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

[wolfwood]

A Pennsylvania man convicted of misdemeanor drunken-driving under state law lost his Second Amendment challenge after the Third Circuit ruled Friday that a federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms isn’t unconstitutional as applied to him.
Link to opinion.

https://www.scribd.com/document/443917322/Raymond-Holloway-Jr-v-Attorney-General-Third-Circuit

 

[Qbeam]

Is this the Habitual Drunkard Question? How does a state misdemeanor translate into the a felony prohibition? I didn't have time to read the link in full.


Edit: Is it the amount of time for the conviction?

Q

 

[nedsurf]

That has to be challenged if it's just one, maybe two DUI convictions. I can reasonably see an argument for many successive DUIs contributing evidence towards a habitual drunkard type status.

 

[Inigoes]

Is this the Habitual Drunkard Question? How does a state misdemeanor translate into the a felony prohibition? I didn't have time to read the link in full.

Q

The max sentence for a DUI is 5 years, if convicted.

Way over the 2 year limit for cash/carry long gun purchase.

 

[Qbeam]

So it seems like sentence time versus actual offense is the governing factor for yes or no on firearms possession?


Q

 

[Inigoes]

That's how I see it.

Not to mention the habitually poor judgement of the convicted. Since this was his second DUI, PA let him off on his first DUI.

 

[94hokie]

Is this the Habitual Drunkard Question? How does a state misdemeanor translate into the a felony prohibition? I didn't have time to read the link in full.


Edit: Is it the amount of time for the conviction?

Q

for above a .16 BAC it's a five year maximum and he was at .172.

 

[wolfwood]

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?

 

[Qbeam]

I believe the Habitual Drunkard question is more than 3 DUIs, I don't know if severity of sentencing is factored in. Granted the BAC is high (built up tolerance), it looks like he had 2 hits on DUI, but the time of the second one it the factor on the forfeiture of the right.


Q

 

[Inigoes]

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?

AS I stated before. I think the issue lies with the max penalty for the law.

If the law was truly a misdemeanor, then it should have been punishable by a sentence less that 2 years.

The lines have been blurred by misdemeanors and felony crimes because of the penalties are all over the place. Before setences used to be for the level of heinousness. Nowadays (Since the 1980s) , setences comes down to the mores of the party in charge.

Being a repeat offender, did not help him in the least.

 

[ShafTed]

The max sentence for a DUI is 5 years, if convicted.

Way over the 2 year limit for cash/carry long gun purchase.

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!

 

[Kharn]

I believe the Habitual Drunkard question is more than 3 DUIs, I don't know if severity of sentencing is factored in. Granted the BAC is high (built up tolerance), it looks like he had 2 hits on DUI, but the time of the second one it the factor on the forfeiture of the right.


Q

MD's habitual drunkard is any three alcohol related offenses, if one occurred in the past year, IIRC from my permit interview. So get popped twice for underage drinking in college and you're on a razor's edge the rest of your life.

 

[lazarus]

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!

Which is my issue. It should be the actual sentence imposed. That said, I think suspended sentences should count. So if you were sentenced to 3 years with all but 6 months suspended, that should still count. If you get a fine and community service on a possible 3-yr max crime, that should not be prohibiting.

If you are being let off easy, then the assumption should be you have a real second chance and/or the judge/jury didn’t think what you did, even if a crime, was really that bad.

 

[danb]

I have mixed feelings about this. Dont drink and drive! its easy enough to avoid this problem. You could kill someone, so as a rule the penalty is going to be (and should be) as harsh as it needs to be to deter people from DUI, up to and including the loss of some or all of your rights. I do not think that imposing such a penalty (>2 years, loss of rights, etc) is unconstitutional. Dont. Drink. And. Drive. easy-peasy. I do not have much sympathy for people who complain about the penalty for this.

Now, where it gets sticky is permanent loss of rights. If you have done the time, paid your fines, and a significant amount of time has elapsed without any recurring behavior, your rights should be restored.

 

[Inigoes]

The other issue that didn't work from the fella. People are not sympathetic to drunk drivers...

 

[danb]

People view the penalty for crime as a stupidity tax, the same way they view the lottery as a voluntary tax. Its easy to avoid the penalty by avoiding the bad behavior. Keep yourself out of jail and keep your firearms rights, don't drink and drive. Its pretty easy to avoid this one. Now, if you have kept yourself clean for 7+ years, thats a different story.

 

[welder516]

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 .

 

[danb]

Even if we legalized drug possession (which I would favor), penalties for drunk/high driving should be high enough to actually deter people. Over 30% of all accidents still have one or more person over the legal limit. I have never seen so many obviously drunk drivers as I have in MD, and its ridiculous to see them weave all over 29. Driving a 3 ton machine at 40 miles per hour while under the influence is stupid, dangerous, and unnecessary.

The issue with these lawsuits by the way is that a lot of conservative judges will agree with me, so I worry about making bad case law that will be hard to undo later. And wasting money that could go to other lawsuits.

 

[adit]

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?

 

[danb]

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?

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!