Sheriff wants to conduct their own bankground check

[jrinne0430]

jrinne0430 I live in Stafford too. My interest in now peaked! I've had my C&R license here for quite a while now. By the way, the Sheriff isn't new. He has been sheriff since 2000 (he may have been re-elected about a year ago). I got my original C&R license with him being sheriff, and several renewals. Never even heard from him.

You maybe right. I just moved to Stafford from Spotsylvania and I maybe getting the elections confused (Spoty got a new sheriff). Interesting that the Stafford sherriff never asked to perform their own background on you.

[noelf2]

I changed my previous post a bit. I've had my license for about 10 years now. If they have a new requirement, they must not be forcing it on existing license holders.

[jrinne0430]

I changed my previous post a bit. I've had my license for about 10 years now. If they have a new requirement, they must not be forcing it on existing license holders.

That is what I am waiting on a response about. Unless there is a new ordinance that does not violate the state’s preemption statute, then I do not know why he is asking for it. When I moved to Stafford, I provided the sheriff with a copy of my FFL showing my current (new at the time) address and heard nothing from him until now, at time of renewal.


Personally, I have no issue with having them perform their own check IF it is required and not some arbitrary new desire.

[Cheapshooter]

Another possibility is that it is not the sheriff, but someone new in his office. Possibly someone unfamiliar with the 03 C&R FFL. Just thinking it is some kind of "gun" license needing a background check.
Would not a simple call to the sheriff's office be a good idea? Actually talking to someone there might resolve the whole issue.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm thinking ignoring the sheriff might be an even better course of action.

They don't have much of a say in the overall process, really.

[jrinne0430]

I have not heard back from VCDL so I called the sheriff’s dept Criminal Investigative Division (CID) which wanted the background. Bottom line, it is a “request” and not required.

I spoke with the administrative assistant who requested the information via phone message. Overall, the conversation was very polite. Early in the conversation, the tone was definitely leaning to “you must” provide the information until I asked what county or state law required it. I was informed there was none. I was informed that sheriff wants a background check on all FFL holders in the county. I asked why, and was given a spew about how they are trying to automate and consolidate records. I then asked is this “request” something new, I was told no, and that the sheriff dept usually matches the FFL holder to the concealed weapons permit holders (vast majority of FFL holder also have CCW) which results is no need for an additional background request.

I explained that I did also have a CCW however; they had some initial difficulty finding mine but it should not be a problem to do the comparison.
I am upset to find out this was not a requirement but an additional “request” from the sheriff and they would be “asking” everyone who has an FFL to submit to a background check when they send in their copy if the dept can’t find their CCW.

I should not have called as now it will now bother me that such is happening in my county…oh well, better to know what is happening than to just say OK.

[noelf2]

I have a CHP, so that must be why I was never called. At least we know it's a request, and can be ignored. If I were you, I'd forget about it. Not worth losing any sleep over.

It does trouble me that the VCDL didn't get back to you, but I'm not surprised. I had been a paying member of the VCDL for many years, but this last year I did not renew. I had an issue with Stafford County in renewing my CHP last year. I was taking advantage of the new "renew by mail" option, and was really getting a run around by the County Clerk's office. I notified VCDL and they didn't take it at all seriously. Later, someone of more status in the VCDL had the same issue in Stafford, and the VCDL was all over it like stink on a weasel.

[jrinne0430]

Overall, the request is another hoop and is upsetting to say the least. What kind of round around did you get from Stafford on your CCW renewal?

Edit: I emailed and heard nothing back from VCDL. Also, today I called and left them a message for them to call me.

[noelf2]

Not that it makes much difference, but in VA we don't have CCW. We have CHP.

Stafford clerk's office called me and said they needed proof that I had training. I told them I provided that with my first application 10 years previously, my military DD 214. They said they needed it again. I told them to get a copy of it where they are (court house) as I have it on file there. They told me I needed to come in and give it to them, or fax it. I told them I wouldn't fax it or bring it to them. That was additional cost that should not be required and is nowhere in the "renew by mail" requirements. They were not willing to walk across the hall to get a copy of my DD 214 They hung up on me. I called back and insisted to speak with the county clerk. The next day, the clerk called me. I explained the deal. She said they could use a copy of my expiring CHP if I fax it to them. I then contacted the VCDL, and after several days, I got a simple response: "most people just give them a copy of their CHP". So, I faxed a copy of the CHP and got my renewed CHP on time. Later that year, another Stafford VCDL member had the exact same problem. VCDL took immediate action and got the clerk sorted out big time. There was a write-up about it in the VCDL update email as if that was the first time it happened in Stafford and VCDL was Johnny on the spot. I emailed VCDL and asked why they didn't take action when I told them the Stafford clerk was not following the rules, and like you, I got the crickets chirping response. I'm just not that bigga deal to them. Not that it's about "me" mind you. I just thought VCDL would act on these sort of 2A issues in the state. Not sure why they didn't for my issue, so, they can proceed without me. I'm still active in state pro 2A legislation and routinely write my representatives.

[jrinne0430]

So, having been issued a permit prior, which would indicate meeting the firearm training requirement, was not good enough for them. Now they want to run their own background checks for ffl holders while insinuating it is mandatory...figures.

[44 AMP]

“request” from the sheriff and they would be “asking” everyone who has an FFL to submit to a background check

What do you mean by submit? Its not like they are going to draw blood, or is it?

If I am understanding it correctly, the sheriff gets a copy of your renewal request, right? You submit the license renewal to the ATF, right? You don't need to wait on the sheriff's approval, do you?

So, if you don't need to wait on their approval, then you aren't submitting to anything, are you? They get notified, and they'll run a check on you, if they feel like it. But since nothing is dependent on their check, other than their own desires, what does it matter?

[noelf2]

So, if you don't need to wait on their approval, then you aren't submitting to anything, are you? They get notified, and they'll run a check on you, if they feel like it. But since nothing is dependent on their check, other than their own desires, what does it matter?

They're asking him for more information than what's already on the license application. They are "asking" but tried to make it seem like a demand at first (typical and expected police tactic). The issue is a matter of principle.

[44 AMP]

The issue is a matter of principle.

I understand that. What I'm trying to say is that their desire to run a background check on you doesn't affect you in any real way, right?

You have met your responsibilities, and anything else is not a requirement, nor has any bearing on your application, right?

No, they don't have a need for any more information. Of course there is the remote possibility they just wanted your birthdate to make sure the "james smith" they are going to run a check on is the same "james smith" that's on their copy of your renewal application....

Of course, if there is already any indication of any kind of adversarial attitude on the part of the sheriff (or his office), then I would say, essentially, bugger off, you evil get! (ok, maybe not those exact words...)

Give them what the law requires, and let them get what they want on their own. Because they will get it, one way, or another, if they want it. So, as a good taxpaying citizen, one should at least do what one can to see that they earn their salaries. In other words, since you can't stop them, at least make them do their own legwork.

[Mike Irwin]

Read my posts about the conduct of some sheriffs in Virginia, 44.

Stafford County Sheriff's office was, for a LONG time, very opposed to concealed carry, and for a time was among those doing what it could to sabotage the new law after it passed.

I'm thoroughly against it simply because giving in where there's no requirement to do so simply emboldens them and gives them cause to think that if 1 will do it, all SHOULD do it. And that's when the problems start.

[Romeo 33 Delta]

They are entitled to what the law requires and only what the law requires. Anything else, regardless of how insignificant, is none of their business and is "extra-legal" (in that it is beyond what the law requires). Profoundly disturbing!

[johnwilliamson062]

The license is not shallissue as far as I know. You give notice to CLEo so he has the opportunity to contact ATFE if he has a problem with you getting it. He probably can't demand you provide it, but he might call ATFE and tell them he isn't so hot aout you getting it. I don't think you have any legal recourse if he wants you to jump through a few hoops.

[jrinne0430]

The license is not shallissue as far as I know. You give notice to CLEo so he has the opportunity to contact ATFE if he has a problem with you getting it. He probably can't demand you provide it, but he might call ATFE and tell them he isn't so hot aout you getting it. I don't think you have any legal recourse if he wants you to jump through a few hoops.

The only recourse is that I don't do it. It is not required by law and the Sheriff does not approve of disapprove my C&R FFL. He can tell the ATF that he is not "hot" about me obtaining it however; since I will pass the background performed by ATF, there is nothing to stop me from obtaining the C&R FFL. Honestly, I have no problem with providing it but I am concerned that they will use this and other tactics to harass. As I stated earlier, their initial response was this was manditory, which it is not.

If there is ever a state or federal law requiring to submit to another background check (which makes no sense since it will bring up the same info as the ATF check), then I would have no issue.

I still have not received a response from VCDL. Though I do not expect them to necessarily take any action, I would like at least a courtesy response.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm rather surprised that VCDL hasn't responded. They normally are pretty good about getting back to inquiries like this.

[noelf2]

I'm rather surprised that VCDL hasn't responded. They normally are pretty good about getting back to inquiries like this.

Well, they used to be but something has changed. They should be on the horn with sheriff Jett and asking what the heck he thinks he's doing. They should be publishing this issue in the VCDL email update.

[jrinne0430]

I still have not heard back from VCDL (3 emails and 1 phone call). I will update next week to let you know if I hear anything. If I don't hear back from them, they will have one less member.

[noelf2]

Send them this whole thread. Inform them that a forum moderator advised you to contact them. Advise them that they are losing credibility.

[JERRYS.]

your bigger concern should be the BATFE, not the locally elected Sheriff.

[jrinne0430]

What new concern about the ATF? They are not the ones asking the sheriff to run his own back ground check. The problem coming from my own county is what has me upset.

[JERRYS.]

if you don't like the sheriff that can change on election day. you are stuck with the batfe in whatever fashion the federal government wants to use them.

[noelf2]

if you don't like the sheriff that can change on election day. you are stuck with the batfe in whatever fashion the federal government wants to use them.

You can also change how the BATFE operates on election day. You do understand that he isn't, and said he isn't, having any problem with the batfe, right? Please explain why that's his bigger concern at the moment.