3rd Circuit A DUI can cost you your Second Amendment rights

buellsfurn · Jan 23, 2020

wolfwood said:
If you have mutiple DUI's that likely meas you are a drunk and I can see the argument for temporarily prohibiting you but the problem is this is a life time ban. Shouldn't this guy have a chance to show he has recovered?

He needs to move to VA blackface to restore felons gun rights

Docster · Jan 23, 2020

Trying to read through the opinion it was something like this;

--Heller decision stated rights applied to law-abiding citizens
-SCOTUS has ruled that repeat DUIs are serious offenses regardless of sentence
--Defendant judged as recidivist as to DUIs thus multiple serious offenses and not law-abiding
IANAL

OLM-Medic · Jan 23, 2020

ShafTed said:
No guns for you!

shall not he infringed

RoadDawg · Jan 25, 2020

welder516 said:
And to think we give drug users Needles and Narcan .

Listen i understand drunk drivers kill using cars and they all deserve to be punished , just not sure we need to take away other rights that we are born with . Shaky ground for me .

The rationale is that if one has no ability to know they are too drunk to drive... They ALSO have no ability to know when they are too drunk to be carrying a firearm. And if their DWI/DUI history shows them to be habitual in that practice. It follows that they will also be habitual in the practice of carrying/handling firearms while drunk as well.

RoadDawg · Jan 25, 2020

adit said:
How about their 1st Amendment rights? Are you OK with them losing that as well? How about the 4th?

How about the 8th? Does the gov gain the right to torture you because you got that DUI?

I have never seen anyone kill or maim another person by talking. I have seen both done by DWI/DUI drivers AND folks who mishandled firearms. So that dog does not hunt.

RoadDawg · Jan 25, 2020

Docster said:
Trying to read through the opinion it was something like this;

--Heller decision stated rights applied to law-abiding citizens
-SCOTUS has ruled that repeat DUIs are serious offenses regardless of sentence
--Defendant judged as recidivist as to DUIs thus multiple serious offenses and not law-abiding
IANAL

And THAT is the crux of the matter.

I have NO hesitation whatsoever in fighting for the rights of those law abiding citizens who respect the laws and do not endanger others for their own lusts and addictions. However, when one proves that they cannot be trusted to take the lives of others into consideration before engaging in activities which are inherently hazardous... even going to the extent of being cavalier and completely irresponsible with the safety of others... THEY do not gain the same consideration from me.

RoadDawg · Jan 25, 2020

OLM-Medic said:
shall not he infringed

Yes... "...shall not be infringed." BY THE GOVERNMENT.

But what of those persons who's illegal/irresponsible actions cause their own infringements. Do you care about the 2A rights of someone at the range who keeps pointing the muzzle of their firearm at you or your friends and family. Or do you consider that that persons actions are an extreme hazard to you and yours... and then realize that it is not the government who is going to be infringing when you stop them?
In effect... THEY have infringed upon their own rights by ignoring their responsibility to it and others.

We have rights... and we also have responsibilities. They walk hand in hand and to ignore one is to effectively ignore both.

Lalez · Jan 25, 2020

RoadDawg said:
Yes... "...shall not be infringed." BY THE GOVERNMENT.

But what of those persons who's illegal/irresponsible actions cause their own infringements. Do you care about the 2A rights of someone at the range who keeps pointing the muzzle of their firearm at you or your friends and family. Or do you consider that that persons actions are an extreme hazard to you and yours... and then realize that it is not the government who is going to be infringing when you stop them?

We have rights... and we also have responsibilities. They walk hand in hand and to ignore one is to effectively ignore both.

Shall Not be Infringed

No compromising, none, nada, that's what got you Marylanders in the mess that you are in. You guys need to fight any and all gun control.

Btw are you guys aware that you can get a DUI just standing in your driveway? It's happened before and will happen again

Signed,

A guy that escaped the People's Republik of Marylandistan

RoadDawg · Jan 25, 2020

Lalez said:
Shall Not be Infringed

No compromising none, nada, that's what got you Marylanders in the mess that you are in.

Signed,

A freedom loving EX-Marylander

What "compromise"?

I said NOTHING about compromise ANYWHERE in my post.

If you choose to surrender your own rights because you cannot be responsible with the exercise thereof... THAT is not a compromise... Nor is it an infringement.

Lalez · Jan 26, 2020

RoadDawg said:
What "compromise"?

I said NOTHING about compromise ANYWHERE in my post.

If you choose to surrender your own rights because you cannot be responsible with the exercise thereof... THAT is not a compromise... Nor is it an infringement.

I would agree with you, if the laws were enforced down the line like they are written, but often times cops will make arrests that are questionable to say the least.

There are multiple cases nationwide of people getting arrested for DUI's by just having a beer in their driveway while working on their car because the cop was an *******.Is that person being "not responsible" and should lose his gun rights?

People have been given DUI's while sleeping in their car to sober up, that sounds like being responsible to me, but yet they got arrested.

I know this particular matter says "repeat offender" or "habitual", but soon it could be bam, first time arrest for DUI no more rights.

So yea, I'm against any infringement due to the fact that police can literally arrest you just for looking at them the wrong way

Boats · Jan 26, 2020

ShafTed said:
purchase OR POSESSION of any firearm or ammunition. This is Federal.

Why do you think Maryland is so fond of their 3, 5, even 10 year misdemeanors? Matters not what time was served, even if 100% of the sentence is suspended it's still a prohibitor upon conviction. No guns for you!

That is a Maryland law. Federal law states convicted felon. Maryland law states a misdemeanor with a sentence of more than 2 years.

adit said:
How about their 1st Amendment rights? Are you OK with them losing that as well? How about the 4th?

How about the 8th? Does the gov gain the right to torture you because you got that DUI?

Agree.

danb said:
The 8th amendment is a proscription on the type of punishment you can receive for a crime, so no.

But otherwise, if you commit a crime the government put you in jail, seize your property, search your premises without a warrant, subject you to blood tests, review your outgoing mail, prevent you from voting, and on and on.

It totally sucks, but easily avoided - don't commit a crime!

Really? Have you ever given or received oral sex? Because that is a prohibiting offence (misdemeanor with a 10 year term). Remember, just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. I would bet that MOST people on this forum SHOULD be prohibited persons IF this law was enforced. So stop throwing stones from your glass house.

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-3/subtitle-3/3-322/

If you look at someones computer or phone with out their specific consent it is a misdemeanor with a penalty of 5 years, i.e. prohibiting. That includes accessing an unsecured wifi network, which mobile phones do all the time.

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/7-302.html

It is my opinion that the misdemeanor over 2 years law should be stricken. Felons are felons. Misdemeants are all of the rest of us, most of us just havent been caught (cursing at another driver in your car is a misdemeanor in Rockville, by the way https://library.municode.com/md/roc...d=CICO_CH13MIPROF_ARTIIIOTOF_S13-53PRVISEDEMI). Oh and it has been documented on this forum that a misdemeanor in another state counts against you here in this one.

Boats · Jan 26, 2020

RoadDawg said:
But what of those persons who's illegal/irresponsible actions cause their own infringements. Do you care about the 2A rights of someone at the range who keeps pointing the muzzle of their firearm at you or your friends and family. Or do you consider that that persons actions are an extreme hazard to you and yours... and then realize that it is not the government who is going to be infringing when you stop them?
In effect... THEY have infringed upon their own rights by ignoring their responsibility to it and others.

.

Freedom is messy and unpredictable. So yes, a guy who is irresponsible with his 2A rights still retains those rights. Because they are RIGHTS, not PRIVILEGES. That doesnt mean "muzzle sweep guy" shouldn't be spoken to about his unsafe act, or evicted from private property if he continues, or that i dont have responsibility for my own safety by relocating myself...

But removing his RIGHTS? Nope. Never. THAT dog dont hunt.

Also, see post above. Are you a secretly prohibited person? Where is your responsibility argument now?

LGood48 · Jan 26, 2020

ShafTed said:
purchase OR POSESSION of any firearm or ammunition. This is Federal.

Boats said:
That is a Maryland law. Federal law states convicted felon. Maryland law states a misdemeanor with a sentence of more than 2 years.

Actually the Federal law is a felony OR ANY OTHER CRIME with a specified sentence length.

Following is from the current 4473.
c. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.)

Boats · Jan 26, 2020

LGoodwin said:
Actually the Federal law is a felony OR ANY OTHER CRIME with a specified sentence length.

Following is from the current 4473.
c. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.)

I see they have updated it in 2016. I admit, i have not purchased a firearm from an FFL since before then. I stand corrected.

That said, in MOST states, a misdemeanor is any crime with a sentence under a year. Maryland is an outlier, where some "felonies" carry a shorter sentences than some "misdemeanors".

LGood48 · Jan 26, 2020

Boats said:
I see they have updated it. I stand corrected.

No problem!

danb · Jan 26, 2020

Boats said:
Really? Have you ever given or received oral sex? Because that is a prohibiting offence (misdemeanor with a 10 year term). Remember, just because you didn't get caught doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. I would bet that MOST people on this forum SHOULD be prohibited persons IF this law was enforced. So stop throwing stones from your glass house.

Are you offering to blow me as test case?

Seriously, lots of things should not be a crime. That one is no longer enforced.

DUI however is a crime, and a pretty damn serious and dangerous thing to to. And as someone pointed out up-thread, thus plaintiff did it repeatedly.

ryan_j · Jan 26, 2020

DUI should be a felony, IMO. And it should also get you deported if you’re not a US citizen. Just saying how deadly serious it is.

Boats · Jan 26, 2020

danb said:
Are you offering to blow me as test case?

Seriously, lots of things should not be a crime. That one is no longer enforced.

DUI however is a crime, and a pretty damn serious and dangerous thing to to. And as someone pointed out up-thread, thus plaintiff did it repeatedly.

I am not arguing whether or not DUI is or is not a crime. It is, and should be.

I am arguing that, as heinous as it is, it does not warrant the PERMANENT removal of RIGHTS.

Should people who drink/drive be punished? Yes. Should they be punished further if they hurt or kill someone else while drink/driving? Also yes. Should their rights be permanently removed?

No.

Just like someone who has eaten out their wife shouldn't have their rights removed. (the law states any part of another's genetalia in mouth).

But in this climate, we are all too willing to remove the rights of others even though we know that will not stop a criminal from getting a gun AND many people do it because they believe that they are blameless. Which is not so.

In this case, we are our own worse enemy

RoadDawg · Jan 26, 2020

Lalez said:
I would agree with you, if the laws were enforced down the line like they are written, but often times cops will make arrests that are questionable to say the least.

There are multiple cases nationwide of people getting arrested for DUI's by just having a beer in their driveway while working on their car because the cop was an *******.Is that person being "not responsible" and should lose his gun rights?

People have been given DUI's while sleeping in their car to sober up, that sounds like being responsible to me, but yet they got arrested.

I know this particular matter says "repeat offender" or "habitual", but soon it could be bam, first time arrest for DUI no more rights.

So yea, I'm against any infringement due to the fact that police can literally arrest you just for looking at them the wrong way

Really?

Cite?

Case history?

I did that job for 2.5 decades and NEVER locked anyone up for DUI because they were enjoying a beer in their driveway.

I DID lock a guy up who at 3:AM, smashed into and totaled a parked car while DWI and then drove his mom's car home leaving a clear trail of oil, antifreeze and transmission fluid to follow from the scene. (Mom was visually handicapped and unable to drive... the car was in her name because of his history of DWI/DUI.)

He swore he was not driving and did not hit that other car... But the paint transfer evidence (the struck veh. had a custom paint job and therefore a unique paint color), trail from the scene, bloody knees and his blood on the dash board where he hit them when he crashed... ALL said different. I guess he told all of his friends about the ******* cop who locked him up in his mom's house for DWI and Hit and Run with her car. :sad20:

STANDARD interaction between LEO and person stopped under suspicion of being DWI/DUI...
LEO: "How many drinks have you had today sir/ma'am?"
Driver: "Only two, Officer..." (holds up seven fingers) :lol2:

But "only 2 drinks" is nearly always the standard answer. :cool:

Yeah... the cops are the assholes... :rolleyes:

RoadDawg · Jan 26, 2020

Boats said:
Freedom is messy and unpredictable. So yes, a guy who is irresponsible with his 2A rights still retains those rights. Because they are RIGHTS, not PRIVILEGES. That doesnt mean "muzzle sweep guy" shouldn't be spoken to about his unsafe act, or evicted from private property if he continues, or that i dont have responsibility for my own safety by relocating myself...

But removing his RIGHTS? Nope. Never. THAT dog dont hunt.

Also, see post above. Are you a secretly prohibited person? Where is your responsibility argument now?

So you have no issues with allowing irresponsible people who have demonstrated over and over that they do not GAF about ANYONE but themselves by placing other folks lives in peril on MULTIPLE occasions... to have the same "rights" as we who have NOT shown such a cavalier and irresponsible trait.

By that logic... Patients in mental Hospitals are citizens too... let's give them ALL guns and see how long it takes for you to realize that Rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES. And those who are not responsible and endanger the lives of other for their own lusts and addictions... should have those rights revisited to prevent the carnage they would visit upon the innocent and law abiding members of society.

3rd Circuit A DUI can cost you your Second Amendment rights

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Nos nostraque Deo

Nos nostraque Deo

Nos nostraque Deo

Nos nostraque Deo

Active Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Active Member

Broken Member

Broken Member

Ultimate Member

Broken Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Broken Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Nos nostraque Deo

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics