How is the Sales Database not conflicting with 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111 v?

[BimmerJon]

From:

http://www.pafoa.org/law#faq-do-i-ha...gister-my-guns

1. Do I have to register my firearms in Pennsylvania?

No, in fact in Pennsylvania it is actually illegal for any government or police agency to keep a registry of firearms per 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4 (Registration of firearms). If you legally possess bring your firearms into the Pennsylvania or come into possession of the firearms legally, no further action is required.

It should be noted however that all transfers of handguns in Pennsylvania are required to go through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) and as such the Pennsylvania State Police keep a "Sales Database" of all handguns purchased within the Commonwealth. While almost any casual observer can see that this database clearly violates the spirit of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4 (Registration of firearms), in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Pennsylvania State Police that because the database is not a complete record of all handgun ownership (as people bringing handguns into the state do not have to register them), it does not.

If the documentation needs to be destroyed in 72 hours and it is NOT, how does the Supreme Court AGREE with this???

"18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4:
Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any government
or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership within this Commonwealth. For the purposes
of this section only, the term "firearm" shall include any weapon that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an
explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon."

"18 Pa.C.S. § 6111: Sale or transfer of firearms:
(v) Unless it has been discovered pursuant to a criminal history, juvenile delinquency and mental health records background check that the potential purchaser or transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to section 6105 (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms), no information on the application/record of sale provided pursuant to this subsection shall be retained as precluded by section 6111.4 (relating to registration of firearms) by the Pennsylvania State Police either through retention of the application/record of sale or by entering the information onto a computer, and, further, an application/record of sale received by the Pennsylvania State Police pursuant to this subsection shall be destroyed within 72 hours of the completion of the criminal history, juvenile delinquency and mental health records background check."

[gnbrotz]

My understanding is that the question you pose was not before the court. Practices alleged/believed to be in violation of §6111 were challenged. Practices alleged/believed to be in violation of §6111.4 were not. Courts issue very narrow rulings based only on the specific dispute before them. They don't stray into peripheral questions, despite how closely related they may seem to us.

[BimmerJon]

My understanding is that the question you pose was not before the court. Practices alleged/believed to be in violation of §6111 were challenged. Practices alleged/believed to be in violation of §6111.4 were not. Courts issue very narrow rulings based only on the specific dispute before them. They don't stray into peripheral questions, despite how closely related they may seem to us.

Thanks for that, as I was thinking the same. They ruled that the keeping of records was not illegal as far as a "registry" goes, but the assumption or failure of the PSP to destroy them within 72 hours was not addressed.

So when a cop references this "Sales Database", they are querying the PSP?

Isn't this an obvious and easily winnable fight in court?

I ask because the thoughts came up after typing out a response to this thread

http://forum.pafoa.org/lounge-108/11...wningtown.html

[donm]

Isn't this an obvious and easily winnable fight in court?

Seems like it should be. It's probably the same situation we have with "lost and stolen" ordinances -- you need to show that you were "harmed" in some way to have "standing." Perhaps if your gun was confiscated solely because it wasn't in the database you might have a case, though the court would probably say that the cop just made a misunderstood the database. Or the governor can just tell the PSP commissioner to follow the very clear intent of the law.

[phillykev]

Or the governor can just tell the PSP commissioner to follow the very clear intent of the law.

Well, will Corbett do that you think? And couldn't he have done that as Attorney General?

[WhiteFeather]

Thanks for that, as I was thinking the same. They ruled that the keeping of records was not illegal as far as a "registry" goes, but the assumption or failure of the PSP to destroy them within 72 hours was not addressed.

So when a cop references this "Sales Database", they are querying the PSP?

Isn't this an obvious and easily winnable fight in court?

I ask because the thoughts came up after typing out a response to this thread

http://forum.pafoa.org/lounge-108/11...wningtown.html

You are not looking at the other chapters that the PSP use to justify keeping the information, as a way to insure payment to the PSP from the FFL dealers for the "service" the Feds would do at no additional charge.

Hence the reason that the PSP won't let someone with a valid PA LTCF permit by pass PICS as prescribed by law.

Read this topics on this subject along with detail info on the PSP vs ACSL lawsuit

http://forum.pafoa.org/1380232-post-8.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/1374704-post-13.html

[donm]

Well, will Corbett do that you think? And couldn't he have done that as Attorney General?

I don't think so. The PSP Commissioner is appointed by, and reports directly to, the governor. I have my doubts, though. The masses wouldn't see this as a good thing, and the Philly, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, . . . police chiefs will scream bloody murder -- literally.

[customloaded]

If memory serves me right, part of the reason the Court Dismissed the case was lack of standing. There has to be "Harm" for a case to have standing. So far, no one has brought forth a case that has resulted in harm so the courts can act on it.

CL

[donm]

In Ohio our neighboring state, you CAN transfer all firearms including handguns via private sale without going through an FFL and a lot of people I know that live there are doing JUST that, to end the paper trail and let the libtards have most deserved panic attacks.

The fact that PA requires that handguns go through an FFL gives us 10 of our 25 shameful "Brady points." http://bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/PA/

[BimmerJon]

The fact that PA requires that handguns go through an FFL gives us 10 of our 25 shameful "Brady points." http://bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/PA/

Gun Dealer Regulations (Maximum 12 Points)
Report records to the state, and state retains records

No State Preemption (Maximum 2 Points)
Some local control of regulations


These two should be ZERO points, right?