denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000

[OldSchoolPC]

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.

I can see where your coming from, but rights are rights. If what he did was so bad, he should still be in jail. Given that he is now a free man, as in, NOT a prisoner, he should be able to bare arms. I don't believe in permanent suspension of rights aside from the death penalty or indefinite prison. Prison and laws are there to protect the innocent, and be a deterrent to criminals. He learned his lesson even if it did take 3 times (that he was caught). Our justice system is based on the presumption that people can change. If it wasn't, everybody would get death or life in prison.

[normanvin]

[/COLOR]

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

As a person who had two cars totaled in one year I can speak that drunk drivers do indeed hurt people. The second guy was so drunk, at 9:00am no less he flowed out of the car. And when the wife contacted his insurance company to report the accident and find out how to proceed they were confused about what accident he was in. Apparently he was involved in another drunk driving accident a month before hitting my car.

In the second accident I had to shell out for the deductible for my insurance to cover the loss.

[giles_farmer]

Our justice system is based on the presumption that people can change. If it wasn't, everybody would get death or life in prison.[/B]

thats not really true. the system is based on many checks and balances that have grown over many centuries, long before America, going back to England and long before that still.

it doesnt matter if anyone "can change", or not. this isnt a whine-fest, its public justice. I dont owe you only $50 because "I can change, give me a break", I owe me $50 because that is the just debt. (I dont owe you $50 btw :-)

criminal cases are not "everybody let's get together and judge the defendant" and have a huge dinner-table discussion. thats the problem, people dont understand that its STATE vs Defendant.

there is no second-guessing the system, it is what it is. when you sit on a jury, or take part in a real political process then you get to make first guesses.

[phenix]

thats not really true. the system is based on many checks and balances that have grown over many centuries, long before America, going back to England and long before that still.

it doesnt matter if anyone "can change", or not. this isnt a whine-fest, its public justice. I dont owe you only $50 because "I can change, give me a break", I owe me $50 because that is the just debt. (I dont owe you $50 btw :-)

criminal cases are not "everybody let's get together and judge the defendant" and have a huge dinner-table discussion. thats the problem, people dont understand that its STATE vs Defendant.

there is no second-guessing the system, it is what it is. when you sit on a jury, or take part in a real political process then you get to make first guesses.

My offense is listed as "Level 2" on all my old court documents. I might send a copy of this with my challenge to PICS and see what happens. I can't find any old cases where this was a successful arguement. They are liable just to tell me once again, "the maximum you could have received.

§ 303.11. Guideline sentence recommendation: sentencing levels.
(a) Purpose of sentence. In writing the sentencing guidelines, the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing strives to provide a benchmark for the judges of Pennsylvania. The sentencing guidelines provide sanctions proportionate to the severity of the crime and the severity of the offender’s prior conviction record. This establishes a sentencing system with a primary focus on retribution, but one in which the recommendations allow for the fulfillment of other sentencing purposes including rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. To facilitate consideration of sentencing options consistent with the intent of the sentencing guidelines, the Commission has established five sentencing levels. Each level targets certain types of offenders, and describes ranges of sentencing options available to the court.

(b) Sentencing levels. The sentencing level is based on the standard range of the sentencing recommendation. Refer to § 303.9 to determine which sentence recommendation (i.e.—Basic, Deadly Weapon Enhancement or Youth/School Enhancement) applies. When the individual or aggregate minimum sentence recommendation includes confinement in a county facility, county intermediate punishment should be considered in lieu of confinement for an eligible offender. When the individual or aggregate minimum sentence recommendation includes confinement in a state facility, county or state intermediate punishment should be considered in lieu of confinement for an eligible offender. The descriptions of the five sentencing levels are as follows:

(1) Level 1—Level 1 provides sentence recommendations for the least serious offenders with no more than one prior misdemeanor conviction, such that the standard range is limited to Restorative Sanctions (RS). The primary purpose of this level is to provide the minimal control necessary to fulfill court-ordered obligations. The following sentencing option is available:

Restorative Sanctions (§ 303.9(f))

(also see § 303.14(a)(4) for Fines/Community Service Guidelines)

(2) Level 2—Level 2 provides sentence recommendations for generally non-violent offenders and those with numerous less serious prior convictions, such that the standard range requires a county sentence but permits both incarceration and non-confinement. The standard range is defined as having an upper limit of less than 12 months and a lower limit of Restorative Sanctions (RS). The primary purposes of this level are control over the offender and restitution to victims. Treatment is recommended for drug dependent offenders. The following sentencing options are available:

Total confinement in a county facility under a county sentence (see 61 P. S. § 331.17).

Partial confinement in a county facility

County Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12(a) for eligibility criteria)

Restorative Sanctions (§ 303.9(f))

(also see § 303.14(a)(4) for Fines/Community Service Guidelines)

(3) Level 3—Level 3 provides sentence recommendations for serious offenders and those with numerous prior convictions, such that the standard range requires incarceration or County Intermediate Punishment, but in all cases permits a county sentence. The standard range is defined as having a lower limit of incarceration of less than 12 months. Included in Level 3 are those offenses for which a mandatory minimum sentence of less than 12 months applies and for which a state or county intermediate punishment sentence is authorized by statute. The primary purposes of this level are retribution and control over the offender. If eligible, treatment is recommended for drug dependent offenders in lieu of incarceration. The following sentencing options are available:

Total confinement in a state facility.

Total confinement in a state facility, with participation in the State Motivational Boot Camp (see § 303.12(b) for eligibility criteria)

State Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12(c) for eligibility criteria)

Total confinement in a county facility under a state or county sentence (see 61 P. S. § 331.17).

Partial confinement in a county facility.

County Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12(a) for eligibility criteria)

(4) Level 4—Level 4 provides sentence recommendations for very serious offenders and those with numerous prior convictions, such that the standard range requires state incarceration but permits it to be served in a county facility. The standard range is defined as having a lower limit of incarceration of greater than 12 months but less than 30 months, but limited to offenses with an Offense Gravity Score of less than 9. Included in Level 4 are those offenses for which a mandatory minimum sentence of less than 30 months applies and for which a state or county intermediate punishment sentence is authorized by statute. The primary purposes of the sentencing options at this level are punishment and incapacitation. However, it is recognized that certain offenders at this level are permitted to serve a sentence of total confinement in a county facility, and some non-violent offenders may benefit from drug and alcohol treatment. If eligible, state or county intermediate punishment is recommended for drug dependent offenders. The following sentencing options are available:

Total confinement in a state facility.

Total confinement in a state facility, with participation in the State Motivational Boot Camp (see § 303.12(b) for eligibility criteria)

State Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12(c) for eligibility criteria)

Total confinement in a county facility as a state offender. (see 61 P. S. § 331.17).

Partial confinement in a county facility.

County Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12.(a) for eligibility criteria)

(5) Level 5—Level 5 provides sentence recommendations for the most violent offenders and those with major drug convictions, such that the conviction has an Offense Gravity Score of 9 or greater or the standard range requires state incarceration in a state facility. The standard range in such a case is defined as having a lower limit of 12 months or greater. Included in Level 5 are those offenses for which a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 months or greater applies and for which a state or county intermediate punishment sentence is authorized by statute. The primary purposes of the sentencing options at this level are punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the criminal behavior and incapacitation to protect the public. If eligible, state or county intermediate punishment is recommended for drug dependent offenders. The following sentencing options are available:

Total confinement in a state facility.

Total confinement in a state facility, with participation in the State Motivational Boot Camp (see § 303.12(b) for eligibility criteria)

State Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12(c) for eligibility criteria)

Total confinement in a county facility as a state offender. (see 61 P. S. § 331.17).

Partial confinement in a county facility.

County Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12.(a) for eligibility criteria)



Source

The provisions of this § 303.11 adopted February 15, 1994, effective August 12, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 2483; amended March 14, 1997, effective June 13, 1997, 27 Pa.B. 1252; amended February 9, 2005, effective June 3, 2005, 35 Pa.B. 1508; amended September 5, 2008, effective September 6, 2008, 38 Pa.B. 4971. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (311977) to (311978) and (319343).

[phenix]

I do believe I’ve finally found a precedent


J-A40001-05
2006 PA Super 45
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Appellee : PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
MARK A. HARTLE, :
Appellant : No. 862 MDA 2005

[giles_farmer]

My offense is listed as "Level 2" on all my old court documents. I might send a copy of this with my challenge to PICS and see what happens.

you need to send a copy of the sentencing matrix as well, and reference to "U.S. vs Simmons", and seriously, that 'USA Today report'.

I can't find any old cases where this was a successful arguement.

of course not. its a new precedent, from 2011. yours will be the first one out of pennsylvania.

They are liable just to tell me once again, "the maximum you could have received.

indeed. and then appeal, and litigate, and etc. thats how it changes. as soon as i have the chance i'll be at it myself. and there are many more arguments to include, this is just the one part.

[phenix]

you need to send a copy of the sentencing matrix as well, and reference to "U.S. vs Simmons", and seriously, that 'USA Today report'.



of course not. its a new precedent, from 2011. yours will be the first one out of pennsylvania.



indeed. and then appeal, and litigate, and etc. thats how it changes. as soon as i have the chance i'll be at it myself. and there are many more arguments to include, this is just the one part.

Thanks for your support, I just don't want to lose. For now it won't cost me or anyone else but I'm all but certain they are going to make me spend some coin and I want to approach this from the right angle with the right representation. I agree with GL about going off recklessly and setting a precedent that will hurt others as well as myself. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I would need an attorney that specializes in statute law? Is there such an animal? In the meantime I'll try the second challenge with supporting documentation.

[phenix]

As a person who had two cars totaled in one year I can speak that drunk drivers do indeed hurt people. The second guy was so drunk, at 9:00am no less he flowed out of the car. And when the wife contacted his insurance company to report the accident and find out how to proceed they were confused about what accident he was in. Apparently he was involved in another drunk driving accident a month before hitting my car.

In the second accident I had to shell out for the deductible for my insurance to cover the loss.

I swear it wasn't me! Didn't they have to pay restitution as a condition of probation/parole. Reguardless, I'm sure it wasn't something you enjoyed.

[phenix]

FYI:
No sentencing enhancements were enacted with my case; this level 2, misdemeanor 1.