Pistol w/ "No Record Found"

[Plinker]

I heard a call come over my police scanner today involving a LEO running a check on a LTCF on someone as well as running the serial # on the pistol the person was carrying to check for stolen/ proper ownership. The LTCF came back ok , but the pistol came back "no record found". The dispatcher had run it through the PSP system and the LEO then asked him to try the sheriff of the respective county. Sheriff's reply was that they don't keep those records.Either PSP or the dealer that sold it would have that info. I don't know what happened from there on, but the LEO did clear from the scene shortly thereafter. My questions are, what would happen in a case where your carry weapon has "no record found" and you know that is a mistake? Can the LEO confiscate? What would YOU do if this was you? If any LEO would like to give us a "What I would do" in this situation you are welcomed to chime in also. Thanks

Plinker

[KeithPA]

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/pennsylva...hawley-pd.html

[bdevil73]

I'm not 100% sure, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in this case "no record found" is a good thing. I believe it means that it hasn't been used in a crime or reported stolen. I think I read that elsewhere on this forum.

ETA:

97, a lot of times, the Officer isn't running the gun for ownership, he is running it for stolen. The "no record found" is music to my ears.

Found in this thread: http://www.pafoa.org/forum/general-2...un-permit.html

[rwilson452]

If the PSP stopped me and ran a couple of my pistols, they would not be in their Sales record. I didn't buy them in PA. I was a resident elsewhere when I bought them.

[DCChris]

How about when the paperwork doesn't catch up with the sale? My dad is a retired LEO. He traded in his Smith 915 for something else at a local dealer. Within a couple days, someone bought his pistol. A couple days after that, I had the chief of police asking me if I knew why my dad's pistol was in a crackhouse that just got raided. Everything turned out ok, but sometimes timing can be REALLY bad.

[JayBell]

paperwork on sales can take six months or more to catch up at the PSP records folks.
Until then, it may happen you'll need the PICS form to prove its yours.

I used to work part time in a gunshop, and thats the word i got from PSP, also, did some checks for local cops on a buyer who was pulled over right across the road from the shop, cop came in and asked if we sold the guy the gun.
We had sold it the day before, cop walked back over, gave him a ticket for whatever, gave his gun back, and the guy was on his way.

[TheBuckslayer]

Makes you wonder what some of the over zealous LEO's would do if they ran a check on a C& R pistol.

[knight0334]

If the PSP stopped me and ran a couple of my pistols, they would not be in their Sales record. I didn't buy them in PA. I was a resident elsewhere when I bought them.

I've got a few like that too. My 1911, a derringer and a revolver was purchased in Tampa FL. The 1911 and revolver will come back to my name if they have the ATF dig deep enough. The derringer I bought privately and has absolutely no paper trail to me.

=====

Its not against the law to possess a firearm thats not in the "system". Its just against the law to transfer a handgun in PA without going thru the system(except the family transfer thing).

[38SnubFan]

"No Record Found" means that when the serial number of the pistol is run in NCIC (National Crime Information Computer), that the pistol in question has no record of being used in a crime or reported as lost/stolen.

This information is to the best of my recent knowledge with my professional and person affiliations with the Law Enforcement community. YMMV.

Hope this helps.

-38SnubFan

[Rule10b5]

Until then, it may happen you'll need the PICS form to prove its yours.

Why am I never lucky enough to have this sort of thing happen to me? Really, I'd love it if I were in this position. The amusement value and money I'd clear on the lawsuit would be so worth the hassle. If he asks me for Form 4473 and I have it on me I'm still going to refuse to show it to him in the hope that he steps on his own dick and seizes the gun.

"The fungible nature of currency necessarily raises an inference that the possessor is the lawful owner, absent proof of theft; we can conceive of no means by which anyone may better establish a right to lawful possession of cash in their possession but by possession. The fact that the cash was contained in a garment bag which the Commonwealth returned to appellant's possession, without dispute, raises, at the least, a strong inference that the cash was as much his property as were the other contents of the garment bag."

Commonwealth v. Younge, 446 Pa. Super. 541, 555 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).

If the Superior Court is going to say that a bunch of (obvious) drug dealers can have back the $22,000 in cash that they had in a sack when they were stopped because possession -- in the absence of "any criminal nexus between the property seized and the petitioner" was not offered by the Commonwealth -- is sufficient to establish ownership, then no officer has an even remotely defensible legal basis for seizing a firearm that isn't in the PSP database.

Any officer seizing any property within the Commonwealth better have damn good evidence showing a nexus between the property and criminal activity (that is, affirmative proof of non-evidence) or he's dogmeat from a legal standpoint because it isn't your burden to rebut non-ownership until they demonstrate the nexus.

"It isn't in the PSP database, show me your Form 4473 or I'm taking it" gets officer Friendly in deep, deep shit.

Here's another nice cite, this time dealing with a car seized in connection with a drug crime.

"While the adage 'possession is nine-tenths of the law' is not legally accurate, possession is an element to consider in determining ownership. By keeping the Suzuki [***8] at her house and using it to the exclusion of Mrs. Brewin, Karen exercised dominion and control over the Suzuki."

Commonwealth v. One 1988 Suzuki Samurai, 139 Pa. Commw. 68, 73 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).

And another one:

"Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that it was incumbent upon the Commonwealth to return the lawfully owned car or to file some formal pleading asserting whatever right it believed it had to the car within a reasonable time after its statement that it was finished with the car and was authorizing its release. Because the Commonwealth failed to do either at any time, and in view of the fact that the car is neither contraband per se nor the fruit of a criminal enterprise, we conclude that both provisions of the trial court's order must be reversed."

Commonwealth v. Cox, 161 Pa. Commw. 589, 596 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994)