PICS above the law?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Robert Kayland

Well, if those are the only alternatives, I certainly agree with you.

But let's take a specific instance. Their own PATCH system says an individual has no criminal record. But PICS has an arrest incident from, say, 20 years ago. Why is it they don't "believe" PATCH and assume the worst from PICS? The law for purchase says you can't have been convicted of any crime pertinent to what would deny you the right to buy firearms... it doesn't say you can't have been arrested. Yet PICS will deny you based upon an 'incident' which they themselves can prove, through their own computer systems, led to no charges or convictions.

Or, like the other poster here, whose records were officially expunged... they still have record of his arrest and are making him explain himself? What good was the rigamarole of going through the expungement process if PICS is allowed to still use the information against you?

It's hard to defend against these stories, because there's no evidence either way. But if 2 databases disagree, the conservative approach is to delay or deny, then nail it down. They don't have weeks to make a decision, but it takes weeks to follow up on these. Let's say that there's a murder arrest without any disposition. If they approve the transfer, and find out 3 weeks later that the mistake was in not adding the conviction record to the database, they've undermined the system.

No database is perfect, they're often going to have just a hint that something is wrong. They can't always assume that the missing disposition is an acquittal, and they know that SOMETHING is wrong because there should be a disposition report.

We are the first to point the finger at ATF for saying that they trust the NFTR, even knowing that it has gaps. We can't then turn around and demand that the PSP ignore gaps in their databases and assume that all convictions would be reported, that even with prohibiting arrests they should ignore the missing disposition and approve while you wait.

[Robert Kayland]

It's hard to defend against these stories, because there's no evidence either way. But if 2 databases disagree, the conservative approach is to delay or deny, then nail it down. They don't have weeks to make a decision, but it takes weeks to follow up on these. Let's say that there's a murder arrest without any disposition. If they approve the transfer, and find out 3 weeks later that the mistake was in not adding the conviction record to the database, they've undermined the system.

As I mentioned in previous posts, it's understandable if the time that has passed of the recorded incident is such that things could still be "up in the air", and I'd be the first to defend their "better safe than sorry" stance.

But that's not what we're talking about.

I specifically then mentioned, for argument's sake, incidents that occurred over 20 years ago... and as a specific case of the elderly gentlemen with the arrest when he was 14, that was from the early fifties! This instance wasn't theoretical, this was a true occurrence.

So while it's understandable that recent or relatively recent events of heinous crimes might not be settled, there's really no excuse for denials based upon incidents 20+ years ago, when their own PATCH system shows the individual to have no official criminal record.

That's how I would read it, anyway, if I were a judge or legislator.

If they approve the transfer, and find out 3 weeks later that the mistake was in not adding the conviction record to the database, they've undermined the system.

And if they don't approve the purchase, and find out later (after making the citizen jump through their hoops) that said citizen was in fact clean, they've undermined the Bill of Rights.

From the stories I've been hearing and reading about, it's far more often the case that they unnecessarily put the citizen through hassles than it is that they rightfully stop a purchase.

Better, then, that they should undermine their own system... because you know what? The bad guys still find ways of getting guns, PICS or no PICS.

[kwmpa]

im not saying they should ignore anything...but if there should be something in there that says what the charge was and if the case was expunged then that should be the end.expicially if it was nothing prohibiting

[General Geoff]

If they approve the transfer, and find out 3 weeks later that the mistake was in not adding the conviction record to the database, they've undermined the system.

I'd consider that "erring on the side of liberty."

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by General Geoff

I'd consider that "erring on the side of liberty."

Bravo!

[kwmpa]

I think what it comes down to is they need a better system of what they keep on file and what not. I dont care if they keep records just as long as it doesnt cause me a problem. If they want to keep everything they have on me they can feel free just as long as they put it in the computer that I shouldnt be disqualified for anything. What really doesnt make sense is that I have my license to carry and had to get a background check for it so if they didnt want me to carry a handgun wouldnt they not give me the permit. This isnt my first handgun I have had transfers from my grandfather. So I dont get what the deal is

[pex]

Due process dictates that they can't be sugarcoating the system by calling illegal moves 'conservative', like here

If an arrest shows up without a disposition, the PICS operator can't just assume that you were acquitted or the charges were nolle prossed or that you pled to a lesser, non-prohibiting charge.

and so I second on the undermining of the supreme laws of the land, here

It's hard to defend against these stories, because there's no evidence either way. But if 2 databases disagree, the conservative approach is to delay or deny, then nail it down. They don't have weeks to make a decision, but it takes weeks to follow up on these. Let's say that there's a murder arrest without any disposition. If they approve the transfer, and find out 3 weeks later that the mistake was in not adding the conviction record to the database, they've undermined the system.

The process is the assurance, and therefore if the process hasn't delivered the information, the process says you didn't meet the requirements for prohibition, and therefore shall be sold.

Can they place you in research and arrest you later having felt you committed a crime? Maybe. But prejudicial (and they really are prejudicial) executions against gun purchases are NOT the responsibility of the anyman.

If that's the case, why not have a law that requires everyone to carry around a weekly printout of their PATCH check? "Well, the constitutional right to travel may not apply to you...because, well, by chance, you might be a criminal or we might confuse you with one. To be allowed to move freely, have at all times, on your person, your papers."

[kwmpa]

wouldnt a better way to do things is put a computer in all the firearms dealers connected to a central system....that way you could see what is actually keeping you from getting your gun...and if there is something that shouldnt be there like your record wasnt expunged....then take your paperwork and court documents to the courthouse and have a form signed....i guess my big problem is you shouldnt have to wait 15 days....it cant be that hard for them to look in a computer or make a phone call to a court house....instead its people on a power trip hiding behind a computer and phone line...

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by kwmpa

wouldnt a better way to do things is put a computer in all the firearms dealers connected to a central system....that way you could see what is actually keeping you from getting your gun...and if there is something that shouldnt be there like your record wasnt expunged....then take your paperwork and court documents to the courthouse and have a form signed....i guess my big problem is you shouldnt have to wait 15 days....it cant be that hard for them to look in a computer or make a phone call to a court house....instead its people on a power trip hiding behind a computer and phone line...

The problem with that is two-fold; first, it gives the FFL access to details that you might not want him to have (like your involuntary mental checkup or restraining order); second, it's a fact that some of the dimwits out there shop around on the theory that they might pass PICS if they can just find the right store. We don't want someone who's prohibited being able to find out just how much the PSP knows.

Last time I checked, PICS approved something like 97% of all requests. While it's true that there's no such thing as a small injustice, I don't see the occasional hiccup in the system as being a reason to kill it and trust the feds. There's a built-in appeals process that you can use without hiring a lawyer, so it's faster and cheaper to appeal a PICS denial than to appeal an LTCF revocation.

[pex]

We don't want someone who's prohibited being able to find out just how much the PSP knows.

Isn't that transparency of government that should be available to all people?