Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phenix
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
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...ml#post2123204
see the discussion; starts with prior posting.
do read this very informative article
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ers/55585176/1
addresses exactly your concern. we have to challenge this, they are misconstruing the law in many ways.
1 Attachment(s)
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 poor misunderstood people who cannot control their boozing from owning firearms.....
while im not gonna call names of him I will say im not surprised or concerned that he cant own/get one after 3 in 5...just too bad I guess. Oh and I did get my M1 a month ago they are great..oh 0 DWI BTW so it was easy.
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CBennett
while im not gonna call names of him I will say im not surprised or concerned that he cant own/get one after 3 in 5...just too bad I guess. Oh and I did get my M1 a month ago they are great..oh 0 DWI BTW so it was easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phenix
First it was 12 years ago. Second it was not three within five years. Since then I've gotten my B.S.B.A. and an MBA from a very reputable graduate school. The point is I've paid my dues to society and moved on. Never hurt anyone. I didn't kill anyone's friend. I'm sure whoever did was charged with more than a DUI.
Just the facts. ;)
.
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
customloaded
explain to me how civil rights and freedom ideology is compatable with DUI laws without damage or injury to another?
because the "another" is the State itself; that's the damaged party- and therefore the Plaintiff as well. often the term "injures the peace and dignity of the commonwealth" or similar.
the government has the power to regulate and punish threats to the public order- "drunk driving" has been determined to be against that interest.
i have no personal dog in this fight either way, just breakin it down... but generally, most of us would be unhappy if someone does something possibly dangerous to the rest of, like fire randomly into the air in the middle of town, even if no one got hurt. think about the first thing you say to a kid that survives something risky and stupid- "you could have gotten killed" or "you could have killed us".... etc
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phenix
The PICS is saying I committed a crime that is conceivably punishable by 2+
years because of the title 75 ss 3731 (e) (iii).
The problem is my Misdemeanor 1 minimum must follow one statute and the maximum follows another. This seems ambiguous to me.
the PICS is wrong. the offense was not conceivably punished by more than the sentencing grid; the statutory maximum is limited by the sentencing standards. the actual sentence itself shows that the grid was applied. people get very easily caught up on labels but law is full of "if's and but's". see previous post.
i know im jumping in late on this thread, but the OP is not a "prohibited person" under any interpretation of PA law. the question is federal, which is a lot of other things that have nothing to do with common perceptions of public safety. first, the federal is based on "affecting interstate commerce"- not how drunk driving affects this imaginary proposition, but how possession of firearms might. the whole thing is the end-run of the Commerce Clause around the guarantees and limitations set by the U.S. Constitution, which is based directly on the Declaration of Independence.
and prohibitions and such are not punishments. punishments are fines and/or imprisonment. that's it (or death, in a capital case). nothing to with paying a 'debt to society'; it has to do with what are reasonable regulations to protect the public in the future.
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
it's simple; don't drink and drive over and over and over again
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giles_farmer
the PICS is wrong. the offense was not conceivably punished by more than the sentencing grid; the statutory maximum is limited by the sentencing standards. the actual sentence itself shows that the grid was applied. people get very easily caught up on labels but law is full of "if's and but's". see previous post.
i know im jumping in late on this thread, but the OP is not a "prohibited person" under any interpretation of PA law. the question is federal, which is a lot of other things that have nothing to do with common perceptions of public safety. first, the federal is based on "affecting interstate commerce"- not how drunk driving affects this imaginary proposition, but how possession of firearms might. the whole thing is the end-run of the Commerce Clause around the guarantees and limitations set by the U.S. Constitution, which is based directly on the Declaration of Independence.
and prohibitions and such are not punishments. punishments are fines and/or imprisonment. that's it (or death, in a capital case). nothing to with paying a 'debt to society'; it has to do with what are reasonable regulations to protect the public in the future.
That’s what pissed me off so bad. Minimum is mandatory under this statute, yet maximum is under this statute. Doesn’t make sense. No one has ever been sentenced for a third and last dui for more than a year unless there were significant other crimes involved.
And as for the trollers. It isn’t our fault you have no lives and will never be pretty. Lose some weight.!
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
And as for the trollers. It isn’t our fault you have no lives and will never be pretty. Lose some weight.![/QUOTE]
Diabetes is the number one killer in the U.S
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cmc5028
it's simple; don't drink and drive over and over and over again
And why are you on this particular thread? You are so quick to judge, who be you?
Re: denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000
I'm on this thread because you aren't a responsible person and don't deserve 2A rights. You can forgive 1 DUI if the subject follows the proper steps to recovery, but not 3.
You did not care enough to stop after the 1st arrest...so why should others care about "your" problem. You do not deserve a pardon to own a firearm, period. You have shown that you are not qualified to own a firearm. Corbett and any future governor will not pardon someone with 3 DUIs. This isn't trolling, its FACT.
I'm 26 years old, college grad, work full time..have no debt, paid my way through college and live a responsible life with no arrests or any legal troubles.