denied for m1 third and last dui in 2000

[Ivan]

Custom Loaded !
My questions were directed at the OP,not you.But,since you answered.........
We do not share the same beliefs it seems.

You are entitled to your's.
I will keep mine.
Hope you do not harm anyone with your drunk driving.Please stay in Texas,we have enough drunk drivers in Pennsylvania.

Have a nice day !

[customloaded]

Custom Loaded !
My questions were directed at the OP,not you.But,since you answered.........
We do not share the same beliefs it seems.

You are entitled to your's.
I will keep mine.
Hope you do not harm anyone with your drunk driving.Please stay in Texas,we have enough drunk drivers in Pennsylvania.

Have a nice day !

When I come home to Hershey/Harrisburg area for vacation, I'll be sure to let you know when I'm around as I usually drive through York County.

Funny, I've never droven drunk in Texas. Actually, haven't droven drunk in years. The most times I ever drove drunk is when I was a cop...get out of jail free card but never used it! Anyway, just so we are clear, the question of how many times I've driven drunk doesn't account for my entire life span or how I act or behave today vs when I was much younger.

If you research, I think you'll find there are no more drunk drivers today as there were 30 or more years ago.

CL

[knight0334]

This thread isnt a discussion on the moralities of drinking and driving. Either provide some info for the OP or stay out of the thread.

Trolling is the infraction that will be applied if it happens again.

[kbcobra26]

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.

Yeah, pretty sure M1's don't ever go away unless you get a pardon, so basically he's screwed.

He'd be better off talking to a lawyer than me though.

[GunLawyer001]

A pardon would fix any issues resulting from 3 DUI convictions, but (without re-opening the "evils of driving drunk" debate) it's an uphill battle to persuade the Board of Pardons to recommend relief for triple offenders of any stripe.

Sometimes there are reasons for youthful indiscretions, and subsequent behavior can overcome the reluctance of the Board. But it is a challenge, because they see a lot of people whose drinking or toking or pill-popping was associated with reckless lifestyles. You need to show more than just a few years since the last time you were caught.

[DClan]

Op, you need a lawyer. Even though under the old rules you may not have been denied, under the new rules you are. Unfortunately, your purchase would fall under the auspices of the new rules, as they supersede the old. What was then, doesn't apply now.

[wa3ra]

Was the three-in-five years passed prior to 2000? If it was passed later, wouldn't that be applying the 'punishment' ex post facto ?

It appears that his last DUI was twelve years ago. Lots of people do stupid things when they are young and indestructible. Most eventually grow up.

[GunLawyer001]

Was the three-in-five years passed prior to 2000? If it was passed later, wouldn't that be applying the 'punishment' ex post facto ?

It appears that his last DUI was twelve years ago. Lots of people do stupid things when they are young and indestructible. Most eventually grow up.

In general, a change in the classification of "prohibited persons" is not considered to be "punishment", any more than the prohibition on possessing handguns by the insane or 5 year olds is considered "punishment". The legal theory is that it's just a change in eligibility to exercise rights. When they dropped the voting age to 18, it wasn't a "reward" for the 18-21 crowd, they just changed the eligibility.

On the other hand, with respect to criminal convictions, it sure LOOKS like a negative consequence as a result of bad conduct, which is pretty much the definition of "punishment". But because of all the other categories of prohibitors, like age, mental health, pending charges, active PFA's, certain foreign citizenship statuses, they can argue that the right is withheld independently of any punishment.

All of this has become accepted by the courts in a legal environment prior to the USSC admitting that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. If they can decide on the level of scrutiny, perhaps those categories of individuals stripped of a fundamental right will be narrowed.

[knight0334]

Was the three-in-five years passed prior to 2000? If it was passed later, wouldn't that be applying the 'punishment' ex post facto ?

It appears that his last DUI was twelve years ago. Lots of people do stupid things when they are young and indestructible. Most eventually grow up.

The 3-in-5 applies at the conviction of the 3rd offense. It wouldn't be ex post facto any more than a felony or 2+ year misdemeanor is that forfeits your right completely at the moment of conviction. The 3-in-5 rule has been around a lot longer than his 2000 conviction has been.

You need to note that the 3-in-5 rule only applies to purchases and transfers. He/she would still have the right to keep arms that he currently owned if he isn't prohibited otherwise. For bearing arms concealed he would likely be labeled a habitual drunkard under 6109(e)(vii), but of course that would be at the judgment of the Sheriff/Chief of Police. He could still lawfully open carry on foot.

So technically, the only right the person would have lost would have been to purchase a new gun and possibly(probably) his privilege to conceal a "firearm" with a license.

However, if any one of those 3 DUI's ends up having a possible sentence that could exceed 2 years for misdemeanors or 1 year for other offenses(felony) - then that is all moot because US 18>44>922 would prohibit them from possessing a gun.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6105:

(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

We all are assuming the OP's 3rd conviction was within 5 years of the 1st conviction, the OP never stated it was. If it wasn't within the 5 years, then the 3-in-5 has no bearing.

The first thing we need to ascertain is what was the max possible punishment for that 2000 DUI conviction. Did the prior DUI law have a specific max penalty that differed from the statutory default M1 of 5 years?

[stimrob]

Knight and Gunlawyer hit the nail on the head. Listen to them.

I'll refrain from voicing my personal opinion on the subject, lest I be labeled a troll.