Critically important note about PICS and NICS

[tl_3237]

What is the difference between a "False statement" (Misdemeanor) and "Materially False Statement" (Felony)? Also, he only made one statement so how can face two charges?

It is not unusual for a criminal act to incur multiple charges each having differing criminal elements. The DA can subsequently trim down the charges or use some as a 'bargain chip' during plea dealing. He can also go to trial with multiple charges giving the jury the ability to convict on 'lesser' charges.

In the instant case of Ralph Faivre the charges were:

18 § 4904 §§ A1

§ 4904. Unsworn falsification to authorities.

(a) In general.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the
second degree if, with intent to mislead a public servant in
performing his official function, he:

(1) makes any written false statement which he does not
believe to be true;

(2) submits or invites reliance on any writing which he
knows to be forged, altered or otherwise lacking in
authenticity; or

(3) submits or invites reliance on any sample, specimen,
map, boundary mark, or other object which he knows to be
false.

(b) Statements "under penalty".--A person commits a
misdemeanor of the third degree if he makes a written false
statement which he does not believe to be true, on or pursuant
to a form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that
false statements made therein are punishable.

and

18 § 6111 §§ G4II

(4) Any person, purchaser or transferee commits a felony of the third degree if, in connection with the purchase, delivery or transfer of a firearm under this chapter, he knowingly and intentionally:

(i) makes any materially false oral statement;


(ii) makes any materially false written statement, including a statement on any form promulgated by Federal or State agencies; or


(iii) willfully furnishes or exhibits any false identification intended or likely to deceive the seller, licensed dealer or licensed manufacturer.

I'm unclear as to the application of 4904(a)(1) as opposed to 4904(b) since a 'public servant' was not involved.

[GunLawyer001]

It is not unusual for a criminal act to incur multiple charges each having differing criminal elements. The DA can subsequently trim down the charges or use some as a 'bargain chip' during plea dealing. He can also go to trial with multiple charges giving the jury the ability to convict on 'lesser' charges.

In the instant case of Ralph Faivre the charges were:

18 § 4904 §§ A1





and

18 § 6111 §§ G4II



I'm unclear as to the application of 4904(a)(1) as opposed to 4904(b) since a 'public servant' was not involved.

If you try to buy a gun and fill out the 4473 and a Record of Sale Form, you may be lying twice. If you challenge a denial, that might be a third time. There are associated crimes for deceiving the FFL, lying on the forms, sending the record of Sale and/or the Challenge to the public servants at the PSP.....

[PAMedic=F|A=]

This really should be out on the front of the website, not just a sticky.

[bigandy1966]

Funny how laaws like this might prevent someone who owns guns from seeking proffesional help when they need it for fear off having their rights taken away and thousands of dollars of legally purchased firearms confiscated. Simply because they were depressed or having anxiety issues and some doctor puts them down as 302.

[mobo215]

Why should it be illegal to try to buy a gun legally in the first place? What is the big deal if I have my PICS called in and it results in denial? No guns change hands, so no harm.

Why do we have an applicant fill out a form BEFORE calling it in? Is it just to give the .gov an opportunity to charge people with perjury? Why not simply ask for a name, pre-clear it with PICS, and *then* proceed with the sale? The public interest would be served just the same, and innocent mistakes wouldn't result in unnecessary prosecutions.

And one final question: When will we see John Oliver do a segment about the absurdity of all of this? I'll hold my breath......

[Skreamz]

I havent been posting on here for a while but here is my two cents on the whole matter of it all. Its all about gun control, whether it be not allowing somebody to own a gun or making it harder than hell for somebody wanting to exercise their 2nd amendment rights to try to own a gun. If the government says you dont get a gun then sadly enough you dont get a gun. Whatever happened to the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens of this country shall not be infringed upon? That doesnt stack up to anything. They do what they want. If you try to go buy a gun then they say youre not allowed then bam thats it. Then they charge you for trying to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. What I dont get is somebody who was ever involuntarily committed loses their rights. They can still serve on a jury and still can vote. Felons cant vote or own a gun or serve on a jury. Felons can get their 2nd amendment rights back a hell of a lot easier than somebody who has a 302 on their record. Whats even worse is there is no way to remedy this without paying out thousands of dollars for an attorney. The politicians need to pass some kind of bill for some kind of relief for people who are in my shows like a bunch of other people across this great commonwealth of ours. I still think that there needs to be some kind of class action lawsuit brought against the state for just stripping away peoples rights without due process. Before its all said and done with, nobody will have guns if they get their way. They put charges on you all because its a money thing. They all make money from it some how whether it be the PSP, adult probation, ARD, or whatever else you can think of. They just passed a bill that would make municipalties liable for costs if they try enforcing their own gun ordinances. How about passing a law that has a remedy for people who cannot own a gun to protect themselves or their families. I want to see it Pa HB 1243 ever comes up again for vote. It wont. Anyways, Im done rambling on about this. To answer your question Mobo215, Its all bout gun control and the state making money. Thats what it boils down to.

[45acp]

I was looking for a clarification on Mr. Kline's initial post. It stated that

". . . which does not really mean that at all; if you can get through the multi-page instructions on the 4473, and read Paragraph 6, you'll find that it REALLY means (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less)."

However it seems that the sentence detailing what it means was cut off. Clarification of the actual meaning would be very helpful. Thanks so much.

[t1066]

Have you been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

. . . which does not really mean that at all; if you can get through the multi-page instructions on the 4473, and read Paragraph 6, you'll find that it REALLY means
(this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less).

I was looking for a clarification on Mr. Kline's initial post. It stated that

". . . which does not really mean that at all; if you can get through the multi-page instructions on the 4473, and read Paragraph 6, you'll find that it REALLY means (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less)."

However it seems that the sentence detailing what it means was cut off. Clarification of the actual meaning would be very helpful. Thanks so much.

I've quoted it above. What he is talking about is the red highlighted portion that was immediately before what you originally quoted. He is pointing out that while the question on the form says punishable by more than a year, when you read the instruction on the back of the form it tells you that state misdemeanors with a maximum sentence of 2 years or less are not prohibiting.

[GunLawyer001]

I've quoted it above. What he is talking about is the red highlighted portion that was immediately before what you originally quoted. He is pointing out that while the question on the form says punishable by more than a year, when you read the instruction on the back of the form it tells you that state misdemeanors with a maximum sentence of 2 years or less are not prohibiting.

You are correct. To lay it out even more clearly:

Form asks: Have you been convicted of any crime whose statute allows for a maximum sentence of more than 1 year?

The back of the form, in the instructions, "clarifies" this and says that if the crime was a state misdemeanor (not a federal crime, and not a state felony or other non-misdemeanor), and the maximum penalty was over 1 year but not more than 2 years, then you should answer "no" to the question.

In practice, here in PA this means that almost every 1st degree misdemeanor is a federal prohibitor, but 2nd degree misdemeanors (being punishable by up to 2 years but not a day more) are not. However, some Misdemeanor 2's may be "enumerated offenses" under state law, or they may be misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, or may otherwise be prohibiting.

Your best bet, if you're ever been convicted of anything, is to BE SURE that it's not a prohibitor BEFORE you walk into a gun shop and start filling out forms. The questions are all available online (Google "ATF 4473"), read them and DON'T GUESS. This isn't like pretending that you've read the license agreement for that new software and checking "YES, I HAVE READ THE LICENSE TERMS AND I AGREE". It's not like filling out the medical history form at the doctor's office where you kinda sorta remember having chicken pox.

This is a test where there are 2 possible grades: 100% correct, or criminal prosecution.

You should aim for 100%.

[tl_3237]

4473 form including questions and instructions:

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-4473-1.pdf