Felony Conviction 13 years ago for 3rd DWI - Will I Ever Get My Right To Carry Back?

[wanttheright]

imported post

ffemt1079 wrote:

SFCRetired wrote:

And I suppose that, when you were young, you never made any dumb decisions?  "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."..............But we should also recognize that most people mature past the stage of making those dumb decisions and not automatically condemn someone for past mistakes.  He did the crime and the time; let him move on with his life with his rights restored.

 

Well said SFC.

-Former SSG, USA

I agree. Well said.

 

[ffemt1079]

imported post

(computer froze and hit the button too many times, this was a double...)

 

[HankT]

imported post

want2carry wrote:

I've been letting most of this roll off my back because no one here knows the circumstances of my situation. All this happened to me in a very very short period of time and I had horrible advice from lawyers. Short story is I should have never had one much less 3 DWI's. Be honest with yourself and tell me you've never gone to dinner, had three drinks in less than an hour, and driven home from a restaurant to your home (one situation of mine). You were driving while intoxicated. Also realize that driving drunk and driving while intoxicated are two very different things. Intoxication is relative - but not to the government. Everyone is intoxicated to them at "this point" according to them regardless of size or tolerance.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not excusing what I did and I'm not saying its right but to be so vehemently attacked and judged shows such a lack of empathy or understanding as to make one wonder who is really the dangerous one with a gun. Those of you who are high and mighty have an obvious lack of compassion as to make others question "your" decision making process. To even think or believe that my "non violent" conviction deserves life long judgement and punishment is an indication as to how "you" would react with such an imposing weapon (a gun).

I was young... I was punished... and I am now an active and productive member of society. What I did is no longer even close to an issue in my life. I am educated, have a family, and a very good and professional career. The executives in my company are aware of my past record and choose to look at my life, and accomplishments, as a whole rather than come to a quick and hasty judgement because of a very short period in my life.

My post was asking for advice on regaining my rights. I realize I put myself out there for all to bludgeon if they choose to do so, but I respectfully ask those of you who want to bash me to please refrain. I also continue to thank those of you who offer answers to my questions and good advice.

Do you still drink alcohol?

 

[ffemt1079]

imported post

want2carry wrote:

Be honest with yourself and tell me you've never gone to dinner, had three drinks in less than an hour, and driven home from a restaurant to your home (one situation of mine). You were driving while intoxicated.

This is a very good point.

I work at a major trauma center. I see the results of drunk driving usually numerous times a night. I also deal with the repeat offenders, such as 5th, 6th , 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th offenses. There is a huge difference between those offenders and a kid that made a mistake years ago, paid his or her debt, and became a productive member of society. I do not condone driving DRUNK either, but as SFC quoted from the Good Book, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Want2carry-if you are a productive member of society, have learned from your mistakes, paid your debt and hopefully educate the younger knuckleheads of today, I support you. Good luck, God bless.

 

[Dreamer]

imported post

I line up woth ODA, Jeremy and Mini14 on this one.

I'm a big proponent for restoration of rights for non-violent felonies, but DUI is one thing I have ZERO sympathy for. I've know several people who were killed by repeat-offender drunk drivers, and my best friend from high school was horribly maimed and his mother killed by a multi-offender DUI.

Drunk Drivers are sociopaths. Through their own actions, of their own volition, they put other people' lives at risk, show utter disregard for the law and for human life, and they always believe that there is nothing wrong with their actions--UNTIL they get caught.

Personally, after the 3rd DUI conviction, I would throw away the proverbial key...

Own a gun? yeah right...

Dude, you have proven your complete disregard for the sanctity of human life, and an utter contempt for the Law of the Land.

You should be thankful you are still allowed to drive a car, and have Internet access...

In my opinion, you shouldn't be allowed to operate any tools more dangerous than bicycles and butter knives...

 

[Thundar]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

My local mom and pop gun store has several customers that are convicted felons. They simply buy and carry black powder guns. They are not considered firearms.

Be careful with that advice YMWV (Your Mileage WILL vary) according to the state.

 

[PavePusher]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Yes People are born with the concept of what is right and wrong

Got some proof of that? 'Cause I haven't seen it in 40 years and a lot of travel...

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Banning gun possesion is for people who are violent and can't act responsibly. I'd say 13 years without screwing up excludes a man from that group and earns a second chance. If DWI is really such a horrible crime that the man shouldn't own a gun, then why would you trust him to walk down the street? If you really think he's that irresponsible and reckless, do you think he would avoid getting a gun because of your stupid law?

Gun bans for people not locked up are just plain stupid and unenforcable. You would think regulars on this forum would know this, but they are caught up in a few decades' worth of MADD propaganda and Republicrat "tough on crime" BS and somehow think that banning guns for this man will somehow keep him from getting one.

Those who want a lifetime ban are just acting on emotion. Instead of dispassionately thinking about the problem of drunk driving, they've somehow turned this into a grudge against this man, and want to punish him by forcing him into a dilemma between arming himself illegally and going defensless.

The same way antis act on emotion to punish all of us for wanting to be free by placing us into the same dilemma.

Good laws punish bad behavior, not mere possession of inanimate objects.

 

[okboomer]

imported post

And isn't the stated purpose of incarceration to be rehabilitation?

Sounds to me as if rehabilitation has worked in this case. He did his time, now why should his rights not be reinstated? It looks like he has proven his ability to learn from his past mistake and has turned a positive leaf in his life.

3 DUI's are not difficult to achieve without actually being a danger to the public,it is the punishment for the offense that has been increased. Same with pot ... it used to be a misdemeanor, now it is a felony for having a roach in the ashtray.

I have also seen folks who are dead sober all the time, and yet they are a hazard behind the wheel. But they passed their driving test on a good day, continually renew their license before it expires thereby bypassing a new driving test which they would probably fail.

Personally, I am more concerned by the knee-jerk emotional reaction towards want2carry than his past actions. Yes, DUI is a serious offense, but condeming someone to a life of restrictions after they have paid the price for the offense is one of the insanities of our legal system. On the other hand, our system still cannot deal with the career criminal who should be locked up after their third violent felony.

want2carry, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.htmlIn some states, you do not need a lawyer to do this. Good luck

 

[HankT]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Banning gun possesion is for people who are violent and can't act responsibly. I'd say 13 years without screwing up excludes a man from that group and earns a second chance. If DWI is really such a horrible crime that the man shouldn't own a gun, then why would you trust him to walk down the street? If you really think he's that irresponsible and reckless, do you think he would avoid getting a gun because of your stupid law?

Is that where the line is? 13 years?

That's an odd number.

Would you put the line at 13 years or at some other number--like 12...or 10?

Where is the line for you, Thawk? And then, why is it at the number you pick? What would your rationale be?

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Hank, I don't think there should actually be an arbitrary number. I think once a person has done the time, done the probation, and/ordone the parole, it should be done and that person can have all of his rights back.

 

[HankT]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Hank, I don't think there should actually be an arbitrary number. I think once a person has done the time, done the probation, and/ordone the parole, it should be done and that person can have all of his rights back.

What about the permanent loss of gun rights that is (a known) part of getting a felony?

Is the permanent loss of gun rights done?

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

not all felonies are equal ,,,,
there are recognized routes to follow to restore your rights,,

in view of the time since his DUIs he has shown responsibility
i hope he can find the correct venue to persue his restoration
and i hope that the correct provisions of the process work to restore his rights..

 

[rodbender]

imported post

HankT wrote:

rodbender wrote:

Hank, I don't think there should actually be an arbitrary number. I think once a person has done the time, done the probation, and/ordone the parole, it should be done and that person can have all of his rights back.

What about the permanent loss of gun rights that is (a known) part of getting a felony?

Is the permanent loss of gun rights done?

Yes, as long at it was not a felony involving violence. Armed robbery, murder, 2-3assault charges (not all need to be felonies), and stalking.

 

[HankT]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

HankT wrote:

rodbender wrote:

Hank, I don't think there should actually be an arbitrary number. I think once a person has done the time, done the probation, and/ordone the parole, it should be done and that person can have all of his rights back.

What about the permanent loss of gun rights that is (a known) part of getting a felony?

Is the permanent loss of gun rights done?

Yes, as long at it was not a felony involving violence. Armed robbery, murder, 2-3assault charges (not all need to be felonies), and stalking.

So that's it? Are those the only felony violations that you would allow a permanent rights revocation for.

And what's stalking?

 

[zack991]

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

personally If you get a DUI, which pretty much means that you have very very poor decision making capabilities, you should not be in possession of a firearm either. I haven't given much thought to how long the time should be, but 3rd DUI?? yeah forever seems fitting.

Personally you should still be in jail if it was up to me.

And I suppose that, when you were young, you never made any dumb decisions? "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

No, I do not condone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I've had the sad duty of telling the parents of one of my young soldiers how he died. I've alsohad the duty of identifying the remains of another who died in an alcohol-related incident.

But we should also recognize that most people mature past the stage of making those dumb decisions and not automatically condemn someone for past mistakes. He did the crime and the time; let him move on with his life with his rights restored.



You may flame at will!! I've got asbestos underwear!!

There a big difference between a dumb decision and life risking decision.

A dumb decision is getting a girlfriend’s name tattoo on your arm.

A life risking decision is not doing the right thing by calling a taxi or calling for a ride when you damn well know you should have not been driving. Everyone knows the voice in the back of your mind telling you your ok to drive when you damn well know you are not.

He decided not only to risk his own life, but the lives of others around him. I could be a little sympathetic of his situation if it was done one time not three. He chose to roll the dice and got snake eyes, he may have served his time for the crime and thank God he did not kill anyone in the process. Personal the laws around DUI/DWI are not strict enough in with regards to the punishments.

I am sick and tired of dealing with drunken people who say I am ok to drive, yet can't seem to figure how to walk again when they try to get up and leave. In almost every case I rip the keys out of their hands and tell them to call a taxi or a friend to pick them up and pick up their keys the following afternoon.

Many have tried to call the police to get their keys back from us and in every case the police say we are in the right to refuse to return keys to anyone who is visibly impaired. They run a breath test on the person or persons and in only 2 cases out of the hundreds we stop did they get their keys back. Yet the police did not allow them to drive home.

We still had idiots who tried to drink and drive when I was active duty even though out Post Commander allowed us to call the MP's for rides home for one, the staff duty van to pick drunks. Our Unit even had a large part of their budget to pay the fees owed to the taxi company's when our drunken soldiers did not pay for the ride or could not afford the ride home. We had a policy that each section Sargent took turns being sober for the week end just in case a person from the company needed a ride home, and the unit allowed us to use their vans for weekend pick ups as well.

Even with all the options available people still did the wrong thing. He made his choice not once but three times, I have made my fair share choices as a young kid but none of them endangered the lives of others. Like my LT has said so many times before. YOUNG, DUMB AND FULL OF COME.


As for the asbestos underwear, talk about itchy nuts.:what:

 

[HankT]

imported post

HankT wrote:

want2carry wrote:

I've been letting most of this roll off my back because no one here knows the circumstances of my situation. All this happened to me in a very very short period of time and I had horrible advice from lawyers. Short story is I should have never had one much less 3 DWI's. Be honest with yourself and tell me you've never gone to dinner, had three drinks in less than an hour, and driven home from a restaurant to your home (one situation of mine). You were driving while intoxicated. Also realize that driving drunk and driving while intoxicated are two very different things. Intoxication is relative - but not to the government. Everyone is intoxicated to them at "this point" according to them regardless of size or tolerance.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not excusing what I did and I'm not saying its right but to be so vehemently attacked and judged shows such a lack of empathy or understanding as to make one wonder who is really the dangerous one with a gun. Those of you who are high and mighty have an obvious lack of compassion as to make others question "your" decision making process. To even think or believe that my "non violent" conviction deserves life long judgement and punishment is an indication as to how "you" would react with such an imposing weapon (a gun).

I was young... I was punished... and I am now an active and productive member of society. What I did is no longer even close to an issue in my life. I am educated, have a family, and a very good and professional career. The executives in my company are aware of my past record and choose to look at my life, and accomplishments, as a whole rather than come to a quick and hasty judgement because of a very short period in my life.

My post was asking for advice on regaining my rights. I realize I put myself out there for all to bludgeon if they choose to do so, but I respectfully ask those of you who want to bash me to please refrain. I also continue to thank those of you who offer answers to my questions and good advice.

Do you still drink alcohol?

Also, what did you blow on each of the 3 DUIs and how much time did you serve?

 

[eye95]

imported post

want2carry, you should contact an attorney. Many things that the law says are permanent are not-so-permanent when you petition the right people in the right way.

As to the loss of rights requiring due process: The due process was the trial on felony charges. As a consequence of conviction of felonies (or misdemeanors and violations, for that matter), consequences routinely include the abridgment of rights, sometimes permanently. We seem to worry less about the rights to liberty or property being taken away than we do about the rights to carry or to vote, but there is no substantive difference.

It is a matter of policy, to be decided in the legislature or at the ballot box in each State, as to what rights may be forfeit upon conviction. I personally like the idea that felony convictions carry with them the loss of the right to carry. Reinstating that right should require another legal proceeding, with the burden of proof and the cost both borne by the convicted felon. If the applicant can establish that he now has the judgment that he lacked earlier, it would be reasonable to restore his right to carry.

want2carry, you sound like you may have changed. I wish you the best of luck in finding a means to restore your rights.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Banning gun possesion is for people who are violent and can't act responsibly. I'd say 13 years without screwing up excludes a man from that group and earns a second chance. If DWI is really such a horrible crime that the man shouldn't own a gun, then why would you trust him to walk down the street? If you really think he's that irresponsible and reckless, do you think he would avoid getting a gun because of your stupid law?

Is that where the line is? 13 years?

That's an odd number.

Would you put the line at 13 years or at some other number--like 12...or 10?

Where is the line for you, Thawk? And then, why is it at the number you pick? What would your rationale be?

I guess you win again, Hank. My argument has no merit. I'm just dumb. I must have pulled the number thirteen out of nowhere. Or maybe it was in the thread title....can't remember....

 

[HankT]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

HankT wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Banning gun possesion is for people who are violent and can't act responsibly. I'd say 13 years without screwing up excludes a man from that group and earns a second chance. If DWI is really such a horrible crime that the man shouldn't own a gun, then why would you trust him to walk down the street? If you really think he's that irresponsible and reckless, do you think he would avoid getting a gun because of your stupid law?

Is that where the line is? 13 years?

That's an odd number.

Would you put the line at 13 years or at some other number--like 12...or 10?

Where is the line for you, Thawk? And then, why is it at the number you pick? What would your rationale be?

I guess you win again, Hank. My argument has no merit. I'm just dumb. I must have pulled the number thirteen out of nowhere. Or maybe it was in the thread title....can't remember....

So.... you're going to do each one of these cases on an ad hoc basis????