« Miers gone; next pick? | Main | Yet another "this is pitiful" moment »
Nevada CCWs and background checks
The Nevada situation (where ATFE has held that the CCW permits do not allow holders to avoid the background check) seems to be getting even murkier. The Pahrump Valley Times reports that "Firearms dealers received a last minute notice issued by The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) less than a week before the deadline. The change does not sit well with individual permit holders - who were not notified in advance." The reported basis is that "In a report published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Saturday, an audit found that sheriff's departments in Nevada were not performing federally required annual updates on permit holders. Frank Adams, executive director of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said law enforcement lacks the staff to perform the updates. However, Marshall points out that Nye County has not done annual updates because they are not required under Nevada Revised Statute 202.366, which deals with issuance or denial of Nevada's concealed firearm permit."
What I can't figure out is how this ties into the background check question. 18 USC 922 requires the checks, but has this exception:
"(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a firearm transfer between a licensee and another person if-- (A)(i) such other person has presented to the licensee a permit that-- (I) allows such other person to possess or acquire a firearm; and (II) was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and (ii) the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by such other person would be in violation of law"
I don't see anything in there requiring that the permit be reviewed annually. And as far as its length goes, the requirement isn't that the permit be no more than five years, it's that the transaction not take place more than five years after the permit was issued.
Comments
It's not the batfe, it's the "local" state office trying to generate additional revenue.
Posted by: emdfl at October 29, 2005 04:30 PM
this is great. i think everyone should have to under go background checks before getting hired
Posted by: background check at November 1, 2005 12:35 PM
BATFE writes in vague terms and delivers 'updates' less than expediently in order to trap the law-abiding citizen and ethical dealer.
BATFE says they are undermanned, unable to perform the proactive audits and education that would increase a sense of trust with the firearm-owning community. They would much rather spend tax-payer money on intimidation.
Perhaps BATFE and the states should make uniform requirement for permits and background checks. (Oh that make too much sense, wouldn't it?)
As a professional project manager and former spouse of a firearm dealer, the lack of management by the sole supplier (BATFE) to its customer (FFL Holders) is nauseating.
Posted by: LaurieB at November 2, 2005 12:10 PM