TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-s ... -consulted

More government overreach --with the ATF seemingly in support of gun owners and the law against the Washington State Police.

Seems like a lot to recover a stolen rifle if indeed that is what happened.

Why not just put out an alert with the make, model and S/N statewide?

That would be a much more efficient way of handling this.

Some one didn't think this through very well and should be reprimanded and sent in for some remedial training.

Not knowing what a WSP is/was, I went to the story.
It's Washington State Police.

Seems they decided to send a letter to every FFL in the state demanding a list of everyone who had bought an AR15 in the last 9 months, with address etc.

Hopefully the next letter that hit's the mail will be a termination letter or two.

Rex B wrote:Not knowing what a WSP is/was, I went to the story.
It's Washington State Police.

Seems they decided to send a letter to every FFL in the state demanding a list of everyone who had bought an AR15 in the last 9 months, with address etc.

Hopefully the next letter that hit's the mail will be a termination letter or two.

Yeah! I thought it was some AK variant.

Rex B wrote:Not knowing what a WSP is/was, I went to the story.
It's Washington State Police.

Seems they decided to send a letter to every FFL in the state demanding a list of everyone who had bought an AR15 in the last 9 months, with address etc.

Hopefully the next letter that hit's the mail will be a termination letter or two.

Seems to me that the only way the state police could legally demand that info is with a warrant. ATF could get it without one but not state police.

Apparently the ATF (Jack booted thugs that many are) does not at this time think it is even legal for the FFL's to honor such a request.

For once they seem to be on the side of the FFL's and the firearms owners.

Why would the WSP need the names of people who purchased new guns? They did ask for ALL gun sales of this particular firearm. Something more to this story than is being released. I suspect a weapon was stolen from a police car or home and now they are trying to keep it under wraps. That info is not really a big deal, as it happens more than one would think. Guns are stolen from parked police cars and from officers homes too. They are not immune from thieves.

jmra wrote: Seems to me that the only way the state police could legally demand that info is with a warrant.

For the second time a commentator calls the WSP request a demand.

Whether it is right, or wrong, to make such a request, we do not help the cause by misstating the case. Once again we, as a group, can be accused of twisting the truth. It does not matter one bit whether commentators making such an accusation had yet seen the source document. I would suggest that commentators have an obligation to first see the source document before condemning it for the wrong reason, either manufacturing the reason out of thin air or quoting someone else on the Internet who is equally loose about the truth. The fact that something is said on the Internet does not mean it is true.

To quote from Captain Dahl's letter:

"...Detective Gunderman is requesting information.... Please provide the following information.... Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter...." http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal- ... sales.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

b322da wrote:

jmra wrote: Seems to me that the only way the state police could legally demand that info is with a warrant.

For the second time a commentator calls the WSP request a demand.

Whether it is right, or wrong, to make such a request, we do not help the cause by misstating the case. Once again we, as a group, can be accused of twisting the truth. It does not matter one bit whether commentators making such an accusation had yet seen the source document. I would suggest that commentators have an obligation to first see the source document before condemning it for the wrong reason, either manufacturing the reason out of thin air or quoting someone else on the Internet who is equally loose about the truth. The fact that something is said on the Internet does not mean it is true.

To quote from Captain Dahl's letter:

"...Detective Gunderman is requesting information.... Please provide the following information.... Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter...." http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal- ... sales.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

If your attachment is a copy of the real letter sent to all gun dealers, like you said, it sure does request the information all others in this thread posted. Whether requesting or demanding this type of information from a gun dealer in a letter from a government agency, is far reaching into areas of the private sector. Now if he had stated the make, model, and serial number of the weapon he was looking for, it would not be an unwarranted request. But, looking for, one, weapon, in the entire state and sending out a letter like the one in this attachment, is reaching into areas a detective has no business reaching. If he in fact needed all that info, he should have contacted ATF. They most likely already had that info.

And like I stated earlier, looks like they were trying to find a weapon that they did not want any publicity on it's being missing. But then again, this is just my opinion.

no FFL will sell a full Auto stolen from LEO department,

Rex B wrote:Not knowing what a WSP is/was, I went to the story.
It's Washington State Police.

WSP - It could be a new model called the "Walther Semi-automatic Pistol." :-)

SIA

Seems to me that most of the time when an LEO or LEA REQUESTS something, they pretty much expect you to comply, and they are just being polite...

b322da wrote:

jmra wrote: Seems to me that the only way the state police could legally demand that info is with a warrant.

For the second time a commentator calls the WSP request a demand.

Whether it is right, or wrong, to make such a request, we do not help the cause by misstating the case. Once again we, as a group, can be accused of twisting the truth. It does not matter one bit whether commentators making such an accusation had yet seen the source document. I would suggest that commentators have an obligation to first see the source document before condemning it for the wrong reason, either manufacturing the reason out of thin air or quoting someone else on the Internet who is equally loose about the truth. The fact that something is said on the Internet does not mean it is true.

To quote from Captain Dahl's letter:

"...Detective Gunderman is requesting information.... Please provide the following information.... Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter...." http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal- ... sales.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

This is what is called taking a comment out of context.

If you will look back at my post (in context) you will see that I was responding to another poster who stated that WSP had demanded the info. I simply stated that the state police could not legally demand such info without a warrant. I never stated nor suggested that WSP had actually made any such demand. My response was specific to the statement made by the poster and had nothing to do with whether or not the actions of WSP were a demand or a request.