A DUI in Pennsylvania could cost you your Second Amendment rights

[Madmallard]

A drunken driving conviction could mean losing the right to buy and own firearms in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Court of Appeals has decided.

The precedent-setting opinion handed down Friday hinges on the federal government’s definition of a “serious crime” — the level a crime must reach to trigger an individual being barred from buying firearms.

Under federal law, a serious crime is one that can carry a state-prison sentence of two or more years.

A DUI in Pennsylvania could cost you your Second Amendment rights

A drunken driving conviction could mean losing the right to buy and own firearms in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Court of Appeals has decided. The precedent-setting opinion handed down Friday hinges on the federal government’s definition of a “serious crime” — the level a crime must reach to trigger...

triblive.com

 

[Jmac00]

I know a guy, who not only has DWI, but also is under psychiatric care, he still has his guns, LOL But he doesn't live in NY or Pa,

 

[Saltwater60]

You should only lose your gun rights for violent felonies. This is a joke.

 

[spat]

You should only lose your gun rights for violent felonies. This is a joke.

You should only lose your guns while you are incarcerated.

Anyone can get them once they get out. Pretending a law will stop them is just foolishness. Better to acknowledge that once you let them out they will have guns again, and adjust the release options accordingly.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

So wrong.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

You should only lose your guns while you are incarcerated.

Anyone can get them once they get out. Pretending a law will stop them is just foolishness. Better to acknowledge that once you let them out they will have guns again, and adjust the release options accordingly.

If felons get their voting rights back why shouldn't they also get their 2a rights back. After all they have served their debt to society and are allegedly rehabilitated.

 

[Bustedknees]

My daughter's boyfriend got a DUI (pot) last year and was turned down on a background check for a new hunting rifle.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You should only lose your gun rights for violent felonies. This is a joke.

Why?

 

[Defilade]

Bail reform is what is needed!

 

[libertysnake]

You should only lose your gun rights for violent felonies. This is a joke.

You shouldn't lose your gun rights, period. Either you did the time, or you didn't.

 

[ProgSpear]

But Quid Quo Joe said that it’s ok for illegal aliens undocumented more American than you ares to drive drunk, so they get to keep their guns, right?

 

[Marine Cpl]

It’s only okay to lose your gun rights for violent felonies. Rights to vote, rights to religion, freedom of press, rights to a speedy trial, rights to unlawful search and seizure, rights to private property, ect are okay to be restored. But not gun rights. Those can be infringed upon when released from prison after time served.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Just living in NY does.....

 

[northny]

Not really news. In the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts (PRM) this has been the law of the land for quite a while. What happened was the PRM rushed to increase the maximum penalty to two years for a bunch of misdemeanors creating what are called “misdefelonies” to make you a federally prohibited person. Doesn’t matter that no one every received two years for first dui. But wait, it gets stranger. If you have a dui conviction before they increased the penalty to two years you are not a prohibited person. If you live in a state that has a two year penalty and get a dui in another state where the penalty is not two years you are not a prohibited person. Finally even if you live in a state where DUI is not a two year max penalty but you get a DUI where it is two years you are a prohibited person.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

 

[Cooolone]

Justice Thomas has raised the issue somewhat as to the "loss" of rights post incarceration.

Is a slippery slope to assign values by which the legislature or judiciary can "REMOVE" your Rights. Any right, and yes, sometimes for "any" reason they feel is ok. *See Virginia Protest*

Agreed, a propensity to commit violence upon others is a serious issue, but criminal recidivism is not an exact science, or proven based upon criminal acts committed.

If everyone is ok with the restoration of voting rights post incarceration, then no other scrutiny to Rights should be acceptable just because of the "Right" in question. Funny thing is restoring voting rights to those incarcerated... Wouldn't then the argument to self preservation and protection apply while incarcerated too? If strict scurtiny applied, this would be true. Hahahaha, prisoners being allowed to possess certain weapons! Just lol...

Of course, that's crazy!

But once you've been through the program and served your debt to society, what else do you owe? Isn't something like a lifetime ban on anything too much?

I'm on the fence with this one... For the regular folk who just get caught up in a bad situation, it sucks. For the repeat offender, pos gang banger, is appropriate. How do you define the difference?

Regards

 

[libertysnake]

I'm on the fence with this one... For the regular folk who just get caught up in a bad situation, it sucks. For the repeat offender, pos gang banger, is appropriate. How do you define the difference?

The gang banger isn't walking into a gun shop generally to begin with. A gang banger doing paperwork? I doubt it. Besides, if they're actively a gang banger, then they should be in jail -- that solves the problem of them having guns.

Let those who are done their time live a life free of restrictions. Once you've paid your debt, you should be just as free as anyone else.

If you make people eternally criminals in how they have to live their lives, they're going to behave, forever, like a criminal. I'm fine with trust, but verify -- after they've gotten out.

 

[GOPerfect]

While serving the punishment, absolutely; Rights are and should be, suspended.

Incarcerated time over, Rights restored.

If someone cannot be "trusted" with their Rights, they should remain locked up.

 

[Uzi]

Drunk drivers deserve whatever they get and some putting everyone else in immediate danger on the road way. It's actually fucking disgusting to see how many people on this very forum have emitted to having DUI's and asking about their gun rights for pistol permits. Well, Fuck em! I don't care if they do or do not have gun rights anymore.

I do believe people that drive high or drunk are just as irresponsible mentally as any psychotic mentally ill person. Driving around a 4500lb+ block of steel drunk or high around countless people is and has shown to be far more dangerous than any firearms related crime. 95% of people that think they're fantastic drivers don't realize how shitty of a driver they really are anyways, let alone driving drunk or high. Fuck em all!

I'd very likely lose my 2A rights after dealing with a drunk driver too if they haven't already killed me, just sayin'. I really don't give a shit about these people and their lives.

 

[GOPerfect]

Drunk drivers deserve whatever they get and some putting everyone else in immediate danger on the road way. It's actually fucking disgusting to see how many people on this very forum have emitted to having DUI's and asking about their gun rights for pistol permits. Well, Fuck em! I don't care if they do or do not have gun rights anymore.

I do believe people that drive high or drunk are just as irresponsible mentally as any psychotic mentally ill person. Driving around a 4500lb+ block of steel drunk or high around countless people is and has shown to be far more dangerous than any firearms related crime. 95% of people that think they're fantastic drivers don't realize how shitty of a driver they really are anyways, let alone driving drunk or high. Fuck em all!

I'd very likely lose my 2A rights after dealing with a drunk driver too if they haven't already killed me, just sayin'. I really don't give a shit about these people and their lives.

Nice rant....

Drunk drivers are third on my list.

They follow closely after rapists and those that commit crimes against children.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Drunk drivers deserve whatever they get and some putting everyone else in immediate danger on the road way. It's actually fucking disgusting to see how many people on this very forum have emitted to having DUI's and asking about their gun rights for pistol permits. Well, Fuck em! I don't care if they do or do not have gun rights anymore.

I do believe people that drive high or drunk are just as irresponsible mentally as any psychotic mentally ill person. Driving around a 4500lb+ block of steel drunk or high around countless people is and has shown to be far more dangerous than any firearms related crime. 95% of people that think they're fantastic drivers don't realize how shitty of a driver they really are anyways, let alone driving drunk or high. Fuck em all!

I'd very likely lose my 2A rights after dealing with a drunk driver too if they haven't already killed me, just sayin'. I really don't give a shit about these people and their lives.

I got convicted of a DUI when I was 20 years old. I’m about to be 45 years old now. Should I pay for that for the rest of my life? No.

Our system is broken and people that are okay with infringements on others because they do not like whatever crime they committed in the past are part of the problem. Because people are okay for right infringements sometimes, it opens up that same infringement to be used on other crimes. IE parking tickets, speeding tickets, a fight, ect. Just look at what gun infringements on felons led to. It led to domestic violence offenders who were convicted as well and now it’s being opened up to just being accused of DV. Once that is implemented fully, it will lead up to other things besides DV. Next it will be bullying. A fight. An argument. A racial discussion Ect.

The way it should be is that you serve your sentence (15 years for example ) and once released back into society, you serve your probation which is still part of your sentence. If you pass that 10 years of probation for example, you no longer are serving your sentence and all your rights are restored. If you break that probation, then you back to jail.

Why should someone who got caught drinking 3 beers at a BBQ lose his gun rights? It makes no sense. He may as well lose his right to practice whatever religion he wants too and to be unreasonably searched at anytime then too because you don’t like the crime he committed.

 

[beebee]

Yeah, guy is right on the cusp, and has just one more beer and gets nailed.. He should then lose the right to defend himself, his home and his family.. Got it..

Why not also make him lose his job, his home, his kids, all his savings and worldly goods,,and let him rot in hell for etenity as well.. THAT'll teach him.... bob

 

[Uzi]

I got convicted of a DUI when I was 20 years old. I’m about to be 45 years old now. Should I pay for that for the rest of my life? No.

Our system is broken and people that are okay with infringements on others because they do not like whatever crime they committed in the past are part of the problem. Because people are okay for right infringements sometimes, it opens up that same infringement to be used on other crimes. IE parking tickets, speeding tickets, a fight, ect. Just look at what gun infringements on felons led to. It led to domestic violence offenders who were convicted as well and now it’s being opened up to just being accused of DV. Once that is implemented fully, it will lead up to other things besides DV. Next it will be bullying. A fight. An argument. A racial discussion Ect.

The way it should be is that you serve your sentence (15 years for example ) and once released back into society, you serve your probation which is still part of your sentence. If you pass that 10 years of probation for example, you no longer are serving your sentence and all your rights are restored. If you break that probation, then you back to jail.

Why should someone who got caught drinking 3 beers at a BBQ lose his gun rights? It makes no sense. He may as well lose his right to practice whatever religion he wants too then.

No. I'm not part of your problem. You're fully responsible for your own actions. I am not obligated to care about your own consequences as a result, and I do not support stupidity or enable one's stupid mistakes.

This has nothing to do with me. This expands beyond gun rights, and I said I didn't care about that aspect in particular. I'm talking about the person making stupid choices as the focus. Don't make this about me now "supporting" a bill or law. You're the one at fault. I'm saying, people that do this shit like it's no big deal are the real problem. Of course you'd say it's not that big of a deal because you've done it already and will hang to your confirmation bias forever. The other driver, bicyclist, pedestrian, kids crossing the road, and motorcyclist think otherwise though. Just remember that.

Basically, in general don't be a fool and there will never be an issue for anybody to speak of. It's kind of the same reason we tell little children not to run with scissors in their hands in kindergarten. An adult should know better, or they will be otherwise shown to the world as reckless, careless, incompetent, and one which disregards the safety of everyone else around them. It's a stupid behavior with major consequences. Yes, I don't care about idiots that do idiotic shit.

It's not directed specifically towards you Will, but don't get on my case about something with huge consequences that shows total disregard of proper judgment and self control and expect me to act like there isn't a factor of stupidity for that individual. Spin it, turn it however you'd like. If a hammered truck driver mows down my wife and kid crossing the street at a school crossing, do you think I'm going to fight for them keeping their gun rights? Nope. They're a piece of shit forever and my solution is I don't care what happens to them.

Just don't be under the influence so you're not putting other lives at serious risk while driving. That's all I'd "vote" or be in favor for.

 

[Marine Cpl]

No. I'm not part of your problem. You're fully responsible for your own actions. I am not obligated to care about your own consequences as a result, and I do not support stupidity or enable one's stupid mistakes.

This has nothing to do with me. This expands beyond gun rights, and I said I didn't care about that aspect in particular. I'm talking about the person making stupid choices as the focus. Don't make this about me now "supporting" a bill or law. You're the one at fault. I'm saying, people that do this shit like it's no big deal are the real problem. Of course you'd say it's not that big of a deal because you've done it already and will hang to your confirmation bias forever. The other driver, bicyclist, pedestrian, kids crossing the road, and motorcyclist think otherwise though. Just remember that.

Basically, in general don't be a fool and there will never be an issue for anybody to speak of. It's kind of the same reason we tell little children not to run with scissors in their hands in kindergarten. An adult should know better, or they will be otherwise shown to the world as reckless, careless, incompetent, and one which disregards the safety of everyone else around them. It's a stupid behavior with major consequences. Yes, I don't care about idiots that do idiotic shit.

It's not directed specifically towards you Will, but don't get on my case about something with huge consequences that shows total disregard of proper judgment and self control and expect me to act like there isn't a factor of stupidity for that individual. Spin it, turn out however you'd like. If a hammered truck driver mows down my wife and kid crossing the street at a school crossing, do you think I'm going to fight for them keeping their gun rights? Nope. They're a piece of shit forever.

Just don't be under the influence so you're not putting other lives at serious risk while driving. That's all I'd "vote" or be in favor for.

Don’t be a fool or your rights will be violated forever. Got it. Does that also pertain to my 1st Amendment right?

I guarantee that you’ve committed a crime in your past. Whether that be a joint as a teenager, having a magazine that holds more than 10, a muzzle device not screwed on properly, carrying concealed within a certain distance from a school, at a rest stop, in another state that you may not have been licensed in, a post office, not doing your taxes correctly, stealing something as a kid, being drunk and disorderly, getting into a fight, stealing a bootleg movie or tv show, ect.

 

[Uzi]

Don’t be a fool or your rights will be violated forever. Got it. Does that also pertain to my 1st Amendment right?

I guarantee that you’ve committed a crime in your past. Whether that be a joint as a teenager, having a magazine that holds more than 10, a muzzle device not screwed on properly, carrying concealed within a certain distance from a school, at a rest stop, in another state that you may not have been licensed in, a post office, not doing your taxes correctly, stealing something as a kid, being drunk and disorderly, getting into a fight, stealing a bootleg movie or tv show, ect.

And as expected, you've ignored the emphasis of what I've said and went on to bring up unrelated irrelevant topics like committing other crimes that don't endanger lives or pertain to the discussion. Pretty annoying, but predictable.

If you play stupid games, you might just win stupid prizes. If you kill people being under the influence of something, you were and maybe still are reckless and stupid.

The point that you'll continue to ignore and steer into a different direction is that proper judgement and safety is an important part of firearms ownership. I don't have any issue with intoxicated people killing themselves being idiots in any fashion. Just don't risk my or others safety doing it. Is that too much to ask? Is that unreasonable? Driving drunk and high shows clearly that an individual does not value the safety of themselves and more importantly other people at that point in time. Learn from your mistake, don't do it again, be glad you didn't kill anyone and move on. If not, those people that continue such stupidity deserve to win a stupid prize.

 

[Bustedknees]

Im not advocating drunk driving, only how they reach that conclusion.
NY say's that 11 rounds of ammo makes me a felon. They tried 7.
Ny say's 3 light beers on my 195 lb body makes me a drunk driver.
both numbers are headed downwards (not my weight ) till they reach prohibition.

 

[LMS]

I guarantee that you’ve committed a crime in your past. Whether that be a joint as a teenager, having a magazine that holds more than 10, a muzzle device not screwed on properly, carrying concealed within a certain distance from a school, at a rest stop, in another state that you may not have been licensed in, a post office, not doing your taxes correctly, stealing something as a kid, being drunk and disorderly, getting into a fight, stealing a bootleg movie or tv show, ect.

Are you spying on me?

 

[CaseHardened]

A drunken driving conviction could mean losing the right to buy and own firearms in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Court of Appeals has decided.

The precedent-setting opinion handed down Friday hinges on the federal government’s definition of a “serious crime” — the level a crime must reach to trigger an individual being barred from buying firearms.

Under federal law, a serious crime is one that can carry a state-prison sentence of two or more years.

A DUI in Pennsylvania could cost you your Second Amendment rights

A drunken driving conviction could mean losing the right to buy and own firearms in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Court of Appeals has decided. The precedent-setting opinion handed down Friday hinges on the federal government’s definition of a “serious crime” — the level a crime must reach to trigger...

triblive.com

Aye, it's been policy in Massachusetts for a very long time.

We suck.

 

[CaseHardened]

You should only lose your gun rights for violent felonies. This is a joke.

The punishment should fit the crime.

In Massachusetts ANY ARREST, ever, for any offense is very likely to disqualify you.

It's not right.

 

[Marine Cpl]

And as expected, you've ignored the emphasis of what I've said and went on to bring up unrelated irrelevant topics like committing other crimes that don't endanger lives or pertain to the discussion. Pretty annoying, but predictable.

If you play stupid games, you might just win stupid prizes. If you kill people being under the influence of something, you were and maybe still are reckless and stupid.

The point that you'll continue to ignore and steer into a different direction is that proper judgement and safety is an important part of firearms ownership. I don't have any issue with intoxicated people killing themselves being idiots in any fashion. Just don't risk my or others safety doing it. Is that too much to ask? Is that unreasonable? Driving drunk and high shows clearly that an individual does not value the safety of themselves and more importantly other people at that point in time. Learn from your mistake, don't do it again, be glad you didn't kill anyone and move on. If not, those people that continue such stupidity deserve to win a stupid prize.

No. I haven’t ignored the emphasis of what you said. You said in different words that an unrelated crime that may have endangered others deserves a totally unrelated right to be infringed upon.

It doesn’t matter if it endangers others or not. The founder’s didn’t say that a guy driving above .08 which is an arbitrary number should have his guns confiscated. Nor should he have his guns confiscated if he’s driving home tired after working a double which is worse than .08 in most cases. It’s really that simple. It’s an infringement of the 2A and you support it.

 

[northny]

Getting back to the original post I think many of you are missing the larger point. A conviction of ANY non violent misdemeanor or felony that has a potential maximum penalty of two years will make a person a federally prohibited person. Forever. It appears some states are bumping up maximum misdemeanor penalties to two years. I can’t say the intent is to make prohibited persons but it has the effect.