A question about HB1845

[Voolfie]

I could use some help in understanding its implications. In reading about its provisions, it is claimed that the statute of limitations for straw purchases was pushed back to 10 years. If that's so, then doesn't that mean the state police have to hold the record of sale/transfer for at least that long? If so, is that not establishing a 10-year registry of handguns? Or, have I got it wrong? I, for one, am not overly optimistic that the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution won't be ignored completely should it suit some politician's future purposes. So, while we've been living with a handgun registry for some time, I'm not eager to see it expanded. Please let me know if I'm "all wet" on this. Thanx. -JW

[knight0334]

I could use some help in understanding its implications. In reading about its provisions, it is claimed that the statute of limitations for straw purchases was pushed back to 10 years. If that's so, then doesn't that mean the state police have to hold the record of sale/transfer for at least that long? If so, is that not establishing a 10-year registry of handguns? Or, have I got it wrong? I, for one, am not overly optimistic that the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution won't be ignored completely should it suit some politician's future purposes. So, while we've been living with a handgun registry for some time, I'm not eager to see it expanded. Please let me know if I'm "all wet" on this. Thanx. -JW

Registry, no.... Dont kid yourself, the State Police already have records of all lawful handgun transfers back until the 30's or 40's, or maybe even longer.

What the Statute of Limitations thing does is allow them to prosecute unlawful transfers and straw purchases back to 10 years instead of the 6 or 7 years presently today.

As per the PA Supreme Court's ruling, what they have does not qualify as a registry because of the fact that transfers between certain family members is exempt and that there isn't a requirement for those that move to PA to "register" the arms that they bring into the state.

I'm no proponent of the PSP database, but it is a far stretch from a registration.

[LittleRedToyota]

I'm no proponent of the PSP database, but it is a far stretch from a registration.

hold the phone for just a second there...

everything you said is, of course, correct...except i would completely disagree with the idea the the PSP "database" is a "far stretch from a registration".

the PSP database is a registry...it is just not a complete registry.

the state supreme court's redefinition of "any registry" to mean "a complete registry" notwithstanding, in reality, a partial registry is still a registry. and that is what the PA state police are keeping (even though a separate section of the UFA requires them to detroy the PICS application--and get rid of all the info on it--after 72 hours).

[knight0334]

hold the phone for just a second there...

everything you said is, of course, correct...except i would completely disagree with the idea the the PSP "database" is a "far stretch from a registration".

the PSP database is a registry...it is just not a complete registry.

the state supreme court's redefinition of "any registry" to mean "a complete registry" notwithstanding, in reality, a partial registry is still a registry. and that is what the PA state police are keeping (even though a separate section of the UFA requires them to detroy the PICS application--and get rid of all the info on it--after 72 hours).

If you compare our "database" or "registry" with say NY's or CA's you'd see what I mean. With ours there is no offense for having an unregistered firearm. Bring a gun into NY or CA as you move without a registering it within so many days, or having a possession permit ahead of time and you will end up in the county motel.

[LittleRedToyota]

If you compare our "database" or "registry" with say NY's or CA's you'd see what I mean. With ours there is no offense for having an unregistered firearm. Bring a gun into NY or CA as you move without a registering it within so many days, or having a possession permit ahead of time and you will end up in the county motel.

right.

but it's still a registry.

much like a yugo is still a car.

[Zef_66]

much like a yugo is still a car.

I thought a yugo was a gun?

But I agree that they still maintain a registry. Just because it is not complete doesn't mean it is still not a registry.

[knight0334]

right.

but it's still a registry.

much like a yugo is still a car.

\

This I disagree. lol Not even proud Yugo owners claimed those little rollerskates were cars.

---

In comparison of liberty versus the PSP's "database" = yes, it is a registry. However it isn't a registration on the scale that people tend to imagine a registration being in comparison to California or New York.

If you want a real shock to your system, you should be a little more concerned about the federal law mandated expunging of PICS/NICS calls, approvals and denials that the PSP is failing to clear after so many hours or days. .....they are keeping them permanently despite court ruling and the FBI and ATF telling them to delete the records. ....this includes all PICS/NICS approvals or denials for even your long guns.

[Voolfie]

Um...OK, so we have a "database", but it's not a "registry". Got it.

I try hard to avoid conspiracy theories - and am not always successful - but, I guess that unless and until a day comes when I learn of an instance of the authorities kicking in someone's door looking for a particular gun or set of guns, I'll just have to "trust" that the information won't be misused. Unfortunately, for us, history is only too clear that should that day come, it won't be just one door - and we won't be given much time to organize a response. God save the Republic! -JW

[LittleRedToyota]

I'll just have to "trust" that the information won't be misused.

personally, i have trouble coming up with a reason to have such trust seeing as how the very act of keeping it is violating both state and (as knight pointed out) federal law.

apparently, the PSP as an organization does not have much of a problem with violating the law, so i personally don't trust at all that they won't misuse the info.

in fact, there have been several documented instances where the "database" was misused as a registry and people's guns were confiscated because they were not in it...though, as far as i know, those cases were all perpetrated by local PDs, not the PSP--but, still, it was done using the PSP's illegally kept information.

[WhiteFeather]

Here is some background INFO from the ACSL on the PSP and the lawsuit about the "database" or "registry"
http://acslpa.org/n-register/n-registration.html

Interesting background information again from Allegheny County Sportsmen League.
http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/anti...ry_3_25_08.htm

Pennsylvania pays for instant check – a job that most states let the feds do for free. Perhaps this is why PICS has never issued a cost-benefit analysis.

The Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) from 1998 to 2008 has cost the tax payers in excess of 130,000,000.00 dollars to administer to date for background checks for all firearm purchases. The federal NICS would do the same job for no additional cost to taxpayers.

Here are the results of all that money spent, do the math, what is the cost to ONLY catch someone that was later successful prosecuted for more additional taxpayer money.

1998-2004 a total of 57,283 people denied.

1998-2004 a total arrests of 1,181 people

1998-2004 a total conviction of ONLY 637 people

1998-2004 a total referral to the ATF for concurrent jurisdiction of ONLY 59 people

The PA State Police wasted nearly $130 million operating the duplicative Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) system between 1998 and 2007, which would have been done at ‘no’ cost to gun owners or Pennsylvania by the National Instant Check system, a part of which is the retention and maintenance of an illegal database of gun owners. How many crimes have the state police solved by the staggering amount of money spent?

As far as going back another 3 years to go after illegal straw purchases, its a existing crime that has been seldom prosecuted by most DA's.

Read the crime stats numbers here again from the ACSL
PA Firearms Laws & PA Commission on Sentencing Reports
http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/pa_firearms_laws.htm



Besides the transfer of handguns exemption in the law parent to child etc, historically there where all the firearms that were brought back as war trophies, antiques firearms (besides just black powder), all the gun you could buy through the mail with the only paper work you need was green kind, along with all legal private sales of them prior to the state regulations that made it a crime to transfer them without out going to the PSP for transfers. Go back and read what was spent by the taxpayers in PA just to identify these people and look how few successful prosecutions. plus lots of background information about the OP question.

The more important question to ask is this why are we spending all of this time, MONEY, effort to create and maintain of registry guns. When the state overseeing the transfer of firearms was sold to the public as a crime prevention tool to prohibit the acquisition of firearm by criminals or other prohibited individuals, it was never to be about the guns, just the people.

Yet here WE are, people are getting arrested or having their guns confiscated that are not in this PSP non database when illegally run in "clean" gun checks, just to go of fishing expeditions to "find something" for whatever reason. Especially when these same people have LTCF permits that means they are cleared for legal possession of firearms, not just the ones only in the PSP non database.

If you go through the PICS / NICS background check and pass it what REALLY is the point of keeping the information and what difference should it make what gun you are buying, its legally only supposed to determine IF the purchaser is prohibited or not prohibited, NOTHING ELSE.

So going from 7 to 10 years is nothing more than providing extra time to catch and "hopifully" prosecute the illegal transfers of firearms.

Personally I would have liked to have a mandatory “throw away the key” jail time for anyone convicted of intentionally committing the illegal transfer of firearm to prohibited persons, especially when the prohibited persons give the money and solicited the buyers in advance to do the crime.

Knight and LRT have covered the rest.