PA Gun Purchase Denial for a M1 conviction

[Statkowski]

Has anyone ever tried suing in state or federal court the firearms prohibitions (purchasing/carrying) as unconstitutional bills of attainder?

The lifetime prohibitions were never part of the criminal sentence and apply as a broad blanket application for even nonviolent offenses.

Way back when, even the bad guys got their guns back once they were released from prison (and could vote, and associate with others, etc., etc.).

[GunLawyer001]

Has anyone ever tried suing in state or federal court the firearms prohibitions (purchasing/carrying) as unconstitutional bills of attainder?

The lifetime prohibitions were never part of the criminal sentence and apply as a broad blanket application for even nonviolent offenses.

Way back when, even the bad guys got their guns back once they were released from prison (and could vote, and associate with others, etc., etc.).

The principle has been litigated in the field of sex-offender registries and the "3 strikes" laws.

[streaker69]

Has anyone ever tried suing in state or federal court the firearms prohibitions (purchasing/carrying) as unconstitutional bills of attainder?

The lifetime prohibitions were never part of the criminal sentence and apply as a broad blanket application for even nonviolent offenses.

Way back when, even the bad guys got their guns back once they were released from prison (and could vote, and associate with others, etc., etc.).

That was probably back in the days when prisons were based upon punishment and not rehabilitation, and the level of recidivism was much lower than it is now.

[Philadelphia]

I can agree to this when referring to thieves but it sounds to me like a young person made a stupid decision and stole someones property. As far as rehabilitation goes, he was punished and if he learned his lesson and has not stolen property since I would say he is rehabilitated. There is a big difference between "young and dumb" and a "career criminal" at least I would hope so.

Yup. That's why he would need to seek a pardon to restore his gun rights. If he has led a productive life free of crime for at least 5 yrs or so since a single incident, odds are it was an anomaly.

The funny thing about stupid decisions is that people who make those bad decisions tend to keep making them. For the statistical minority who really learn from a bad decision and won't repeat it, there is a board of pardons.

[MDJschool]

Has anyone ever tried suing in state or federal court the firearms prohibitions (purchasing/carrying) as unconstitutional bills of attainder?

The lifetime prohibitions were never part of the criminal sentence and apply as a broad blanket application for even nonviolent offenses.

Way back when, even the bad guys got their guns back once they were released from prison (and could vote, and associate with others, etc., etc.).

The courts just rebrand terms when they want to endrun around constitutional limits. See this example of calling a 'punishment' instead a 'civil disability' as it relates to the GCA and the Ex Post Facto prohibition: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...24193340100712

No doubt the court could rinse and repeat on an attainder claim.

So as GunLawyer suggested about Megan's Law attachments, here is a grand example: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...30455469977203

"In Commonwealth v. Gomer Williams, 574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003) (hereinafter G. Williams), this Court considered and rejected several constitutional challenges to Pennsylvania's Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, Act of May 10, 2000, P.L. 74, No. 18, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9791, et seq. (Megan's Law II). Specifically, we held that the registration, notification, and counseling (RNC) requirements that attach, under Megan's Law II, to offenders deemed Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) are not punitive. Because we found these provisions to be non-punitive, we held that the full panoply of due process protections that attach where punishment is in the offing, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), are not constitutionally required."

You read right, just smack a stamp on there: THE CONSTITUTION NEED NOT APPLY.

Elsewhere,
"Under the trial court's analysis, the designation of these provisions as punitive was dispositive under Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, because, in that case, the United States Supreme Court held that any secondary factfinding that leads to an increase in punishment beyond the statutory maximum prescribed for the underlying substantive offense must be subjected to the same procedural protections as apply in assessing guilt of the underlying offense. Thus, in order to impose additional punishment for some aspect of the conduct of the crime, the determination would have to be submitted to a jury and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt carried by the prosecution. Conversely, were the challenged provisions to be found civil and remedial in nature, no such procedural protections would attach." Rebranding.

But, see the interesting read underlying each of these cases, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...62002564647640

It's interesting to think that citizenship could not be revoked without due process, and then must be a punishment to fit the crime, yet a person could be condemned to DIE, not by what we call a 'death penalty' but by disarming him, for offenses we could never call 'capital'. On any other day this setting up someone for death is called criminal homicide to one degree or another.

[moose_25_2500]

Thank you for the support. I am not a repeat offender. I made a really stupid decesion as a kid and did not realize until 17 years later that the outcome prohibits me from owning a gun for life. I am truely sorry for what I did and would take it back in a second if I could. I have come to understand that in most areas the sentence for this would have been Probation without verdict but, unlucky for me the community for which this occured is extremly hard on everything.

[Maryland_Shooter]

Has anyone ever tried suing in state or federal court the firearms prohibitions (purchasing/carrying) as unconstitutional bills of attainder?

The lifetime prohibitions were never part of the criminal sentence and apply as a broad blanket application for even nonviolent offenses.

Way back when, even the bad guys got their guns back once they were released from prison (and could vote, and associate with others, etc., etc.).

I believe this would fall under consequences of a plea, which is usually asked before acceptance of a plea. No way to wiggle out at that end I think

Sorry I have no good news for you, it seems that the punishment does not fit the crime, but you did do it, were convicted and now you have to live with that "youthfull indescretion."

I have zero experience with PA law, but do a little research, find the shortest path and hammer away. That's the only shot you have really.

Just thinking out loud here, but see if there is anway to amend, modify the court's disposition.

I would think finding a sympathetic judge is going to a whole lot easier than catching the .gov's attention for a pardon. I really think that's VERY unlikely.

[GunLawyer001]

. . . .
I would think finding a sympathetic judge is going to a whole lot easier than catching the .gov's attention for a pardon. I really think that's VERY unlikely.

Pennsylvania pardons are quite a viable option for appropriate applicants, I've obtained several for clients who were not politically connected in any way.

[Maryland_Shooter]

Pennsylvania pardons are quite a viable option for appropriate applicants, I've obtained several for clients who were not politically connected in any way.

There ya go, an attorney who has experience. What more could you ask for?

[Maryland_Shooter]

The courts just rebrand terms when they want to endrun around constitutional limits. See this example of calling a 'punishment' instead a 'civil disability' as it relates to the GCA and the Ex Post Facto prohibition: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...24193340100712

No doubt the court could rinse and repeat on an attainder claim.

So as GunLawyer suggested about Megan's Law attachments, here is a grand example: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...30455469977203

"In Commonwealth v. Gomer Williams, 574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003) (hereinafter G. Williams), this Court considered and rejected several constitutional challenges to Pennsylvania's Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, Act of May 10, 2000, P.L. 74, No. 18, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9791, et seq. (Megan's Law II). Specifically, we held that the registration, notification, and counseling (RNC) requirements that attach, under Megan's Law II, to offenders deemed Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) are not punitive. Because we found these provisions to be non-punitive, we held that the full panoply of due process protections that attach where punishment is in the offing, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), are not constitutionally required."

You read right, just smack a stamp on there: THE CONSTITUTION NEED NOT APPLY.

Elsewhere,
"Under the trial court's analysis, the designation of these provisions as punitive was dispositive under Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, because, in that case, the United States Supreme Court held that any secondary factfinding that leads to an increase in punishment beyond the statutory maximum prescribed for the underlying substantive offense must be subjected to the same procedural protections as apply in assessing guilt of the underlying offense. Thus, in order to impose additional punishment for some aspect of the conduct of the crime, the determination would have to be submitted to a jury and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt carried by the prosecution. Conversely, were the challenged provisions to be found civil and remedial in nature, no such procedural protections would attach." Rebranding.

But, see the interesting read underlying each of these cases, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...62002564647640

It's interesting to think that citizenship could not be revoked without due process, and then must be a punishment to fit the crime, yet a person could be condemned to DIE, not by what we call a 'death penalty' but by disarming him, for offenses we could never call 'capital'. On any other day this setting up someone for death is called criminal homicide to one degree or another.

Interesting take and good analysis.