Posted on 07/01/2008 8:05:09 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
Within the next four weeks, Luzerne County Sheriff Michael Savokinas will begin to sign off on federal applications for machine guns, short barrel shotguns and silencers.
Savokinas said he intends to make the background checks, required as part of the application to purchase the arms, as uniform and rigorous as possible. It will also allow law enforcement to check for poor personal judgment such as a problem with alcohol or a poor temper. The sheriff’s approval will be a compliment to checks performed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI.
According to Savokinas, ATF has the final say, regardless of what local law enforcement may recommend.
“If they fail (the background check) through our agency, they can appeal to the federal government,” he said.
However, the sheriff’s sign-off for federal applications means there will be greater local input into the process.
Chris Scoda, owner of Advanced Arms in Pittston, which sells a range of firearms including machine guns, says that the local check offers another level of security.
County residents need the signature of their local police chief, the district attorney or the commander of state police. Scoda said the current system has created a sort of “patchwork” of processes where each department has its own sets of procedures and checks.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 established Title II firearms, which include machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, modified pistols and silencers, and placed a $200 tax on the sale of all of these weapons. Since then, a series of laws and court decisions have created further regulation of these types of firearms. However, nothing prohibits sale to qualified individuals.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, reaffirming that the Constitution guarantees the right to own firearms.
“Dealers and individuals in the county, if they pass the background check, should be allowed to own these weapons,” Savokinas said.
“In order to have lawful transfer, there are federal forms with specific information about you” and the firearm that have to be filled out, Scoda said..
“People who go through this process are legitimate,” he continued. “They are putting out information out there — fingerprints, their photograph and tax documents.”
According to Scoda, the firearms that require federal documentation are expensive and highly sought after. Since Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 ended the manufacturing of machine guns, except for those made for military and law enforcement, their prices have skyrocketed making them unattractive to criminals.
Savokinas said his checks would ensure the firearms are in safe hands.
“If we think the guy is a bad individual, we will talk to the local police” and make sure that he or she is capable of safely owning such a weapon, he said.
Were those kinds of checks perfomed on elected officials, over 80% of them would be working in the private sector, or unemployed.
Not likely, the ruling on Heller established an individual right. Not a privilige like driving but a RIGHT, subject to registration. Like voting; you have to register but fees and fines are unconstitutional to exercise it (example: poll tax)
How drool...
Bryan Miller must be fit to be tied. He had PA targeted as the next NJ with his Ceasefire organization.
They need to bring those signs back to the PA/NJ border - “America Begins Here”. LOL!!!
So voting is a privilige now? Try to vote in a local election without registering.
So Heller tells us we have the right that we already knew we had. But now another step is being added, to possess some weapons. A step that involves subjectivity. So even if you have a clean record, and your wife just divorced you and is dating the police chiefs best friend. And the friend tells the chief he doesn’t like you, he won’t sign off on it. Trust me, in little boo foo towns all over America, this kind of stuff will happen. Hard to believe, but it will happen. I don’t like this idea at all. Why the extra step all of a sudden? We all have heard of corrupt police chiefs, patrolmen, and sheriffs. More beauracratic bull crap!!
Is this different from how they are able to be owned now?
lol...
Slice the cheese anyway you like...guns will be regulated here exactly the same as they are in Germany within ten years. This decision deals with outright bans only...exactly the same as drugs. We will do the same with guns as we have with drugs (Commerce Clause) and that will lead to an increase in gun crime...again, exactly the same as drugs.
The Spell Check Demon got me. Honest. Really.
(that's my story and I'm sticking to it)
This is starting to sound like a GEICO commercial...
I am amazed that no one posting has stated the obvious! The National Firearms Act of 1934 (Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, as amended, currently codified as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5801–5872) requires the following procedure be followed in transferring class III weapons:
"All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4".
The chief law enforcement officer of your county of residence has always had "sign-off" responsibility for class III transfers in his jurisdiction. That has been black letter law since 1934. So what this bird is going to do is already SOP, he has added his own local background check, which will most likely be a run through the ATF "instant background check" hot-line. I don't expect that he has any more then that resource at his disposal. The problem isn't the additional check, it's getting the required signature! Some sheriffs have been notoriously deficient in complying with that request and have taken "stonewalling" to a high art form.
It has taken me months to find out that our sheriff has delegated that to one of his deputies who has yet to return my voice mail calls to his extension. I might have better luck in an election year!
Regards,
GtG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.