Results 41 to 50 of 93
-
January 3rd, 2015, 11:34 AM #41
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
I believe that bill had to do with people who sought help for a temporary mental condition like depression.
-
January 3rd, 2015, 12:09 PM #42
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
I'm seeing the results of what the PSP are ALREADY doing, which (as I noted months ago in this thread) has been to ramp-up prosecutions of almost everybody who makes a mistake on the 4473.
I don't like the memorandum that you linked to. "Felons" are a small percentage of those who have been denied by PICS, but I suspect that the goal is to push what is already being done, to criminally prosecute close to 100% of everyone who gets an A- on the 4473 test.
Because that's what it is. It's a test, with questions that are easy to miss.
The 4473 doesn't ask "have you ever spent a year in jail?" It asks for the maximum allowable statutory penalty, and it asks it of people who almost always have zero legal training.
Might as well ask you things that you "should" know, like the engine displacement of your town's police cars, or the specific longitude and latitude of your home. Or how to spell "brougham".
A lot of the questions aren't factual questions, they require legal conclusions. It's insane to criminally prosecute people over the answers to things that never happened; what "could the judge" have done? How would the typical citizen know?
Seriously, go find the PA statutes, locate the various relevant statutes in Title 18 and 75, then see how long it takes you to determine your maximum possible sentence for a first DUI conviction following a previous non-conviction ARD (which will be deemed to be a prior conviction for purposes of calculating the grading of the first conviction/second offense), where the BAC was .13 and there were no injuries requiring hospitalization.
We'll wait. Document your work, tell us which statutes and paragraphs were required to get your final answer, both for the grading and the maximum penalty.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The more common issues, based on my practice, have been teenaged 302's, and DUI's. They come up a LOT.
How the Hell does a 16 year old kid know what precisely is happening when his folks take him to "some place" and "some things" happen, and he can't go home for a couple of days, but then he does? Kids spend most of their time in places against their will. They get dragged to school, and church, and Aunt Edna's, and to the craft show. An "involuntary commitment" looks a lot like the rest of their week. But sure enough, 10 or 20 or 30 years later, they are asked the legal details, and they can go to prison if they get it wrong.
In the real world, getting every question but one correct is commendable. Not a crime. To most people, this is like checking off "I HAVE READ THE LICENSING AGREEMENT FOR ADOBE SOFTWARE" when they really didn't read the whole thing, and then a couple weeks later, they get arrested and prosecuted.
The statutes suck. What we SHOULD have is prohibitions based on the real world. Maybe anyone who spent 6 months or more in jail in the last decade; that's a pretty easy question, and it would catch the serious offenders and leave out the people who the judge didn't think needed any jail time.
But this system is bullshit; it presumes a level of legal expertise that our school system doesn't even try to impart. You can easily graduate from K-12 public education without every even hearing the term "misdemeanor" or "maximum possible sentence". And then when you try to buy a gun, you get a pop quiz on material that the govt didn't think that you needed to know.
I oppose mandates for prosecution, particularly from those (like Bill Clinton) who pretend to not understand that it's not just "felons" being bounced by PICS, it's decent people who were hustled through a complicated system that's made complicated on purpose. It's so complicated that prosecutors can't read the 4473 properly, and think that the question about convictions "punishable by more than one year" actually means "one year", because the "clarification" is buried deep in the instructions, in tiny print that's poorly worded.
Our government is run by Legislators who no longer even read the bills they vote for, a president who ignores the separation of powers, and judges who "find" new things in the Constitution that the Framers would never have even suggested without being drunk. To push for MORE prosecutions of people who have not been raised to understand legal issues and legal terms, who make mistakes while filling out a really badly-drafted govt form, is insane.
Let's talk about prosecuting more citizens right after Lois Lerner is arrested and charged, and gets a cell next to Eric Holder. Because their crimes are pretty well documented. And they were trained to know EXACTLY what they were doing, that it was wrong, and that they were violating U.S. law.
We don't need to prosecute more citizens, we need the laws to be more intuitive, and understandable, and generally obeyed by the citizens AND the people we hire to administer the government.Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.
-
January 3rd, 2015, 12:20 PM #43
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
^^^ Hear Hear! Werd!!!
-
January 3rd, 2015, 12:28 PM #44Grand Member
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
-
E-Town,
Pennsylvania
(Lancaster County) - Posts
- 1,463
- Rep Power
- 9840859
-
January 3rd, 2015, 01:17 PM #45
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.
-
January 3rd, 2015, 01:51 PM #46
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
Great post GL! It's very reassuring to know that there are people like you on our side.
-
January 3rd, 2015, 02:50 PM #47
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
I recieved a DUI back in 2012 and recieved the ARD program also it was my first offense. I have made 2 purchases in 2014 as well as obtained 2 states permits have had no issues..
SEMPER GUMBY
-
January 4th, 2015, 10:41 AM #48
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
I don't like it. In the end, the AG still gets to decide whom to prosecute.
Steve Barrar came up with this because he is under fire from the libs in a part of his district. It seems like a good idea on its surface, but you don't have to think very far to see how it can go wrong.
I do get the frustration of the guys at the gun dealer he speaks of, as they have idjits trying straw purchases and other nonsense every day while the rights of law abiding people are under attack. This bill, however, is not the answer. It extends the reach of the AG and PSP, gives them both a reason to increase their budgets, and does nothing at all to make things easier for law abiding people.
Gunlawyer, as always, make really good points and I agree with everything in his post.Boy, I say boy, you're reaching the limits of my medication!
-
January 4th, 2015, 11:33 AM #49Super Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
-
West Chester,
Pennsylvania
(Chester County) - Posts
- 831
- Rep Power
- 161692
Re: Critically important note about PICS and NICS
GL.... You're spot on.
The language on the form is obtuse. I've seen quite a few folks get hung up on the word "transferee". It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.FOAC Volunteer. NREMT-P. NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun Instructor & RSO. BSA Rangemaster. Act 235.
Selling: Remington R1 1911
-
January 5th, 2015, 08:00 PM #50
Similar Threads
-
PICS vs. NICS
By Yellowfin in forum PennsylvaniaReplies: 12Last Post: January 10th, 2017, 10:25 AM -
HB 921 Elimination (PICS) & use National Instant Check System (NICS) Rep Krieger 2013
By WhiteFeather in forum PennsylvaniaReplies: 53Last Post: March 18th, 2014, 09:50 PM -
NICS vs PICS ??
By Firemedic1974 in forum PennsylvaniaReplies: 4Last Post: November 25th, 2013, 05:49 AM -
How did they pass NICS and not PICS
By chesire17201 in forum GeneralReplies: 33Last Post: March 22nd, 2008, 08:27 PM
Bookmarks