PICS background check denial confusion with M2

[panther12]

I am hearing conflicting information and curious if anyone else has been in the same position.

My background:

20 years ago I pleaded guilty to 3 counts of a 2nd degree misdemeanor (Recklessly endangering another person) which I received probation for, but does have a max sentence up to two years in prison.

I recently completed a background check when purchasing a firearm, the PICS was extremely slow and was not completed that day (a Saturday). I was told but by the seller since they were closed on Sundays they would call me Monday morning. I received a call in the morning saying I was approved and could come up and complete the sale. I was also told they would need to re-run/renew but it should be completed by the time I arrived. They re-ran/renewed it and was told it went into "Research". 2 days later I was informed that I was Denied. I was encouraged to complete a challenge. I am trying to determine my next course of action.

During the background check I need to respond to the following question, which i was instructed to to answer "No"

ARE YOU NOW CHARGED WITH, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A
TERM EXCEEDING ONE YEAR? THIS IS THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE YOU COULD HAVE RECEIVED, NOT THE ACTUAL
SENTENCE YOU DID RECEIVE. (IT DOES NOT INCLUDE FEDERAL OR STATE OFFENSES PERTAINING TO ANTITRUST, UNFAIR
TRADE PRACTICES, RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, OR REGULATION OF BUSINESS; OR STATE OFFENSES CLASSIFIED AS
MISDEMEANORS AND PUNISHABLE BY A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING TWO YEARS.)

with supporting US Code:

18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions
(20)The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include
(A)any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B)any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.


1) Is there a specific length of time a PICS check will last? Does it need to be renewed?
2) Has anyone had an Approved then a following Denied decision?
3) Would my M2 prohibit me from owning a firearm?
4) Since I plead guilty to 3 counts do the maximum penalties compound? 3 counts with 2 yr max = 6yrs?
5) Should I file a challenge?
6) Does anyone have any recommendations on someone in the Pittsburgh area to consult with?

I am just a little confused and want to be compliant with the law.

Any help would be very appreciated!

[Walleye Hunter]

I understand that things like this can get sensitive but I have one question...was the reckless endagerment violent? Non-violent M2 is not a disqualifier but violent is.

[panther12]

Thanks for the reply Walleye Hunter, I am not sure how to determine if it is categorized as Violent or Non-Violent

All i have to go by is the code

18 § 2705. Recklessly endangering another person.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/L...7.005.000..HTM

[Walleye Hunter]

Thanks for the reply Walleye Hunter, I am not sure how to determine if it is categorized as Violent or Non-Violent

All i have to go by is the code

18 § 2705. Recklessly endangering another person.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/L...7.005.000..HTM

Well...ya know what ya did. You could yak with lawyer on it. I have a friend who went through it and his was non-violent. It turns out he was denied mistakenly. He filed for his record with Harrisburg, which is what any lawyer should do first off. It took him something like 6 months to get the report.

[eagleclaw]

If that charge was affiliated with a "domestic violence " incident, it will disqualify the person.

[panther12]

Sorry it resulted from a DUI accident where myself and friends were injured in the accident where i was the driver

[gnbrotz]

I understand that things like this can get sensitive but I have one question...was the reckless endagerment violent? Non-violent M2 is not a disqualifier but violent is.

I disagree with your assessment. The law in regards to firearms disqualification makes no differentiation between "violent" and "non-violent" crimes. Federal law, via the "Lautenberg Amendment" imposes a "domestic violence" standard, where the relationship between victim and aggressor is more important than the actual level of "violence".

Controlling language from 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9):

"has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."

[Walleye Hunter]

I disagree with your assessment. The law in regards to firearms disqualification makes no differentiation between "violent" and "non-violent" crimes. Federal law, via the "Lautenberg Amendment" imposes a "domestic violence" standard, where the relationship between victim and aggressor is more important than the actual level of "violence".

Controlling language from 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9):

Interesting...so if violence is perpetrated on other than a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, it would not apply?

[gnbrotz]

Interesting...so if violence is perpetrated on other than a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, it would not apply?

Correct. It's very possible that I could do quite a bit of actual physical harm to you (no relation), and still be qualified to own firearms (depending on the grading of the crime I were convicted of), and yet be disqualified (if convicted) for merely making a verbal threat against my own wife.

[Xringshooter]

"I recently completed a background check when purchasing a firearm, the PICS was extremely slow and was not completed that day (a Saturday). I was told but by the seller since they were closed on Sundays they would call me Monday morning. I received a call in the morning saying I was approved and could come up and complete the sale. I was also told they would need to re-run/renew but it should be completed by the time I arrived. They re-ran/renewed it and was told it went into "Research". 2 days later I was informed that I was Denied. I was encouraged to complete a challenge. I am trying to determine my next course of action."

This whole section I do not understand - I would like to know the complete conversation between the FFL and PICS during the call to get the approval number on that Monday. If you were approved, why or who told them to rerun the PICS? Something does not sound right. If you are approved the number is good (until the FFL closes that day) the day the FFL receives it. No need to rerun the check.

If the FFL used the computer to do the "ePICS" check, the approval goes into a status log for the FFL to retrieve it. When transactions reach day 3 in approved status (day 1 is the day the transaction is initially
approved) a status of “Web Approved – Contact PICS” will display. This status allows dealers to click on the link and launch a re-check within the website without having to call PICS on the telephone. As of 10-1-20 this has gone from 3 days to 7 days.

Just too many things wrong with this situation to try to figure out exactly what happened to you. I would just get the challenge form filled out and sent in.