Posted on 01/23/2020 9:58:38 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
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.
In the case of Raymond Holloway Jr. of Montgomery County, that came in the form of a DUI.
Holloway tried in 2016 to buy a firearm and was told a 2005 DUI conviction meant he was barred from doing so, according to the court opinion penned by Judge Patty Shwartz. Holloway filed a lawsuit the following year, suing the U.S. attorney general, the FBI and other officials, claiming a violation of his Second Amendment rights.
Shwartz noted a prior Supreme Court ruling that described drunken drivers — specifically with a blood-alcohol content much higher than the legal limit and those who chronically drive under the influence — as “the most dangerous offenders.”
“Thus,” she wrote, “all branches of the federal government agree that DUIs are dangerous, and those who present a danger may be disarmed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at triblive.com ...
If we are talking about multiple offenders with very high (as opposed to .15 or less) BAC, this seems reasonable. They are not responsible enough to be a legal gun owner. Frankly, they should spend the rest of their life in prison in my book.
For me, this is the money quote:
Shwartz noted a prior Supreme Court ruling that described drunken drivers — specifically with a blood-alcohol content much higher than the legal limit and those who chronically drive under the influence — as “the most dangerous offenders.”
Can he still own a car?
Technically the article is wrong. Federal Law prohibits felons from possessing firearms, and a felony is defined as any crime for which a person could be imprisoned for more than one year. It doesn’t matter what the crime was, only the possible sentence. To make matters worse, the US Government also considers any conviction in any foreign country for which the sentence could be longer than one year the same as a felony conviction in the US.
The only thing a repeat offender for DUI should lose is their license to drive.
Ted Kennedy anyone? Want it?
For pete's sake!!!! It was ONE DUI 11 years prior. Probably when he was a stupid, young adult. This is getting ridiculous, and I'm not even a gun owner.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
When will this start being taken care of?
Good thing Hillary has drivers and armed guards. She would be $hit outa luck on her own then.
First it was a “charge” of abuse from a domestic violence incident, then Red Flag, then DUI.....ALL BS.
Nothing precedent about decision. Has always been the law in PA. my brother, who is 70 YO, had a DUI in 1972. Hasn’t drank since 1978 when he became a Christian. Served in ministry for years. Has tried everything from hiring attorneys to meeting with his elected representatives and still cannot purchase a firearm in PA. I assumed it was the case everywhere.
This is called probing the enemy. The state has mapped out all the soft spots to take our flanks. Tirelessly probing away.
Today it’s DUI. After that, they add a lesser crime. Before long, a parking ticket is enough to keep you from buying a gun.
But hardened convicted criminals will be allowed to keep their illegal guns.
unconstitutional
This would probably be only in the extreme cases where you have a multiple-time offender or someone who kills someone when they are driving drunk. Not excusing this, just saying that every DUI will not result in this penalty.
My mother used to have a neighbor who would leave his dog chained outside all winter in horrible, freezing weather. And yeah, something should have been done about it. But the punishment needs to fit the crime.
After the high-profile killing of a police dog a few years ago PA stiffened penalties for killing a police dog. It is now quite possible that you could spend more time in prison for killing a dog than for killing a human being.
>> But hardened convicted criminals will be allowed to keep their illegal guns.
And vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.