6111, Sale to LTCF holders

[headcase]

§ 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms.
(a) Time and manner of delivery.--


1.) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no seller shall deliver a firearm to the purchaser or transferee thereof until 48 hours shall have elapsed from the time of the application for the purchase thereof, and, when delivered, the firearm shall be securely wrapped and shall be unloaded.
2.) Thirty days after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that the Instantaneous Criminal History Records Check System has been established in accordance with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159, 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.), no seller shall deliver a firearm to the purchaser thereof until the provisions of this section have been satisfied, and, when delivered, the firearm shall be securely wrapped and shall be unloaded.

This (2) is what authorizes a sale to a person only after passing a PICS check correct?

If so, then doesn't this:

(f) Application of section.--


1.)For the purposes of this section only, except as provided by paragraph (2), "firearm" shall mean any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
2.)The provisions contained in subsections (a) and (c) shall only apply to pistols or revolvers with a barrel length of less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, any rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or any firearm with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
3.)The provisions contained in subsection (a) shall not apply to any law enforcement officer whose current identification as a law enforcement officer shall be construed as a valid license to carry a firearm or any person who possesses a valid license to carry a firearm under section 6109 (relating to licenses).

*bold is mine

Exempt a LTCF holder from the PICS check?

[gnbrotz]

This (2) is what authorizes a sale to a person only after passing a PICS check correct?

If so, then doesn't this:

*bold is mine

Exempt a LTCF holder from the PICS check?

Yes, but ignored by the PSP.

[paul]

That is a very interesting find, I might just chat up my local gun dealer about this.

What is the mechanism of the PICS in PA? I realize it is a background check, but when you do a PICS in the course of buying a firearm is the original query what populates the state police's "gun registry" ? Or is it the federal paperwork or some state specific paperwork that does? I ask only because I might push the issue if by buying with my LTCF in lieu of the PICS I could prevent my purchase from entering the illegal PSP database.

[pex]

Without knowing offhand what legislation was added when...

Could the addition of 6111(a)(2) after the addition of 6111(f)(3) preclude 6111(a)(2) from being governed by 6111(f)(3)?

I.e. after hearing about the government not being able to create ex post facto law against itself (apparently in the case of municipal laws existing before state preemption laws), would such an idea have any bearing here?

If this is a blatant abuse by the PSP, what are we doing just sitting here? (And why haven't we heard more about this?)

[shermdo]

Without knowing offhand what legislation was added when...

Could the addition of 6111(a)(2) after the addition of 6111(f)(3) preclude 6111(a)(2) from being governed by 6111(f)(3)?

I.e. after hearing about the government not being able to create ex post facto law against itself (apparently in the case of municipal laws existing before state preemption laws), would such an idea have any bearing here?

I am not sure what you mean by this portion of your post. AFAIK state law trumps all/any local or municipal laws in the case of preemption. That is exactly what the preemption state law was for in the first place. With the signing of preemption many local statutes/laws were made obsolete.

[HiredGoon]

From the PSP website: (scroll down a little to see the following):

NOTE: A license to carry firearms is NOT a license to purchase. Individuals who purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer are required to have a background check conducted regardless of whether they have a license to carry firearms or not.

[BCI Instructor]

Hello all,

My class is out on a short break so I must be brief.

You may find the following useful:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/bradylaw/permit_chart.htm

For example, I am an Instructor for UTAH's CFP program.
I have a Utah permit. As a Utah resident I would be NICS exempt, FFL need only call the number on the back of the permit to verify valid.

(reason for the exemption: Utah has an agreement with ATF - AND - the entire Utah CFP database is run through NICS once every 24 hours)

Non-residents carrying on a Utah permit do not qualify for the exemption.

If memory serves, the appropriate state agency and the ATF must sign an agreement permitting NICS exemptions. Agreement must be renewed annually.
Among the determining factors are state laws and if the state acts as the NIC POC (point of contact) or if FFL's must contact the FBI directly.

I seem to remember something about Nevada having the exemption, then losing it for a time last year, then renewing it. Google may prove helpful for someone who has a moment before I get a chance to follow up ... the process Nevada had to go through may prove useful as to involving PA lawmakers, AG or similar to meet the ATF guidelines and allow PA resident LTCF holders exemption from NICS and the associated fee assessed at purchase.

The ATF webpage was last updated nearly exactly a year ago (6/28/2007), it may be that all such agreements have a common expiry / renewal deadline and that the current page may change soon...

... hope this helps ...

[pex]

Sure would be interested to see what statute and regulation enforces THAT!

I am not sure what you mean by this portion of your post. AFAIK state law trumps all/any local or municipal laws in the case of preemption. That is exactly what the preemption state law was for in the first place. With the signing of preemption many local statutes/laws were made obsolete.

Truth be told, I don't recall and can't yet find the source of why I believe such a thing. I feel I have read such a notion several times on these forums, however.

Here's hoping that a lawyer might step in and mention whether laws passed at one time may not be fully effective on laws passed in the past for whatever specific reason.

---

I am particularly interested in the following:

Does the ATF really have that kind of stranglehold over the PSP...is PA law really this impotent?

[BCI Instructor]

... since PA permits are issued for a period not to exceed 5 years, it appears on the surface that PA LTCF holder _could_ qualify for NICS Exemption if the state pursued it ...

Brady Exemption

Concealed weapons permit holders in Pennsylvania are not exempt from background checks when purchasing a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) chart that outlines those permits that qualify as alternatives to the Brady Act.

Please note that ATF’s exempt status determination for a given state is subject to change without notice.

Under federal law, persons who have been issued state permits to purchase or possess firearms are exempt from background checks if those permits were issued: 1) within the previous five years in the state in which the transfer is to take place; and 2) after an authorized government official has conducted a background investigation, including a search of the NICS database, to verify that possession of a firearm would not be unlawful. 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.102(d).

[pex]

18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.102(d).[/I]

Thank you very much for setting us off on this journey.

I fail to see where the ATF, the US AG, or anyone else is is required to 'clear' a state to allow them to use the permit exception. PA, and the duly authorized Sheriff's, who run NICS checks, and provide permits, with the authority of a state who allows, in statute, for those permits to allow purchase, seem to qualify completely according to both the statute and the regulation.

My interest is certainly piqued. Might be something to ask Kim Stolfer about if we can't conclude otherwise...