Purchasing a firearm while on probation

[terraformer]

Perhaps everyone that has ever been under the influence of alcohol should lose their license to drive because they can kill, even though they didn't.

I'm good with that.

So you would remove the rights of people who engaged in a legal activity, just because there is a relatively small possibility they would then engage in illegal activity?

 

[depicts]

Pomeraniac, welcome to the forum. Glad to see you enjoy your first dozen post.

As I don't expect you to be around long, I'll consider your point of view while I consider if you're a full troll. Maybe you're just a gun owner who doesn't drink so they have no tolerance for anyone else who does.

You're so hard core anti-drinking, it makes me wonder what in your past makes you feel so strong about this; that you'd take a person's right to protect themselves away from them.

 

[terraformer]

while I consider if you're a full troll

With a name composited from Pomeranian and Maniac, I didn't give it a second thought. However, after your post I decided to challenge the assumptions. I found an old post where pomeraniac makes it seem as though they do drink on occasion among other posts to suggest he/she is not a troll. I guess pomeraniac should head to the nearest re-education camp in order to turn in their FID/LTC and drivers license.

 

[cricco]

No, it does not suck.

I personally don't want to see guns in the hands of anyone who lacks the good sense to avoid drinking and driving.

With all the information available on the internet about gun laws there's just no excuse at all for anyone screwing up and having their license status changed.

If someone is that thoughtless and has judgment that is that bad, then I say take away the LTC. Those people give all the rest of us law-abiding gun owners a bad name.

On that same note, let's also remove them from office when they get drunk enough to submerge a vehicle at Chappaquiddick, killing an intern and then attempting to conceal the crime. Or should we just call them one of the greatest politicians of all time, and allow them to carry on in life as if nothing ever happened?

 

[cricco]

Words on a message board can't kill, but automobiles and guns in the hands of irresponsible, drunken, criminal crybabies can.

See above post.

 

[Pomeraniac]

With a name composited from Pomeranian and Maniac, I didn't give it a second thought. However, after your post I decided to challenge the assumptions. I found an old post where pomeraniac makes it seem as though they do drink on occasion among other posts to suggest he/she is not a troll. I guess pomeraniac should head to the nearest re-education camp in order to turn in their FID/LTC and drivers license.

Did you guys not read the Code of Conduct that Derkek posted?

I really don't appreciate the personal attacks on me just because my opinion is different from yours.

 

[06LemansC6]

Did you guys not read the Code of Conduct that Derkek posted?

I really don't appreciate the personal attacks on me just because my opinion is different from yours.

Where are the personal attacks? I see plenty of attacks on your point of view, but fail to see any on you personally.

I agree with the others, that a right should not be taken away due to a poor decision that didn't even involve a firearm.

 

[M1911]

Did you guys not read the Code of Conduct that Derkek posted?

I really don't appreciate the personal attacks on me just because my opinion is different from yours.

I think we should let the moderators moderate and not try to assume their authority. If you think that someone's post is over the line, then you can report that post by hitting the ! icon in the lower left corner of the post.

 

[terraformer]

Did you guys not read the Code of Conduct that Derkek posted?

I really don't appreciate the personal attacks on me just because my opinion is different from yours.

This was far from a personal attack. I am sorry you felt it was anything of the sort. I was defending you on that end. If I was to attack you, I would have called you a troll but I actually refrained when I thought you were a fly-by-night troll. It was not until I looked into it and found you to be a regular, although infrequent poster that I said anything, and again that was to defend you as not a troll. Although your screen name is unique for a place with, shall we say, a high level of testosterone floating around, I was not in any way making fun of you or what I can only assume is a great fondness for pomeranians. Our resident curmudgeon here is very fond of cats (NB EC: I am not trying to turn this into another cat thread but I do abdicate any sense of responsibility if it does...) and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he would lay his life on the line for his cats. Others here are equally fond of animals of all sorts (yelena) and never have I had anything cross to say about it. All of this is to say, you have lots of company here and should feel welcome.
If you read what I did say, it was to point out that you answered in the affirmative that all individuals who have imbibed should lose their right (privilege if you recognize such thing) to drive. Since you had a post back there in the past mentioning you didn't drink often enough to justify hanging out at a particular club where members drank, I can only assume you have imbibed in the past. Therefore, my crack about the re-education camp and turning in your DL (and LTC since I have to imagine that is the next logical step in that type of policy). I hope this clears things up and am truly sorry for the miscommunication.

 

[GSG]

On that same note, let's also remove them from office when they get drunk enough to submerge a vehicle at Chappaquiddick, killing an intern and then attempting to conceal the crime. Or should we just call them one of the greatest politicians of all time, and allow them to carry on in life as if nothing ever happened?

And constantly re-elect him.

 

[steveyc272]

Just a follow up ...I talked to my lawyer and he said I was within the law if I wanted to own a firearm. So I went to purchase a firearm and did do so. For now, I still have my unrestricted Class A. I am hopeful in four years when my renewal comes up the police chief will still see me as a suitable person who made the biggest of my life one evening.

 

[pdm]

Good luck.

 

[FunYun]

I'm good with that.

What other legal activities do you think should result in a loss of a right?

By the way, a post like this on a EXTREMELY pro gun/rights forum is trolling, so I'd watch your head while riding that high horse.

 

[the_doctor]

I shall repeat the question. What other rights shall we take away from a person with a DUI?

Why would it be OK to give this person back his drivers license after a certain amount of punishment and withhold his right to keep and bear arms forever.

His crime was with a car, not a gun.

Perhaps everyone that has ever been under the influence of alcohol should lose their license to drive because they can kill, even though they didn't.

I shiver because people are able to drive every day without license and insurance.

Many times they stop a guy and arrest him. He goes back on the street within hours.

They do not even arrest the illegal immigrants.

Once you have been hit by several of these people you will start asking for the CLEO to deny driver's licenses on the basis of suitability. I also believe that you should not own a car if you do not have a license to possess a car. The possession license should be separate from a driving license. As a blind person could own a car and have a driver.

Anyways a person's possession license should be immediately pulled if they have been arrested on a DUI.

These people kill more people than anyone else. They also cause so many casualties that do not reach the newspapers.

Anyone that posts about a OUI on this forum was in big shit AFAIK. The police let so many go, so if they stopped you then you are one !@$!@#.

After being hit several times by crazy drivers I can not tolerate it.

Bill

 

[steveyc272]

Doctor, Are you kidding?

Anyone that has been arrested for a DUI should lose their firearms permit? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh, maybe you meant convicted of an DUI? But what about CWOF's? What about a dismissal with a breathalyzer refusal? It's a little more complicated, although in your view simply revoking one's license after someone has been arrested would make it much more simple, and completely unconstitutional, unlawful, and absurd.

I think you watch the liberal media too much. Just because someone is arrested does not mean they did anything wrong.

As far as DUI's, I completely agree that they are a major problem in this country. They are a horrible thing, and your right, many people drive impaired regularly, do not get caught, and think it is acceptable. These are SOME people, not all. There are also good people that made a really bad mistake one night and would absolutely never do it again. There are unique circumstances to every case.

I am not going to get into the specifics regarding my case with someone that is so ignorant. But obviously I must be a inhumane careless drunk who cannot be a responsible gun owner.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

at risk of being flamed, I agree with Pomeraniac, but I will clarify my stance:

Anyone with a CWOF or found guilty for DUI should not be allowed to have an LTC/FID. It is extremely easy to avoid driving while intoxicated and frankly, no one should even consider it an option. To do so shows an egocentric view and a lack of care about safety of others. I am not willing to say that a person who has a CWOF or conviction for DUI has the preparedness or maturity to handle a firearm. Yes yes, I know its a "right" but still. Rights come with responsibility IMHO.

I really dont care if anyone disagrees or wants to flame me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if someone disagrees with me, I respect their right to do so. I just will not agree nor care to hear it because they cannot influence my judgement.

To the OP, congratulations on your LTC being intact as it sounds like you took the CWOF for the wrong reasons. If you are in fact being truthful and saying you took the CWOF because it was given as the "Easy way out" as opposed to fighting and winning, then congrats certainly are due to you. But not to your original lawyer IMHO, he should have known better, even without regards to how it can hurt your "suitability" for an LTC/FID.



Respectfully,

bostonasphalt2

 

[Xak]

Congrats to the OP. Good luck renewing! Get legal help filling out your renewal app.

The second ammendment is a right. Driving is a privlige. Drunk drivers kill far more people than drunken legal gun owners do. Most legal gun owners wouldn't dream of carrying a concealed firearm while drinking. They stay in the safe where they belong. Most legal drivers have someone else drive or do not drive if they have been drinking.

When they do drink and drive and are caught they eventually are given their license to drive back and trusted not to drink and drive again, but may lose their LTC for good even if they had enough sense to leave the firearm at home prior to drinking. If a gun owner were caught carrying a firearm while intoxicated he/she would most likely lose their LTC forever, but still retain their drivers license.

Why should the privlige of driving be returned but the right to bear arms be stripped for good when drinking and driving is far more deadly?

Pomeraniac, and those who agree with him, if I choose to have a few drinks and watch the hockey game on TV why do you feel I should not be allowed to own a firearm? If I choose to have a few drinks and watch the hockey game on TV then by your logic shouldn't I also not be allowed to own a car? What about a large steak knife?

No personal attack here. I love a good debate.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Congrats to the OP. Good luck renewing! Get legal help filling out your renewal app.

The second ammendment is a right. Driving is a privlige. Drunk drivers kill far more people than drunken legal gun owners do. Most legal gun owners wouldn't dream of carrying a concealed firearm while drinking. They stay in the safe where they belong. Most legal drivers have someone else drive or do not drive if they have been drinking.

When they do drink and drive and are caught they eventually are given their license to drive back and trusted not to drink and drive again, but may lose their LTC for good even if they had enough sense to leave the firearm at home prior to drinking. If a gun owner were caught carrying a firearm while intoxicated he/she would most likely lose their LTC forever, but still retain their drivers license.

Why should the privlige of driving be returned but the right to bear arms be stripped for good when drinking and driving is far more deadly?

Pomeraniac, and those who agree with him, if I choose to have a few drinks and watch the hockey game on TV why do you feel I should not be allowed to own a firearm? If I choose to have a few drinks and watch the hockey game on TV then by your logic shouldn't I also not be allowed to own a car? What about a large steak knife?

No personal attack here. I love a good debate.

I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but the statement above that I bolded is not what we are saying. I am talking about drinking and then driving, NOT drinking a few beers watching a hockey game. I fail to see how you made that line above the next logical step in the discussion. I said (paraphrased) that people convicted of DUI or have a CWOF as a plea out of a DUI should not be allowed to own firearms. Its not the alcohol consumption I am talking about, it is the combination of drinking AND driving. You did not address that. You addressed everyday, normal consumption of alcohol. I dont care about that. I care about when someone does not have the capability to make the right decision and not start the car and drive home while intoxicated.

 

[KMaurer]

Anyone convicted of or pleading guilty or no contest to an DUI charge in Massachusetts is already permanently disqualified from owning, possessing or using any firearm of any type under federal law. The fact that MA will issue them an FID is meaningless, since the feds don't accept any partial restorations of rights.

CWOF are a whole different animal. A person getting one admitted that the prosecutors have sufficient facts that, if uncontested, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction; they never admitted that they were guilty nor that they couldn't mount a credible defense against the prosecution's case.

Ken

 

[FunYun]

Do I have the right to defend myself if I have consumed alcohol?

I care about when someone does not have the capability to make the right decision and not start the car and drive home while intoxicated.

Technically, the person does not have the ability to make the right decision while intoxicated, because they are intoxicated.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Anyone convicted of or pleading guilty or no contest to an DUI charge in Massachusetts is already permanently disqualified from owning, possessing or using any firearm of any type under federal law. The fact that MA will issue them an FID is meaningless, since the feds don't accept any partial restorations of rights.

CWOF are a whole different animal. A person getting one admitted that the prosecutors have sufficient facts that, if uncontested, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction; they never admitted that they were guilty nor that they couldn't mount a credible defense against the prosecution's case.

Ken

so, then why take the CWOF if they can build a credible defense? Saying they have no money for legal defense is no excuse, the defendant would get a court appointed.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

so, then why take the CWOF if they can build a credible defense?

Probably because CWOF is not a "guilty" or "no contest" finding, and is the best someone with a positive BAC test can hope for even with a pricey attorney. Passing on a CWOF and going for trial is probably going to be more expensive than that CWOF (even with the insurance charge) and brings with it the risk of a criminal record.

Of course, professional drunks know that refusal to take a BAC will result in an administrative loss of license, cannot be used against you at trial and the jury cannot even be told why there was no test done - in fact, the jury will generally be told they can draw no inference for or against the defendant because of the lack of the test, and must just the case on the available evidence only. A pricey attorney can get a jury thinking "gee, would I want to face trial on DUI without even being given the chance for a BAC to prove my innocence" and will stand a very decent chance of acquittal.

 

[GSG]

so, then why take the CWOF if they can build a credible defense? Saying they have no money for legal defense is no excuse, the defendant would get a court appointed.

I wouldn't want to trust my RKBA future to a public defender. No offense to any that post or lurk here, but...yeah, no way.

 

[M1911]

I wouldn't want to trust my RKBA future to a public defender. No offense to any that post or lurk here, but...yeah, no way.

And if you've got several thousand in your bank account, you won't have to. But many others don't have many resources.

 

[Xak]

I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but the statement above that I bolded is not what we are saying. I am talking about drinking and then driving, NOT drinking a few beers watching a hockey game. I fail to see how you made that line above the next logical step in the discussion. I said (paraphrased) that people convicted of DUI or have a CWOF as a plea out of a DUI should not be allowed to own firearms. Its not the alcohol consumption I am talking about, it is the combination of drinking AND driving. You did not address that. You addressed everyday, normal consumption of alcohol. I dont care about that. I care about when someone does not have the capability to make the right decision and not start the car and drive home while intoxicated.

I think I was misunderstood. Pomeraniac suggested people who consume alcohol, period, should not be allowed to own firearms and I was addressing that opinion. If you feel someone with a DUI deserves a life long LTC DQ I can respect that opinion, but I disagree with that as well. If they can get their drivers license back they should be able to get their rights restored at the same time. For a habitual offender, (3 strike deal maybe) life long DQ all the way.

 

[maee]

Failure to Report Hotel Fire

Hah, now that would be a funny reason to get denied an LTC. If I ever even think a hotel might be on fire, even if I am just walking past, I will be sure to call it in to the cops. I am sure my local PD will appreciate it. You can't be too careful with these may-issue licenses.

 

[Sprocket]

Once your probation is up and your case has been completed, go to the courthouse and get a stamped copy of your court papers - it should have lines describing the date the case was opened and most importantly the date your case was "DISMISSED" - this will be your key point from now on.

You still get to answer "Yes" to a bunch of swell questions on most forms you will fill out but you will have the ability to say "dismissed on soandso date" - this is the important thing.

You will have to fight at every turn to keep your rights - keep all your papers in a file and scan them in digitally so you can easily print as required.

Good luck