Father denied for gun purchase & permit, was able to purchase twice priorto

[SouthPhilly]

My father was charged in 1982 with theft and unlawful taking and was sentenced to one year probation and was a misdemeanor-1 charge.

In 1985, he legally purchased a .357 magnum, after being approved, from an authorized dealer, The Firing Line gun shop in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In 1997, he legally purchased a 9mm Taurus from Mike and Kate's Sporting Goods Store, after being approved, in Northeast Philadelphia, Pa.

In 2008, he attempted to purchase a Glock .45 ACP and was denied.
In 2010, he applied for a LTCF in Pennsylvania, through Philadelphia and was denied.

The state police officer told him he was denied because of the misdemeanor-1 charge of 1982. The officer told him both purchases would have been illegal and should have been denied, therefor he is in possession of an illegal firearm, the 9mm Taurus, which he was legally approved for.
The officer said my fathers misdemeanor-1 comes under a federal law and over rules anything else. He said even though it was a misdemeanor-1, they go by what the maximum sentence COULD have been given.

Is this correct? My father nor any workers from our local shops have been able to explain this.

[gnbrotz]

That is correct. M1 convictions are prohibiting, regardless of the actual sentence received. Merely touching any firearm or ammunition is now a federal felony for him, and could lead to jail time.

To abide by current law, he needs to divest himself of any firearms/ammo he has ASAP, and stay away from them going forward.

[SouthPhilly]

That is correct. M1 convictions are prohibiting, regardless of the actual sentence received. Merely touching any firearm or ammunition is now a federal felony for him, and could lead to jail time.

To abide by current law, he needs to divest himself of any firearms/ammo he has ASAP, and stay away from them going forward.

Shouldn't he had been grandfathered in because the m-1 occurring before a law change?

So he was able to purchase prior because of different laws?

Is he allowed to ranges/rent?

[gnbrotz]

Shouldn't he had been grandfathered in because the m-1 occurring before a law change?

This is not new law. I'm pretty sure the conviction did not occur under different law.

So he was able to purchase prior because of different laws?

No. I can't explain how he slipped through the cracks, but neither purchase was legal, and it's very likely your father was dishonest (intentionally or otherwise) on the forms required to purchase a firearm.

Is he allowed to ranges/rent?

See my previous post. His legal disability goes far beyond ownership. He cannot so much as touch any firearm or ammunition.

[SouthPhilly]

This is not new law. I'm pretty sure the conviction did not occur under different law.

No. I can't explain how he slipped through the cracks, but neither purchase was legal, and it's very likely your father was dishonest (intentionally or otherwise) on the forms required to purchase a firearm.

See my previous post. His legal disability goes far beyond ownership. He cannot so much as touch any firearm or ammunition.

Wow, I'm sure he filled everything out the way he filed in 2008. He's always respected the law, that arrest was over a forged sporting goods order to spite his boss at age 21.

Here's where it gets even more strange, he had applied for a Corrections Officer position in 1997 and passed the background screening. He passed the FBI criminal background check for his current school district job of 15 years.

Now I have a question. Me using the same address as him since were in the same house, is this going to ruin me getting my own LTCF or ownership??

One last question. If I own a gun and he uses the weapon on a armed burglar, he will face charges for touching a weapon? Or is this something that comes down to the judges discretion?

[gnbrotz]

Wow, I'm sure he filled everything out the way he filed in 2008. He's always respected the law, that arrest was over a forged sporting goods order to spite his boss at age 21.

Here's where it gets even more strange, he had applied for a Corrections Officer position in 1997 and passed the background screening. He passed the FBI criminal background check for his current school district job of 15 years.

Now I have a question. Me using the same address as him since were in the same house, is this going to ruin me getting my own LTCF or ownership??

One last question. If I own a gun and he uses the weapon on a armed burglar, he will face charges for touching a weapon? Or is this something that comes down to the judges discretion?

If you live together, you need to secure your firearms in such a way that he has no access to them at all. Solutions like a safe where he does not have the combination or key are highly advised.

If he somehow manages to obtain a firearm and used it to lawfully defend himself, he may well face charges for possession of the firearm. Depending on how well it is/was secured, you could face charges as well, for making firearms available to a prohibited person. Shared housing in a situation like this in not impossible, but it must be done with great care and thought of the possible ramification to all involved.

[bob2055]

I am of the understanding that if you live in a house with other family members or roomates who own firearms, even though the prohibited person does not own them, it's the same as the prohibited person possessing firearms. I couls be wrong. I know this is not in any laws of PA but I think it's established in court rulings.

[comsubin61]

Why not get the conviction espunged? that way he can own the firearm legaly.

[Curmudgeon]

I am of the understanding that if you live in a house with other family members or roomates who own firearms, even though the prohibited person does not own them, it's the same as the prohibited person possessing firearms. I couls be wrong. I know this is not in any laws of PA but I think it's established in court rulings.

Gnbrotz has the correct information in post #6.

[knight0334]

What happened was - he bought the other guns before the implementation of the Instant Check system. Before, background checks were more discretionary and performed manually. That is how he slipped through the cracks. He is prohibited, and the prior purchases were, and still are, unlawful.