Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Monroe County)
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    I feel like the worst part is that the officer who reviews and issues the LTCF applications in my county told me I was fine because it was a 3rd offense.
    He even said the words "I see the M1 on your record here but, it would still have to be 3".

    Another point of interest, he was referencing a docket sheet/court summary as am I.

    I received ARD for the first, and in the summary/docket of the second offense, it is noted as taking place in ARD court.

    I know getting ARD for a second offense is damn near impossible but, I feel like I remember that happening!
    My first offense was a .09.
    Unless I'm wrong, you can technically get ARD again if your first offense was in the lowest tier.

    Also, the summary/docket for the second offense is a total nightmare to read and understand.

    It says charge changed all
    Over the place.
    Ontop of the docket under "final disposition" it clearly says "M".

    But then I plead guilty to the higher charge.
    That's when all of the "charge changed" lingo starts appearing.

    Anytime it says "m1" there is a "charge changed" note.

    I've ordered a criminal background check from the PSP but, that takes weeks.
    This is driving me nuts.

    I suppose it's better this way instead of me actually trying to buy a gun and being denied.

    I simply filled out a LTCF and I haven't heard back yet.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Monroe County)
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    Edit: WASN'T a 3rd offense.
    I wouldn't be confused if it was.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    13,618
    Rep Power
    21474867

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    I have a copy of the 2009 version of the law (and you're right, if you don't have access to a law library, it's very hard to find a snapshot of the law in a previous year.)

    An M1 conviction was certainly possible, depending on where you fall within the matrix of DUI possibilities.

    I attended a seminar 13 years ago or so, where they handed out a spreadsheet explaining the new statutory maximums. It does need a spreadsheet. Depending on how many priors, what your BAC was, whether there were injuries or vehicular damage, whether you refused a test, etc, it could easily be an M1, as shown in section 3803(b)(3) and (4).

    What the charges "could have been" is irrelevant. What sentence was actually imposed is irrelevant. What matters to your gun rights is what the conviction was, and what the max potential sentence for that conviction was in the statute at the time. A DUI M1 is punishable by up to 5 years, it's not one of the 1 or 2 M1's in PA for which a weird lesser sentence is prescribed, like an "animal cruelty" M1.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Brookville, Pennsylvania
    (Jefferson County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,076
    Rep Power
    21474874

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    Do you remember what your BAC was for the 2nd offense? And was there any other factors like property damage, injuries, etc?
    RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515

    Don't end up in my signature!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Monroe County)
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    Bac .16, no damage no injuries.
    Got pulled over.

    Gunlawyer: I actually emailed you a few days ago and you did indeed respond to my first inquiry.

    I then sent you a photo of the court summary.
    That's confusing and so is the docket sheet.
    All this "charge changed" stuff and the fact that my second offense was held in ARD court is leading me to believe/hope something is different than what the docket is telling me.

    If I only sent you the summary and not the docket I'd be more than happy to do so.

    And, what would you say about what this sergeant at the sheriffs office is saying?
    He looked right at me and said "I see your M1 on the docket but you would still need to have 3 offenses in 5 years, which you don't".

    This is insane.
    So many people are being charged with crimes for simply answering the question to the best of their knowledge.

    How is the lay person who is never told otherwise, supposed to know that the minimum - maximum sentence they were handed IS NOT what is referenced on any application?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    13,618
    Rep Power
    21474867

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbylloyd View Post
    .. .

    And, what would you say about what this sergeant at the sheriffs office is saying?
    He looked right at me and said "I see your M1 on the docket but you would still need to have 3 offenses in 5 years, which you don't".

    This is insane.
    So many people are being charged with crimes for simply answering the question to the best of their knowledge.

    How is the lay person who is never told otherwise, supposed to know that the minimum - maximum sentence they were handed IS NOT what is referenced on any application?

    The worst people to get legal advice from are cops and "guys at the gun counter". There's a reason why people pay lawyers a lot of money to do the digging and get reliable, detailed answers.

    There are 2 sets of prohibitors that apply to Pennsylvania residents, the federal list and the state list.

    Our state list includes, among a bunch of other things, "(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."

    In addition to that, a federal bar applies to " any person—
    (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    . . . ." among other things. The federal definitions change that so it doesn't include state misdemeanors unless they are punishable by more than TWO years, but otherwise, you're out of luck in PA if either of those, or any of the other prohibitors, apply.

    How should normal people know this stuff? Same as the system pretends that they know the entire 500 pounds of state and federal law books (and county and local ordinances) that apply to you at this moment, and you are also conclusively presumed to follow the daily changes in all the laws that bind you at this second. It's a fiction, but the jail is real.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Monroe County)
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    Sheesh

    So at this point I guess I'll just wait for the denial letter?
    Already went to the sheriffs office to tell them I think I made a mistake and told them why.
    Also expressed my concern for not wanting to be charged for any crimes over the issue of checking the wrong box.

    So, when I get the denial letter I'll probably go back to the sheriffs office to confirm all of this was just a mistake.
    This is incredibly stressful.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Nondescript building with no windows
    Posts
    419
    Rep Power
    14865144

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    An M-1 is an M-1. What it was for is irrelevant, DUI or something else. It's a prohibitor. The Sergeant should not be a Sergeant, or in another unit other than firearms licensing.

    Just my opinion.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Brookville, Pennsylvania
    (Jefferson County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,076
    Rep Power
    21474874

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    Quote Originally Posted by fuzzywuzzy View Post
    An M-1 is an M-1. What it was for is irrelevant, DUI or something else. It's a prohibitor. The Sergeant should not be a Sergeant, or in another unit other than firearms licensing.

    Just my opinion.
    No, as I stated before. M1's can have different penalties. The blanket M1 is 5 years. However, other passages of law, and older laws, can have different max penalties.

    For the most part, yeah - an M1 is prohibiting. But you have to look at what exact law was violated, when it was violated, and the law at the time it was violated.

    Then factor in the Musau ruling on DUI's and then it gets even more complicated.
    Last edited by knight0334; March 30th, 2017 at 05:54 PM.
    RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515

    Don't end up in my signature!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Monroe County)
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Senate bill 1239

    Just read through the details of that Musau case...
    That's very interesting.
    I wonder if SB1239 canceled that out too.

    This is all a bunch of crap if you ask me.
    More excuses to disarm as many people as possible.

    And again, I'm not even sure what's on my actual criminal record.
    The docket sheet is a mess and I've been told 100 times not to use that as a criminal record reference.

    We shall see.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Senate Bill 357
    By Squatchy in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 21st, 2015, 11:57 PM
  2. Senate bill 480
    By Shisno in forum National
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 9th, 2013, 11:49 AM
  3. Senate Bill 2099
    By DiveGerry in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 13th, 2009, 10:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •