Greg Abbott for Governor- Please Help!!!

[TXARGUY]

I've been all over the Internet and I cannot find a thing about Abbott's stance on NFA or the sign offs outside of the same copy paste of the Silenced America guy.

At this point there is no way to prove that it is a credible, accurate description of the conversation or nothing more than a smear effort due to a personal vendetta.

 

[1slow01Z71]

Yeah I did a google search and the top 5-6 results were facebook links so it must not be something very publicized. With his very out-spoken stance on the 2A I figured he be all for NFA stuff.

 

[breakingcontact]

His campaign responded to me today directly on another matter. Ill contact them (not that im some insider) and ask them about his stance on NFA items as governor.

 

[breakingcontact]

I will use my google fu on them internets tonight and see what i can find out tonight.

 

[cbigclarke]

And I will use my crouching keyboard, hidden mouse style

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[TheDan]

The lawyers looked over my proposal and declined due to potential "liability" associated with signing off on the forms. I was told that they could potentially co-counsel a prosecution where an NFA firearm was used and they had signed the Form 4.

It sounds like to me that they consider it a conflict interest on the off chance they have to prosecute someone they signed for? Makes sense, but still sort of a cop out. You're absolutely right about us needing a state-level solution to 41P. It has the potential to undermine all trust law, not just NFA.

 

[breakingcontact]

OK, I've contacted his campaign asking for some guidance from them on his stance on this as AG and what it would be as Governor. Will let ya'll know what i hear.

Also, on them interwebs, I found some people stating they had Mr Abbott sign the forms for them in the past. No, I don't know how legit this is, but it seems about as valid as the facebook post that prompted all of this.

 

[F350-6]

Shut the border DOWN, IQ's will jump 30% minimum.

Make everyone put down their Iphone and pull their head out of their rear end, and I bet the IQ jump is over 50%.

 

[Shorts]

OK, I've contacted his campaign asking for some guidance from them on his stance on this as AG and what it would be as Governor. Will let ya'll know what i hear.

Also, on them interwebs, I found some people stating they had Mr Abbott sign the forms for them in the past. No, I don't know how legit this is, but it seems about as valid as the facebook post that prompted all of this.

It would make sense if he was a SC Justice as he'd be an eligible CLEO right? But I know neither here nor there. I'm interested in his position on NFA items as well as the current 41P so I'm all ears on what you guys dig up.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Local LEO's should not have the right to arbitrarily ban NFA weapons because they are jackasses and don't want to sign. The AG's office could fix this very easily by providing signatures for people who live in jurisdictions where the previously mentioned jackasses have this power. He comes up with a totally bullshit reason not to do so. I consider the NFA infringement. It is equally if not more important to me than open carry. If this is the stance that he will take as the AG, what stance would he take as governor? If 41p goes into effect as written we will need a some sort of state solution to over-ride these arbitrary bans created by people like Sheriff Wilson in Williamson county.

Most local LEO's who won't sign are anti-gun, so this is supporting their anti-gun agenda.

1) I still see this as a local issue, not the state AG, but then I respect the 'chain of command'... My Company Co will not give me a pass, so I go see the Battalion CO...don't expect the Bn Co to grant you one either.

2) I do not see this as a GA stand but rather his legal team does not like the potential exposure that may bring. Good, bad or indifferent that is what they are there to do. I also concur. The downside could be catastrophic for all concerned...Abbott overrides Sheriff, signs off on NFA (then some rare but incident occurs and the news media is on it like stink on chit).

3) I found this: The Williams Cty Sheriff will sign off on any of the requests after a face to face meeting; to schedule an in person meeting with Sheriff Wilson: Sheriffs Secretary: Debra Wolf 512-943-1402

Not trying to get into a pizzin match, but so far I do not see the justification for your stand...

 

[breakingcontact]

3) I found this: The Williams Cty Sheriff will sign off on any of the requests after a face to face meeting; to schedule an in person meeting with Sheriff Wilson: Sheriffs Secretary: Debra Wolf 512-943-1402

Nice! I think I know who I'm calling this week!

 

[Shorts]

1) I still see this as a local issue, not the state AG, but then I respect the 'chain of command'... My Company Co will not give me a pass, so I go see the Battalion CO...don't expect the Bn Co to grant you one either.

Umm, not really a good analogy here. Citizens don't work for the Sheriff and there is no need to ask permission. Also, everyone with in the military chain of command is governed by the UCMJ. So, if you want to use that analogy, language and statute could be written at state level to enforce ATFs rule - if a person is not ineligible then there must be sign off/refusal to signoff is illegal. That can come from the state.

A better analogy would be the court systems, where a person can appeal to the next high court.

As for CLEOs and the issue of anybody not wanting the responsibility or liability of signing off, simple, remove CLEO sign off from ATF req. If not to completely omit a background check still require NFA items to transfer through an FFL so a 4473 is still required. Or expand the definition of CLEO so the "responsibility" is not on the shoulders of a few, but spread out on many. It dilutes the power and specialness of the Sheriff in CLEO regard, makes it less of a big deal.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Nice! I think I know who I'm calling this week!

Let us know on that please...

Umm, not really a good analogy here. Citizens don't work for the Sheriff and there is no need to ask permission. Also, everyone with in the military chain of command is governed by the UCMJ. So, if you want to use that analogy, language and statute could be written at state level to enforce ATFs rule - if a person is not ineligible then there must be sign off/refusal to signoff is illegal. That can come from the state.

A better analogy would be the court systems, where a person can appeal to the next high court.

As for CLEOs and the issue of anybody not wanting the responsibility or liability of signing off, simple, remove CLEO sign off from ATF req. If not to completely omit a background check still require NFA items to transfer through an FFL so a 4473 is still required. Or expand the definition of CLEO so the "responsibility" is not on the shoulders of a few, but spread out on many. It dilutes the power and specialness of the Sheriff in CLEO regard, makes it less of a big deal.

Not at all, we are not talking about who you work for or the UCMJ I am talking about hierarchy of power. An attempt to bypass the County Sheriff by going to the AG! Few on here are as supportive of the 2-A than I and were I the AG I can assure you if my legal team said it was not a good idea I would not do it and I would not in most cases give approval over the local CLEO ... COMMON SENSE sometime dictates.

Certainly, the AG would ask. Did you go to your local CLEO, if not, why not, if so were you turned down, then why? And you want ME to approve? No time soon sunshine...

I could have used the analogy of the 'mom and pop' routine: Mom, can I go to the movies?...NO! ... Daddy can I go to the movies?

 

[biglucky]

1) I still see this as a local issue, not the state AG, but then I respect the 'chain of command'... My Company Co will not give me a pass, so I go see the Battalion CO...don't expect the Bn Co to grant you one either.

2) I do not see this as a GA stand but rather his legal team does not like the potential exposure that may bring. Good, bad or indifferent that is what they are there to do. I also concur. The downside could be catastrophic for all concerned...Abbott overrides Sheriff, signs off on NFA (then some rare but incident occurs and the news media is on it like stink on chit).

3) I found this: The Williams Cty Sheriff will sign off on any of the requests after a face to face meeting; to schedule an in person meeting with Sheriff Wilson: Sheriffs Secretary: Debra Wolf 512-943-1402

Not trying to get into a pizzin match, but so far I do not see the justification for your stand...

The analogy doesn't fit at all. The CLEO, whether it is a county sheriff or a city Police Chief, works for the people not the other way around. The fact of the matter is that the AG is they CLEO for the State of Texas. It is his responsibility to make sure that law abiding citizens are not getting screwed over in times like this. If 41p is going to be instituted there will have to be a state level solution to this problem.

Where did you find that thing about the sheriff signing off? I have had 2 of his deputies tell me in the last 10 months that he wouldn't even sign for them. That said, I would love to think that some of the pressure that we have been putting on him has worked.

Umm, not really a good analogy here. Citizens don't work for the Sheriff and there is no need to ask permission. Also, everyone with in the military chain of command is governed by the UCMJ. So, if you want to use that analogy, language and statute could be written at state level to enforce ATFs rule - if a person is not ineligible then there must be sign off/refusal to signoff is illegal. That can come from the state.

A better analogy would be the court systems, where a person can appeal to the next high court.

As for CLEOs and the issue of anybody not wanting the responsibility or liability of signing off, simple, remove CLEO sign off from ATF req. If not to completely omit a background check still require NFA items to transfer through an FFL so a 4473 is still required. Or expand the definition of CLEO so the "responsibility" is not on the shoulders of a few, but spread out on many. It dilutes the power and specialness of the Sheriff in CLEO regard, makes it less of a big deal.

The biggest thing here is that there is no responsibility or liability of signing off on the form.

What they are signing is the following (for a form 1): "I have no information indicating that the maker will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that Possession of the Firearm described in Item 4 on the Front of this Form would place the maker in Violation of State or Local Law" or this (for a form 4): "I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device(Name of Transferee)described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would be place the transferee in violation of State or local law". Unless they know you are going to do something illegal they have no liability at all.

 

[Shorts]

The biggest thing here is that there is no responsibility or liability of signing off on the form.

What they are signing is the following (for a form 1): "I have no information indicating that the maker will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that Possession of the Firearm described in Item 4 on the Front of this Form would place the maker in Violation of State or Local Law" or this (for a form 4): "I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device(Name of Transferee)described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would be place the transferee in violation of State or local law". Unless they know you are going to do something illegal they have no liability at all.

I agree and you are correct. What I mean up there I should have made more clear is the CLEOs have a perceived responsibility & liability which is their argument for not signing. I don't agree they should apply their perception when the law is clear.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

The analogy doesn't fit at all. The CLEO, whether it is a county sheriff or a city Police Chief, works for the people not the other way around. The fact of the matter is that the AG is they CLEO for the State of Texas. It is his responsibility to make sure that law abiding citizens are not getting screwed over in times like this. If 41p is going to be instituted there will have to be a state level solution to this problem.

Where did you find that thing about the sheriff signing off? I have had 2 of his deputies tell me in the last 10 months that he wouldn't even sign for them. That said, I would love to think that some of the pressure that we have been putting on him has worked.



The biggest thing here is that there is no responsibility or liability of signing off on the form.

What they are signing is the following (for a form 1): "I have no information indicating that the maker will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that Possession of the Firearm described in Item 4 on the Front of this Form would place the maker in Violation of State or Local Law" or this (for a form 4): "I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device(Name of Transferee)described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would be place the transferee in violation of State or local law". Unless they know you are going to do something illegal they have no liability at all.

1) See my reply in post 53...you stated the AG is the CLEO for the state of Texas, therefore there is a hierarchical relationship and trying to go around is not likely to work. As for liability, YEP in spades. If your local CLEO turned you down due to failure to meet the background test standards and the state AG ignored and overruled...can you spell L I A B I L I T Y $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in the event a event occured, school shooting.

2) Not sure now, but I just did research with a lot of googling and came across that tidbit. I would think it would be worth a fone call to inquire...I don't live in that county

 

[Shorts]

Let us know on that please...
Not at all, we are not talking about who you work for or the UCMJ I am talking about hierarchy of power.

Coming from the Naval Officer in the house who is familiar with the chain of command you are attempting to utilize as the analogy: It does not apply. A citizen is not going up the chain to ask for permission. A citizen is asking for certification of fact. A citizen is not a subject.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Coming from the Naval Officer in the house who is familiar with the chain of command you are attempting to utilize as the analogy: It does not apply. A citizen is not going up the chain to ask for permission. A citizen is asking for certification of fact. A citizen is not a subject.

Coming from a retired Army officer it does apply. The relationship of citizen vs soldier does not apply it is the hierarchical I was referring to, nothing else!

"fact of the matter is that the AG is they CLEO for the State of Texas"

 

[Shorts]

Certainly, the AG would ask. Did you go to your local CLEO, if not, why not, if so were you turned down, then why? And you want ME to approve? No time soon sunshine...

If I were the citizen denied I would be asking that to the Sheriff too. Under what cause and can you put that in writing please.

If it is anything to do with his personal feelings on NFA matters or firearms in general, that is unacceptable and I am moving to the next office:

Q: What law enforcement officials’ certifications on an application to transfer or make an NFA weapon are acceptable to ATF?

As provided by regulations, certifications by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor are acceptable. The regulations also provide that certifications of other officials are appropriate if found in a particular case to be acceptable to the Director. Examples of other officials who have been accepted in specific situations include State attorneys general and judges of State courts having authority to conduct jury trials in felony cases.
[27 CFR 479.63 and 479.85]
​

If I am ineligible based on current state or federal firearm laws and my personal legal history, then I am plainly, lawfully ineligible. The use of a Sheriff to judge a person or intentions is subjective. Particularly in large areas where a Sheriff has no personal contact with residents enough to know them. It is asking the same question you just asked that the AG would be saying if they were presented with an CLEO signoff request.

If CLEO signoff is required and asked on any office then scrutiny of an NFA applicant must be based on law and statute (ETA: or background checks), not subjective matters.

 

[Shorts]

Coming from a retired Army officer it does apply. The relationship of citizen vs soldier does not apply it is the hierarchical I was referring to, nothing else!

"fact of the matter is that the AG is they CLEO for the State of Texas"

Hah, as if Navy & Army would ever agree on anything. Especially after Army took another spanking yesterday. Touche`

The AG is. I suppose if we are talking about offices then make it less of who is in it and more of what it is. The AG office should set the tone of all LEAs in the state. If the AG personally refuses because he doesn't know a citizen then the entire state is out of luck except for those lucky enough to have friends in high places. The AG would be doing the same thing as the Sheriff refusing signoff (assuming no legal ineligibility as I mentioned above).

If Abbott personally doesn't want that on his shoulders (sounds like all the other Sheriffs who refused sign off) then who should be responsible for language/laws/statutes? Will this be a matter for state legislature then?