PICS above the law?

[Robert Kayland]

I've been following a few threads about PICS denials and the requirement to "explain yourself" if any arrest incidents show up on their computer, even though the State Police have background check systems like PATCH that show the individual to have no criminal record of any kind, hence the records were either officially expunged by the court and/or said arrest incidents never led to any formal charges for whatever reason (e.g. mistaken identity, false accusations later cleared up, etc., etc.).

So my question is, if the law says you're allowed to buy a gun so long as there are no mental illness issues and no charges or convictions for various crimes, why is the PICS still allowed to deny you your rights? (Leastwise until you "explain yourself" to their satisfaction.)

I can understand that there might be all sorts of government databases "out there" that retain all sorts of information about everything, included otherwise expunged or sealed court records...

But if even the State Police criminal background check system shows that you have no official criminal record, why is PICS allowed to override that with things such as 'incidents', even from many decades ago, that led to no criminal charges... and/or records of people with the same or close names having bad records, but obviously not the same SSN, DOB, and address as you... hence deny you your rights to purchase until you explain yourself to their satisfaction?

It seems like this is not merely guilty until proven innocent, but even guilty AFTER proven innocent... and by an agency that is supposed to answer to the courts, not play by their own rules.

What am I missing here? Did the Brady Act bestow special powers to police agencies above and beyond official court record information?

(Note that I'm not talking about incidents recent in time, with decisions on charges or verdicts still pending... that's understandable, after all... I'm talking about incidents that have long been settled.)

[Noah_Zark]

Originally Posted by Robert Kayland

I've been following a few threads about PICS denials and the requirement to "explain yourself" if any arrest incidents show up on their computer, even though the State Police have background check systems like PATCH that show the individual to have no criminal record of any kind . . .

So my question is, if the law says you're allowed to buy a gun so long as there are no mental illness issues and no charges or convictions for various crimes, why is the PICS still allowed to deny you your rights? (Leastwise until you "explain yourself" to their satisfaction.)

In many cases, the records in question do not pertain to the denied applicant, but to someone else with a similar name or address, or a close-by SS or PA DL number. As I explained to you in my PM a couple weeks back, I was denied out of the clear blue for a rifle purchase only because another guy with the same first, middle, and last names was committed to an institution in either Allentown or Philthadelphia. I was instructed to write PICS a letter with all of my pertinent information -- same stuff as on a 4473 -- with a photocopy of my DL, and essentially make a statement that "I am me, and not that other guy." A little over a week later, my reversal letter was in the mailbox.

Noah

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by Noah_Zark

In many cases, the records in question do not pertain to the denied applicant, but to someone else with a similar name or address, or a close-by SS or PA DL number. As I explained to you in my PM a couple weeks back, I was denied out of the clear blue for a rifle purchase only because another guy with the same first, middle, and last names was committed to an institution in either Allentown or Philthadelphia. I was instructed to write PICS a letter with all of my pertinent information -- same stuff as on a 4473 -- with a photocopy of my DL, and essentially make a statement that "I am me, and not that other guy." A little over a week later, my reversal letter was in the mailbox.

Noah

That's my point... if on the application for purchase you provided your SSN and address and DL number (which I assume you did, at least the address and DL# because the form demands it), and that was submitted by the store, why then did it become YOUR responsibility to further "prove yourself"?

If you had said, "Look, you have my SSN, my address, and my DL #, so I've done everything the law says I should!" and refused to send in further corroboration, you'd have been SOL, right?

But what I'm truly interested in is further legal information and experiences in which the case of someone having a clean criminal record is yet still being denied due to some recorded 'incident'. I was talking with a local man at an archery range the other day and he mentioned that, although he was never charged with a crime, he was arrested as a 14 year old for some mischief, and at the age of 55 when he applied for his LCTF, they denied him until he explained the arrest, even though his criminal background check said he had no criminal record (and rightfully so, since he was never charged with anything, even from that incident as a minor).

He laughed about it, but I would have been annoyed to a great extent. Firstly, because the record should have been expunged altogether according to everything I've heard about such incidents when someone is a minor, and secondly, it makes me wonder about Big Brother's reach, if such picayune incidents from over 40 years ago are still on record somewhere.

[kwmpa]

Thats what I would like to know about. Why do they get to pic and choose. If you give your SSN there should be no question. And even if there is a question about it the gun store should be able to fax them copies of everything and get it cleared up in a matter of minutes not weeks. I went there with my drivers license my social security card, and my passport just to cover my ass. I was expecting trouble with mine. All it is is people on power trips who get to controls others rights. Its not fair at all.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by Robert Kayland

I've been following a few threads about PICS denials and the requirement to "explain yourself" if any arrest incidents show up on their computer, even though the State Police have background check systems like PATCH that show the individual to have no criminal record of any kind, hence the records were either officially expunged by the court and/or said arrest incidents never led to any formal charges for whatever reason (e.g. mistaken identity, false accusations later cleared up, etc., etc.).

So my question is, if the law says you're allowed to buy a gun so long as there are no mental illness issues and no charges or convictions for various crimes, why is the PICS still allowed to deny you your rights? (Leastwise until you "explain yourself" to their satisfaction.)

I can understand that there might be all sorts of government databases "out there" that retain all sorts of information about everything, included otherwise expunged or sealed court records...

But if even the State Police criminal background check system shows that you have no official criminal record, why is PICS allowed to override that with things such as 'incidents', even from many decades ago, that led to no criminal charges... and/or records of people with the same or close names having bad records, but obviously not the same SSN, DOB, and address as you... hence deny you your rights to purchase until you explain yourself to their satisfaction?

It seems like this is not merely guilty until proven innocent, but even guilty AFTER proven innocent... and by an agency that is supposed to answer to the courts, not play by their own rules.

What am I missing here? Did the Brady Act bestow special powers to police agencies above and beyond official court record information?

(Note that I'm not talking about incidents recent in time, with decisions on charges or verdicts still pending... that's understandable, after all... I'm talking about incidents that have long been settled.)

Its not really the Brady Act creation, the NICS, thats causing the problems. Its the fact that PA adopted a in-state review system(PICS) instead of using the federal NICS directly. I've bought guns in other states that went smooth as glass using the NICS check. But any in PA get delayed or go to operator. In PA, not only do you have to be ok in the NICS check, but you have to appease the PSP operator too.

[kwmpa]

The pennsylvania system is a joke end of story.

[kwmpa]

I just faxed all my paper work to PICS today. It has all my court expungment info on it. What i was charged with that I successfully completed ARD and all the agancies that are supposed to destroy records of which the PSP is one of. So hopefully there should be no question about it at all.

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by kwmpa

I just faxed all my paper work to PICS today. It has all my court expungment info on it. What i was charged with that I successfully completed ARD and all the agancies that are supposed to destroy records of which the PSP is one of. So hopefully there should be no question about it at all.

Hope it all works out for you in the end... but here's another example of my point.

Your records were supposed to be expunged, and from the court standpoint they probably were... I'd bet if you went online to the State Police's PATCH system and did a background check they'd say you were clean... yet...

PICS still has information that technically-speaking it shouldn't be using, and they're still using it against you.

I can't believe nobody ever challenged them in a lawsuit over such things! Or have there been court cases over this?

I'm guessing most guys just take the path of least resistance and gather up the paperwork or write the letters they're asked to and leave it at that.

[GunLawyer001]

I think that a lot of the criticism here is based on misconceptions and 3rd-party gossip. Every delay or denial that I've helped a client with has been due to ambiguous or incomplete records. 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.

As for the benefits of giving up having the decisions made in Harrisburg, where the PSP employees are versed in PA law and are answerable to the PA government, and replacing them with federal civil service employees who are answerable to nobody unless they're caught doing drugs at work....I vote against that plan. I like my government to be as local as possible, where I have at least some influence if they screw up. Having dealt with county and state employees, and having spoken with the IRS and Postal employees, I like talking to people who give a crap about some random Pennsylvanian.

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

I think that a lot of the criticism here is based on misconceptions and 3rd-party gossip. Every delay or denial that I've helped a client with has been due to ambiguous or incomplete records. 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.

As for the benefits of giving up having the decisions made in Harrisburg, where the PSP employees are versed in PA law and are answerable to the PA government, and replacing them with federal civil service employees who are answerable to nobody unless they're caught doing drugs at work....I vote against that plan. I like my government to be as local as possible, where I have at least some influence if they screw up. Having dealt with county and state employees, and having spoken with the IRS and Postal employees, I like talking to people who give a crap about some random Pennsylvanian.

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?

You say the operator "can't assume"... yet that is exactly what they're doing, on the side of denying someone their legal rights... I thought the burden of proof was on the accuser, as it were.