denied of firearms transfer

[thompal]

Was that Sharpesville? Orestes? Not Kokomo....

Kennesaw maybe??? I'll have to look at a map. It was in the 80's or 90's, and I just don't remember.

 

[disGRUNTld]

That is crazy! Did they ever give you a solid reason for the denial?

 

[danielson]

OH YEAH... THATS what this thread was about... Sorry for the part I played in hijacking it..

 

[bsnyder413]

yes, in previous posts i let everyone know the reason was that a man with my name and physical features was a up for a term of 2 or more years.

 

[KC Hatfield]

How long would it take for the AST to have my appeal process. I received a mail letter about the reason of my denial on the firearm transfer. It states their also that AST is processing cases received in January 2013.

 

[TEK]

be careful and remember the federal ruleis supreme and it is this.

if you were in for an offense for which you could be incarcerated for 365 days or more (one year or more) then you fit under the possession ban even if EVEN IF the state charge was called a misdemeanor.

this comes up from time to time with people. I read a case about a guy who went in to buy a gun with a criminal history that he thought was still ok-- erroneously-- thought he made a good faith error on the 4473 still ended up convicted.

if you are close to the line or unsure, better check with a lawyer first

 

[sig-guy]

There are legal ways to with hold child support payments and it is thru the courts, I know I have been there, you can't just stop paying because she is withholding visitation, that puts you in violation of a court order. Remember with holding support only hurts the children, not the spouse.

1st bold... Pretty hard when someone is self employed.

2nd bold... not in ALL cases.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Happened to me, I got tired and filed a VAF, six months later I got my UPN, then bought another GLOCK of course, FFL called it in, DENIED says the lady on the phone. FFL gives her my UPN......................presto chango.................. immediatly approved.

 

[JLL101]

I also was denied a gun purchase at a gun show a several years back. I went over to another vendor at the show, saw the same gun (at a lower price), did the paperwork and the application was immediately approved. I have not been denied a purchase since. I never provide my SSN. So apparently they do not track the denials in their system. I have since obtained a Indiana Carry License as well as an 03 FFL.

Relative to background checks, the extremes of either no background checks or requiring all transfers be approved is not the answer. I certainly do not want known felons and others who should not own guns to purchase weapons but universal background checks will not stop purchases in the black market or through straw purchasers. A determined buyer will always be able to acquire a gun and magazine. The problem is always going to exist and any additional laws are not going to stop those transactions. Those transactions are already illegal. Additional laws will not stop this type of activity. Just look around the world. Many countries have much more stringent laws than ours, but the bad guys still obtain guns. Mexico for example.

I am unable to site the exact source (I think it was in a NRA article) but I recently read a survey of how imprisoned felons with gun charges obtained their weapons. The survey indicated that the majority of guns were purchased on the street (black market). All the background checks in the world are not going to stop those transactions. Illegal immigration, human trafficking and the illicit drug trade continues unabated in spite of our many very tough laws and the massive resources expended to control these activities. Thus do you really think that adding new universal background check laws will make a difference? I don't, especially since most felons and others purchase their weapons on the street. I suspect that if universal background check laws were enacted, there would not be a background check involved in any of those street transactions. And like numerous others have posted, the additional laws would be just another step in the gun ban-er’s game plan to remove all weapons from our possession.

I do not think that children's lives will be spared in net if new gun laws are passed. Just look at the two largest mass murders in the US in recent years. One was committed with kerosine and fertilizer and the other was committed with airplanes. Should we ban those too? Additional laws are not the answer. The current laws, if properly enforced, possibly could make a difference.

Relative to unpaid taxes, student loan defaults and non-payment of child support, there is no one right answer. Each situation should (maybe) be evaluated and a proper judgement should (maybe) be made on a case by case basis. My reaction is that in some circumstances maybe (maybe not) gun purchase restrictions should be considered. On the other hand, one’s right to self defense may trump these otherwise unacceptable behaviors.

 

[92ThoStro]

The IRS is illegal anyway, I couldn't care less about someone protesting taxes by not paying. I pay only because I am too scared not to. I don't think someone who doesn't pay their federal taxes to the IRS should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights.

As far as student loans go, I'm racking up plenty.... glad working in a public service job, I only have to make ( what was it, 120 payments? ) before the government will foot the bill for them.

I am I believe 12,000 in debt right now. Large portion of that is medical bills from a freak surgery I needed that wasn't optional, and I could have done nothing to prevent it from happening. College student so still on parents insurance, and the deductible was 2,000! Plus my percentage of the surgery costs. And the stupid surgeon stated he needed to move to a larger facility so he can have an assistant surgeon watch and assist. And guess who had to pay that extra cost.... yet I still bought a brand new Glock 21 and hundreds of rounds of ammo. While I owe plenty on those medical bills that I refuse to pay. Health care industry can pound sand...... and so can the insurance company. I make slightly above minimum wage, come and get me

 

[Ronald]

be careful and remember the federal ruleis supreme and it is this.

if you were in for an offense for which you could be incarcerated for 365 days or more (one year or more) then you fit under the possession ban even if EVEN IF the state charge was called a misdemeanor.

this comes up from time to time with people. I read a case about a guy who went in to buy a gun with a criminal history that he thought was still ok-- erroneously-- thought he made a good faith error on the 4473 still ended up convicted.

if you are close to the line or unsure, better check with a lawyer first

Actually, federal law considers a person "prohibited" if they have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (366 days). Misdemeanors in Indiana carry a maximum of 365 days. In addition, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20)(B), The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include 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. But I agree that one should check with a lawyer if they are uncertain.