Mandating Expeditious Administration of Pennsylvania’s Instantaneous Firearms Background Checks

Introduction

This case arises from a dispute over the Pennsylvania State Police’s (“PSP”) performance of “instantaneous” background checks under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act (18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1), as amended by Act 17 of 1995. In May 2022, Firearms Owners Against Crime – Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action, Landmark Firearms LLC, and James Stoker (collectively, “FOAC”), all federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”) or their representatives, filed suit in Commonwealth Court. They claimed PSP’s understaffing of its Pennsylvania Instant Check System (“PICS”) Operations Section has led to hours-long or even multi-day delays in providing the statutorily required approval or denial number to FFLs. They sought injunctive relief, a writ of mandamus, and a declaratory judgment to compel PSP to hire or reassign sufficient personnel to administer PICS “expeditiously,” and to refund or waive the $2.00 fee for any background check that a purchaser cancels due to delay. PSP appealed from the Commonwealth Court’s orders, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Mundy, writing for the majority, interpreted the statutory terms “instantaneous,” “immediate,” “forthwith,” and “expeditiously” in light of the Legislature’s repeated reference to PICS as an “Instantaneous Criminal History Records Check System.” The Court held that:

• “Instantaneous” refers to the automated database search portion of PICS, which must in fact occur without perceptible delay.
• PSP’s obligation to provide an FFL its approval number or denial “immediately during the call or by return call forthwith” does not permit indefinite delays—but requires a good‐faith, resource-based effort to minimize callback wait times.
• PSP must “employ and train such personnel as are necessary to administer expeditiously” the background check process, but staffing and managerial decisions involve discretion and are not subject to mandamus or permanent injunctive relief under sovereign-immunity principles.
• Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, FOAC may obtain a binding judicial declaration of PSP’s statutory duties, even though injunctive and mandamus relief are barred by sovereign immunity and the request for fee refunds lacks statutory warrant.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s refusal to grant injunctive or mandamus relief and its denial of fee-refund claims, reversed the denial of declaratory relief, vacated the order denying leave to amend, and remanded for entry of an appropriate declaratory judgment and further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) – Created NICS and authorized states to operate as full Points-of-Contact for background checks.
• Act 17 of 1995 – Amended Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act to establish PICS and require “instantaneous” background checks, including an 8 a.m.–10 p.m. call line and sufficient staffing “to administer expeditiously.”
• Commonwealth v. Smith, 757 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2000) – Interpreted “forthwith” in the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act to allow proceedings “within a reasonable time,” but the Supreme Court here distinguished it because PICS was designed for rapid responses.
• Allegheny Cnty. Sportsmen’s League v. Rendell, 860 A.2d 10 (Pa. 2004) – Noted “Uniform” in the title of Pennsylvania’s Act refers to intrastate uniformity, not to the Uniform Acts doctrine.
• Judicial Doctrines on Sovereign Immunity – Mayle v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Highways, 388 A.2d 709 (Pa. 1978) (abolished immunity); 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310 (restored immunity); Bronson v. Commonwealth Bd. of Probation & Parole, 421 A.2d 1021 (Pa. 1980) (mandamus not barred by immunity).
• Declaratory Judgments Act (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531–7541) – Provides declaratory relief “whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.”

Legal Reasoning

The Court engaged in a close textual analysis:

• “Instantaneous” modifies only the automated database search, not the entire PICS process, because human review may inevitably incur some delay.
• Section 6111.1(b)(1) requires PSP, upon FFL request, to review state/federal records and then “inform the licensee … either … that the transfer is prohibited or provide … a unique approval number.” This must occur “immediately during the call or by return call forthwith.”
• “Immediately” means without delay, while “forthwith” implies “as quickly as possible” given available resources—not an undefined “reasonable time.”
• Subsection 6111.1(c) obligates PSP to “employ and train such personnel as are necessary to administer expeditiously” PICS. The Court held that “expeditiously” demands a good-faith effort to staff the call center so that callback times are reduced to the minimum feasible under PSP’s resource constraints.
• Sovereign immunity bars permanent injunctions and mandamus seeking to direct staffing or budgetary allocations, because those involve managerial discretion and legislative appropriations.
• By contrast, the Declaratory Judgments Act permits a plain statement of PSP’s statutory duties and FOAC’s rights under the Act, even absent the ability to compel affirmative action.
• Fee-refund claims fail because the statute imposes a non-refundable $2 fee per check and contains no refund mechanism.

Impact

This decision:

• Clarifies the enforceable scope of PSP’s duty under Section 6111.1:
• Automated checks must be truly instantaneous.
• Callback responses must be delivered as rapidly as PSP can reasonably staff PICS given its budget and managerial judgments.
• Reaffirms the limitations of available remedies against the Commonwealth:
• Permanent injunctions and mandamus are unavailable to control discretionary staffing decisions.
• Declaratory relief stands alone as the viable mechanism to define statutory obligations.
• Signals to state agencies that legislative mandates to “administer expeditiously” require demonstrable good-faith efforts to allocate personnel and technology.
• Guides future litigants that challenges to administrative delays must be framed as constitutional or statutory violations with discrete prohibited practices, or pursued via declaratory actions when underlying duties are ministerial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Sovereign Immunity: Pennsylvania generally cannot be sued unless the Legislature says so. You cannot force the state to hire staff by suing for an injunction or mandamus.
• Mandamus: A court order to make an official perform a clearly defined duty without discretion. Here, PSP’s allocation of personnel is a discretionary, managerial choice, so mandamus does not lie.
• Declaratory Judgment: A court’s statement of each party’s legal rights or duties, given even if no further relief can be granted. Declaratory relief is available here to define PSP’s obligations under the Uniform Firearms Act.
• Instantaneous vs. Expeditious:
  • “Instantaneous” = the computer’s automated search, which must take no appreciable time.
  • “Immediate” = without delay, during the FFL’s phone call.
  • “Forthwith” = as quickly as possible on callback, given the resources PSP has assigned.
  • “Expeditiously” = with all due speed; a statutory requirement to staff PICS so callbacks are typically very short.
• Background Check Workflow:
  1. FFL submits request via IVR phone or web portal.
  2. PICS automatically searches federal/state databases (instantaneous).
  3. If no “hit,” system returns approval number in minutes.
  4. If “hit,” human operator must confirm identity, gather missing data, and then approve or deny (“research status”).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Firearms Owners Against Crime v. Commissioner of PSP sharpens the statutory commands of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. It holds that while PSP must operate PICS so that automated checks are truly instantaneous and callbacks occur “as quickly as possible” given its staffing choices, courts may not micromanage those staffing choices through injunction or mandamus due to sovereign immunity. Instead, affected parties can secure a declaratory judgment that defines PSP’s non-discretionary duties under Section 6111.1. The decision thus balances the Legislature’s intent to prevent unlawful firearms transfers quickly with traditional limits on court-ordered management of state agencies.