FBI & ATF serve search warrant

randomuser · Feb 12, 2019

That is for clearing that up for me.

Same stance now with more information. Charge with theft. My tax dollars paid for what he took for personal use. Auto should not be illegal, No crime on that part

Name Taken · Feb 12, 2019

Abacab said:
I'm confused as to how they're stolen if he was police chief at the time. If he takes them home in an official capacity and returns with them, is that theft? If he rides around with one in the trunk, is that theft?

I would think it would only be illegal transfer if he kept them post employment. Perhaps there's some NFA regulation regarding police equipment I'm unaware of.

I would guess the department bought them and never used them for "duty purposes". Rather he gave one away and took his home never qualifying

Biggfoot44 · Feb 13, 2019

The firearms in question are Post '86 , aka not transferable other than to Gov't agencies or export .

But , what hasn't yet been explained publicly is How this is constituting a Transfer ?

The PD owned the weapons .
The PD may issue weapons to its officers .
The Chief and the Sgt were officers in good standing.
It is within Chief's authority to issue weapons .

So there has to be a lot more to this .

randomuser · Feb 13, 2019

Biggfoot44 said:
The firearms in question are Post '86 , aka not transferable other than to Gov't agencies or export .

But , what hasn't yet been explained publicly is How this is constituting a Transfer ?

The PD owned the weapons .
The PD may issue weapons to its officers .
The Chief and the Sgt were officers in good standing.
It is within Chief's authority to issue weapons .

So there has to be a lot more to this .

https://www.carrollcountytimes.com/...Wrp997dsMbbYQ0ikpvsh4PJhcYsGYvpyEg_l0CMlRtuDk
from the article:
"Tyler, who agreed to the facts outlined in the statement by pleading guilty, transferred one of the machine guns to himself for personal use on Nov. 8, 2017, and the other machine gun to “Officer 1” for their personal use on Nov. 13, 2017."
"the word “transfer” in charging documents is preferred to “sell” because prosecutors do not have to prove money was exchanged, only that the weapon changed ownership — from person to person or from entity, such as a police department, to a person."

"initially lied to federal agents that he had never fired the machine gun found at his residence and that he didn’t know it was an automatic rifle"

He probably shot it or told someone about it and he was reported.

traveller · Feb 13, 2019

Biggfoot44 said:
The firearms in question are Post '86 , aka not transferable other than to Gov't agencies or export .

But , what hasn't yet been explained publicly is How this is constituting a Transfer ?

The PD owned the weapons .
The PD may issue weapons to its officers .
The Chief and the Sgt were officers in good standing.
It is within Chief's authority to issue weapons .

So there has to be a lot more to this .

If they were issued as duty weapons (or even just for training purposes), there should be a paper trail of it happening. Somewhere in the property records there should have been a slip that says 'Ruger KAC556 serial#nnnn issued to Officer XYZ'. Those things the property clerk countersigns when you turn in your issued gear the day you retire. If all the other equipment he was issued shows up in the towns property records as 'issued' but the MG does not, it would support the allegation that he diverted it.

This investigation started when someone in the department squealed. I guess he didn't buy enough MGs for everyone :innocent0

. I downloaded the plea agreement and in the appendix A it states the facts of the case. It's pretty thin and doesn't give up any of the evidence, but as that the FBI does what the FBI does, they probably have an electronic record a mile long of the chief and his favorite deputy bantering about how they are going to divert those guns from the armory and park them at their homes.

Mark75H · Feb 13, 2019

Can a department move full autos across state lines without notifying ATF? That might be at least a part of it.

outrider58 · Feb 13, 2019

Biggfoot44 said:
The firearms in question are Post '86 , aka not transferable other than to Gov't agencies or export .

But , what hasn't yet been explained publicly is How this is constituting a Transfer ?

The PD owned the weapons .
The PD may issue weapons to its officers .
The Chief and the Sgt were officers in good standing.
It is within Chief's authority to issue weapons .

So there has to be a lot more to this .

Buddy deal?

rob257 · Feb 15, 2019

BrucevilleVill/Comm. Annotated Code23x0949-3 Violation

fabsroman · Feb 16, 2019

Meh, just way too many laws to obey. I am still trying to figure out how to build out my SBR rifles and suppressors that I have tax stamps for and then it occurred to me that I also have a Wilson Combat paired upper/lower that is post 9/30/2013. Was going to build that into an HBAR, but now I am not so sure about that one. Might just have to build it up as a pistol at this point. What a complete pile of BS.

There is so much that I don't agree with in all of this. Of course, I probably would never make it past voir dire during jury selection such that I could actually be on the jury. Then again, seeing as how he has already entered a guilty plea, doesn't look like there will be a jury trial.

Everybody always wonders how they will ever get caught. Bet the Police Chief never even saw it coming. This is how they make gun owners scared to own guns. This is how they make people scared to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right.

Dingo3 · Feb 16, 2019

fabsroman said:
Meh, just way too many laws to obey. I am still trying to figure out how to build out my SBR rifles and suppressors that I have tax stamps for and then it occurred to me that I also have a Wilson Combat paired upper/lower that is post 9/30/2013. Was going to build that into an HBAR, but now I am not so sure about that one. Might just have to build it up as a pistol at this point. What a complete pile of BS.

There is so much that I don't agree with in all of this. Of course, I probably would never make it past voir dire during jury selection such that I could actually be on the jury. Then again, seeing as how he has already entered a guilty plea, doesn't look like there will be a jury trial.

Everybody always wonders how they will ever get caught. Bet the Police Chief never even saw it coming. This is how they make gun owners scared to own guns. This is how they make people scared to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right.

He should’ve known it was coming. Using the municipality to acquire two MGs and then taking one and giving the other to his crony. I’m sure he wasn’t expecting an audit or someone noticing things, but he played a stupid game.

rbird7282 · Feb 16, 2019

Biggfoot44 said:
The firearms in question are Post '86 , aka not transferable other than to Gov't agencies or export .

But , what hasn't yet been explained publicly is How this is constituting a Transfer ?

The PD owned the weapons .
The PD may issue weapons to its officers .
The Chief and the Sgt were officers in good standing.
It is within Chief's authority to issue weapons .

So there has to be a lot more to this .

This. As the information is now, I don’t see how he broke the law

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pbharvey · Feb 16, 2019

Mark75H said:
Can a department move full autos across state lines without notifying ATF? That might be at least a part of it.

I think that’s what tripped him up. My guess is once he’s in PA, he’s out of jurisdiction and that’s the charge they used (because they can’t prove he “stole” them).

traveller · Feb 16, 2019

pbharvey said:
I think that’s what tripped him up. My guess is once he’s in PA, he’s out of jurisdiction and that’s the charge they used (because they can’t prove he “stole” them).

That's not what they charged him with. They charged him with transferring the regulated item to himself in violation of the NFA and with failing to report the transfer. The plea paperwork / criminal information doesn't detail the evidence they had that he actually transferred the weapon, but as he pleaded guilty to that point rather quickly, they must have had something pretty solid (given how dumb people are, my money is on social media posts or text messages).

Sirex · Feb 16, 2019

Some of my family members are/were police officers, and regularly take PD equipment home. Vehicles, radios, service weapons. If the chief took his service weapon home home, would that violate interstate transfer? The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, says police can carry in any jurisdiction if I recall, so would merely taking the Rugers over the state line constitute a transfer, if he is the chief of police, and he purchased them for the department? Not sure why he took them home, but unless they have concrete evidence (and they may) he intended to sell them, or solely keep them for personal use, is it any less legal to take them than his service weapon? I take equipment home from work often to tinker with and repair. I am not trying to defend, or convict him, just wondering.

GTOGUNNER · Feb 16, 2019

Police do not need automatic firearms.

fabsroman · Feb 16, 2019

GTOGUNNER said:
Police do not need automatic firearms.

Well, my belief is that We The People should have the same weapons as the police and the military. So, since the police and the military need automatic weapons, the 1986 ban on new auto weapons should be lifted.

What this moron did with the two firearms in question, I have no idea. Guessing he did something really stupid though and they have some solid evidence on him. No doubt in my mind that he violated a law, a law that I think should be done away with.

It is about time that We The People get some of our 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment Rights back. I want representatives for We The People, not We The Corporations.

Sirex · Feb 16, 2019

GTOGUNNER said:
Police do not need automatic firearms.

Andy Griffith didn't. And Mayberry was one of the safest towns on fake TV, minus the frequent drunk, pie thief and drifter.

Name Taken · Feb 16, 2019

traveller said:
That's not what they charged him with. They charged him with transferring the regulated item to himself in violation of the NFA and with failing to report the transfer. The plea paperwork / criminal information doesn't detail the evidence they had that he actually transferred the weapon, but as he pleaded guilty to that point rather quickly, they must have had something pretty solid (given how dumb people are, my money is on social media posts or text messages).

This. It is rather simple.

He clearly didn't just have the NFA guns from his department at his home. There's no reason to take a guilty plea if that was the case.

He likely made some effort to "convert" them to personal use. Rather that be taking them "off the books" at the Department thus making them "disappear" or they have some evidence through wire tap, text message, etc indicating he bought those weapons via the department to by pass the law.

Had he kept them "on the books" and qualified with them as required by Maryland Police Training Commission there would be no issues. He clearly didn't do this as evident by his quick plea. Also telling is in his indictment and his plea deal "Officer 1" is listed. While not abnormal in Federal cases it appears the courts went above and beyond to conceal a co-defendants identity that is clearly known to the Chief.

Mark75H · Feb 16, 2019

I guess the guilty plea means we will probably never learn more about this case.

"Officer1" being the other guy the chief supplied a full auto to - I'm certain the chief knows who this is, his name is even in the newspaper articles regarding the story. You don't have to be a detective to piece this together

traveller · Feb 16, 2019

Name Taken said:
Had he kept them "on the books" and qualified with them as required by Maryland Police Training Commission there would be no issues. He clearly didn't do this as evident by his quick plea. Also telling is in his indictment and his plea deal "Officer 1" is listed. While not abnormal in Federal cases it appears the courts went above and beyond to conceal a co-defendants identity that is clearly known to the Chief.

That is what makes this so mindboggingly stupid. Had he dotted all his I's, he would have been perfectly fine to have a gun with a fun-switch in his possession. Now he will end up with probation and loss of his career. What did he think would happen ? It's not like this rifle would have been transferable just because it fell off the truck. It's registered as 'LE' with the NFA branch. Even if he didn't turn it in at retirement, it would have been unmarketable contraband.

FBI & ATF serve search warrant

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The one with two L

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Eats Bacon Raw

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Habitual Testifier

The one with two L

Powered by natural gas

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

Powered by natural gas

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

The one with two L

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics