Sheriff Changed His Mind About Sign Off
Posted 21 July 2004 - 04:23 PM
Oh well it should make the next two transfers go smoother once he finds out......I hope.
Posted 21 July 2004 - 04:57 PM
Posted 21 July 2004 - 05:15 PM
Is It Legal to Own an NFA (Class III) Weapon in South Carolina?
Yes it is! See S.488
S*0488 (Rat#0106, Act#0106)
General Bill, By Ryberg
Signed By Governor 09/21/01
Effective date 09/21/01 09/27/01
Copies available 11/15/01
Act No. 106
The provisions of this article do not apply to a manufacturer of machine guns or military firearms licensed pursuant to the provisions of 18 USC 921 et seq., a person authorized to possess these weapons by the United States Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or any other federal agency empowered to grant this authorization, a common or contract carrier transporting or shipping any machine gun or military firearm to or from the manufacturer if the transportation or shipment is not prohibited by federal law, or persons licensed pursuant to Section 23-31-370.
This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Ratified the 5th day of June, 2001.
Approved the 21st day of September, 2001.
Proof of Being Legal - SLED's answer to S.488
The fax page below, shows that SLED recognizes all civilians (according to the new state law S.488) that have been approved by the BATF to own or possess machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and rifles, and AOWs are legal.
Posted 21 July 2004 - 07:00 PM
Posted 21 July 2004 - 08:22 PM
I'm not up on your state laws, but looks like you have some accurate information about the law. Couldn't you just show this to the Sheriff and maybe he'll see the error of his ways.
Posted 21 July 2004 - 08:49 PM
If it is legal in your state, then you have the bligation to educate the sheriff of the facts concerning this. His job is to UPHOLD AND ENFORCE the law, not impede it. If any one of us stood in the way of a law and went before a judge to show cause, we'd lose. Remember though, we win by influencing, not coercion (unlike some people in Washington who shall remain nameless). By putting it to him (or her) as a fact, and stating you are trying to comply with the law, you win.
It's awful hard to believe that the state which stood for states' rights and individual freedom could allow somebody to come into office who would oppose legal posession when the law of the state and the land supports it.
Posted 21 July 2004 - 10:17 PM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 11:18 AM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 11:29 AM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 11:13 PM