Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,905
    Rep Power
    21474863

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Activist View Post
    . . .

    For PICS to operate within this agreement enabling legislation was crafted in 1995 - ACT 17. Subsequent to the passage of this legislation numerous revisions were made to the sale of firearms law. The PICS system can 'ONLY' operate within the powers and authority granted in the law-NOTHING ELSE is legitimate and legal. Yet the PSP flaunt this authority from the legislature.

    § 6111_F3_LTCF & Law Enforcement bypass Instant Check-Ignored
    § 6111_B7_Temporary Delays are 'ONLY' for purposes of enforcing 18 United States Code § 922(d)(9), (g)(1) and (s)(1)-Like the Commerce Clause-Expanded beyond scope
    § 6111.4. Registration of Firearms-Ignored
    § 6105_d_Exemption.--A person who has been convicted of a crime specified in subsection (a) or (b) or a person whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c)(1), (2), (5), (7) or (9) may make application to the court of common pleas of the county where the principal residence of the applicant is situated for relief from the disability imposed by this section upon the possession, transfer or control of a firearm. The court shall grant such relief if it determines that any of the following apply:
    (1) The conviction has been vacated under circumstances where all appeals have been exhausted or where the right to appeal has expired.-Ignored
    § 6109_d_Sheriff to conduct investigation.--The sheriff to whom the application is made shall:
    (5) conduct a criminal background, juvenile delinquency and mental health check following the procedures set forth in section 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms)-PICS uses the language above to interfere in the LTCF approval process.
    § 6109_g_Grant or denial of license.--If the sheriff refuses to issue a license, the sheriff shall notify the applicant in writing of the refusal and the specific reasons. The notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant at the address set forth in the application. PICS refuses to identify the denied permit applicant the information mandated in this section as part of the LTCF approval process.

    . . . .
    Kim, you know that I respect your work enormously, and that I consider you a hero in the pantheon of People Who Have Made a Difference for our gun rights. We would not have what we have today were it not for your work. I thank you.

    That being said, I have to clarify some of the legal points you've made.


    § 6111_F3_LTCF & Law Enforcement bypass Instant Check-Ignored
    Look at the statute. Having an LTCF means that you can bypass Paragraph (a). But not Paragraph (b), which requires (inter alia) that the seller :
    (4) Received a unique approval number for that inquiry from the Pennsylvania State Police and recorded the date and the number on the application/record of sale form. This requires a LEGISLATIVE fix, unless you want the PSP to ignore the law.


    § 6111_B7_Temporary Delays are 'ONLY' for purposes of enforcing 18 United States Code § 922(d)(9), (g)(1) and (s)(1)-Like the Commerce Clause-Expanded beyond scope

    I agree that the Commerce Clause has been expanded by Congress far beyond what the Framers intended, which was literally to regulate commerce between the states, meaning that New Jersey can't apply an import tax on goods made in Pennsylvania.
    However, the delays authorized apply to anyone that the records reflect may have been "convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" or "who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year", and for miscellaneous purposes under (s). I've never heard of anyone delayed for records reflecting a summary conviction, or for possible convictions that could only be non-domestic misdemeanors punishable by not more than 2 years. Some crimes have different possible grades, and a lot of "crimes of violence" left records that are very unclear about the "domestic" part.
    There may be individuals who have stories of totally unwarranted delays, but I'd have to see their criminal history reports to verify what actually happened. We probably both have stories of denied or delayed citizens who swore repeatedly that they had unblemished pasts, until confronted with the record of "that thing that happened that one time, at band camp" and then they say "OOOOOOHHH yeah, THAT thing....I didn't think that counted..."


    § 6111.4. Registration of Firearms-Ignored
    Yes, you guys got unfairly hosed by the Pa Supreme Court on this issue (as did the rest of us who you were trying to protect), and that case is just one example of why I tell people that no case is a slam-dunk. However, that's not PICS, even though it's the State Police. And our highest court gave them its blessing for the Record of Sale Database, and our Legislature has had plenty of time to defund the PSP for that (as Congress does annually for the ATF's ability to restore rights lost to federal convictions), or "clarify" the statute. I would fully support either effort, to defund or statutorily get rid of the ROS database, which is abused a thousand times for every single instance of lawful, beneficial use.


    § 6105_d_Exemption.--A person who has been convicted of a crime specified in subsection (a) or (b) or a person whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c)(1), (2), (5), (7) or (9) may make application to the court of common pleas of the county where the principal residence of the applicant is situated for relief from the disability imposed by this section upon the possession, transfer or control of a firearm. The court shall grant such relief if it determines that any of the following apply:
    (1) The conviction has been vacated under circumstances where all appeals have been exhausted or where the right to appeal has expired.-Ignored

    Not sure where you're going with this one. Some practitioners read that and say "hey, we don't need no stinking pardon, we can get relief from our local CCP judge!" Yes, STATE relief. NOT relief from a FEDERAL prohibitor. Many prohibitors are both state and federal triggers, meaning that relief from the state leaves a bar by the Feds. And our courts have repeatedly backed the PSP position on the need for pardons (with full restoration of all civil rights), usually followed by expungements, before relief applies.



    § 6109_d_Sheriff to conduct investigation.--The sheriff to whom the application is made shall:
    (5) conduct a criminal background, juvenile delinquency and mental health check following the procedures set forth in section 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms)-PICS uses the language above to interfere in the LTCF approval process.
    § 6109_g_Grant or denial of license.--If the sheriff refuses to issue a license, the sheriff shall notify the applicant in writing of the refusal and the specific reasons. The notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant at the address set forth in the application. PICS refuses to identify the denied permit applicant the information mandated in this section as part of the LTCF approval process.


    The PICS and NICS information is protected from certain types of disclosure, and that includes the basis of a denial being disclosed to an FFL or the Sheriff. PICS is barred from telling the Sheriff the specifics of your denial. Yes, that makes it awkward for those with exciting lives who may have accumulated multiple possible bases for a denial, who have to sort it out by looking at the complicated state and federal lists of prohibitors. But the PSP isn't being coy, the existing law mandates this. Again, are we demanding that they ignore the statutes AS WRITTEN?

    I chafe at the restrictions and burdens imposed on us by state and federal mandates, but details are important. Killing PICS while leaving the Pennsylvania UFA and the Federal laws intact will hurt us, not help us.
    Last edited by GunLawyer001; November 13th, 2013 at 03:21 PM.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    There's merit to carrying your backup mag in a backup gun.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Fayette, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    83
    Rep Power
    11970

    Default Re: LTCF's & Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Phil,
    From 1996 until 1998 the unique approval number (bolded below) was the LTCF number of the applicant. When PICS came into being the PICS/PSP stopped that practice at once. This is the process the PSP approved of in 1996 and legislative floor debates reflect this.

    This is common in other states where the governing agency ignores the law and then conflicts with citizens begin because of the money the agency refuses to set aside. Several states have migrated to the NICS system with these issues playing a significant role.

    To answer your point below; subsection is the operative section for the 'sale of firearms' and covers the duties of sellers. The issue of a LTCF bypassing the PICS check is correct in that it modifies the requirements in SubSection A thus changing the requirements in SubSection B.

    SubSection B outlines the procedures to take when enforcing the requirements under SubSection A.

    The NSSF & the PAFR and I have discussed this at length with House and Senate counsel and this position of a LTCF is clear in our law. We have also (primarily Harry S.) examined the permanent Brady alternative and, due to changes in the LTCF (6109) law and other sections we have made, we qualify to implement this. The PSP have fought this furiously for the same reason (I cannot prove this as my knowledge of this is 'all' verbal) as in other states-money/PICS check fees.

    So in essence we are one simple letter away from LTCF's bypassing the Instant Check and saving gun owner's money at the FFL dealer and saving the dealer the time and hassle of calling PICS/NICS except for the opposition of the PICS/PSP.

    [QUOTE=GunLawyer001;2557377]
    § 6111_F3_LTCF & Law Enforcement bypass Instant Check-Ignored
    Look at the statute. Having an LTCF means that you can bypass Paragraph (a). But not Paragraph (b), which requires (inter alia) that the seller :
    (4) Received a unique approval number for that inquiry from the Pennsylvania State Police and recorded the date and the number on the application/record of sale form. This requires a LEGISLATIVE fix, unless you want the PSP to ignore the law.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,905
    Rep Power
    21474863

    Default Re: LTCF's & Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Activist View Post
    Phil,
    From 1996 until 1998 the unique approval number (bolded below) was the LTCF number of the applicant. When PICS came into being the PICS/PSP stopped that practice at once. This is the process the PSP approved of in 1996 and legislative floor debates reflect this.

    This is common in other states where the governing agency ignores the law and then conflicts with citizens begin because of the money the agency refuses to set aside. Several states have migrated to the NICS system with these issues playing a significant role.

    To answer your point below; subsection is the operative section for the 'sale of firearms' and covers the duties of sellers. The issue of a LTCF bypassing the PICS check is correct in that it modifies the requirements in SubSection A thus changing the requirements in SubSection B.

    SubSection B outlines the procedures to take when enforcing the requirements under SubSection A.

    The NSSF & the PAFR and I have discussed this at length with House and Senate counsel and this position of a LTCF is clear in our law. We have also (primarily Harry S.) examined the permanent Brady alternative and, due to changes in the LTCF (6109) law and other sections we have made, we qualify to implement this. The PSP have fought this furiously for the same reason (I cannot prove this as my knowledge of this is 'all' verbal) as in other states-money/PICS check fees.

    So in essence we are one simple letter away from LTCF's bypassing the Instant Check and saving gun owner's money at the FFL dealer and saving the dealer the time and hassle of calling PICS/NICS except for the opposition of the PICS/PSP.

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    § 6111_F3_LTCF & Law Enforcement bypass Instant Check-Ignored
    Look at the statute. Having an LTCF means that you can bypass Paragraph (a). But not Paragraph (b), which requires (inter alia) that the seller :
    (4) Received a unique approval number for that inquiry from the Pennsylvania State Police and recorded the date and the number on the application/record of sale form. This requires a LEGISLATIVE fix, unless you want the PSP to ignore the law.
    I would be much in favor of the waiver for current LTCF holders, because I have an LTCF, and because I believe it would fulfill the aims of "trying to bar prevent sales from FFL's to prohibited persons" while reducing the burden and infringement on law-abiding gun owners.

    Still, "Received a unique approval number for that inquiry from the Pennsylvania State Police" sounds like the PSP generated a unique approval number for that transaction, not that the FFL wrote down your LTCF number that you received (on average) 2.5 years ago.

    I've thought about the "loophole", BTW, and on balance the few bad guys sneaking guns out from an FFL by way of fake ID and fake LTCF's, would be far less damaging than the "prohibited yet honestly unaware" citizens taking home guns after a 3-day wait, added to the "knowingly prohibited" persons who are able to defeat the NICS check because of one of the many unclear records. PICS with the Brady Waiver is the best option under current and easily-changed laws. Amend the UFA to clearly allow the bypass for LTCF holders, and we're good to go.

    If we're going to have a firearms transfer background check (and the Feds insist that we must), with all the expense and infringement, then the thing might as well actually deter some transfers to the bad guys.
    Last edited by GunLawyer001; November 13th, 2013 at 05:00 PM.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    There's merit to carrying your backup mag in a backup gun.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Fayette, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    83
    Rep Power
    11970

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Phil,

    I respectfully wish to guide you in a different direction on this one.

    The PSP cannot intrude on the Sheriff' authority to conduct the background check and then claim sharing a denied record with the very same Sheriff and the applicant is illegal.

    In fact sharing information with law enforcement is specifically provided for in the law and the only limitation is for 'non-law enforcement' entities as outlined below from the LTCF law in the UFA.

    § 6109_g_Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter . . .

    The language of the law 'specifically' requires that the 'applicant' be furnished the 'reasons for the denial' and the 'method of notifying them'. I have in my possession (as I am sure you do) dozens and dozens of letters from individuals denied a LTCF where the reason is not specified but the denying agency is the PSP. (actually the letters from the Sheriff's routinely say "Denied by the PA State Police for an unspecified reason")

    Again, abuse of power and position is uncalled for and this is but one of dozens of reasons to rid ourselves of the PICS system and go with NICS. No other state that removed their state run POC system has seen harm or difficulties with law abiding citizens or 'any' increase in crime. Criminals routinely do 'not' go to FFL's unless engaged in Straw Purchase sales and we do 'not' prosecute those effectively. The average for them are roughly two per county per year throughout PA.

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post

    § 6109_d_Sheriff to conduct investigation.--The sheriff to whom the application is made shall:
    (5) conduct a criminal background, juvenile delinquency and mental health check following the procedures set forth in section 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms)-PICS uses the language above to interfere in the LTCF approval process.
    § 6109_g_Grant or denial of license.--If the sheriff refuses to issue a license, the sheriff shall notify the applicant in writing of the refusal and the specific reasons. The notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant at the address set forth in the application. PICS refuses to identify the denied permit applicant the information mandated in this section as part of the LTCF approval process.


    The PICS and NICS information is protected from certain types of disclosure, and that includes the basis of a denial being disclosed to an FFL or the Sheriff. PICS is barred from telling the Sheriff the specifics of your denial. Yes, that makes it awkward for those with exciting lives who may have accumulated multiple possible bases for a denial, who have to sort it out by looking at the complicated state and federal lists of prohibitors. But the PSP isn't being coy, the existing law mandates this. Again, are we demanding that they ignore the statutes AS WRITTEN?

    I chafe at the restrictions and burdens imposed on us by state and federal mandates, but details are important. Killing PICS while leaving the Pennsylvania UFA and the Federal laws intact will hurt us, not help us.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,905
    Rep Power
    21474863

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Activist View Post
    Phil,

    I respectfully wish to guide you in a different direction on this one.

    The PSP cannot intrude on the Sheriff' authority to conduct the background check and then claim sharing a denied record with the very same Sheriff and the applicant is illegal.

    In fact sharing information with law enforcement is specifically provided for in the law and the only limitation is for 'non-law enforcement' entities as outlined below from the LTCF law in the UFA.

    § 6109_g_Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter . . .

    The language of the law 'specifically' requires that the 'applicant' be furnished the 'reasons for the denial' and the 'method of notifying them'. I have in my possession (as I am sure you do) dozens and dozens of letters from individuals denied a LTCF where the reason is not specified but the denying agency is the PSP. (actually the letters from the Sheriff's routinely say "Denied by the PA State Police for an unspecified reason")

    Again, abuse of power and position is uncalled for and this is but one of dozens of reasons to rid ourselves of the PICS system and go with NICS. No other state that removed their state run POC system has seen harm or difficulties with law abiding citizens or 'any' increase in crime. Criminals routinely do 'not' go to FFL's unless engaged in Straw Purchase sales and we do 'not' prosecute those effectively. The average for them are roughly two per county per year throughout PA.
    Can PICS provide anything other than a yes/no to the Sheriff? Well, they don't, despite pressure to do so. I haven't researched this before, but a quick skim of the UFA shows that the section you quoted doesn't end there, but continues, making it a felony to disseminate such info to anyone other than the subject. So "any person" (which would include PSP staffers) telling the Sheriff the basis of the denial, appears to be a prosecutable felony:

    (3) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally requests a criminal history, juvenile delinquency or mental health record check or other confidential information from the Pennsylvania State Police under this chapter for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or knowingly and intentionally disseminates any criminal history, juvenile delinquency or mental health record or other confidential information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree.


    If there's an exception for telling the Sheriff the specific basis for denial, I would welcome the citation.

    ETA: Upon further research, it looks like PICS could tell the Sheriff the specific reason for the denial, if the Sheriff asked. It wouldn't change the decision, the applicant is just as denied either way, and nothing stops the Sheriff from doing his own check of the records to find the probable prohibitor. More significantly, the Federal NICS system wouldn't tell the Sheriff even if the Sheriff asked. So it's not much of a reason for swapping NICS for PICS.
    Last edited by GunLawyer001; November 13th, 2013 at 05:40 PM.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    There's merit to carrying your backup mag in a backup gun.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Fayette, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    83
    Rep Power
    11970

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Phil,

    These are a selection of sections regarding dissemination of ‘criminal records’ (and ‘not’ intelligence records) to law enforcement agencies in Title 18.

    If it is the PA State Police position that they cannot share criminal record information with Sheriffs’ then I believe they are in error much in the same way as they were on AR-15’s and other situations. Their interpretations have left me shaking my head more times than I can count!!

    I hope these are of some help on this issue!

    § 9121. General regulations.
    (a) Dissemination to criminal justice agencies.--Criminal history record information maintained by any criminal justice agency shall be disseminated without charge to any criminal justice agency or to any noncriminal justice agency that is providing a service for which a criminal justice agency is responsible.

    § 9102. Definitions. "Criminal history record information." Information collected by criminal justice agencies concerning individuals, and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations or other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom. The term does not include intelligence information, investigative information or treatment information, including medical and psychological information, or information and records specified in section 9104 (relating to scope).

    § 6109. Licenses.
    (l) Firearms License Validation System.--
    (1) The Pennsylvania State Police shall establish a nationwide toll-free telephone number, known as the Firearms License Validation System, which shall be operational seven days a week, 24 hours per day, for the purpose of responding to law enforcement inquiries regarding the validity of any Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm.
    (2) Notwithstanding any other law regarding the confidentiality of information, inquiries to the Firearms License Validation System regarding the validity of any Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm may only be made by law enforcement personnel acting within the scope of their official duties.
    (3) Law enforcement personnel outside this Commonwealth shall provide their originating agency identifier number and the license number of the license to carry a firearm which is the subject of the inquiry.
    (4) Responses to inquiries by law enforcement personnel outside this Commonwealth shall be limited to the name of the licensee, the validity of the license and any information which may be provided to a criminal justice agency pursuant to Chapter 91 (relating to criminal history record information).

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,905
    Rep Power
    21474863

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Activist View Post
    Phil,

    These are a selection of sections regarding dissemination of ‘criminal records’ (and ‘not’ intelligence records) to law enforcement agencies in Title 18.

    If it is the PA State Police position that they cannot share criminal record information with Sheriffs’ then I believe they are in error much in the same way as they were on AR-15’s and other situations. Their interpretations have left me shaking my head more times than I can count!!

    I hope these are of some help on this issue!

    § 9121. General regulations.
    (a) Dissemination to criminal justice agencies.--Criminal history record information maintained by any criminal justice agency shall be disseminated without charge to any criminal justice agency or to any noncriminal justice agency that is providing a service for which a criminal justice agency is responsible.

    § 9102. Definitions. "Criminal history record information." Information collected by criminal justice agencies concerning individuals, and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations or other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom. The term does not include intelligence information, investigative information or treatment information, including medical and psychological information, or information and records specified in section 9104 (relating to scope).

    § 6109. Licenses.
    (l) Firearms License Validation System.--
    (1) The Pennsylvania State Police shall establish a nationwide toll-free telephone number, known as the Firearms License Validation System, which shall be operational seven days a week, 24 hours per day, for the purpose of responding to law enforcement inquiries regarding the validity of any Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm.
    (2) Notwithstanding any other law regarding the confidentiality of information, inquiries to the Firearms License Validation System regarding the validity of any Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm may only be made by law enforcement personnel acting within the scope of their official duties.
    (3) Law enforcement personnel outside this Commonwealth shall provide their originating agency identifier number and the license number of the license to carry a firearm which is the subject of the inquiry.
    (4) Responses to inquiries by law enforcement personnel outside this Commonwealth shall be limited to the name of the licensee, the validity of the license and any information which may be provided to a criminal justice agency pursuant to Chapter 91 (relating to criminal history record information).
    I did amend my immediately-previous post to reflect the fact that the PSP "can" share specific reasons for denial with the Sheriff, if the Sheriff bothers to ask. (I did that 90 minutes before your post, after doing some research of my own.) So yes, PICS doesn't volunteer specifics regarding mental health history or convictions or outstanding PFA's, because a denial is a denial, and spreading your info helps nobody. Besides, the Sheriff already has access to that. Do we want PICS staff to be chatty about reasons when dealers and sheriffs clerks call in?

    Bottom line, replacing PICS with NICS would not improve this situation, because as I noted before, NICS won't share their reason for denial, even if the Sheriff asks. Perhaps the Sheriff could do his own research and provide the specific reason required by statute, but he could do that now, as well.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    There's merit to carrying your backup mag in a backup gun.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Fayette, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    83
    Rep Power
    11970

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    I didn't see your revision-apologies. I have been running from meeting to meeting today.

    The point I was making was that the applicant for a LTCF who is denied is entitled (under the law) to know the reason and the denying agency must inform them of the reason at the time of denial. This is not optional for them-Sheriff or PICS-as it is the 'law'.

    I am 'definitely' not inviting anyone's private information to be shared with anyone else. Law enforcement has the authority to communicate prior records that disqualify someone with the affected party as well as other law enforcement. That's it!

    'IF' we as a society allow the PICS/PSP people to make up the rules and ignore the law then we are, in deep trouble.

    As for PICS people being chatty I can state without any doubt that they have been and are already in numerous ways. I have had state senators (Tim Solobay, John Pippy and others) as well as state house members (Brandon Neuman, Mark Mustio, Rick Saccone and others) actually in gun shops when the operators have insisted on SSN's, and read them back to the store clerk, and whether or not individuals had tattoos or certain scars or called the local police on them for unpaid child support and other even worse situations.

    Again, the performance of NICS with other states is not, in my experience, the way you related it and they most assuredly will comply with the state law extant at the moment of the denial.

    Further, I have been in Sheriff's offices when several incidents happened and a record was on the PSP/PICS computers (explained to me afterwards by friendly Deputies) that was different than came up for the Sheriff Deputy checking the same person in the other databases accessible to them.

    Again, I put 'some' of the additional advantages of NICS in an earlier posting that should be how the PICS system operates but does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    I did amend my immediately-previous post to reflect the fact that the PSP "can" share specific reasons for denial with the Sheriff, if the Sheriff bothers to ask. (I did that 90 minutes before your post, after doing some research of my own.) So yes, PICS doesn't volunteer specifics regarding mental health history or convictions or outstanding PFA's, because a denial is a denial, and spreading your info helps nobody. Besides, the Sheriff already has access to that. Do we want PICS staff to be chatty about reasons when dealers and sheriffs clerks call in?

    Bottom line, replacing PICS with NICS would not improve this situation, because as I noted before, NICS won't share their reason for denial, even if the Sheriff asks. Perhaps the Sheriff could do his own research and provide the specific reason required by statute, but he could do that now, as well.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    C, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    345
    Rep Power
    22282

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    Who do I write or visit ?
    Quote Originally Posted by rwb1500 View Post
    Were you wearing 5.11 pants?I make you guys all the time.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Fayette, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    83
    Rep Power
    11970

    Default Re: Pics put me in research ,why ?

    I am attaching a PDF for you that contains everything you should need.

    The current list of co-sponsors is below:

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...&type=B&bn=921

    KRIEGER, S. H. SMITH, TURZAI, METCALFE, SACCONE, BLOOM, MILLARD, LUCAS, KAUFFMAN, DUNBAR, REESE, TALLMAN, NEUMAN, KORTZ, MUSTIO, STEVENSON, ROAE, BARRAR, GROVE, METZGAR, ROCK, GIBBONS, GABLER, GINGRICH, STERN, C. HARRIS, CAUSER, JAMES, SANKEY, MARSHALL, SNYDER, AUMENT, EVERETT, PYLE, F. KELLER, R. MILLER, GREINER, CUTLER, WATSON, QUINN, MALONEY, READSHAW, TOOHIL, MAHER, SWANGER, MOUL, WHITE, ELLIS, COX, HELM, PETRARCA, FARRY, CHRISTIANA, SAINATO, GOODMAN, KOTIK, HICKERNELL, BROOKS and SONNEY

    This gives us a total of 59 co-sponsors. Rep. Sonney (District 4 / Republican) just added his name to the list yesterday I believe.

    Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you!

    Quote Originally Posted by Her9852 View Post
    Who do I write or visit ?
    Attached Files Attached Files

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. PICS research day 11
    By Duganz in forum General
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 19th, 2013, 02:58 PM
  2. PA PICS in research
    By Courtney724 in forum General
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2011, 11:34 PM
  3. What PICS Research means
    By Xringshooter in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 17th, 2009, 12:43 PM
  4. PICS check said need more research
    By CrazyFeet in forum General
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 12th, 2009, 12:17 PM
  5. PICS, Research and PIN numbers
    By JP8 in forum General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 27th, 2007, 10:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •