Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
panther12
Thanks, since you are a FFL, does it make sense why i had to have my check needed to be re-run on Monday?
I'm not an FFL, but my understanding is that any "approval" is valid for 24 hours. Since the receipt of the approval and your pending pick-up are farther apart than that, the original approval will no longer be valid.
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gnbrotz
I disagree with your assessment. The law in regards to firearms disqualification makes no differentiation between "violent" and "non-violent" crimes. Federal law, via the "Lautenberg Amendment" imposes a "domestic violence" standard, where the relationship between victim and aggressor is more important than the actual level of "violence".
Controlling language from 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9):
Interesting...so if violence is perpetrated on other than a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, it would not apply?
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Walleye Hunter
Interesting...so if violence is perpetrated on other than a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, it would not apply?
Correct. It's very possible that I could do quite a bit of actual physical harm to you (no relation), and still be qualified to own firearms (depending on the grading of the crime I were convicted of), and yet be disqualified (if convicted) for merely making a verbal threat against my own wife.
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
"I recently completed a background check when purchasing a firearm, the PICS was extremely slow and was not completed that day (a Saturday). I was told but by the seller since they were closed on Sundays they would call me Monday morning. I received a call in the morning saying I was approved and could come up and complete the sale. I was also told they would need to re-run/renew but it should be completed by the time I arrived. They re-ran/renewed it and was told it went into "Research". 2 days later I was informed that I was Denied. I was encouraged to complete a challenge. I am trying to determine my next course of action."
This whole section I do not understand - I would like to know the complete conversation between the FFL and PICS during the call to get the approval number on that Monday. If you were approved, why or who told them to rerun the PICS? Something does not sound right. If you are approved the number is good (until the FFL closes that day) the day the FFL receives it. No need to rerun the check.
If the FFL used the computer to do the "ePICS" check, the approval goes into a status log for the FFL to retrieve it. When transactions reach day 3 in approved status (day 1 is the day the transaction is initially
approved) a status of “Web Approved – Contact PICS” will display. This status allows dealers to click on the link and launch a re-check within the website without having to call PICS on the telephone. As of 10-1-20 this has gone from 3 days to 7 days.
Just too many things wrong with this situation to try to figure out exactly what happened to you. I would just get the challenge form filled out and sent in.
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
The checks get slower , people complain , so they'll raise the fee to expand the staff & upgrade the computers.
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Most of the people who are criminally prosecuted for "lying" on the 4473, had also sent in the challenge form, and were prosecuted for BOTH the denied 4473 AND the challenge form (with the additional criminal count for "unsworn written falsification", which the form actually warns you about before you sign the form.)
Do NOT use the challenge form as an information-gathering tool. They don't charge a fee for filing it, but it could cost you a whole lot anyway.
Too many FFL's just tell their customers to send in the challenge form if they are clueless about why they were denied. That's horrible advice, the legal equivalent of telling someone to find out if a home electrical circuit is live by touching it with their tongue.
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GunLawyer001
Most of the people who are criminally prosecuted for "lying" on the 4473, had also sent in the challenge form, and were prosecuted for BOTH the denied 4473 AND the challenge form (with the additional criminal count for "unsworn written falsification", which the form actually warns you about before you sign the form.)
Do NOT use the challenge form as an information-gathering tool. They don't charge a fee for filing it, but it could cost you a whole lot anyway.
Too many FFL's just tell their customers to send in the challenge form if they are clueless about why they were denied. That's horrible advice, the legal equivalent of telling someone to find out if a home electrical circuit is live by touching it with their tongue.
This has been the gold standard answer to this question around here on many threads for as long as I have been here. I can't quite understand how this wasn't the first response. It reminds me of the continuous improvement teams meetings we had at work 28 years ago. Every meeting ended in consensus and every meeting began with rehashing the same discussions. Nothing much ever got done.
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gunsnwater
This has been the gold standard answer to this question around here on many threads for as long as I have been here. I can't quite understand how this wasn't the first response. It reminds me of the continuous improvement teams meetings we had at work 28 years ago. Every meeting ended in consensus and every meeting began with rehashing the same discussions. Nothing much ever got done.
In addition, I have not seen a reply in this thread suggesting consulting a firearms attorney like Gunlawyer or SigForLife. Thinking you can join this forum seeking free advice to resolve this matter could be a fools errand.
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GunLawyer001
Most of the people who are criminally prosecuted for "lying" on the 4473, had also sent in the challenge form, and were prosecuted for BOTH the denied 4473 AND the challenge form (with the additional criminal count for "unsworn written falsification", which the form actually warns you about before you sign the form.)
Do NOT use the challenge form as an information-gathering tool. They don't charge a fee for filing it, but it could cost you a whole lot anyway.
Too many FFL's just tell their customers to send in the challenge form if they are clueless about why they were denied. That's horrible advice, the legal equivalent of telling someone to find out if a home electrical circuit is live by touching it with their tongue.
Phil,
I understand what you are saying and I will remember that in the future. But, if a person is denied by PICS, and they ARE truly clueless on why they would be denied, and the fact that PICS will not tell them or the FFL why, how does the person find out what the PSP/PICS used to deny them? How else can the denied person find out that information so they can make an informed decision on what to do next?
Re: PICS background check denial confusion with M2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xringshooter
Phil,
I understand what you are saying and I will remember that in the future. But, if a person is denied by PICS, and they ARE truly clueless on why they would be denied, and the fact that PICS will not tell them or the FFL why, how does the person find out what the PSP/PICS used to deny them? How else can the denied person find out that information so they can make an informed decision on what to do next?
Do what I did and file for a Criminal Access Report and wait six months to get the motherfucker. They can deny you in five minutes but it takes the bastards 6 months to tell you why. Then you examine that and see what the problem is, if any.