General Categories > Laws and Legislation

So sent Cheif Peshong a e-mail....

(1/14) > >>

tstuart34:
 I posted this topic in a hometown forum on another site. Rick asked if he could repost it on here to see what everyone would say. I told him I would do it since I never said Hello after signing up last month. If this isn't the correct place for the topic mods can you please relocate it.

I have been trying to keep up with what is all going on with the 41P stuff and I was on theguntrustlawer blog and was reading some of Goldman's articles. He had a forum letter to send to your CLEO. So I thought what the hell... I knew the answer to the letters question but I figured why not see what he had to say about it. So here is our string of e-mails.

What do you guys think... should I answer back with a simple thank you for responding or should I do some research on facts about NFA related crimes and inform him how I feel about his stance when it comes to NFA weapons? Like I said I was expecting a no but I was not expecting his explanation. It sounds like he is a little more worried about his future political appeal then anything else.



Dear Chief Peschong:

I am a resident of Lincoln and was wanting to purchase a Suppressor. I
understand that the ATF is proposing changing the CLEO certification
and was wondering if you will are going to sign the CLEO certification
as is being proposed by the ATF.

Do you sign Form 4s currently?

If, indeed, you do not sign any Form 4s for the purchase of a noise
suppressor, I must ask whether you anticipate changing that practice
in light of ATF's proposal to change the wording of the certification.
Currently the Form 4 asks you (or another chief law enforcement
officer) to certify that you have "no information indicating that the
receipt or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in
violation of state or local law or that the transferee will use the
firearm for other than lawful purposes." ATF proposes to change the
Form 4 so as to request that you (or another chief law enforcement
officer) certify that you have "no information indicating that
possession of the firearm by the transferee would be in violation of
state or local law."

If you do anticipate that you will sign a Form 4 with the revised
certification language, I may well wait to purchase a noise suppressor
until ATF completes the revision.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Trevor Stuart

Response
Jim Peschong

Mr. Stuart, This is not something that I am willing to sign.

Nov 14 (1 day ago)

My response
Jim Peschong
3:59 PM (2 hours ago)

Chief Peschong

Thanks for your response. May I ask why you will not sign the form?

Thanks

Todays Response.

Mr. Stuart,

Unfortunately there has been a lot of carnage as a result of assault rifles and high capacity weapons for several years. This has brought on a lot of focus as to the real purpose for these types of weapons and a large debate as to whether or not there should be more regulation of them. Also, there are always a lot of questions as to how individuals got possession of these weapons. I view “suppressors” to also be an item that will bring a lot of questions into play if one would be used in killing someone or several people. I chose not to become the center of attention by signing such paperwork. I do not know you. I have no idea as to how you plan to use these, store them, secure them, etc. For all I know you may not even believe that if a suppressor was used on a weapon in an active shooter incident you may not see anything wrong with this.

For these reason, I chose not become involved in facilitating your application.

Jim Peschong

Chief of Police


I am also open to suggestions for a response. I don't want to be to witty I am not looking at starting a war but would like to give a good reply!

I would also like to Add I have sent the same letter to Colonel Sankey and Lt. Franks of the State Patrol and Sheriff Wagner through the agencies websites. I have not received reply's from any of the three.

gsd:
It disappoints me that he would have such narrow views.

RLMoeller:
He is likely opposed to mufflers on cars too, as they may be used on getaway vehicles.  :(


Not at all surprised by the answers, but thank you very much for contacting him and posting the responses.

We need to educate him on what the signature means. 

tstuart34:

--- Quote from: RLMoeller on November 18, 2013, 10:42:49 AM ---He is likely opposed to mufflers on cars too, as they may be used on getaway vehicles.  :(


Not at all surprised by the answers, but thank you very much for contacting him and posting the responses.

We need to educate him on what the signature means. 

--- End quote ---

Well then if that is the case I will open the headers on my mustang  ;D

How should I go about educating him? I am doing a lot of reading and I am learning a lot but I am really new to NFA. It seems like he doesn't really care about what his signature means he cares what the media will make his signature look like IF something would ever happen with a NFA item.

tstuart34:
Another question for the group has anyone in Lincoln, Lancaster county or else where in the state (state level signatures) ever been successful in receiving a signature from any of the following people?


Sheriff
Chief of Police (State)
City, county, state DA
State judge

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page