denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
I was denied the purchase of long rifle at local sporting goods. Sent challenge and due to a DUI in 2000, I was informed i was prohibited under fed law 18 USC ss (g) (1). I do have a third dui in 2000 which pa title 75 ss 3731 (a) (1) does state that a third conviction is M1. However in 2000 the law used a matrix grading system to determine minimum and maxim. Not an statutory max of 5 years. My docket and other court papers show my min is 6 months and max is 12 months. Under the federal law, do they go by grading or by sentencing court judgement?
this has been mentioned before, anyone find an answer?
I do have electronic copy of everything including matrix on docket
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
I don't know about the details of the grading system at the time of your last conviction, but under current law having three DUI convictions on your record within a five-year pediod appears to be prohibiting regardless of the maximum possible sentence. Perhaps that's your problem?
Quote:
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105: Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms
...
(c) Other persons.--In addition to any person who has been convicted of any offense listed under subsection (b), the following persons shall be subject to the prohibition of subsection (a):
...
(3) A person who has been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance as provided in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) or the former 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, on three or more separate occasions within a five-year period. For the purposes of this paragraph only, the prohibition of subsection (a) shall only apply to transfers or purchases of firearms after the third conviction
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
After the first two DUI convictions you did not learn a lesson? Three DUIs in five years ?
IMHO it is a good thing to disqualify poor misunderstood people who cannot control their boozing from owning firearms.....
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
was the alcohol worth it?
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ivan
After the first two DUI convictions you did not learn a lesson? Three DUIs in five years ?
IMHO it is a good thing to disqualify drunken morons from owning firearms.....
Name calling on the forum is prohibited and you did sign the user agreement.
Second, I would like to point a few things out. I suspect you buy into the whole DUI is bad thing. I suspect you buy into the whole civil rights and freedom thing. Now, please explain to me how civil rights and freedom ideology is compatable with DUI laws without damage or injury to another?
CL
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ivan
After the first two DUI convictions you did not learn a lesson? Three DUIs in five years ?
IMHO it is a good thing to disqualify drunken morons from owning firearms.....
The guy joined the boards and asked a question. He's here looking for help. Whether or not you like it, he deserves to ask a question without being ridiculed. If he starts debating how fair the law is, then chime in. Until then, read the forum rules.
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
It does appear that you fall under the prohibited persons listing. The only way around this is to get a pardon. Best to talk to a lawyer about it.
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
My humble apologies for violating the forum rules.
Will withdraw my statement regarding drunken morons.
Someone near and dear to me was KILLED by a drunken driver.
The drunk had a prior DUI and did not modify his behavoir,rather he just continued on his path leading to death for an innocent.
All this talk of civil rights neglects to mention a citizen's responsabilities for a civil society. One of those is not driving around on public highway DRUNK.
Do we not have rules for the range regarding shooting while intoxicated ?
When driving a car it is like a missle or projectile. When drunk,the driver cannot control it as he(or she) should.
I have zero sympathy for the OP. If he got busted 3 times in 5 years for drunk driving then it shows a pattern of irresponsable behavoir.
How many times were you driving drunk and did not get caught ?
Are you the same guy who might show up at the range with a "good buzz on" and start shooting carelessly ?
Are you the same guy who goes hunting with a bottle of booze in his pocket and winds up drunk ,passed out before noon?
Sounds like the real issue for the OP is not that he cannot buy a rifle.
The real issue is he needs to control his drinking !
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ivan
My humble apologies for violating the forum rules.
Will withdraw my statement regarding drunken morons.
Someone near and dear to me was KILLED by a drunken driver.
And in my world and belief system that killer should be executed for murder. Absolutely no difference to me that the person murdered was murderd by a car operated by an impaired driver or shot, stabbed, clubbed, or blown up. All the same to me. Pretty simple actually.
The drunk had a prior DUI and did not modify his behavoir,rather he just continued on his path leading to death for an innocent.
Under my same belief system, as long as the guy hadn't caused harm, he shouldn't have been arrested the first time.
All this talk of civil rights neglects to mention a citizen's responsabilities for a civil society. One of those is not driving around on public highway DRUNK.
A drunk driving around our society is harmless up and until said person causes harm to another and then, that person should recieve the same penalty as if they caused that harm during another type crime of violence. example. A customer shot by an armed robber is the same as serious injuries by a drunk driver. Both criminal are willful participants of a criminal act, same punishment.
Do we not have rules for the range regarding shooting while intoxicated ?
I honestly don't know. I suspect many clubs have these type rules but I don't know as I don't belong to "GUN CLUBS."
When driving a car it is like a missle or projectile. When drunk,the driver cannot control it as he(or she) should.
I agree 100000% but absent harm, it should not be illegal.
I have zero sympathy for the OP. If he got busted 3 times in 5 years for drunk driving then it shows a pattern of irresponsable behavoir.What is shows is the police were using federal tax dollars to arrest otherwise innocent citizens and jacking up arrest figures and bringing in money into the municipality.
How many times were you driving drunk and did not get caught ?
Hundreds.
Are you the same guy who might show up at the range with a "good buzz on" and start shooting carelessly ?
Maybe, never done it but maybe some day, who knows.
Are you the same guy who goes hunting with a bottle of booze in his pocket and winds up drunk ,passed out before noon?
No, I take hunting and the harvesting of life very very important and I like to be on my "A" game when doing so. This also applies for any drug.
Sounds like the real issue for the OP is not that he cannot buy a rifle.
The real issue is he needs to control his drinking !
I think the real issue is the police ought to be spending time, money, and resources on real crime and not bother a citizen whom is not harming another.
CL
