Should have voted for Henderson. Thats all I have to say.

Aulap - were you able to get his arrest record? You said yesterday that you were going to try to get some information for us. Bundy and I are eager to hear what u find.

And your stance on HB 2300?

Hey Tyler (or whatever name you are going by today) since you are so against "special privileges", I presume neither you nor any member of your staff exercises their rights under HB 1503? You know what I'm talking about.

news2, I saw that...at first I thought it was just sailor taking a swipe at me...:)

Aulap - look at the end of the article - this is what your post says ... "Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE"
Aulap - you really did it this time !!!

news2me (and Vic Adv Staff),

I noticed this after I posted my last entry. I attempted to edit, after posting, and the

large space appeared at the beginning. My guess is your editing engine went "wacko"

(technical term). If you'd like, delete my post and I'll repost to see if that clears it.

This is for the Advocate - I can only see one post (but it says there are 66 posts) - please investigate.

Through Title 27 CFR § 479.85 "Identification of Transferee" Form 4, the ATF requires the signature of local law enforcement to affirm that:
 
1) there exists no INFORMATION that or REASON TO BELEIVE that possession of the firearm by the transferee violates of State or local law
2) OR that there exists no INFORMATION that or REASON TO BELEIVE the "transferee will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes"
 
This is required because there may exist local offenses not reported to the federal government or judicial findings of such as Affirmative Findings of Family Violence, ect... not made a part of any federal reporting. And because local law enforcement may have INFORMATION AND REASON TO BELIEVE.
 
Convictions are reflected in the state and federal databases. Law enforcement information consists of much more than convictions!
 
Apparently, an applicant or transferee can forum shop to find the local official least likely to research law enforcement contacts, arrest, complaints and intelligence. This applicant/ transferee picked badly when asking for Tyler's signature. I wonder if he later found a less informed signator.

Bundy, Ol' buddy, I know you've said it twenty seven times now but just thought I'd throw this in there.....

Maybe if you tried sign language some of 'em would get it. Maybe they're just deaf or something, I dunno.

But I figure it's kinda like trying to explain that government aid thing over in the other forum; banging your head against a brick wall seems the appropriate metaphor...

Ernie

By the way Dig, I wouldn't recommend exercising your right to protect your home with a firearm in Victoria. Don't you remember Tyler writing a guest column in the VA against the Castle Law when it was passed?

Dig, since you insist on asking me questions you know I don't have the answers to, let me ask you a few stupid questions as well.
Why did you shoot JFK?
Where is the alien aircraft?
Why did you start the Chicago Fires?
Where is the Holy Grail?
I shouldn't have to repeat this, but here I go again.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THIS STORY THAN WHAT I READ IN THE ARTICLE LAST WEEK, AND THE LETTER TODAY.
There, does that spell it out for you?

Bundy, do you know for a fact that Tyler DIDN'T contact ATF, or are you making assumptions?
C'mon, Gabe, aka "investigative reporter." You and the Advocate claim to be fair, unbiased, impartial when it comes to Tyler. Where is your desire to tell BOTH sides of the story on this topic? Many questions have been raised. You ran Ocker's editorial, so where is the "rest of the story?" Does Ocker have an arrrest record? If so, what for and how many times? Would this kind of information lead Tyler to believe Ocker might use such a weapon to commit a crime?  Please, provide us with some facts!!

Amen...Dig...Amen!!

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? Signing a Form 4 transfer is not "signing off" on anything. It is not granting permission, special or otherwise. It is not issuing a permit. It is a question posed by the BATFE to local LE if they have any info that would lead them to believe the transfer of the weapon would violate a law, or that the transferee will use the weapon to commit a crime.
The reason the question is there is because there may be recently obtained information that has not yet initiated a criminal investigation. The BATFE would be unable to obtain this information from their database.
If Tyler had this information, which he insinuated in the article last week, it is his duty as a LE official to report it to the BATFE. I still maintain that by refusing action of any kind, Tyler failed to provide information in a federal investigation.

 
Joe WANTED to kill some folks; and he did. It was obvious. He was tough;especially with some unarmed burglars. The punishment for burglary is not death. No matter their record, even a 3 time looser, gets life.

Nice post Sailor. I still think we are getting off track as to why this letter was written. The way I read it, this request is what originally brought these 2 men together, but several other issues evidently arose from this meeting.
I wish the VA would do a follow-up story on this, because I would like to know if my county is being served by a DA who "doesn't believe in the law".

Once again, Tyler would never have been asked to sign a special permit. There exists no special permit in TX that a DA has the authority to distribute. The only form I know of that a DA would be asked to sign is a Form 4 transfer, which is a tax document. This document has nothing to do with a permit. There is no further money due to maintain anything, nor does the document have to be updated, unless the owner changes his/her address.But the answer is yes, give Joe Horn 2 of them, that way he won't have to cycle the action next time.

Title 27 CFR § 479.85 Identification of transferee. (previously 27 CFR sec. 179.85)

If the transferee is an individual, such person shall securely attach to each copy of the application, Form 4 (Firearms),...

The certificate shall state that the certifying official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the applicant and that the certifying official has no information indicating that the receipt or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of State or local law or that the transferee will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes.

[T.D. ATF–270, 53 FR 10509, Mar. 31, 1988]

Dear Luminary:

Yes he should have a special permit. He was protecting property. They were stealing. And oh by the way...they were in the country illegally. Houston got tired of the poor pitiful wife being paraded on the sidewalk.

The men were not one time criminals. So the woman can't plead ignorance or no knowledge. She was aware of the risks too. There are more and more in our Houston neighborhood now with permits. And we have volunteer patrols. We have stopped the dog and cat thefts, along with car theft and slowed vandalism as well as burlaries.

We all should have the right to protect property and family. Protection of criminals has swung too far on their rights--stealing and killing should take away those rights.

Well said. No DA should be allowed to make public comments about what criminal activity he thinks a free citizen may engage in, with no evidence to support his claim.
I still surmise that Tyler's attitude of being the Supreme authority and conveyor of all rights is at the heart of this issue.

No DA is the absolute authority on any law or regulations. They have their interpretations, mind you. However, the ultimate authority on laws and regulations is the Supreme Court.

tstorm, check out this site:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gc...

Tstorm5 You are a lot stricter than I would ever be, former NRA head Wayne LaPierre would have the big one,if he knew you wanted tests every six months.....LOL

I agree with the rest of your post,hope that doesn't damage your reputation...Have a good one. Or

First of all, why are you going to concentrate on his arrest record? The article last week explained that he had an arrest record. However, being arrested for something, and being guilty of the crime for which you are arrested, are sometimes very different. An arrest is just like an accusation. That's why the arrest is followed by an arraignment, indictment, and conviction before any right can be dismissed.
Are you another person who wants to rip apart the Constitution ,or the Code of Criminal Procedure, for that matter? Are you aware that thousands of arrests occur every year for supposed crimes that are not crimes at all?
As far as I know, someone must be CONVICTED of a FELONY in the state of TX to render them ineligible of weapons purchases.

According to various city officials and the Victoria Advocate, arrest records on disposed cases are public records subject to state and federal information acts. That being the case, I am going to the Victoria Police Department and ask for any and all arrest reports naming Matthew J. Ocker. I might even ask for copies of any court documents at the county and district clerk's offices.

Hey Bundy what do you think I'll find? Could there be a basis for a reasonable belief of future criminal or violent behavior. Mr. Bundy are felonies the only offenses that can deprive a person of the "right to bear arms" under both federal and state law?

That was a good one, tstorm.

Tstorm5 long time, you must be raking in that OT money...LOL
You are getting close to crossing that far out left-wing  looney line where I reside.....Talking about sensible gun laws.

Bundy it must be lonely here on earth, as you obviously are from another planet. Your logic borders on asinine

Oh BIGJ, before you proclaim yourself the Spelling Police, you should learn how to properly conjugate your verbs. I already answered your last question to someone of similar intelligence.
As for the transfer, you are partly correct, and partly incorrect. While the transfer could possibly be denied to the individual, it can not be denied to the other entities I mentioned earlier.
I would also be careful in deciding what you think others should have the right to possess. I may think you don't need a boat, or a diamond ring...the list goes on and on.

A quick Google search finds case law on this issue that shows that in a county in Texas the D.A., Chief of Police or Sheriff can sign the certification based on an opinion of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal. In the case I reviewed each of the officials refused to sign the certification and the person bringing action tried to process the transfer without the certification claiming it to be "unconstitutional" (by the way he lost his appeal). This makes it obvious that Tyler is not the ultimate authority as the head of the DPS is considered the highest ranking law enforcement official in Texas. If Tyler refused, the gentleman initiating the transfer can take this to the DPS for certification. If they refuse, based on this case dating back to 1996, the transfer of this weapon cannot be legally undertaken. I too am very interested in what kind of weapon the transfer is for (not really any of my business but I am interested). If it is anything past a normal handgun, shotgun or rifle I am very pleased the D.A. refused the certification as we don't need any machine guns or similar weapons in the hands of private citizens in Victoria or anywhere else for that matter. Come on people, get real with the issues and stick to the facts.

"No staing of unsubstantiated information as fact."
Have you read the rules for posting? What sort of information do you have? If he were a convicted felon, I'm sure tyler would have said that in his comments to the paper.
It appears to me that Mr. Ocker is a person who will not accept the dissolution of his rights without due process. I think all of us who enjoy our freedom can appreciate that.

The message I get is Mr. Ocker is one heck of a cry baby who doesn’t want to acknowledge that his past mis-deeds might result in people thinking of him as less than credible.

Tyler is not the only person that can sign the Form 4. Others include the Chief of Police, Sheriff, or any elected judge that hears criminal court cases.
You can also properly transfer these weapons to corporations, estates, or trusts. This process bypasses the local signature.
Am I the only one who got a different message from this letter. It states in the letter that the signature was not Mr. Ocker's only concern with Mr. Tyler.

You give it up, Tyler! I like playing this stupid game.

give it up ocker

Where did anyone claim that Mr. Tyler broke the law? I suggested that he didn't do his job if (as he claimed in the previous article) he had knowledge that someone's life was in danger, and he failed to document that on the transfer form.

we all already know - it's pretty obvious

I assure you that I am not him. I see alot of that on this website. Is that the SOP, to just accuse everyone of being someone else?
I'm looking at the phone book, and this guy's number is listed. Why don't you give him a call if you want to know so badly?

Tyler was uncomfortable signing the form and he chose not to sign. Are you saying he is legally obligated to sign the form? If that is the case, then he broke the law. And I am sure he broke no laws in this case. What laws has Ocker broken? If the Advocate prints Ocker’s joke of a letter, maybe they can also publish his criminal record.

Bundy, please just go ahead and out yourself as Ocker...it'll minimize confusion. Which weapons are you requesting/requiring that need to be ok'd by authority?

That has never been in question. These weapons are legal in TX. In the states where they are not legal, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee this right. Funny how states' rights are only recognized when it limits freedoms...
So what is your point Mike? To my knowledge, TX was the state in which this happened.

The SC just ruled that states could keep in their exceptions...A cut & paste of the 2nd Amenedment is not necessary.

Mike, perhaps you should read the letter again. The problem Ocker has with Tyler goes beyond this request. I think the letter itself is pretty clear.
As for an exaggeration of Constitutional rights, I don't know what you mean. The 2nd Amendment guarantees all US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Any rights may be suspended through due process. I believe it is the 6th Amendment that spells out due process? I may be wrong. Anyway, it is Mr. Ocker's assertion that he has been unavailed his rights without due process.

Am I missing something here? Has Ocker been on these forums?
As for the rest of the post. The DA is not the only official that can sign the Form 4. I think Ocker made it clear that his reason for the letter far overreached Tyler's unwillingness to sign the transfer. It had more to do with Tyler's sense of justice and belief in the letter of the law. At least that is what I got from it.
Of the 4 questions you asked, only one has any relevance.
If Mr. Ocker had a felony conviction, he would automatically be disqulified for ownership of these weapons. It is also a much mistakenly-held belief that all felons can not own a firearm that is not the case.
As for filing a siut of mandamus, why should he have to? Once again, the request apparently took a back seat to principle when this meeting took place.
I wish Ocker would come on here and straighten this out.
And by the way, how is stating facts an attack. From where I sit, Tyler attacked Ocker in the article last week with his outrageous assumptions.

Contrary to what you think Bundy, I give very little thought to you when I am posting....My first post had to do with an exaggeration of constitutional rights...You rebutted my post hence I answered.... The title of this thread is "Tyler is not the ultimate authority" if so then the author can go to that ultimate authority and quit whining... I thought Mr. Tyler could use his judgment as a basis for declining...I may be wrong,but I posted as if I did not know what transpired but I did not think Mr. Tyler had to automatically approve anything.

Mike, you alluded to an interpretation of the facts. This is not in play in this case. Tyler knows the law, and he knows these weapons are legal. Where he is in error is in his belief that he has the right to disallow certain rights to certain people, even though they have met the criteria for permission.

Ocker,

It would seem that if you require Tyler's signature then he is the ultimate authority on whether he signs-off or not.

What is your arrest record?
Are any of those arrests for violent offenses?
Did some other prosecutor dismiss these cases because victims got cold feet?
Wouldn't a conviction have prevented your owning or possessing any firearm?

What special weapon were you requesting?

If the signing is a purely a ministerial act, and there is not a basis to decline signing, why don't you file a suit of mandamus against Tyler?

Isn't it true you are using this forum because it allows you to take free shots at Tyler without answering questions or telling the whole story?

If you are certain you're right then take it to the court!

Once again Mike, in your haste to attempt to prve me wrong, you are not digesting what I am saying. The law is very clear on this issue, but Tyler doesn't agree with the law. The problem is, noone has that kind of scrutinous authority. While citizens can't violate the penal code, LE may also not introduce into it that which they wish. If I were a cop, I couldn't arrest you fro driving a Prius, even though I may disagree with your right to do so.
I'm having a hard time figuring out why you are making this concept difficult. Is it solely because you know that we dwell on opposite ends of the political spectrum?

Chap?.... Anyone can exaggerate the Constitution rights one way or the other. Unless anyone can produce a witness,my assumption of the facts cannot be dismissed..... If I am ticketed unfairly, I will sign the ticket and probably have my say in traffic court..... It's not about a police state imposing their right, and violating mine.

Oh Mike, you sure do fancy yourself a smart chap, don't you?
Try actually reading what I am writing. I have stated from the beginning that the only reason I know of for a citizen to ask for a signature from a DA to obtain a "special weapon" would be the one required on a Form 4 transfer form from the BATFE. I am very familiar with these forms, and the laws surrounding these weapons. I also read the article last week that said that Ocker was not convicted for the charge that Tyler evidently had a problem with.
While I am quite certain of my knowledge if my assumptions are correct, there may be something I have not ever heard of. Unlike some people, I will attach a disclaimer until I have certainty.
Now, what else are you unclear about?
I think the larger point that Ocker was trying to make is that Tyler has a fundamental problem with people exercising their rights. I think that is the issue that should be explored here. Imagine a world where the laws are open to interpretation by anyone with a badge? Do you expect to be issued a speeding ticket for going 55 in a 55mph zone, simply because the cop doesn't agree that the limit should be 55 in that area? Can you imagine the chaos that would create?

So which is it?
Bundy said
"So the issue of Tyler "vouching" for Ocker has no merit in this caes."
Bundy said
"As I stated before, I don't know all of the details of this case."

Both sides are covered...LOL

As I stated before, I don't know all of the details of this case. However, prohibited weapons require a transfer from the BATFE. They include fully-automatic weapons, silencers, explosive devices, etc.

Bundy,If you need permission signed by someone like the DA for a weapon endorsement, what type of weapon are you trying to get? I don't think people have to get the DA's permission for a regular type of handgun or rifle, so what's the real story here?

If I am correct in my assumption that this was a weapon that required a Form 4 transfer, then Mr. Tyler is guilty of direlection of duty. The part that he would have been requested to sign asks if the official has any knowledge that the weapon being transferred will be used for unlawful purposes. Tyler seems to think that Ocker was going to kill someone (maybe even a cop), so he therefore failed to provide evidence to federal authorities.
Where are the Vic6 when you need them?
It also can not be stated enough that this is not a permission slip or a voucher. DA's do not have the authority to allow or disallow these weapons. So the issue of Tyler "vouching" for Ocker has no merit in this caes. I think what Ocker articulated in his letter is that the issue became nuch larger than this simple signature. Tyler basically placed himself in a role with judgemental authority. DA's need to be stopped from these actions.

I don't think it had anything to do with the Constitution.
Perhaps, he just did not want to vouch for Mr.Ocker... might have been a personal decision.

Don't get me wrong Bundy... I happen to agree with you... In
this instance, I believe that Tyler was out of line. But there are many, many of his supporters who will say that Tyler is "tough on crime" and is taking a stand against crime.... by denying someone their Constitutional right????

But Bundy, you and I are on the same page in this instance.

How is he being tough on criminals by restricting the rights of non-criminals? He also made some pretty brash assumtions about this guy, which I have some serious problems with.

Just because someone is in a position of authority doesn't make them infallible. IMO, Tyler wants to come across as being "tough" on criminals, and wanting to make a difference in the county.The problem is, to some, he is coming across as arrogant and pompous.

Boy, this letter sure does say a mouthful; especially the last 2 sentences. I would love to know all of the details surrounding this story. It appears that Tyler riled up someone who isn't just going to "bow to the authority".