Pennsylvania Now Prosecuting Many NICS/PICS denials

[ChattanoogaPhil]

And those false promises have been around for years. And then there are those that actually fall for it.

Exactly.

Just look at all the 'gun control' that has been done away with in the past quarter century. Shall Issue swept the country. Constitutional Carry has been adopted by several states. AWB sunset... on and on... and in my home state folks may now carry loaded guns in vehicles w/o a permit, Guns in Bars... not enough bandwidth here to list it all.

Each and every one of the prior restrictions on freedom was originally sold as necessary for our safety and security. As each were stripped away they were met with hysterical predictions of blood running in the streets if we didn't maintain our surrender of freedom. The prophets of doom have been proven wrong time and time again. Now here were are with tons more guns in society with more people carrying in more places with fewer restrictions, and the prophets of doom are left stunned as violent crime stats have generally trended down across the nation.

False promises of security...

 

[johngalt]

Murder by definition is a criminal act. I don't consider exercise of the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms to be a criminal act. I don't consider the right to keep and bear arms something to prevent.

Unfortunately, gun-grabbers have done a good job of blurring the distinction between a criminal act that harms another to the Constitutionally protected right of gun ownership.

I've posted this before, but this is a good example of 'Malum in se' vs 'Malum prohibitum'.

 

[Smithpride]

I'm disappointed that all you 'Constitution Loving people' are happy about background checks and people being arrested. In fact, our forefathers thought so highly of, and depended on, firearms that they wrote Shall Not Be Infringed. There were/are no exclusions. No if's. No But's. There wasn't an exception where a man could be freed from his firearms.

Think about that and how you support the Constitution. Freedom, it's a dangerous thing. You either support it or you don't.

 

[speedyquad]

Last year(Jan 2016), I was called for jury selection. One case was a guy that I graduated with was accused of lying on a 4473. We were friend in school, but I hadn't seen him since graduation. I was called to the bench and asked how friendly I was with him, and if I could be objective. It was interesting listening to the judge, prosecuting attorney, and defending attorney discuss their thoughts on my eligibility. I was returned to the jury pool. I was not picked for the jury.

 

[johngalt]

...Should there be no regulations on drugs?

Yes.

Should there be no regulation of alcohol?

Yes.

However the NCICS BGC isn't quite an actual registration of guns - it doesn't tie a specific gun to the purchaser. They don't even call in the serial number - just the info about the buyer and whether the purchase is a handgun or long gun.

It will be if the banners win their goal of universal background checks. That is the logical conclusion in order to enforce it.

How would you propose to limit felons if not to have buyers checked against the list of known felons at the time of purchase? How would you identify them? Have a big letter "F" tattooed on their foreheads?

You finally understand. You can't without trampling on the rights of the law abiding. I am not willing to give up my rights out of fear that there is an insignificant chance I may be a victim of a former felon with a gun. He will have it anyway, regardless of how many of my rights are taken away trying to prevent it.

I say 'former' felon because he is out of prison. Once a person has served his debt to society and released, he has earned ALL of the rights of living in that society. If he has not earned back the right to live among us, why was he released? That is a criminal justice problem, not a gun problem.

A balance has to be struck.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I generally don't care what people do, as long as they're not doing it in my front yard or harming me or mine. As for users/abusers of drugs and alcohol, I just want them to declare it beforehand so they can be in a different insurance pool than I am, like skydivers and bear wrestlers. If you're found in violation of the declaration when you make a claim, you don't get paid . . .

 

[ladder13]

The NICS BGC may or may not be a gun registration but it sure as hell is a gun owner registration.

 

[NJM15]

Boy I thought ---

I was at my favorite gun shop yesterday when a PA State Police Detective came in to request a couple 4473's and PA 'PICS' (PA Instant Check System) forms. After he left the shop owner said the State Police are now going after just about everybody who puts false information on a 4473 and is the denied firearm purchase by the instant check system. Until recently, they only went after those denied for PFA's and felonies, now they are prosecuting just about all of them, especially the alcoholic/habitual users of narcotics or illicit drugs. I get the feeling treatment centers, doctors and hospitals are somehow informing on people.

Moral of the story, answer the questions on a 4473 truthfully or be prepared to have an unwanted knock on your door.

And I thought New Jersey was bad !! if your denied ok , but to go after you is insane. The mental health history and criminal history are two of the requirements on the NICS check in this state. I guess they don't keep them personal, what do they do sell them like e mails addys

 

[NJM15]

Its like a job app

And I thought New Jersey was bad !! if your denied ok , but to go after you is insane. The mental health history and criminal history are two of the requirements on the NICS check in this state. I guess they don't keep them personal, what do they do sell them like e mails addys

If you apply for a job most place give a drug test do they have to report it to the authority's if you fail ? no I don't think so

 

[BC38]

...I don't consider the right to keep and bear arms something to prevent.

Even for a criminal? How about for mental defectives? Drug addicts?

 

[TAROMAN]

Same here in Oregon, to a lesser degree.
State police are ordered to respond to every denial.
Trooper next door say's its a total waste of time.
Arrest rate <1%.
Interesting that the state doesn't check Marijuana card holders list when doing the background check.

 

[BC38]

Yes.


Yes.


It will be if the banners win their goal of universal background checks. That is the logical conclusion in order to enforce it.


You finally understand. You can't without trampling on the rights of the law abiding. I am not willing to give up my rights out of fear that there is an insignificant chance I may be a victim of a former felon with a gun. He will have it anyway, regardless of how many of my rights are taken away trying to prevent it.

I say 'former' felon because he is out of prison. Once a person has served his debt to society and released, he has earned ALL of the rights of living in that society. If he has not earned back the right to live among us, why was he released? That is a criminal justice problem, not a gun problem.


No, it doesn't.

OK, since every right is so absolute, you DO think that we have the right to do all the other things I described - free speech includes the right to shouting FIRE, religious freedom includes having multiple wives and honor killing, etc. - right?

Here's one for the absolutists. You're against society taking actions to at least attempt to prevent those with criminal intent from getting weapons (guns). How do you feel about nuclear weapons? The logical conclusion to the argument that there should be no restrictions at all is that I should be able to own a nuke, right? Do those rights only extend to citizens of the USA? Don't ALL people have the same rights? So then is it not also logical in the absolutist world that ALL people should be allowed nuclear weapons. Including the jihadists Iraq, Iran, etc. Right?

The reason for releasing someone after they have served their sentence - even when we suspect they may re-offend - is that society can't afford to house every criminal forever. We don't have the resources. Now if you want to go back to hanging people for property crimes committed with a gun, then that's a different discussion.

Exactly what right are you giving up by being checked against a list of known felons and mental defectives, etc. before purchasing your firearms? Have you been prohibited from purchasing one, or have you been able to buy as many as you can afford?

I'm sorry, but I just can't see it as being quite as black and white as you want it to be. NO right is unlimited. Not in a society of flawed human beings...

 

[MCorps0311]

Just tell the truth filling out the 4473 forms,and there will be no problem.

 

[pawngal]

This has been an interesting thread to say the least, various opinions all around. I've been in the retail firearms business/pawnshop for over 25 years, long before the NICS system was in place.The 4473 form was in use prior to NICS but then it didn't matter if you lied on it. BUT if you sold a firearm to someone you had reason to suspect the person did lie on the form and later used the firearm in a felony, you could be sued and lose your FFL. You had the right to refuse to sell but then the bad guy might decide to take it out on you.
I had one case, fellow was a known alcoholic with 3 or more DUIs, wanted to buy a shotgun, filled out the 4473 and lied. Fortunately I didn't have to make the decision whether or not to complete the sale because he discovered he didn't have enough cash so he quietly stumbled back to the neighboring bar and finished getting his usual buzz. Would I have been in danger if I sold him the shotgun, probably not in that case, he was a pretty quiet happy drunk and I knew it. But what if it had been someone I didn't know as well and they then committed a major crime?? I would have been spending time & money in court.

So, BASICALLY, I am in favor of the NICS system, is it perfect? of course not. I certainly do not want it expanded in any way to identify what guns are purchased (hence a national registry) And they need to step up the appeals process because there are people who get wrongly denied.

Another point that I don't think has been mentioned. If a person is denied and the ATF has reasonable cause to suspect the party has other firearms in their possession. the ATF can seize them. I know of 2 cases that came from denials thru my business.

If you live in a state the recognizes a CCW permit in place of the NICS check by all means, get the permit! 1 NICS check for whatever length of time the permit is valid. Then Big Brother doesn't how many guns you buy.

LE here is NOT doing what the OP was talking about Will they in the future? I doubt it.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Even for a criminal? How about for mental defectives? Drug addicts?

Let's start with "criminal".

I don't believe background checks stop criminals from getting guns. But more importantly my guiding principle is that I don't believe in appeasement by surrender of my 2A freedoms. I'll try to illustrate my thinking on this while acknowledging others.

I've heard Wayne LaPierre say a zillion times --background checks don’t stop criminals from getting firearms. We all have, right? The NRA has an entire section on their website devoted to explaining why background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns, citing all sorts of sources. However, Wayne is a devote supporter of NICS. Huh? Why the incongruity... supporting that which you profess does not result in the desired outcome?

The answer is the rationale of surrendering 2A rights to preserve 2A rights, to appease those who would disarm you. I very much disagree with this thinking but acknowledge it's the wisdom of many, including some at the top of the 2A food chain. It trickles down to everyday gun owners and others as PC brainwashing, that if you don't support background checks then you must want criminals running around shooting children on the streets.

 

[pawngal]

For those of you who against any form of background checks...

Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of domestic violence?
Do you want guns sold to persons under a restraining or no contact order?
Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of assault of a police officer?
Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of armed robbery?
and so on....

As a responsible firearms dealer I don't. Period.

And yes, I know, criminals will get their guns. I just don't want to be the one that sells it to them.

 

[BC38]

For those of you who against any form of background checks...

Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of domestic violence?
Do you want guns sold to persons under a restraining or no contact order?
Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of assault of a police officer?
Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of armed robbery?
and so on....

As a responsible firearms dealer I don't. Period.

And yes, I know, criminals will get their guns. I just don't want to be the one that sells it to them.

I concur completely.

And saying that background checks don't keep criminals from buying guns is only partially true. IIRC there are tens of thousands of denials every year and the majority are legitimate.

Did the denied criminal still obtain a gun by other illegal means? Yes, in many cases, I'm sure they did. BUT it is also safe to say that they didn't in EVERY case. I'm also convinced that there would be a lot more criminals with guns if they could just walk into the LGS and buy one no questions asked. If nothing else the BGC and denial makes it more difficlut for them to obtain a firearm. It certainly slowed the ones who tried to buy one through legitimate channels down and made it less convenient for them to get one. IMO that is a good thing.

Did it also inconvenience me and other legitimate buyers? Sure, a little. IMO, its worth a 15 or 30 minute inconvenience for me, if it delays or inconveniences a few thousand criminals. But that's just MY version of common sense. Others have a different definition.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Even for a criminal? How about for mental defectives? Drug addicts?

None of those categories are strictly defined terms of art. Who gets to decide who's a "criminal," who's a "mental defective," and what constitutes drug "addiction?"

 

[Muss Muggins]

I don't want guns sold to people I don't like . . .

For those of you who against any form of background checks...

Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of domestic violence?
Do you want guns sold to persons under a restraining or no contact order?
Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of assault of a police officer?
Do you want guns sold to persons convicted of armed robbery?
and so on....

As a responsible firearms dealer I don't. Period.

And yes, I know, criminals will get their guns. I just don't want to be the one that sells it to them.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

And yes, I know, criminals will get their guns. I just don't want to be the one that sells it to them.

Since you acknowledge that criminals will get their guns ... what you are describing is little more than a feel-good exercise at the expense of my 2A rights.