Please no flames, this is an honest question that I am struggling to find an honest answer too. Okay, so I know a little about the situation from a number of different sources. Im not really concerned about teh congressional investigation, but more about how the ATF agents attempted to conduct their investigation into the strawman purchases and what it would have taken to justify an arrest and subsequent seizure of the purchased firearms. My understanding is that numerous stops were made of suspected strawmen during the early stages of F&F, but that upon seeking arrest warrants from AZ US attorneys, they were told to let the strawmen go as they were legal purchasers who passed their background checks and beyond looking suspicious and buying several guns with cash, they had nothing to hold them on nor to justify seizing the guns. Is my understanding of the situation incorrect? Should they have been able to make an arrest on someone with no criminal record, who passed the background check, yet for whatever reason, just doesnt smell right to the gunstore clerk? If so, doesnt that mean that the next time I walk into a gunstore and buy four semiauto rifles with cash, that I could be arrested and my guns seized because I look suspicious? Im asking cause all the uproar over F&F seems like a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario. A tough situation with no easy answers for gun advocates. We dont want to be hassled for buying an AR and an AK in one trip to the gunstore, but we are panfrying ATF for not doing just that in this situation. And if ATF shouldnt be able to affect an arrest in the parking lot of the gunstore, then is it gunwalking to not arrest the guy and attempt to surveil for evidence to justify an arrest warrant, however poorly executed that attempt was?