Bipartisan bill would charge those who fail NICS check- New can of worms??

[vinnyg101]

http://www.guns.com/2016/02/05/bipar...il-nics-check/

A bipartisan bill to ensure state and local law enforcement are notified when a prohibited person tries to buy a gun has been referred to a House subcommittee.

The NICS Denial Notification Act of 2016 was sent to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations on Wednesday.

Two Republicans and two Democrats proposed the bill, HR 4320, at the beginning of the year amid a rush of other gun bills and the President’s executive actions aimed to improve the federal background check system for gun purchases.

The measure would act as a tool to supplement the background check law currently in place rather than create a new system. Also require the Justice Department to submit an annual report to Congress that details such denials.

“This bill will better enforce our current background check policies and help keep our communities safer,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, on social media. Quigley introduced the bill with co-sponsors Democrat New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell and Republicans New York Rep.Peter King and Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Meehan.

[arjohnson]

I thought this was the purpose of the NICS to begin with.

Let me see if I got this right, a person attempts to buy a gun that's not allowed, gets denied, then gets arrested. Isn't this the way it's supposed to be or am I missing something?

[GunLawyer001]

I have no problem with people facing the consequences of their knowing misconduct. But that's not what happens, in the vast majority of denials. First, the majority of NICS denials are false denials, per John Lott. So you can't prosecute people because you made a mistake with the records.

Second, even the people who are legitimately denied, FREQUENTLY had no definite knowledge. Look at the questions; sure, you probably know if you are an illegal alien, or if you served 20 years in prison. But how likely is it that a 40 year old adult will remember the details of that time when he was a teen and his mother had the cops drag him off for observation over the weekend? Worse, our system requires people who never served a day in jail to grasp the statutory details of the law that gave them a fine; it can easily take a working lawyer 10 minutes with a copy of the Crimes Code to parse the statutes from 2 separate titles, to figure out what the maximum theoretical penalty MIGHT have been. Worse, the current statutes are irrelevant, you need to look at the law AT THE TIME; even your average lawyer is baffled by that one, because law libraries don't keep the old laws as snapshots.

You can be denied because some jurisdiction issued a warrant against you, which you never heard about. You can be denied because a crazy ex-girlfriend got a PFA against you, but it was never served so you don't know about it. You can be denied because SOMEBODY ELSE has an ex-girlfriend who got a PFA against HIM, and your name is similar.

The current PSP policy of referring nearly all denials for possible prosecution, is a case study in unfairness. People are bullied into pleading to reduced charges, when there was no evidence that they had the requisite understanding of the PA Statutes to know that they had been convicted of a crime with a maximum possible penalty exceeding 2 years, or that the M-3 from that loud argument with their ex-wife was being classified as "domestic violence".

This is just feel-good legislation. Most of the folks denied for gun purchases aren't gangbangers or murderers, they're people prohibited by technicalities and arbitrary rules. Are we all safer because a guy who shoplifted 45 years ago is unarmed? Is anyone safer because divorce lawyers get their clients to obtain strategic PFA's?

[bigandy1966]

sounds like another " Arrest him anyway and let the courts sort it out" bullshit legislation that will cost some poor innocent or unknowing bastard a shit ton of money. Just to either keep out of jail or clear up some fatfingered fuckup by a clerk.
Wait until they tie this crap to the busllshit "No fly list" when a pissy TSA agent on the rag that put your ass on a no fly list 3 years ago.

[wallyone]

If you are denied don't you have the right to challance the denial? So would the cops be at your door before the final desision or do they wait?

[GunLawyer001]

If you are denied don't you have the right to challance the denial? So would the cops be at your door before the final desision or do they wait?

As I noted in a sticky, the act of challenging the denial INCREASES your chances of being criminally prosecuted, because the challenge form itself requires you to make additional written statements. False written statements are a crime in PA, in this context.

This sounds like self-interest, but once you're denied, any crime has already been committed by you. Before you dig yourself in any further, before you send any additional written (and possibly false) statements off to the state, before you talk to the cops who phone and try to get you to incriminate yourself with respect to your knowledge of the underlying facts, CALL A LAWYER. There are a dozen ways you can make your situation worse, but only a few that will make it better. Even if you are charged and are acquitted at the end, the process of being acquitted can easily exceed $10,000 in legal fees, plus time off work, plus possible job loss (some employers are unhappy about employees facing criminal charges.) Worse, you can be convicted based on technicalities.

[wallyone]

Gunlawyer, I understand what your saying and I'm sure you have seen the worst case examples. With out going in to detail I can say I was denialed after I checked on the court portal, and didn't see anything. Sent in the challenge, got a letter explaining the PSP basing the denial, I responded with a letter explaining what happened, got a letter from PSP revesing the denial. No calls, no threats, seemed like a system that worked.

[GunLawyer001]

Gunlawyer, I understand what your saying and I'm sure you have seen the worst case examples. With out going in to detail I can say I was denialed after I checked on the court portal, and didn't see anything. Sent in the challenge, got a letter explaining the PSP basing the denial, I responded with a letter explaining what happened, got a letter from PSP revesing the denial. No calls, no threats, seemed like a system that worked.

There are thousands of denials in Pennsylvania that have nothing to do with ever being arrested or convicted of any crime. Because the denial keeps the reason a secret, you have untrained citizens having to guess at what the basis could be, and they know (from published reports) that many, possibly a majority, of denials are erroneous. That fact encourages people to pursue the dangerous path of submitting the challenge form, where far too many discover that the reason for the denial was a long-ago 302, or some comparable offense in another state that was not punishable by more than 2 years, or a warrant that they never heard about, or something that happened in the military, or some other non-obvious factor.

The fact that you can often run across the street blindfolded without getting hit is not proof that running across the street blindfolded is a workable system. We have far too many people being prosecuted criminally based purely on the fact that the records, as interpreted by experts, disagree with what the citizen understood.

As an example from the "conviction" part of this, see if you can show me the text of the statute which specifies the maximum penalty for someone who had 1 DUI ARD, followed by 1 DUI conviction, followed by another DUI conviction, with a blood alcohol level of 0.10. Just cut & paste the text from the statute that states the max penalty for that 2nd conviction (which is deemed to be a 3rd "offense").

You are conclusively presumed to know this when you fill out the forms. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Here, I'll even give you a head start:
https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Browse/...8sc.Default%29

[Qtrborecrazy]

Lets see, No fly list, NICs not doing challenges of denials, new domestic terrorist list, now this. Anyone else see a pattern?

[bug]

I believe GunLawyer is 100% on the right track with this. How difficult, practical, legal would it be to add a step to the PICS that allows an inquiry? For whatever fee is deemed proper, an individual could submit a request to determine if he will pass PICS. A simple Yes/No at this point could save the individual a lot of grief. If it comes back NO, the guy knows he has to lawyer-up and start digging or walk away with no crimes attached.

Bob D