Denied Firearm Transfer?

[Curly]

Well, Smossy's girl says she is legally able to own a pistol.  I would think that she would know better than some background check.  It has to be just some screw up.

Lets say she just went and bought a pistol from someone in the Hunt-Wa classifieds without first going to a store that will run a background check.  Then she would have a gun and be legal.  The background check is apparently screwed up and she will just have to appeal and take a bunch of time to get it straightened out. 

[Blacktail Sniper]

Yes, I agree, she certainly should know, especially since she qualifies for a security cleareance for her work, I believe that is what she said.  But in that same sense, a felon could purchase a firearm privately, no NCIC background check to worry about, doesn't that still make it illegal for him/her to possess it?

But my question is, based on the status of the NCIC check, UNTIL it is cleared-up, how much headache could someone be facing in the time in-between? 

Are we talking about a possible felony charge of illegal possesion of a firearm?  Doesn't mean that person is guility, but certainly could work out to be very inconvienient until it gets resolved....

Is there a provision that during the appeal, there is an exception that would prevent this until all is said and done?

For a simple example, insurance is required on your car/truck if you operate it on a public road/street.   For whatever reason, you get pulled over and do not have your insurance card or form that shows you currently have insurance.  Now, you do have insurance, you paid the preminums, and there is no doubt in your mind you have insurance and are legal, you just can't prove it at that moment, on the side of the road.

Now you get a ticket for fail to show proof of insurance.   Has nothing to do with whether you have insurance or not, you just can't show that you do at that moment.  Now you have a legal issue that you have to spend time and effort and possibly money, to resolve in court...yes - no?

In this example, I am talking about a minor traffic issue, but illegal possession of a firearm is a felony, not as easily or cheaply resolved.  And I submit that if you cannot pass an NCIC check, you cannot legally buy or possess a firearm until it gets straightened out, and you can pass the check.

Two different degrees of seriousiness, yes, but the same underlaying problem...you may be in reality in perfect compliance and legal, but it can take time and money to correct it.  In the case of a felony, that usually means atty fees, which you are out regardless of the outcome.

I just think it is bad adivice to tell someone who goes to a licensed dealer and if flagged as not eligible to buy a firearm to side-step the law (which is what it is, it is the law that background checks be done buy FFL holders), and buy one anyway, at least until they know what got them denied and take steps to correct it.

 

[dreamunelk]

Blacktail sniper makes a very good point.   The suggestion to just buy from a non dealer is exactly why there is such a push for more back ground checks and greater gun control.

[Smossy]

Its funny to watch the arguments and statements when it was actually something dumb. Papers filled out and situation is resolved.
Ill let her explain on her own time though.

[Blacktail Sniper]

    

[owmygulay]

Its funny to watch the arguments and statements when it was actually something dumb. Papers filled out and situation is resolved.
Ill let her explain on her own time though.

Just finished reading this whole thread. Glad it got taken care of in the end.

[Curly]

It illustrates why I am against background checks.  Background checks get screwed up and someone who should be able to get a firearm ends up denied. 

[furiouzgeorge]

I agree, lose background checks COMPLETELY! At least that would bring enforcement and the law into the same accord...you can't enforce the law, don't write it!

[Austrian Hunter]

I think I said this on page two or three   

[Becky]

Wee on a computer, dun dun dunnn, onto the story. Okay so a few of you already said something similar.

- To the ones who keep saying federal NICS etc, I called and called and left voicemails to ask for my case # or whatever exactly it's called (TNT? something, I can't find it in this thread anymore) and I never got any calls back from Cabela's so I didn't go that route.
- I called every phone number I could find for Pierce County, ended up emailing them off the LESA website/South Sound 911 and they promptly emailed me back and said I'll get the information in the mail but if I wish to call, just keep pressing 0 to speak to someone. Go figure lol.
- I DO have a Federal Secret Security Clearance, had this actually went as a federal background check/purchase, I'm 99% it would have went through. It went straight to Pierce County, and there only. Someone earlier mentioned it was because it was a handgun purchase and that is why. I have no clue.

Sooooooo, the denial, is something kind of funny that I honestly forgot happened. Roughly 10 years ago when I was 16, I had some bad judgement in a popular girl friend that got caught shoplifting while I was with her. You are at that point an accomplice, regardless of what you did or have on you. We got arrested and taken to juvie, sent home to our parents, then had court a week later. I guess the amount she had on her qualified as a Theft II (?) and after court we were told it was expunged from our record/dismissed/deferred something along those lines. I don't quite remember all of it, my mom did it all.

FLASH FORWARD to now, that's not anywhere on my federal record, but the arrest IS on record with the local Pierce County Sheriff's Office and bingo, apparently Theft II is a low-end felony. Although no charges were made and I wasn't convicted of anything, the simple fact that is was even there says I can't purchase any firearm. The lady I spoke with told me to just go down to Remann Hall and have my juvenile records sealed then try again after.

Here is where it's weird to me and maybe someone can explain - the filing clerk at Remann Hall and the LESA official I spoke to, said COMPLETELY OPPOSITE things to me. I kept calling them back and forth, saying "well they said ____". LESA says, deferred means "finding of guilt" but I don't have a felony and was not charged with anything, but I still can't have a firearm until the record is sealed. Remann Hall says "absolutely not, it says on your record right there that it was dismissed, and a deferred means you have to do something in return for it to be dismissed" and then he went onto say "it's good to know the people in charge over there really know what they're saying" and he rolled his eyes! Either way, I didn't even know anything was there to begin with and nothing has been there since, so I filled it all out to have it sealed then this Friday I go in again and figure the rest out.

So yeah, thanks to everyone's help though because I sure as heck couldn't of figured it out!

[NoImpactNoIdea]

n/m

[buck man]

Great! Hope it all works out. Enjoyed reading the thread. Can't believe some people's ability to judge someone else so harshly. Good luck to you and smossy. 

[csaaphill]

Well good

[Becky]

Great! Hope it all works out. Enjoyed reading the thread. Can't believe some people's ability to judge someone else so harshly. Good luck to you and smossy. 

Thank ya, I think this thread had some pretty good information from a lot of people

[wildmanoutdoors]

Those Ghosts in the closet will get ya everytime! Lol Same kinda thing that happenend to me.

Good thats its all getting cleared up.