Reading on some of these gun owner sites that Sheriff Barry signs off as the CLO on the ATF Form, so Fairfax Citizens can own Fully Automatic Weapons and Silencers. Plus he makes them fill out a second form. Now I know why...

Come election time he uses that second form to scare gun owners that if he is not elected, the new Sheriff may not sign as the CLO.

He is using his office and that second form for political gain. Shame on Mr. Barry for using our 2nd. Amendment Rights to keep a database on us then ask us for money to further your political career and fatten your wallet.


>Dir Sir,
>As you are no doubt aware, the 2003 election season is upon us. Over the past >four years, my staff and I have ssisted you in your investment and collection >needs. It has been my pleasure to do so.
>
>As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment of the United States >Constitution, I have faithfully processed your requests for Class III >firearms, as I believe is your right to make. One of my goals four years ago >was to complete these requests equitably and in a timely fashion.
>
>Unfortunately, the manner in which we have conducted these transactions may >change dramatically. I believe my opponent in this year's race for Sheriff >may want to change this process. In his role as former Chief Depudy Sheriff, >his administration demonstrated a different stance on gun ownership than >mine. At that time many of the Class III requests were either denied or not >acted on.
>
>In addition to my stand on Class III requests, you should know that I am >endorsed by all Deputy Sheriff, Police and Firefighter groups as well as the >Law Enforcement Alliance of America. These organizations have said that I am >the clear choice to lead the Sheriff's Office.
>
>As in all political races, sufficient funding is imperative to mount a >successful campaign for re-election. If you are able to help with this your >contribution would be very much appreciated.
>
>Thank you for your time to read this letter and I look forward to the >opportunity to continue serving as your Sheriff.
>
>Sincerly,
>Stan Barry

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=24&t=172876

Hmmm...are those permits/applications public records? For some reason I would not have thought so.

Seems wrong.

If you are reading what is being said overall you should see theme. . .

Olde Farte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm...are those permits/applications public
> records? For some reason I would not have thought
> so.
>
> Seems wrong.


I dont believe they are public records, but they are on file with law enforcement agencies just like concealed permits are. He can very easily access that information if he wanted to

no but Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont believe they are public records, but they
> are on file with law enforcement agencies just
> like concealed permits are. He can very easily
> access that information if he wanted to

Well, if they aren't public then he has probably violated some law.

Olde Farte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
mation if he wanted to
>
> Well, if they aren't public then he has probably
> violated some law.


If hes using them to try and influence votes like is being suggested then yes he definitely is. Being the sheriff though if he were to just simply look them up say to see how many their are or something like that but doesnt do anything with the information I doubt that just looking them up is a crime.

no but Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but doesnt do anything with the information I doubt
> that just looking them up is a crime.

No, I doubt just looking them over in aosme vague offical manner is quite legal.

However, that's not being discussed - what's apparent is someone used the records to generate a mailing list for some guy's re-election campaign.

At best that is questionable use of either the records themselves or the resources to look up the records.

Olde Farte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no but Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...but doesnt do anything with the information I
> doubt
> > that just looking them up is a crime.
>
> No, I doubt just looking them over in aosme vague
> offical manner is quite legal.
>
> However, that's not being discussed - what's
> apparent is someone used the records to generate a
> mailing list for some guy's re-election campaign.
>
> At best that is questionable use of either the
> records themselves or the resources to look up the
> records.


Yea I wasnt commenting on this particular case since I dont know the facts. If that indeed happened yes at best its inappropriate and Im sure at the very least violates some election laws, I was just commenting in general

Did you really dig up an 8 year old Arfcom post? Get a fucking life faggot.

It doesn't matter if the CLEO signs off on the purchase of NFA items. CLEO can always be dodged via the use of an NFA trust.

Seriously OP, you must be some sort of liberal douche. Go ahead and hop on the 3rd metro rail. Piece of shit.

Try doing some research before you post. Stupid bitch.

Wow Shawn Tavious! Such impressive vocabulary. I can tell you are a very intelligent supporter of Stan Barry. But, you got a couple of your facts wrong. Stan Barry is the liberal. It's just that very early on, he recognized that the gun owners would be a lucrative bunch to appease, so he set out to do so. He was not so subtle when he then turned around and asked for campaign contributions.

What folks need to realize is that Bill Cooper is a REPUBLICAN. He will support the rights of gun owners. If anything, the process would be smoother, not more complicated.

The original post of this thread was pointing out that Stan Barry used ill-gotten information to try and pressure you folks to give him campain money. That would tick me off if I were you.

The second form concerns me. If that form stays with the Sheriff Department, then gets turned over to a campaign, what else happens with that form? Does the Sheriff's investigator also give a copy to the Police and they enter it into their computer system? Then the police have an inventory of my guns!

Republican Gun Owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The second form concerns me. If that form stays
> with the Sheriff Department, then gets turned over
> to a campaign, what else happens with that form?
> Does the Sheriff's investigator also give a copy
> to the Police and they enter it into their
> computer system? Then the police have an inventory
> of my guns!

If you purchased a firearm from a dealer and NOT a private owner, then there are records of your inventory of guns in a number of places.

Jenny M Wrote:
-
> If you purchased a firearm from a dealer and NOT a
> private owner, then there are records of your
> inventory of guns in a number of places.


not really. they run background checks to see if you can purchase that type of firearm. they dont write down what youre buying and save a list of what you have. the only thing they do have is if you have a concealed permit it will show up that you have a concealed permit if a cop runs your name or license plate. it wont say you have a concealed and what weapons you own.

no but Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jenny M Wrote:
> -
> > If you purchased a firearm from a dealer and NOT
> a
> > private owner, then there are records of your
> > inventory of guns in a number of places.
>
>
> not really. they run background checks to see if
> you can purchase that type of firearm. they dont
> write down what youre buying and save a list of
> what you have. the only thing they do have is if
> you have a concealed permit it will show up that
> you have a concealed permit if a cop runs your
> name or license plate. it wont say you have a
> concealed and what weapons you own.


Sorry no but............you are incorrect. If you purchase a firearm from a dealer then you complete a Federal Form 4473. That form is to be held by the dealer, logged into a record book and provided to any law enforcemant agency that requests to see it.

I cannot tell you how many times we had to show our record book and forms to all kinds of agencies when Muhammad and Boyd were shooting people. In addition when an "instant check" is done there is a record of that too. (at least in Virginia),

The Second Amendment is being chipped away at. "Big Brother" has more information on people's actions than No But thinks.

The thread was about someone using records of machine guns and silencers for political purposes - there is zero doubt that these two different types of ... uh weapons are thoroughly recorded by the Gummamint - at a cost of $500 or so each, right? That isn;t really in question.

What IS is question is if these records are "public" and, whether or not they are, what funding was used to retrieve the records to then send off political ads to the machine gun and silencer owners.

Jenny M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> Sorry no but............you are incorrect. If you
> purchase a firearm from a dealer then you complete
> a Federal Form 4473. That form is to be held by
> the dealer, logged into a record book and provided
> to any law enforcemant agency that requests to see
> it.
>
> I cannot tell you how many times we had to show
> our record book and forms to all kinds of agencies
> when Muhammad and Boyd were shooting people. In
> addition when an "instant check" is done there is
> a record of that too. (at least in Virginia),
>
> The Second Amendment is being chipped away at.
> "Big Brother" has more information on people's
> actions than No But thinks.


If you arent doing anything wrong it doesnt matter either way. Just wait and see if Obama gets a 2nd term thats when the real assault on the 2nd amendment would start and Project Gunrunner would be one of their reasons for it even though that was their doing

Bottom line just vote for Cooper if you dont like what Berry is doing and his threat is stupid anyway, once you have it unless you commit a crime just like any other law youd be grandfathered in.

Cant the Chief of Police or Commonwealth Attorney sign off as well instead of the Sheriff?

State law mandates that all machine gun have to be registered with the State Police. I recall that the Chief law enforcement officer of a county, city, or town are furnished with a letter from the State Police indicating the name and address of where the machine gun is located. Nothing about the sheriff signing a form allowing the possession.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-295

I've always heard that the Sheriff has to sign off on it, but maybe not. I have also heard that once you obtain the right to own/purchase these types of weapons that there are strict rules on where and how the weapon and ammo must be stored. I think I even recall hearing that the ATF can show up and perform an inspection of the area where the firearm is to be stored to verify compliance with the storage methods outlined in the law.

Don't you also need to obtain a $200 federal tax stamp to be able to purchase these types of weapons?

I am probably in the minority on this board but I cannot think of a good reason to own a silencer except to avoid detection during a criminal offense.
When I see people buying a Barrett 50 cal I also wonder for what purpose.

The SHERIFF has to sign off, yes sirree!

Why would the incumbent sheriff, a democrat, sign off on silencers and machine guns? Who the fuck needs that shit?

Second Amendment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would the incumbent sheriff, a democrat, sign
> off on silencers and machine guns? Who the fuck
> needs that shit?


Theyre fun to use at the range. Full auto machine guns are also a way for some people to invest. Since they can no longer be made for private ownership the value of them keeps increasing as every year some of them either get scrapped from being broken or are destroyed. If you buy one and sell it 10 years from now youll make a pretty penny.

And he would sign off on them because thats his job unless there is something in the persons background that would prevent him from owning it. The price alone takes pretty much every common street thug out of the running for ownership as does the long background check. You cant just not sign off on them because you dont like them

fairfax 007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am probably in the minority on this board but I
> cannot think of a good reason to own a silencer
> except to avoid detection during a criminal
> offense.

You wouldn't understand. You have to try and imagine the mindset of a gun nut. A person who's world revolves around guns. A person who spends more time thinking about guns than anything else. A person who was raised by gun nuts, and therefore can't imagine not being a gun nut.

It can be difficult for a normal person such as yourself to enter into that mindset. Kind of like trying to figure out how someone could see a Scion on a dealer lot and say to themselves "Yes, that's the car I want."

fairfax 007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am probably in the minority on this board but I
> cannot think of a good reason to own a silencer
> except to avoid detection during a criminal
> offense.
> When I see people buying a Barrett 50 cal I also
> wonder for what purpose.

Awhile back I saw someone - in Finland or Norway or someplace near there - using a suppresor on a rifle for hunting. I could see doing that sort of thing easily.

I think it would be kind of fun to take a massive machine gun out to the appropriate boonies and shoot up everything in sight Big Time. Can't personally see much other use nearterm for such a beast but could see a desire by someone with lots of spare bucks to have one now and then.

However...there doesn't need to be a reason to own a weapon; owning the weapon IS the reason.

fairfax 007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am probably in the minority on this board but I
> cannot think of a good reason to own a silencer
> except to avoid detection during a criminal
> offense.
> When I see people buying a Barrett 50 cal I also
> wonder for what purpose.

Do you feel the same way about cars that can go faster than 75 mph? What's the purpose of a mustang GT that can go 110? Or a corvette? Or a motorcycle?

If you have the money, and you think its fun, and its legal, why do you think that only criminals will be using it if you see no point for it?

Can you provide any documented instances where someone used a 50 cal or a silencer during a crime?

And if the answer is to make it illegal - has that ever stopped anyone from getting it? Pot's illegal, yet many of my friends smoke it all the time. Meth, crack, crossing the border for work, kiddie porn, and a few other things are illegal, and yet they're all widely available.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You wouldn't understand. You have to try and
> imagine the mindset of a gun nut...

Yeah, that's probably the best way to look at it.

Gun nuts want access to machine guns and suppressors and, based on (probably a valid) reading of the Constitution, they have the right to that access.

========

I was surprised to see that NEW machine guns can't be bought by plain old citizens - how did THAT one pass!? I suspect a lot of machine shops are producing under-the-table knock-offs...

I can;t actually see owning a machine gun or suppressor but then again the only guns I own or have access to I got from my Dear Ol' Dad or, later, his estate.

I have no real use for the ones I have since I'm not a gun nut.

You asked for an example of criminal use of a silencer, I ask you can you tell me why a citizen would require a silencer in the first place?

Fairfax 007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You asked for an example of criminal use of a
> silencer, I ask you can you tell me why a citizen
> would require a silencer in the first place?

They're actually called suppressors. See the posts above that mention suppressors.

To protect your hearing and the hearing of those around you. They also lower noise pollution near shooting ranges.

Dumbass.

Fairfax 007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You asked for an example of criminal use of a
> silencer, I ask you can you tell me why a citizen
> would require a silencer in the first place?

"You asked for an example of criminal use of a silencer, I ask you can you tell me why a citizen would require a silencer in the first place?"

Because they can legally shoot in their backyard, which is completely possible if you travel a half hour from Fairfax, and they don't want to annoy the shit out of their neighbors every time they want to do some target shooting.