Bucks sheriff wants more personnel for gun permit background checks

[Bang]

The satellite (New Falls Road) Bucks County office had one person (now retired) handling LTCF apps and people needing passports, creating a lot of people crammed into a very small space. That person seemed less than gun friendly, and there was a NO FIREARMS posted in the entrance. (Do not know if it still is).

The "service" was ridiculous. Enough so that some just went to Doylestown. The once a day for LTCF was due to be expanded to two days a week. Considering that it used to be every day, it seems to be a cut in service. But if it addresses LTCF exclusively, it may be a better service model.

Years ago, people applied for LTCF with their local PD. Someone in detective division was assigned background investigation and forwarded their finding to the chief. The chief approved/disapproved and forwarded to the licensing agency (which has always been the Commonwealth). Changes occurred, and the application and investigation was shifted to county sheriffs. The sheriff was supposed to continue the background investigation model. Those that did not were open to bad things, as were the residents ill-served.

[mikelets456]

I have met Sheriff Warrell and was impressed. Be very careful of the Bucks County Courier Times. They are capable of misquoting even having recorded the interview.

There have been examples of shooters having passed state and national background checks that in hindsight proved to have had behavioral histories. Only a field investigation (like the FBI should have done in Florida) can detect these oddballs. I would assume Sheriff Warrell has learned from these cases that more needs to be done and he is taking his job seriously. Warrell apparently realizes it is his responsibility to actually know who he is licensing. He places himself as the thin blue line between the nut and the potential victims, and this forum beats him up?

Who here wants to side with giving a LTCF to a whack job who by fortune has not been officially designated such by arrest?

I'm sorry, but did a progressive co-opt your screen name and password? These sound like liberal talking points for more restrictions and more intrusion. Also, you make it sound as if a criminal will jump through hoops to get a LTCF then go on a murderous spree after he gets approval. All the more reason to have Constitutional Carry in the commonwealth....You still go through checks regardless. From purchasing a handgun to getting a conceal carry----

[Bang]

Medical examiners have to try guard against hiring morgue attendants who secretly are necropheliacs. Firefighters have to try to guard against taking in latent arsonists. Organizations that serve children have to try to guard against applicants who could be pedophiles.

Restrictions and intrusions are a part of many facets of society. To accept it across the board except where firearms is concerned defies logic. It denies that the 2nd Amendment can be usurped, just as the 1st is when an "artist" places a crucifix in a container of urine.

I find it unreasonable to believe that the Founders wanted a dangerous person to enjoy the same freedoms as a normal person. The primary purpose of a government is general safety of the populace.

I agree that government efforts to foresee what might happen is controversial. But let's say you were accountable for an agent you licensed. How would you go about it? And if you were an elected law maker and you passed law whereby all residents were free to constitutionally carry, would you feel any responsibility for the shooter "everyone knew" was a whack job? Or is it a chips fall where they may and none of government's business?

[thefirstndsecond]

Medical examiners have to try guard against hiring morgue attendants who secretly are necropheliacs. Firefighters have to try to guard against taking in latent arsonists. Organizations that serve children have to try to guard against applicants who could be pedophiles.

Restrictions and intrusions are a part of many facets of society. To accept it across the board except where firearms is concerned defies logic. It denies that the 2nd Amendment can be usurped, just as the 1st is when an "artist" places a crucifix in a container of urine.

I find it unreasonable to believe that the Founders wanted a dangerous person to enjoy the same freedoms as a normal person. The primary purpose of a government is general safety of the populace.

I agree that government efforts to foresee what might happen is controversial. But let's say you were accountable for an agent you licensed. How would you go about it? And if you were an elected law maker and you passed law whereby all residents were free to constitutionally carry, would you feel any responsibility for the shooter "everyone knew" was a whack job? Or is it a chips fall where they may and none of government's business?

The things you write about are employment positions.

Dangerous person? This is up to perception. Hell in today's climate it might be far fetched to have an NRA member be called a murderer, terrorist, or kid killer. That is why they go with convictions.

As far as governments purpose of general safety.. you should go research that one.

The amount of crime committed by carry holders or those in constitutional carry states is so very very very small your argument is invalid. There for the idea of all this intrusion given the FACT we have not had LTCF issues in Bucks County with regards to crime, is not needed.

Is it simple party line politics? Is it the current climate and a party line response?

[GunLawyer001]

The things you write about are employment positions.

Dangerous person? This is up to perception. Hell in today's climate it might be far fetched to have an NRA member be called a murderer, terrorist, or kid killer. That is why they go with convictions.

As far as governments purpose of general safety.. you should go research that one.

The amount of crime committed by carry holders or those in constitutional carry states is so very very very small your argument is invalid. There for the idea of all this intrusion given the FACT we have not had LTCF issues in Bucks County with regards to crime, is not needed.

Is it simple party line politics? Is it the current climate and a party line response?

I did a quick Google search but found nothing; how many LTCF holders are there in PA, excluding non-residents?

The Sheriff commented that some LTCF's are revoked because the holder becomes ineligible, sometimes by committing a crime. But I don't recall hearing about many LTCF holders who commit gun crimes that were facilitated by having an LTCF.

[Statkowski]

I agree that government efforts to foresee what might happen is controversial. But let's say you were accountable for an agent you licensed. How would you go about it? And if you were an elected law maker and you passed law whereby all residents were free to constitutionally carry, would you feel any responsibility for the shooter "everyone knew" was a whack job? Or is it a chips fall where they may and none of government's business?

You forget that state law says that if the sheriff does issue a license in good faith after doing what the law required, the sheriff is not responsible for the malfeasance of the licensee. You can take "better safe than sorry" and "what if" only so far. In the end, it is the individual that is ultimately responsible for his or her actions.

[Delkal]

Can someone post his facebook response? If he wants to spend my tax dollars "investigating" law abiding citizens that is bad. What do you expect from the government.............

But registering fingerprints of law abiding citizens is a no go. I don't think anyone is that stupid to implement something like this, he won the election by only one percent.

I am hoping this is just inept reporting.

[Bang]

Unless protocol has changed (such as by 9/11), criminal fingerprint files and civil fingerprint files are separate, and civil is inviolate and unused in criminal fingerprint searches.

[GunLawyer001]

Can someone post his facebook response? If he wants to spend my tax dollars "investigating" law abiding citizens that is bad. . . .

To be fair, he may be relying on the statutory words:

"(d) Sheriff to conduct investigation.--The sheriff to whom the application is made shall:

(1) investigate the applicant's record of criminal conviction;

(2) investigate whether or not the applicant is under indictment for or has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;

(3) investigate whether the applicant's character and reputation are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety;

(4) investigate whether the applicant would be precluded from receiving a license under subsection (e)(1) or section 6105(h) (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms); and

(5) conduct a criminal background, juvenile delinquency and mental health check following the procedures set forth in section 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms), receive a unique approval number for that inquiry and record the date and number on the application. "

[qmcorps]

To be fair, he may be relying on the statutory words:

"(d) Sheriff to conduct investigation.--The sheriff to whom the application is made shall:

(1) investigate the applicant's record of criminal conviction;

(2) investigate whether or not the applicant is under indictment for or has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;

(3) investigate whether the applicant's character and reputation are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety;

(4) investigate whether the applicant would be precluded from receiving a license under subsection (e)(1) or section 6105(h) (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms); and

(5) conduct a criminal background, juvenile delinquency and mental health check following the procedures set forth in section 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms), receive a unique approval number for that inquiry and record the date and number on the application. "

Does not NICS/PICS provide that information?*

*Not being contrarian; If the system does not provide that information, perhaps the "comprehensive background check" is necessary**.

** Yea, I'm going to get burned.