N.H. Safety Dept to police: End firearms checks

[marcusindc]

From: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articl...NEWS-910169995

The New Hampshire Department of Safety has ordered law enforcement agencies to stop running background checks before returning confiscated firearms to their owners, saying it's a misuse of the system.

The New Hampshire Union Leader reports assistant commissioner Earl Sweeney sent a memo on Sept. 28 to police throughout the state. It reminded them that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System can be used only by federally licensed gun manufacturers, importers and dealers.

Sweeney says police checks before returning confiscated firearms exceeds the authority granted to the Safety Department by the Legislature.

The order is in response to a complaint filed with the state by Concord attorney Evan Nappen, who specializes in weapons law. He contacted the state after Manchester police ran an NICS check on one of his clients.

[towncop]

Sounds pretty cut and dry. If they're not using it properly and according to state law, STOP IT.

[mikeymedic]

Well, they have a point.

[nonickname69]

I guess they'll have to use the plain ol' regular NCIC to check to make sure the dirt bags aren't felons.

[Smurfette_76]

We do criminal history checks on all persons coming to get their weapons. It's against the law to give a felon a gun.

'Course, I also go through the pawn lists and see who is pawning guns. If they pawned a gun and they are a felon, I go get the warrants.

[DAL]

We do criminal history checks on all persons coming to get their weapons. It's against the law to give a felon a gun.

'Course, I also go through the pawn lists and see who is pawning guns. If they pawned a gun and they are a felon, I go get the warrants.

I think the issue is which computer system you may use for this purpose.

[Smurfette_76]

I realize that...my point being they can still do CHCs, just not using that system.

[David Hineline]

accidental double post.

[David Hineline]

We do criminal history checks on all persons coming to get their weapons. It's against the law to give a felon a gun.

'Course, I also go through the pawn lists and see who is pawning guns. If they pawned a gun and they are a felon, I go get the warrants.

Why the felon got rid of his gun, just like a no questions asked city sponsored gun buy back, he no longer is in possesion of a gun, which is the goal, if he is a felon he can not get his gun back anyway as the pawn shop would have to run the NICs check on them to get it back. Pawn shops usually take a fingerprint and have to run pawned guns against a stolen database of firearms so if the gun was stolen that would start an investegation anyway. So with all these processes in place why do this?

So you just goto shops and run background checks on people with no probable cause hoping one of them comes up illegal? Then get a warrant after the fact?

I don't think that is right.

[Nobody]

http://forums.officer.com/forums/

[PeteBroccolo]

Wow! Sounds like the NICBCS was instituted with a convoluted set of regulations.

Its prettty simple up here - if guns are seized, either the person gets a licence to possess them, or else they don't get them back.

[willbird]

We do criminal history checks on all persons coming to get their weapons. It's against the law to give a felon a gun.

'Course, I also go through the pawn lists and see who is pawning guns. If they pawned a gun and they are a felon, I go get the warrants.

I'm sure you double check WHEN they became felons ? From talking to pawn shop owners it is not uncommon at all for a person to pawn a gun, THEN become a felon and thus be unable to pay back the loan and get their gun back. They typically keep paying the loan until they can sell the gun to a third party, who the pawnbroker runs a NICS check on (if their state requires that).

I guess I do not understand HOW LEO were even using the NICS system to begin with, unless they had somebody on the force who had an FFL, the system is to be used by FFL's only.

Bill

[westside popo]

Why the felon got rid of his gun, just like a no questions asked city sponsored gun buy back, he no longer is in possesion of a gun, which is the goal, if he is a felon he can not get his gun back anyway as the pawn shop would have to run the NICs check on them to get it back. Pawn shops usually take a fingerprint and have to run pawned guns against a stolen database of firearms so if the gun was stolen that would start an investegation anyway. So with all these processes in place why do this?

So you just goto shops and run background checks on people with no probable cause hoping one of them comes up illegal? Then get a warrant after the fact?

I don't think that is right.

Most likely she has first hand knowledge of the subjects in question. As in prior clients convicted of felonies.

[David Hineline]

Most likely she has first hand knowledge of the subjects in question. As in prior clients convicted of felonies.

I can understand going in with a list of stolen items and checking on them and tracking who sold them. I can understand going in with a known suspect in a known crime and asking if this person has sold anything, that is alll reasonable, but she made it sound like she goes in and looks through all pawn sales of firearms and runs background checks for known felons then goes and gets a court order to arrest them for having possessed a firearm in the past.

[Smurfette_76]

I don't run a full background check w/o further information. I run the person through public records checks such as NC DOC, of which I need nothing but curosity and time to do so. If public records shows felony convictions, then I can run a check. Perhaps some might think that wrong, I happen to think a convicted felon in possession of a gun is wrong. They had to possess it to pawn it. I get to take that gun from the pawn shop as its now evidence. Why I want those guns is not something I'll discuss on here; as nobody said, it might not be a 'secret' but I'm not discussing it.

I don't have to get a warrant right then and there, but I certainly have one at my disposal should I need to "talk" to that person.