Denied Nics- Just posting to track the process

101combatvet

I would now call their closest field office and talk to an agent.
Click to expand...
Which will do nothing.
There is a process and the OP is in it.

Local FBI agents have nothing to do with resolving FBI NICS issues.

Its like calling your WalMart pharmacist about the drug dealers next to the Greyhound station.
 
At 1400 EST 9/9/22 I received a response telling me I'm eligible to possess and receive the firearm I originally intended to buy.

I'm going to wait a few days and finish this off with my thoughts on the process after I have had some time to think things through.
 
Last edited:
Hello 4V50 Gary: You should not insult bureaucrats. Really! You are a police officer; therefore, you are a government employee; therefore, you have lots of paper work to do and lots of rules to follow. Just like any other bureaucrat. You would probably be surprised how many members of this forum would meet your definition of a bureaucrat or retired bureaucrat.
 
jmr40 said:
That is good advice. But only after this is cleared up. If he was denied purchasing, he would have most likely been denied a carry permit.

GA recently went to constitutional carry and a permit is no longer needed. But I plan to get mine renewed before it expires in October. There is some cost involved, but it does allow you to bypass the background check when buying. And will allow you to carry in other states that recognize GA's permit. Which is quite a few.

Contacting the local congressional representative might help. There are only 2 senators in each state, both Democrats here, and even if they were pro-gun would be less likely to help than the representative from your district.
Click to expand...
He would not be denied a Ga permit.Ga bases it's background checks soly on fingerprints. Similar names and DOB have no bearing on a Ga license to carry background check. I know because I used to do them at the S.O. for the probate judge. Unless a criminal has your fingers, you won't be denied a Ga license to carry.
 
4V50 Gary said:
Never underestimate the stupidity of bureaucracy. Tee-eeS-A tried to fine me for flying with an undeclared firearm. I told the ground personnel it was a flintlock. On top of that, I told others it was non-working (no touchhole drilled). Anyway, Tee-eeS-A called me and I explained that I was a police officer, that I knew the rules and have flown with firearms locked in secured cases but that per ATF flintlocks and replica thereofs are not firearms per se. I directed the investigator to the relevant ATF rule. Still the investigator decided to slap me with a minor fine ($100) which I fought. The Atty Gen. had it dismissed in the interest of justice (what other choice was there when you don't have a case).

Lesson: never underestimate the stupidity of bureaucrats.

In this case Rothedel, this is shifting the burden of proof of innocence onto the accused. Looks like we've adopted Code Napoleon. Even when you proved you're innocence, they are like an immovable stone reluctant to admit mistakes.
Click to expand...
100% agree.
 
cwjils - I'm retired phart who tries to see both sides (def and leo) of the story. You're right about paperwork though and even a simple but well composed police report can take hours to write. King Riots it took me almost three hours to do one report on two guys. My patrol partner did all the inventorying for the report and the evidence tags (case #, object, description) and checking everything into evidence (ditto with case #, object, description) so I didn't have to. If I was alone it would have taken me many more hours There were stereos and other electronic goods, cigarettes (different brands that had to be listed individually and by amount of cartons and packs), cash (all change which had to be cataloged by denomination and quantity and then total dollar amount) and two victims to list.

I told the TSA investigator the law and where to look; but it was their chance to be piss on me and they did. I suspect that she acted on the advice (or it could be order) of her supervisor. Dayam if I was going to plea guilty to a federal crime though. AG dismissed in the interest of justice but I should never have been charged to begin with.
 
I intended to come back to this post and update with my thoughts. I have tried to type this out about a dozen times and for some reason just can't get my thoughts together cleanly.

I think after several months I've collected my thoughts enough to be objective.

3 thoughts are left with me after this process......

1. The process was not that difficult to manage my way through but I got lucky and found someone almost immediately willing to help me clear this up. Had I not found her or someone as willing to help this could have gone very differently. It feels like there should be resources available at the FBI or other governmental agency to help people work through this process. Maybe there are and I could not find them but multiple calls to federal agencies went unanswered and no calls were every returned.

2. Considering my situation it feels like there should be some expectation that for records to be used in this fashion a certain amount of data must be collected. In this case the individual that prevented my transfer only matched my first and last name, middle initial and DOB. no address, SSN, full middle name, or physical description was provided. Had any of them been included it likely would have resulted in a proceed for me. The ultimate resolution occurred when the clerk I spoke to updated the information to include the individuals SSN and middle name. I feel there needs to be some level of minimum require information before these records are used.

3. This point is the toughest for me and the one I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with. While the NICS process worked as intended and potentially kept a firearm out of the hands of a person who should not have one I have to question why the onus here is put back on the individual versus the government. In this case the person in question was physically being held in custody and very little of his personal information was recorded for identification purposes. Again I was lucky and found a helpful person to assist me. Given the number of law firms advertising help with this process for a fee I can't help but think the system can and should be improved to put more of the investigative work back on the government versus the individual exercising their right.


In the end this worked out for me but I can understand how this process could get ugly quickly. I still see value in the NICS system but feel more responsibility needs to land at the feet of the government to mandate the amount of information needed to use a record and then provide more diligence in utilizing those records when making a determination. Ultimately that might be a foolish thought and impossible given the bloat and red tape in our government.
 
Apparently, and at odds with what we are generally taught and believe, "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in court, IF then....

I can't think of a single gun control law that operates on anything other than "guilty until proven innocent" (denied until approved).

Sometimes the system fails due to insufficient data, sometimes it fails due to incorrect/improper/inadequate use of sufficient data, and that is entirely on them, but often YOU have to be the one to proove it.

No one, other than the supervision of the people entering data into the system is in any position to see to it that the data entered is complete and correct. And, even when those people are all diligent, mistakes and errors still happen.

National system data comes from local sources, and many of them are not exactly error free. Particularly police records and reports.

I remember hearing of a situation one time where the police were going to arrest a guy for possession of a stolen gun. It was his own gun. But it was on the list as being stolen. S&W .38 caliber revolver ser#XXXXXX....

That was the information the cops had. The guy involved had more info. He had the receipt proving that he had purchased the gun, new, from an FFL dealer several years before. It did, however match perfectly the information the cops had. BUT it wasn't the same gun. The police were, (at the time) not aware that S&W used the same serial number sequences on several different models of guns, and that a 2" .38 S&W could have the same serial#XXXXXX as a 6" .38 SPECIAL revolver manufactured 3 decades later....

Glad you got things worked out, eventually.
NO system is error free, ours could be better, but making it so is only a priority to those people who get screwed by errors in the system or its operation.
 
44 AMP ...I can't think of a single gun control law that operates on anything other than "guilty until proven innocent" (denied until approved).
Click to expand...
I can. It's the Brady Law.
When the FBI tells a dealer that the NICS result is "delayed", they also tell him "the Brady Law does not prohibit the transfer of this firearm on xx/xx/xxxx".
No "approval" is required.

A NICS check has nothing to do with "guilty" because its not a trial, but a name and descriptive information check on the buyer.
 
Rothdel, thank you posting and keeping track of all you went through. Glad you kept you sanity. The hell of all of it, criminals don't use the system.
 
My wife's brother got arrested for a stolen gun,stolen from him then later returned to him by the sheriffs dept.
It cost him quite a bit of money to get his lawyer to clear it up.
 
44 AMP said:
....No one, other than the supervision of the people entering data into the system is in any position to see to it that the data entered is complete and correct. And, even when those people are all diligent, mistakes and errors still happen.....

I remember hearing of a situation one time where the police were going to arrest a guy for possession of a stolen gun. It was his own gun. But it was on the list as being stolen. S&W .38 caliber revolver ser#XXXXXX....

That was the information the cops had. The guy involved had more info. He had the receipt proving that he had purchased the gun, new, from an FFL dealer several years before. It did, however match perfectly the information the cops had. BUT it wasn't the same gun. The police were, (at the time) not aware that S&W used the same serial number sequences on several different models of guns, and that a 2" .38 S&W could have the same serial#XXXXXX as a 6" .38 SPECIAL revolver manufactured 3 decades later....
Click to expand...
I had a 1911 stolen 10-12 years ago. I'm pretty sure its serial number was entered wrong into the system. Fat chance I'll ever recover that one... :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top