PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
If this is the wrong subforum, I apologize. I'm hoping that some of the firearm attorneys see this and can weigh in. I, along with other dealers, are seeing a lot of denials lately due to people having convictions for DUI of drugs. What PICS is saying is that they violating Question 11e of the 4473, which is "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" Even though someone may have gotten a DUI of drugs a year or so ago, they are still being denied a firearm purchase because they had a DUI of drugs.
The State Police have tried to charge people for lying on the 4473, specifically that particular question. However, luckily our District Attorney has enough sense to dismiss the cases. According to the DA, Question 11e is a "present tense question". Someone could have gotten a DUI of drugs a week ago and could be clean now so therefore Question 11e should still be answered "No".
I personally think that PICS is getting out of hand. You have people out there who should be permitted to purchase a firearm and now they can't. I've been told that PICS has even been denying challenges to denials based on this questions. And of course, these people can't afford an attorney to fight it. So now what? They can't have a firearm for the rest of their life because of one DUI?
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
DUI of drugs? Or dui or drugs?
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NathanB
DUI of drugs? Or dui or drugs?
DUI OF drugs
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
Driving under the influence= Alcohol or drugs. depends on the circumstance
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shademtarmory
I, along with other dealers, are seeing a lot of denials lately due to people having convictions for DUI of drugs. What PICS is saying is that they violating Question 11e of the 4473, which is "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
Well, I guess the logic is:
1). Did you use a "disqualifying drug?"
2). Did you use it unlawfully?
If you used it and got a DUI as a result....then you used it unlawfully.
I think that's where they are going.
Quote:
According to the DA, Question 11e is a "present tense question". Someone could have gotten a DUI of drugs a week ago and could be clean now so therefore Question 11e should still be answered "No".
Well, this is the cocksucker issue. Even if you have only sucked a cock ONCE, ever in your life, if someone asks "Are you a cock sucker?" the only correct answer is "yes".
Quote:
So now what? They can't have a firearm for the rest of their life because of one DUI?
It sucks. Just one reason why I don't drink alcohol. But I suppose I would be at risk of having taken a Vicodin in conjunction with some injury and then driving and getting pulled over and failing a DUI test. But I try to be very careful to keep that from happening.
Better solution is to just get rid of the form and background check entirely. I'd be in favour of that.
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chp1911
Driving under the influence= Alcohol or drugs. depends on the circumstance
Or both. But either way, a denial should not be based on the circumstance when it comes to a DUI. The only way a DUI should ever prevent you from having a firearm is if it a Misdemeanor of the 1st degree or if it's your third DUI in a five year period.
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
free
Well, I guess the logic is:
1). Did you use a "disqualifying drug?"
2). Did you use it unlawfully?
So basically, with that logic, someone who tried weed in college 20 years ago should have answered "yes" and therefore should never be able to own a firearm. Do you see what I mean?
Quote:
Well, this is the cocksucker issue. Even if you have only sucked a cock ONCE, ever in your life, if someone asks "Are you a cock sucker?" the only correct answer is "yes".
LOL!! Uh... I don't have a response to that one. But seriously, I think the whole question is bullshit. And because it's bull shit, PICS needs to stop trying to manipulate it.
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shademtarmory
So basically, with that logic, someone who tried weed in college 20 years ago should have answered "yes" and therefore should never be able to own a firearm. Do you see what I mean?
And yes, I agree.
It's just another aspect of the "war on drugs". While I have never done an illegal drug in my life, I DO think the "war on drugs" and all of its resulting ramifications is a bunch of bullshit.
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
There is nothing in writing (i.e. statute or regulation) but ATF, historically, has taken the position that an individual is prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition for a 1 year period after a drug conviction; however, there is federal case law, applicable to Pennsylvania, stating that a single, isolated drug conviction is not sufficient to trigger the federal prohibition. The people being denied need to obtain competent counsel to address the denials. Obviously, if they're convicted of a drug offense under the PA Drug and Cosmetic Act, they are barred from ever obtaining an LTCF, unless they obtain an expungement or pardon.
Re: PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SigForLife
There is nothing in writing (i.e. statute or regulation) but ATF, historically, has taken the position that an individual is prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition for a 1 year period after a drug conviction; however, there is federal case law, applicable to Pennsylvania, stating that a single, isolated drug conviction is not sufficient to trigger the federal prohibition. The people being denied need to obtain competent counsel to address the denials. Obviously, if they're convicted of a drug offense under the PA Drug and Cosmetic Act, they are barred from ever obtaining an LTCF, unless they obtain an expungement or pardon.
This federal one year thing. I get it that the ATF is somewhat free to make up their own interpretations, but is there anywhere where it says what their interpretation of that question is? Any ruling or anything?
So what you're saying is that PICS is definitely overstepping?
My point also being is that many of these people can't afford an attorney. And PSP knows this.