PICS Denial for DUI of Drugs

[john9001]

"shall not be infringed"

[john9001]

DUI, Driving Under the Influence.

Under the Influence is Vague and arbitrary.

<<<Vagueness doctrine>>>

Constitutional Law
of the United States

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. Criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable for example are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions. Related to the "void for vagueness" concept is the "unconstitutional vagueness" concept (see below).
To summarize the contents of the doctrine, it establishes specific criteria all laws, or any legislation must meet, to qualify as constitutional. Such criteria includes the following:
Law must state explicitly what it mandates, and what is enforceable.
Definitions of potentially vague terms are to be provided.

[ItchyTick]

The question is present tense, therefore past usage answer would be no.

[ArcticSplash]

Obviously, if they're convicted of a drug offense under the PA Drug and Cosmetic Act, they are barred from ever obtaining an LTCF, unless they obtain an expungement or pardon.

*IANAL disclaim for me here*

I live next to the strip that sees the most drug-based DUIs in all of Pennsylvania... it's the stretch of Lehigh Ave in Philly between Richmond St (under I-95) to Kensington Avenue. Because I-95 is under heavy construction right now that "Heroin Highway" has temporarily shifted to Allegheny Ave between the same two points.

The way I see police recordkeeping from building apps based on county data, DUI's are treated as criminal charges. In PhillyBlotter (app) they pop up. While a misdemeanor offense, so long as there is no associated possession or PWID or manufacturing charge, it's just a DUI first offense and that necessarily wouldn't cause a reject.

For a gun buyer if I was in that spot as the dealer, I'd tell the potential buyer that they should go take a much closer look at the charge listing on the court docket. You can get your magistrate court docket on the PA Unified Justice Portal. If a PWID is on the list of charges that's possibly what's triggering it.

If it was Magesterial that dealt with the DUI, which is the most likely case out in the counties search here: https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJ.aspx
Here's Common Pleas criminal dockets--just change the dropdown to the county the arrest took place and put in the name: https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP.aspx



As an experiment if you're curious... ask the buyer who got the PICS reject to look up their docket. Look for possession charges. If there are none that would indicate to me that state police are now actually going back to read the Arresting Officer's notes if your jurisdiction electronically transcribes those (in Philly they do that, the paper notes then go into the PARS report and the state police can punch it up). If you were just charged with a simple DUI but it was drug-related but did not get a possession charge in the listing I suspect that they're now reading more than just the docket report.

[GunLawyer001]

Honestly, save your money and wait out the year. And stop doing drugs.

Not much that can be done for misdemeanor drug convictions that bar LTCF eligibility, without a pardon, which isn't going to happen quickly.

The time to fight is when you first face the drug (or other) charges. It's worth mentioning that too many lawyers are just ignorant when it comes to the firearms implications of any conviction; I've had many clients (too many to all be lying) tell me that they pled to reduced charges because their lawyer AND the judge incorrectly told them that they would be able to own guns again as soon as probation was over.

[MedicCop]

If you were just charged with a simple DUI but it was drug-related but did not get a possession charge in the listing I suspect that they're now reading more than just the docket report.

DUI-Drugs is a separate subsection of 3802, which would be easy to flag.

[widgetman101]

This federal one year thing. I get it that the ATF is somewhat free to make up their own interpretations, but is there anywhere where it says what their interpretation of that question is? Any ruling or anything?

So what you're saying is that PICS is definitely overstepping?

My point also being is that many of these people can't afford an attorney. And PSP knows this.

Pretty sure you're right with the point in bold. I've been going through a long battle with them and within the last year I've spent more in lawyer fees than what some people earn annually. I'm fortunate to have the money and time but I can't help but think how many people are in similar shoes as me but simply can't afford to fight it.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Phil, would you please clarify your statement below (about LTCF eligibility) in regards to a DUI (drugs) with NO other charges. Are you saying that a simple DUI (drugs) WOULD be a permanent (ex pardon) LTCF prohibiter? Thanks in advance.

Regards, Jim

Not much that can be done for misdemeanor drug convictions that bar LTCF eligibility, without a pardon, which isn't going to happen quickly.

[GunLawyer001]

Greetings,

Phil, would you please clarify your statement below (about LTCF eligibility) in regards to a DUI (drugs) with NO other charges. Are you saying that a simple DUI (drugs) WOULD be a permanent (ex pardon) LTCF prohibiter? Thanks in advance.

Regards, Jim

It depends upon the statute charged:

A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
. . .

[JenniferG]

Screw all you morons that are out driving while intoxicated putting the rest of us in danger and then complaining "I can't afford a lawyer". If you don't want to incur the penalties for being stupid don't do stupid things. Zero sympathy.