the way the 9mm took up a life of crime and was recovered from a robbery suspect.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
imported post

Agreed. If the presence of the tape is enough for them to want to run the serial number, then they should go through the proper channels and get a warrant or detain the OCer pending investigation. Woe be to the cop who pisses off the wrong judge or detains the wrong OCer.

Curiosity killed the cat, after all.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Phssthpok wrote:
I suppose I could (should) summarize my position thus:

It has been widely reported that it is a common practice to (often speciously) claim 'officer safety' in order to pull an end run around the 4th's protections against unwarranted seizures of property. Once in the officers possession, a second end-run maneuver is pulled when the officer exercises a 'plain view' doctrine to 'search' the serial number.

All of this is done either because the officer is just too lazy to do things right (get a warrant if he does indeed have RAS/PC), or he KNOWS he can't get a warrant because he has no RAS/PC, and he just doesn't care about our rights or obeying the law (read: operation within the restrictions placed upon his limited authority by the Constitution) and he's going to do what he wants to get the bad guys...the end justifies the means.

Placing a strip of tape over the S/N blocks the attempted end-run around the protections of the 4th by forcing them to take the affirmative steps of either actively removing the tape (illegally) absent RAS/PC, or going through the hassle of getting a proper warrant to do so legally by proving (or at least making a good case for) RAS/PC to a judge.

Using the presence of the tape as RAS/PC is a circular argument, because the tape would never have come into play had the firearm remained in the safest place possible...in the holster. It's like the case going on in Michigan right now where an OC'er was arrested at a pool hall for Disorderly Conduct, when in fact it was another patron who was doing all the yelling about the gun. Though the charges were dropped, the initial line of logic on the police's part was that HE was the one who was Disorderly because 'THE GUN' (booga-booga) attracted the attention/raised the ire of the other patron..."had you not worn the gun, this never would have happened.":banghead: That's a BS line of reasoning and they know it.:cuss:

Claiming 'plain view' to run a S/N is just as specious when it is the direct actions of the officer (removing the sidearm from it's holster) that BROUGHT it into the alleged 'plain view'. Ergo, the tape. It's a defense against judically sanctioned end-runs around 4th amendment protections.

Hmmmmm. You might havea point there. I like what you are saying. The point to which I am referring is whether, legally speaking,a plain view can give rise to probable cause needed to remove the tape. I am thinking that a plain view that sees something that is in and of itself illegal gives probable cause. But, this is differnt.

You jogged for methat a search cannot proceed on reasonable suspicion, as I understand it. To my recollection,a search requires probable cause--a higher standard.

So, would a court support that, where not illegal, a taped serial numberprovides probable cause to search the serial number?

But, lets keep in mind, that even if a court didn't support it, it might only give the OCer anotherbullet point in his formal complaint because such a search would only reveal a serial number that didn't show up on the stolen gun list, in effect a no-crime unactionable by police (except in a place where the taping itself is illegal.)

Of course, the reverse works, too.Since it would seemunlikely a court has ruled a taped serial number, where not illegal,providesprobable cause, the probable cause question is a little open to debate.Thus, it is fair game for a bullet point on a formal complaint.

Help me out here guys. What do you think? Any holes in that logic?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Ole Man Dan wrote:
SNIP (Those nifty sheets we fill out when we purchase a firearm all go to ATF)
Wait a minute!Hold on jest a second! Those sheets stay in the store, unless the store goes out of business, or so we have been told.
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

Citizen, if I recall correctly, Probable cause is a lower standard than reasonable articulable suspicion.

I can't provide a cite, but if I remember correctly RAS replaced PC.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

thx997303 wrote:
Citizen, if I recall correctly, Probable cause is a lower standard than reasonable articulable suspicion.

I can't provide a cite, but if I remember correctly RAS replaced PC.
Oooooooooh. Back to 4A school for you, Grasshopper.

I only added the qualifiers because I didn't want to go digging up the cites at this hour. I know darn good and well which is whichand the difference and which is more stringent. But, thanks for trying to help.

Your first reading assignment is Terry v Ohio. Between the opinion and the dissents, I am pretty sure they cover all the angles, or at least well enough to give you a reasonable certainty on it, even if you haven't read the original cases. Oh! The Terry court probably cited the original cases within their opinion and dissent.

Pop quiz first thing after lunch tomorrow, so study hard! And be ready to write a 200 word essay on RAS, probable cause, the history of probable cause in the US starting in colonial times, and the difference between the two.

:D


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
We will never really know how the courts are going to feel about this until we get a clear cut case and decision. The way I see that playing out is that a cop finds a lawfully transported/possessed gun during a routine traffic stop, or some other instance where the lawful gun is completely unrelated, the cop takes the gun for "officer safety", runs the serial number as a matter of routine, and the gun really is stolen. Any defense lawyer that had half a brain would challenge running the serial number with no RAS or PC because the gun was completely unrelated to the initial reason for the stop.
I agree.

I think the more likely use is to rack up another bullet point for a formal complaint.

When the cop comes back with your gun, just casually ask him, "so the computer showed it wasn't stolen?" Get his "its clean" on your voice-recorder. Then you have proof he uncovered it and ran the serial number.

The other use I would like to achieve is the doggone government not adding theserial numberto a database connected to my name.I well recall PA police not so long ago saying they had tocheckto seeif a gun was registered to theOCers; the only problem being PA police were not supposed to be running a registry. Statutorily prevented, if I recall.I don't trust thegovernment to not record the owner's name beside the serial number, no matter whether they "promise" they're not doing it.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

Citizen wrote:
I think the more likely use is to rack up another bullet point for a formal complaint.

When the cop comes back with your gun, just casually ask him, "so the computer showed it wasn't stolen?" Get his "its clean" on your voice-recorder. Then you have proof he uncovered it and ran the serial number.

Or you can get it from a FOIA. I have dispatch audio from where they ran my black powder pistol and video where I state I do not consent tothem running the serial number and the cop did it anyway. Here is the edited video and audio

It was a point in my complaint, but the chief said his cops did nothing wrong.

This is why I would like to know if anyone else has done this and what the result was.



There was no FFL paperwork on my end withthepurchase of my blackpowder pistol. It was shipped to me new from a retailer. I don't think it was in a federal database, but it could have been. It probably is now.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

Ole Man Dan wrote:
eye95: Keep in mind that most of our weapon purchases are already in the ATF Database.

A number of years ago,in the mid-80s, I was contacted by ATF tracking a 9mm that I bought at one gun shop and later sold at another gun shop.
(My name came up as the original purchaser, and not until I
told them where I sold it did they locate that transaction.)
ATF knew that I had purchased a lot of weapons so they checked to see if I was doing 'Straw Man' purchases.
(Those nifty sheets we fill out when we purchase a firearm all go to ATF)
The investigation came a half dozen years later.
It seems that somewhere along the way the 9mm took up a life of crime and was recovered from a robbery suspect.
I had a similar experience somewhere around '90-'91.

Some time around '83, I'd bought a Colt Official Police from a gunshop in Cosmosdale, KY while stationed at Ft. Knox. After a while, I traded it to another gunshop in Elizabethtown, KY.

Flash forward to '90. I get a letter through the Army Locator Service from the gunshop to whom I'd traded the gun. Apparently it'd been stolen in California prior to my purchasing it. The BATF traced it back to the E-Town gunshop and wanted to know where they'd gotten it. They told the BATF that they'd gotten it from me. The BATF wanted to know where I'd gotten it from . I told them the name of the well known gunshop where I'd gotten it. That was the last I ever heard of the matter.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Ole Man Dan wrote:
SNIP (Those nifty sheets we fill out when we purchase a firearm all go to ATF)
Wait a minute!Hold on jest a second! Those sheets stay in the store, unless the store goes out of business, or so we have been told.
4473 forms do not go to the ATF, they stay with the FFL dealer that sold the firearm.
The SN is linked to the dealer that originally sold firearm.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

Hunterdave wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Ole Man Dan wrote:
SNIP (Those nifty sheets we fill out when we purchase a firearm all go to ATF)
Wait a minute!Hold on jest a second! Those sheets stay in the store, unless the store goes out of business, or so we have been told.
4473 forms do not go to the ATF, they stay with the FFL dealer that sold the firearm.
The SN is linked to the dealer that originally sold firearm.
http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-3.html

The information at that link may help...

Multiple Firearm Transaction Transcript
Carla Hello, can I help you with anything?

Ms. Jackson
Yes, I’ve decided on this rifle here, but I’d also like to take a look at some handguns. How about those two in that case?

Carla
I’ve been reading about this line of handguns; they are supposed to be excellent for target shooting.

Ms. Jackson
Great. I’ve shot skeet for several years now, but I’d like to get into target shooting with handguns.
Yes, these are exactly what I want; they both feel very well balanced in my hand. I’ll take the pair.

Carla
Great. I just need to see some identification and have you fill out an ATF Form 4473; then, I’ll run a NICS check.

Carla
Mr. Lucas, I’m helping someone with a multiple firearms purchase; do I treat it the same as a single firearm purchase, or do I need to do something special?

Mr. Lucas
Actually Carla, I’m glad you asked. For multiple sales that include just one handgun and any number of long guns, simply fill out Form 4473 as usual and include the information for each item in Section “D.”
However, in order to transfer more than one handgun to a customer, you must prepare a multiple handgun sales report using ATF Form 3310.4, in addition to completing Form 4473.

Carla
So in this case, I need to list all three on Form 4473, but only the two handguns on Form 3310.4.

Mr. Lucas
You’ve got it!
Form 3310.4 requires three copies: one for the ATF National Tracing Center; one for the state or local police; and one for our records. Additionally, the first two copies need to be faxed or sent no later than by close of business on the day that the sale or distribution occurs following the transaction. Other than that, the same rules apply for multiple firearm sales as for single firearm sales.

Carla
I see. One more thing — do I have to run a NICS check for each firearm?

Mr. Lucas
As long as all the firearms are transferred as part of one transaction, you only have to run the NICS check once. When you finish filling out the paperwork and running the NICS check, we’ll go over how to correctly record all the necessary information in our transaction log.

Carla
Mr. Lucas, I’ve completed everything with the customer, checked all the forms, and received the NICS verification. Now I’m ready to enter the information into the inventory records.

Mr. Lucas
First things first — even though this information is tied to our inventory, it’s actually a federal requirement that we keep these records. Officially, it’s known as a Firearms Acquisition and Disposition Record or a Record of Receipt and Disposition. In many dealerships, it’s called the “bound book,” because that’s how they keep their receipts and records, in a big, bound book. We received permission from ATF to transfer our records to a computer not too long ago, because it’s more accurate, saves us time looking up transactions, and ties directly into our inventory records — that makes our job a whole lot easier.

Carla
So what exactly goes into the Record of Receipt and Disposition?

Mr. Lucas
Well, just as the name suggests, it’s a permanent record that every dealer keeps that shows the receipt and disposition of every firearm that comes into or leaves our store. Every firearm that leaves the store will already have a corresponding record in here from when it came in and was inventoried.
As for what goes into the record for each transaction, you’ll notice that the first few items reflect Section “D” of Form 4473: the manufacturer and/or importer, the model, serial number, type, and caliber or gauge of the firearm being transferred. We store the exact same “bound book” information in the computer, because it makes finding the right record to edit a snap—we just enter the serial number and the inventory details appear on screen.
The second part of the record is receipt information for the firearm, including the date it was received and from whom we received it. This is usually a manufacturer or distributor, in which case we record either their name and address or their license number. If we receive the firearm from a nonlicensee, we record their name and address.
The third and last part of the record is the disposition section, which we are required to fill out anytime a firearm from our inventory leaves the store. It includes the date of the transaction and the name and address of the recipient. Additionally, we record the address or license number if the recipient is licensed; if they are not licensed, we are required to include a transaction serial number, which we also fill out on the corresponding Form 4473 for this transaction.

Carla
Since all that information is already in here, is it necessary to duplicate it on the Form 4473?

Mr. Lucas
Oh yes, Federal law requires it. Moreover, it helps us to “double check” what items we are transferring and to whom we are transferring them. It’s important to make sure we do this for every firearm that goes through our store. The law requires us to record any receipt within one business day and any disposition within seven. However, like most stores, we record all the information at the time of the transaction to make sure nothing falls through the cracks. Also, we are required by law to keep our records in good shape and ready for inspection.

Carla
Wow, that’s a lot of information to track.

Mr. Lucas
I know it sounds intimidating, but it gets easier the more times you do it. Just keep in mind that the purpose of all the record keeping is to make sure it’s legal for us to transfer the item to the customer and for law enforcement to trace the weapon if it is used in a crime. Think of it this way; we’re simply accurately filling out and filing forms required by a government agency.

Carla
Thanks for your patience Ms. Jackson. Now that I’ve learned exactly how to record this transaction, we can wrap up your purchase.

Ms. Jackson
That’d be great. You’ve done a super job. And I’ve learned something new too.

Narrator
Remember that for multiple transfers that include just one handgun and any number of long guns, simply fill out Form 4473 as usual and include the information for each item in section “D.” However, in order to transfer more than one handgun to a customer, you must prepare a multiple handgun sales report using ATF Form 3310.4, in addition to completing Form 4473.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and although tape is a quick and dirty solution, I thought something a little more "artistic" might be better.

So I think I'm going to have some nice weather-proof vinyl stickers printed up to look sort of like shiny brass plates, that people could use. They would be small (like 1/4" x 1") and would be weatherproof, and have REALLY good adhesive on the back so you'd essentially have to destroy them to remove them. That way folks would KNOW if they had bee lifted. And the printing sort of drives home the point that you DO NOT consent to such a search...

Something like this:
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

FFS, you guys.

Over in the CA subforum we've routinely discussed using tape over the serial to prevent the illegal but very common running of a serial number after performing an (e) check to verify the gun is unloaded.

Anybody who has made a post "But WHY Leonard? Why do you live to provoke the police?" really ought to just STFU.

And keep it that way.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
eye95 wrote:
SNIP If an officer has RAS that the gun is stolen, by all means, pull back the tape. It not, he must leave it there--or he is violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the the gun-owner.

Well,I think that is the point. The tape itself may provide RAS, in the cop's view, and possibly the courts', that there is something illegal going on.
That's just ludicrous. Does pulling the shades in your bedroom, maintaining your privacy constitute RAS that you are doing something illegal? Of course not.

A none-of-your-business action cannot be RAS. It is our right to tell the government, "None of your business," until they can demonstrate otherwise. It is not the government's authority to assume NOYB is RAS. Ludicrous.
 
Top