denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000

[phenix]

I don't see anything there limiting the M1 to 2 years or less as the max. Time to get in contact with GunLawyer001 (or someone else who has handled pardons successfully), and have a consult on your chances and costs.

Good luck!

Yeah, it is to that point but I don't feel the money vs. the slim possibility is a win for me. I don't do much volunteer work and there are many people that despise dui offenders. Attorney’s like Gunlawyer are no doubt the best in the business and I have the utmost respect. I just don’t think going down that road would work for me. I would love to know what he/she thinks about

Section 925(c) of
the Federal Gun Control Act

(c) A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefore.

[t1066]

Yeah, it is to that point but I don't feel the money vs. the slim possibility is a win for me. I don't do much volunteer work and there are many people that despise dui offenders. Attorney’s like Gunlawyer are no doubt the best in the business and I have the utmost respect. I just don’t think going down that road would work for me. I would love to know what he/she thinks about

Section 925(c) of
the Federal Gun Control Act

(snip)
My understanding is congress isn't funding that option, and they won't even let you pay for the expenses.

A consult with GL would run you less than $200, and could give you a plan over the next few years of what you would need to do to have a good chance of getting a pardon, and the time to save up the money to pay for your expenses.

[phenix]

(snip)
My understanding is congress isn't funding that option, and they won't even let you pay for the expenses.

A consult with GL would run you less than $200, and could give you a plan over the next few years of what you would need to do to have a good chance of getting a pardon, and the time to save up the money to pay for your expenses.

Sounded too good to be true. Yeah, GL is my only hope at this point. Thanks

[t1066]

Sounded too good to be true. Yeah, GL is my only hope at this point. Thanks

Well, from what you've said earlier, it sounds like you are well on your way with it being 12 years since you last had a problem.

Again, good luck!

[PhillyVet]

It seems to me that you may have another approach.. File a case in Federal court challenging the Constitutionality of the very concept of a “Prohibited Person”..

The prohibited person concept is a legacy from the Gun Control Act of ’68. At that time, there hadn’t been a definitive ruling that the RKBA was an individual civil right. As such, it was subject to restrictions. I submit the foundation of this theory changed in ’08 with Heller and ’10 with McDonald. The significant cases dealing with the concept of a “Prohibited person” also predate ’08 and are therefore subject to revisit. The Federal Court in Maryland just ruled "May Issue" as Unconstitutional (who saw that one coming?)..

You seem to be a sympathetic case; you’re not a violent gang-banging felon, rapist or sociopath (I don’t think). You’re someone who is being denied his Civil Rights for a driving under the influence over twelve years ago.

What do you have to lose? Hell, you may hear people say in the future… “Heller, McDonald and phenix…” or whatever your name is..

[GunLawyer001]

It seems to me that you may have another approach.. File a case in Federal court challenging the Constitutionality of the very concept of a “Prohibited Person”..

The prohibited person concept is a legacy from the Gun Control Act of ’68. At that time, there hadn’t been a definitive ruling that the RKBA was an individual civil right. As such, it was subject to restrictions. I submit the foundation of this theory changed in ’08 with Heller and ’10 with McDonald. The significant cases dealing with the concept of a “Prohibited person” also predate ’08 and are therefore subject to revisit. The Federal Court in Maryland just ruled "May Issue" as Unconstitutional (who saw that one coming?)..

You seem to be a sympathetic case; you’re not a violent gang-banging felon, rapist or sociopath (I don’t think). You’re someone who is being denied his Civil Rights for a driving under the influence over twelve years ago.

What do you have to lose? Hell, you may hear people say in the future… “Heller, McDonald and phenix…” or whatever your name is..

..or "Quilicci".

If you pick the wrong time and the wrong court, you spend a whole lot of money to set a precedent that helps the other side.

You might also notice that nobody questions that the right to vote is an individual right, the right to liberty is an individual right, yet both of those can be Constitutionally stripped from criminals, and the liberty of the insane can be taken away, as long as there's sufficient due process. I suspect that the Court would allow some degree of infringement of the RKBA, particularly if Obama gets a 2nd term and appoints 2 or 3 of the justices.

[phenix]

Those last two posts work perfectly put together. A constitutional right is always worth fighting for but you have to pick the time and place of battle to ensure victory.

precedences sound dangerous.

The first thought I had was “I’m going to spend everything I’ve got, even if I have to take this to the Supreme Court". I couldn’t find a single win, or loss for that matter concerning non violent misdemeanor <5 yr in the Supreme Court based on the 2A only. I also realized I'm trying to build a new house.
I sure learned a lot about old pa dui statutes but that route won’t work from what I can find.

Does Gunlawyer have a practice close to Harrisburg?

[GunLawyer001]

Those last two posts work perfectly put together. A constitutional right is always worth fighting for but you have to pick the time and place of battle to ensure victory.

precedences sound dangerous.

The first thought I had was “I’m going to spend everything I’ve got, even if I have to take this to the Supreme Court". I couldn’t find a single win, or loss for that matter concerning non violent misdemeanor <5 yr in the Supreme Court based on the 2A only. I also realized I'm trying to build a new house.
I sure learned a lot about old pa dui statutes but that route won’t work from what I can find.

Does Gunlawyer have a practice close to Harrisburg?

Quakertown. Close enough for some cases, probably too far to bail you out at 3 AM.

[MDJschool]

I wish we could get GunLawyer to stop peddling Quilicci around like a badge for the promotion of the Legal Temprance Union by following every Quilicci with a Revere.

"A constitutional right is always worth fighting for but you have to pick the time and place of battle to ensure victory." Well that seems kind of improbable, doesn't it? Picking the time and place means you're missing many of those points on the 'always' continuum to fight for those constitutional rights. Your rights are infringed regularly and you did not pick the time and the place. We regularly pick no time and place to fight for them.

[phenix]

Quakertown. Close enough for some cases, probably too far to bail you out at 3 AM.

I don't plan on making anymore of those calls. LOL. That's pretty far, any suggestions?