"Hidell" handgun purchase required "certificate of good character"---so where is it ?

[Michael Hogan]

E-Mail message from Gary Mack:

"The answer is simple: the Texas state requirement to receive a certificate of good character would apply only to Texas retailers, not sellers in other states. Since Oswald ordered guns from Illinois and California, he was under no obligation to provide such a document to them, so no certificate was necessary." -- Gary Mack; March 10, 2012

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=202217

[Michael Hogan]

BTW Mike, that repost proves the main point:

LHO would have had to have been an idiot to mail away for weapons he used in two murders.

Yes, and those whose suspicions were aroused by Oswald's murder came to that realization rather quickly.

[David Von Pein]

BTW Dunkel, you cowardly lurker, the idea that Oswald ordered the weapons is very much in doubt today. So when you write that Oswald ordered the guns from Illinois and California, that phrase should be preceded with the word "allegedly".

More nonsense from DiEugenio, as usual.

There's no "allegedly" about it -- Lee Oswald positively ordered and took possession of Rifle C2766 and Revolver V510210 in March of 1963. The evidence tying LHO to both weapons is rock-solid....DiEugenio's denials notwithstanding.

For Pete sake, LHO had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested. But that, of course, still isn't good enough for Jimbo. He requires several more layers of paperwork in order to be satisfied that Oswald ordered the revolver. (But Jim would claim all of the extra documents were faked too--so it's really a Catch 22 with Jimbo.)

Dozens and dozens of questions for Jim D. here:

DVP Vs. DiEugenio -- Part 78

Edited March 10, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Gil Jesus]

Lee Oswald positively ......took possession of Rifle C2766 and Revolver V510210 in March of 1963.

Please show us the evidence of this.

[Gil Jesus]

E-Mail message from Gary Mack:

"The answer is simple: the Texas state requirement to receive a certificate of good character would apply only to Texas retailers, not sellers in other states. Since Oswald ordered guns from Illinois and California, he was under no obligation to provide such a document to them, so no certificate was necessary." -- Gary Mack; March 10, 2012

That's bullxxxx. Federal law required copies of documents necessary for state purchases to be sent to sellers for interstate purchases.

Maybe you should find yourself an "expert" other than Gary Mack.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 prohibited the sale of handguns to criminals.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Ascione1.html

The Texas "certificate of character" was necessary to satisfy that condition.

The Act also required a copy of a permit or license in states where such documents ( such as the certificate ) were required.

Manufacturer or dealer:

"This group is forbidden to ship, transport, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm or ammunition unless licensed to do so and even if licensed, anyone within the group cannot ship or transport any firearm to any person in any state which requires a license for the purchase of a firearm, unless such license is exhibited to the manufacturer or dealer by the prospective purchaser, or unless the purchaser is another dealer or manufacturer licensed under the Act. "

There's no such thing as the certificate only being required in Texas. If the certificate was required in Texas, a copy of it would have had to have been produced to the out-of-state sellers under the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

That's not my opinion, that was THE LAW. And Federal Law always supercedes state law.

Now go and run to Gary Mack and tell him that.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Gil Jesus

[Len Colby]

Can you cite the passage from the Senate hearings that indicated this? FWIW according to Dale Myers “Newcomb/Adams note that the subcommittee hired "investigators" to place mail-orders with mail-order gun firms in order to determine if they were following federal and state laws”

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html

No I can't because the Subcommittee never published a report. It also never made any recommendations. It's work was never released to the public, although it remains in the public record.

But I do have evidence that a "certificate of good character" was needed for a handgun purchase in Texas in 1963. The support comes from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which did a law review in 1950 on gun control.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FJK.htm

Part way down the page, you'll read:

Permit to Purchase. A few states require the obtaining of a permit to purchase, or the possession of a license to carry, as a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm. Along this line, Texas requires a certificate of good character from the judge of the county of residence, and New Hampshire a permit only for felons and aliens.[ 39 ]

The # 39 footnote references TEX. PENAL CODE, art. 489a (Vernon, 1925)

And no, I don't have that book either.

But the point is that until the Federal Firearms Act of 1968, the states determined how its citizens obtained handguns. In Texas, the requirement was clear: a handgun purchase had to be approved by a judge in the county where you lived.

And that was the law from at least 1925.

Since no evidence exists that the law was changed between 1950 and 1963, and since the Subcommittee cited the same Texas requirement in 1963 as the U of P Law Review did in 1950, we must conclude that what was the law in 1925 and 1950 was the law in 1963 as well.

Absent evidence to the contrary, of that there can be no doubt.

In other words you cited a source which you had not actually read?

In any case following your ‘logic’ every civil suit and criminal case that determined that a company did something illegal should be reversed because it is not possible one would not follow the law. Like Dale Myers, George Michael Evica (a CT) reported that (EMPHASIS mine):

Senator Thomas Dodd commanded the Senate's Juvenile Delinquency subcommittee and its interest in "gun control," specifically mail-order weapons control. Beginning in January, 1963, Dodd held committee hearings on the UNRESTRICTED DELIVERY OF WEAPONS THROUGH THE U.S. MAILS. One of the companies Dodd was interested in was KLEIN'S OF CHICAGO, and one of the weapons about whose UNREGULATED TRAFFIC the Senate in 1963 was agitated was the ITALIAN MANNLICHER CARCANO. "Hidell," of course, allegedly ordered a Mannlicher Carcano from Klein's of Chicago, reportedly found in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd, 1963, becoming a major part of the FBI/Warren Commission lone-assassin theory in the JFK killing. (17)

SEAPORT TRADERS of California was still another mail-order weapons' distributor the Dodd Committee was examining, the very company from which "Hidell" ordered the revolver reported to have been used in the Tippet murder on November 22nd, 1963.(18)

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/evica/We_still_all_mortal_Evica.html

So, yes Virginia it seems that it IS possible that companies don’t always follow the law and that applies to companies that sold guns by mail in 1963 and even that the companies LHO supposedly ordered his guns from were being investigated for doing just that.

From the post above:

"This group is forbidden to ship, transport, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm or ammunition unless licensed to do so and even if licensed, anyone within the group cannot ship or transport any firearm to any person in any state which requires a license for the purchase of a firearm, unless such license is exhibited to the manufacturer or dealer by the prospective purchaser, or unless the purchaser is another dealer or manufacturer licensed under the Act. "

A "certificate of good character" is NOT a license.

[Gil Jesus]

A "certificate of good character" is NOT a license.

I knew someone would use the word "license" in his argument against. Somehow I knew it would be you. You seem to have a problem with a lot of what I post.

"A few states require the obtaining of a permit to purchase, or the possession of a license to carry, as a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm. Along this line, Texas requires a certificate of good character from the judge of the county of residence....."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FJK.htm

Do you understand that the certificate of good character in Texas was a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm ?

As a prerequisite requirement to purchase, it WAS the permit/license and as such was required by Federal law.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. Because if I'm wrong, I would like someone to prove it to me rather than play on the semantics of words.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Gil Jesus

[Len Colby]

A "certificate of good character" is NOT a license.

I knew someone would use the word "license" in his argument against. Somehow I knew it would be you. You seem to have a problem with a lot of what I post.

"A few states require the obtaining of a permit to purchase, or the possession of a license to carry, as a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm. Along this line, Texas requires a certificate of good character from the judge of the county of residence....."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FJK.htm

Do you understand that the certificate of good character in Texas was a prerequisite to the purchase of a firearm ?

As a prerequisite requirement to purchase, it WAS the permit/license and as such was required by Federal law.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. Because if I'm wrong, I would like someone to prove it to me rather than play on the semantics of words.

A license is a prerequisite but a prerequisite is not necessarily license nor was a certificate of good character. They are similar but not the same. However you ignored by larger point, just because the law requires something does mean a company will do it. The Dodd subcommittee was investigating gun dealers/distributors for not following the law, Klein's and Seaport were among the companies investigated. So the lack of a Hidell certificate of good character proves zippo.

[David Von Pein]

"It's just as I wrote. Oswald followed Texas law for ordering guns, at least at that time, except for the fact that he forged his witness' signature and used a fake name to help get the revolver (as the WC explained decades ago on two pages):

http://books.google.com/books?id=zraHCKufHakC&lpg=PA174&dq=oswald%20drittal&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q=oswald%20drittal&f=false

He purchased a revolver from California and the California form required a witness signature, so Oswald happily faked one. Seaport was legally off the hook, since the witness signature fulfilled the legal requirement for 1963. No wonder the Dodd Committee was troubled by the myriad of ways folks could obtain a firearm." -- Gary Mack; 03/11/12

Edited March 11, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Guest Gary Loughran]

E-Mail message from Gary Mack:

"The answer is simple: the Texas state requirement to receive a certificate of good character would apply only to Texas retailers, not sellers in other states. Since Oswald ordered guns from Illinois and California, he was under no obligation to provide such a document to them, so no certificate was necessary." -- Gary Mack; March 10, 2012

David, Gary Mack has been complaining to moderators recently about use of private mail on this forum without his permission. Can you confirm you had permission from Gary prior to posting the mail above. I am unsure if we, as moderators, should remove all private mail irrespective of whether there has been a complaint.

Given Gary is a member of the forum and a holder of a relevant public office, it would be preferable if he posted for himself as opposed to via proxy. If Gary could maybe give general guidance on publishing his emails, it might alleviate future difficulties.

I assume any information given on behalf of his public office can be reproduced freely.

Everyone, if posting private correspondence, even from friends, it might be a good idea to simply note you have permission to use. The members of the forum generally abide by ethical rather than legal obligations and this simple note could prevent this issue getting out of control otherwise. Thanks.

[David Von Pein]

David, Gary Mack has been complaining to moderators recently about use of private mail on this forum without his permission. Can you confirm you had permission from Gary prior to posting the mail above.

Hi Gary L.,

Many months ago, Gary Mack told me that I could take the private e-mail messages that he sends me and post them on public forums unless he expressly tells me not to do so (on a message by message basis).

Therefore, if I don't see a comment in one of Gary's e-mails that says "do not post this" or "not for public consumption", I have his permission to copy his message on the Internet.

Perhaps Mr. Mack has utilized the same blanket rule with other people he corresponds with by e-mail. I don't know.

I have no idea why Gary himself refuses to post his own messages on forums like this. Maybe it's a "Sixth Floor Policy" now or something that prohibits him from doing so. But, yes, it sure would be a lot better if Mr. Mack just posted his messages himself on the forums, instead of using e-mail.

Addendum:

I want to also mention this:

I almost never get an e-mail from Gary Mack that says this: "Please post this at The Education Forum for me". Hardly ever does Gary ask me to post something for him. But I also know that pretty much the only reason he sends me occasional e-mails that relate to specific forum threads (like this thread) is because he does, indeed, want the information he is telling me via e-mail to be placed on the forums--mainly to keep the record straight and to keep silly conspiracy theories from spreading some more on the Web.

But Gary rarely asks me to post something. I do that on my own...knowing, as stated, that he has given me permission a long time ago to do so. And I also know that Gary very likely expects his e-mails to me to end up on a public forum.

Regards,

David Von Pein

Edited March 12, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

I suggest that this forum should ban ALL "sock-puppet" postings of emails and PM's, whether from Gary Mack or from any other member. If thepersons involved are members of this forum, they should be capable of making ALL their own posts. As I have said many times in the past, I appreciate all the help that Gary Mack has provided me in my search for the evidence related to the JFK assassination; so this proposal is not aimed solely at Gary Mack. I simply think that persons who wish to post here, even those in positions of responsibility such as Mr. Mack, should speak for themselves, and not attempt to speak through someone else. Such a policy would maintain the integrity of the forum. In that way, no one would be violating any policy by posting emails or PM's from anyone else, and it would render moot any "he said/she said" controversies about whether or not someone had permission to post emails and PM's from anyone else who is a member. Call it the "John Alden" rule, if you choose.

And as a seeker of truth, I must admit that my understanding of the facts of the case leads me to side with Mr. Von Pein on the issue of whether the certificate of good character was required on mail-order purchases made outside of Texas. Prior to the gun control acts passed AFTER the JFK assassination, there were NO uniform federal standards enforced on mail-order gun purchases, and businesses in non-contiguous states often were ignorant [sometimes willfully so] of laws in other states. So a California business might remain [willfully] ignorant of Texas state law, and since there was no interstate enforcement of Texas law, the California business would continue to adhere to California standards, in the absence of an overriding [and enforced] federal law.

I'm not especially thrilled at being on the same side as Mr. Von Pein on ANY issue, but for once I believe he has this one right.

[David Josephs]

While making points regarding the practice of businesses in the early 60's NOT following any of the Standard Operational Procedural rules of their business

that Drittal, or some other form accomplishes the CERT requirements for mailing a pistol....

why do we forget all the other aspects of the purchase process for whcih there is not record, no proof, and no authentication?

as outlined below....

Each of the monetary transactions that created and accomplished the pistol order are not available for review...

The SOP for Seaport who rec'd an order in January, without an envelope yet with a $10 bill attached

The SOP for Railway to send Seaport their money

The SOP for Railway to collect and deposit THIER share of the fees ($1.27)

The SOP for anyone picking up a package ar Railway

The SOP for payment to railway of the $21.22 ($19.95 + $1.27)

and the SOP for recording all these transactions for the IRS, FTB, or any other taxing entitity.

Someone placed the pistol order... or it was created after the fact... to connect Hidell to Oswald

isn't the idea of an alias to remain UNidentified by using the alias... Braden comes to mind.

So DVP... we have the coupon and SOME of the paperwork... why not ALL the paperwork if it leads back to Oswald/Hidell the purchaser of THAT pistol?

DJ

This is it... the sum total of ALL the evidence related to the purchase of the supposed murder weapon of JD Tippit.

Serial # hadwritten on the order... sounds familiar

No records related to the $10 cash deposit or the envelope that and the coupon arrive in

No records of the $1.27 Railway collects

No record of the $19.95 forwarded from Railway

No record of anyone at Railway picking up the carton

No record of another Money Order or cash rec'd to pay the COD balance for the pistol

No record of when Seaport recieves the coupon although it is at least 6 weeks before they process it

(if 1/2 or 1/27 is the date on the coupon) and yet both weapons are shipped to the PO Box on the same day...)

but other than that... a perfectly legit transaction...

Thanks Gil...

DJ

[David Von Pein]

"FYI....

Gary [Loughran],

David [Von Pein] had my permission to pass my observation along, though I did not ask him to do so. By the way, I do not hold a "public office" - however did you get that impression? I am merely an employee of a private, non-profit, 501©(3) organization. Also, as best I remember, I haven't complained to the Ed Forum about private email republication until the recent Fetzer article." -- Gary Mack; March 12, 2012; Via E-Mail

Edited March 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I'm not especially thrilled at being on the same side as Mr. Von Pein on ANY issue, but for once I believe he has this one right.

The credit needs to go to Gary Mack, not me. I haven't said a word about this topic. In fact, I'm totally clueless about this particular matter of the "good character" certificate. I merely pasted in Gary Mack's e-mail.

I do know, however, that Oswald's make-believe "D.F. Drittal" signature that LHO used on his mail-order coupon for the revolver served essentially the same purpose as the "certificate of good character" that Gil is complaining about. And Heinz Michaelis of Seaport Traders made that fact quite clear:

Mr. MICHAELIS. A statement to the effect, I believe that it said that the buyer states that he is a citizen of the United States, and that he has never been convicted in any court of the United States, territories, possessions, et cetera. Do you want me----

Mr. BALL. Well, now, this fourth copy that has on the back this statement by the customer, is that mailed to the customer?

Mr. MICHAELIS. It is mailed to the customer, but not in this particular case. Indicated on the invoice are three X's, which indicates that we have already a statement to this effect on file because this particular mail order coupon has already the statement, and the name of the witness.

---------------

As for the rifle purchase, however, since there was no "Witness" area for Oswald to fill in (and lie about) on the Klein's order form, I cannot say anything about the "good character" stuff regarding that purchase.

But it seems to me that Gil's complaint is with Klein's (if they did not provide all the proper forms when selling their rifles). It's certainly not Oswald's fault if Klein's did something wrong. (I'm not saying Gil said it IS Oswald's fault. I'm just sayin'....)

But in the long run, this is just another in a long line of things that CTers like to dredge up (decades later) in order to try and create some "doubt" about whether or not Lee Oswald ever ordered and possessed Rifle C2766.

But even without a certificate showing Oswald to be a choir boy and a perfect citizen (if such a certificate was even required, which is doubtful after reading Mr. Mack's comments), it doesn't make a bit of difference--since all reasonable people know beyond all doubt that LHO did possess Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 and the Tippit murder weapon in 1963. He had the revolver in his own hands on 11/22 and his prints are on the rifle. What more proof of possession could possibly be required?

Edited March 13, 2012 by David Von Pein