FBI & ATF serve search warrant

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rob257

    Active Member
    Jan 17, 2013
    238
    North Central Carroll Co.
    Open investgation

    I agree, VERY light on details.


    The sealed search warrant and "dribble" of media info is a normal investigative :innocent0 tactic for the Feds. I betcha lots of folks in T-Town are having nervous issues now.

    It ain't like when you could just go North of Town and talk to "Snake-skinner".
     

    Onwrd Farm

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 17, 2013
    1,642
    Carroll County
    I'm 12/30/12 ... I cut it real close

    Yeah a couple more days and you would have been forever tarnished by a few people on here. I actually understood the reasoning back in 2013 but it's been 6 years now and these idiots are still dredging up this garbage. Sad and shameful way for grown ass adults to act. I came here in 2013 for info on C&R license and firearms. Thankfully the people on the C&R sub forum don't subscribe to shaming members just due to their start date.
     

    Jerry M

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 13, 2007
    1,688
    Glen Burnie MD
    That was fast

    I thought the same thing. But why bankrupt your family? He's looking at 10 years each of the MG in his possession. 20 years in a Federal Slammer with no parole is not something to take lightly.

    News was making a big deal of him having to surrender any other firearms in his possession. They completely skipped over the prison time he is eligible for.

    WHAT WAS HE THINKING?

    Like former Balto City Police Chief not filing Federal Tax returns for however may years... Apparently they live in a bubble...
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,775
    Baltimore County
    My only issue is that he took home something that my tax dollars bought.



    Having that gun in and of itself should not be a crime....charge him with misuse of tax dollars....the weapon should be legal.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    My only issue is that he took home something that my tax dollars bought.



    Having that gun in and of itself should not be a crime....charge him with misuse of tax dollars....the weapon should be legal.

    So the handguns, uniform, boots, cars, radio, whistle, jacket, badge, baton, pepper spray, shotgun in the car, spike strips, computer, etc aren't okay to take home? The police routinely take plenty of their equipment home.

    They routinely take their issued firearms home. They don't convert them to their own and not use them a single time at work. That is his issue. Has nothing to do with taking equipment home.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    My only issue is that he took home something that my tax dollars bought.



    Having that gun in and of itself should not be a crime....charge him with misuse of tax dollars....the weapon should be legal.

    So the handguns, uniform, boots, cars, radio, whistle, jacket, badge, baton, pepper spray, shotgun in the car, spike strips, computer, etc aren't okay to take home?

    They routinely take their guns home. They don't convert them to their own.

    I think that's what he means with "he took home something" - i.e. transferred ownership from the department to his personal collection without due compensation.

    Possession and purchase of the MGs should never have been charged, except as stolen property.
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,775
    Baltimore County
    I think that's what he means with "he took home something" - i.e. transferred ownership from the department to his personal collection without due compensation.

    Possession and purchase of the MGs should never have been charged, except as stolen property.

    I was under the impression. That the "wrong" he did was have an automatic weapon as far as the law is concerned.
    Example.....only reason this is federal is because its an automatic weapon.....


    Personally.....I have no issue with him taking a weapon that is automatic or semi..as both auto and semi should be legal ...my only issue is that my tax dollars paid for it.


    Am I reading it wrong?
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    I think that's what he means with "he took home something" - i.e. transferred ownership from the department to his personal collection without due compensation.

    Possession and purchase of the MGs should never have been charged, except as stolen property.

    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.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    I was under the impression. That the "wrong" he did was have an automatic weapon as far as the law is concerned.
    Example.....only reason this is federal is because its an automatic weapon.....


    Personally.....I have no issue with him taking a weapon that is automatic or semi..as both auto and semi should be legal ...my only issue is that my tax dollars paid for it.


    Am I reading it wrong?

    No, you're not reading it wrong.

    He was charged with transfer/possession of MGs.

    I agree with your position that mere possession should not have been the charge.

    Receiving and dealing with stolen property should have been the charge since, as it's my understanding, he didn't pay the department for the MGs.

    A previous poster seemed to get the wrong idea of what you were saying.

    Going back under my rock, now...
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    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.

    Based on 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.

    Sounds like he transferred ownership of the MGs to himself and another officer. Doesn't sound like he paid the department for them, but maybe I'm reading too much into the "transferred for personal use" part of it.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,056
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom