[Gunsmoker]

1 year ago I was convicted for a misdemeaner DUI. I'm on "probation" for the next 2 years. It's not like the type of probation where I get a probation officer. The "probation" just states that I cannot drive with any measurable alcohol in my body for the next 2 years.

Can I still get a gun?

[bwiese]

I don't believe simple DUI alone is a disqualifying misdemeanor, and probation for same (as misdemeanor) should not be an issue.

You can request, from DOJ Firearms Division, a "Firearms Eligibility Check". See their website at http://www.caag.state.ca.us/firearms and drill around for this.

[ohsmily]

The "M" DUI does not preclude you. Don't worry about it. Just don't drink and drive and you will be fine.

[rorschach]

You should be OK. Summary probation is a slap on the wrist. DROS away!!!

[hoffmang]

As long as your drivers license is back to normal (suspension over, etc.) you'll be just fine. An FFL has told me that that's the number one reason DROSes don't go through.

-Gene

[Gunsmoker]

I completed all of the necessary requirements (fines, classes, ect.) and I have my full reinstated license back. I have spent a lot of time this past 2 weeks researching different guns and I was looking forward to buying a .22 rifle and .45 1911. It would suck big time if I could not get a gun because of this DUI.

[metalhead357]

Yep. should be ok with a misdomeanor one. My buddy((and I use that term VERY loosely....moreover aquaintence)) was allowed to keep his guns. But stoopid fool went and did it again...felony. His loss, my gain-- he HAD to sell the firearms. EVERYBODY lowballed him. I said I'd give him between what others had offered and bluebook..... he took it.....

Just dont be a fool and go and do it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anthonysmanifesto]

you can find the list of prohibited misdemeanors in PC 12021(c) (1)

what code were you prosecuted for? was it the 23152(a) & or (b) of the VC?

I dont see it on the list.

but, you can alwys run a background check prior to the purchase, without self incriminating , thanks to a bill the NRA got passed a couple years back.

[Gunsmoker]

I got 2 counts: A and B.

[Gunsmoker]

Originally Posted by metalhead357

Yep. should be ok with a misdomeanor one. My buddy((and I use that term VERY loosely....moreover aquaintence)) was allowed to keep his guns. But stoopid fool went and did it again...felony. His loss, my gain-- he HAD to sell the firearms. EVERYBODY lowballed him. I said I'd give him between what others had offered and bluebook..... he took it.....

Just dont be a fool and go and do it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How far apart were his DUI's?

I met so many repeat offenders in my alcohol program. This one guy got his second DUI 2 weeks after his first. They suspend your license a month after your arrest, so he had his license legit. He had 2 different judges for his cases and didn't mention the other DUI to either judge. The judges eventually found out about the other DUI and slapped him with more penalties.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

If you are convicted of (b) , then I assume you are iinherently guilty of (a). Im not a lawyer, thats just how it reads.

anyways, I dont see that code as a prohibiting offense, for the above mentioned list of prohibting misdemeanors.

also check out this DOJ guide pgs 21-25. It also references the proper codes.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2006.pdf

[rorschach]

Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto

If you are convicted of (b) , then I assume you are iinherently guilty of (a). Im not a lawyer, thats just how it reads.

It is not a prohibiting offense, and yes you can be convicted of both sections. Like any other crimes, often during plea bargaining, one charge is dropped for a guilty plea on the other.

For those who dont know, 23152(a)CVC essentially says it is a crime to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol OR drugs. If you impaired at all, you can be charged with section A, no matter what your blood alcohol content is, or even if you have alcohol in your system. Any driving under influence of drugs cases are charged under section A (and C, which we wont get into).

23152(b)CVC essentially says that is is a crime to drive with a Blood Alcohol Content of .08% or greater.

If you have a BAC greater than .08% you are presumed to be impaired, and can be charged with section A as well.

Oftentimes DUI suspects are arrested with a BAC lower than the legal limit, and are not charged with section B, and are instead charged with section A, which relies more on an officers observations during the field sobriety tests to prove the suspect was in fact impaired.

People (especially women) of smaller stature are often charged with section A, and not B, because it takes less for them to be impaired, and though they may be within the .08% limit, they are definitely impaired. On the flip side, you may have a 280lb construction worker who has drank every day for 20 years, and may blow a .12 and may show ZERO sign of impairment. But he is over .08%, and therefore presumed to be impaired, and charged with both sections a and b.

Under age 21 it's .01% and commercial drivers it's .04%.

[bg]

For what it's worth I'm a living exp. I got nailed
back in 89 for DUI and have since bought weapons
without one "burp" on the NICS ck to keep me from
doing so.

[Skawrpion]

Just one thing "DON'T DRINK AND SHOOT", I lost a close friend to drunk driver and I have no sympathy for your kind. sorry.

[artherd]

You are absolutely correct with the idea of different intoxication points for different people. A friend in the CHP tells me that he has seen people who could knit a scarf while doing a crossword puzzle and play racketball at .10, while he has also seen people that could barely stand blow 0.03.

[metalhead357]

Originally Posted by artherd

You are absolutely correct with the idea of different intoxication points for different people. A friend in the CHP tells me that he has seen people who could knit a scarf while doing a crossword puzzle and play racketball at .10, while he has also seen people that could barely stand blow 0.03.

LOL! As too is the 'old knowlege" apparently of what the lethal limit is. I always had been taught in various health related classes that 99.99999% of the public would be dead at .50, yes 1/2 of 1%. But when working in a hospital I'll swaer on a stack of Bibles I saw regulars that exceeded that regularely. Highest I ever saw was a .754 Guy actually lived to! Had no legs, homeless, and was soooooooooo proud of the fact that he hadn't missed a day of drinking since he was 14 guy was in his 70's! But the other side, we had deaths wherin peeps slipped away with BAC as low as .2's......................

Watch yer' alcohol folks.............

[blkA4alb]

Originally Posted by metalhead357

LOL! As too is the 'old knowlege" apparently of what the lethal limit is. I always had been taught in various health related classes that 99.99999% of the public would be dead at .50, yes 1/2 of 1%. But when working in a hospital I'll swaer on a stack of Bibles I saw regulars that exceeded that regularely. Highest I ever saw was a .754 Guy actually lived to! Had no legs, homeless, and was soooooooooo proud of the fact that he hadn't missed a day of drinking since he was 14 guy was in his 70's! But the other side, we had deaths wherin peeps slipped away with BAC as low as .2's......................

Watch yer' alcohol folks.............

I knew this guy, he was a small guy only 5' 6". Who had to be rushed to the hospital with a BAC of .9. He was MESSED up, but hes fine now .

[rorschach]

That dude is lucky to be alive. Heres a story about a drunk Bulgarian who barely survived a .914.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...an-050104.html

[metalhead357]

And I bet if you asked any of them they'll all say they DONT have a drinking problem

But we're getting off topic. Sorry there.

ButIMO its a good reminder of just what you might be sacrificing if ya' like to drink............................

I aint saying dont drink, just be responsible about it.

I hope ol' Gunsmoker will report back that he does indeed still have the ability to own firearms...........

[bg]

I've learned a few things since the DUI. Not only did that DUI mess
up a lot of things since the conviction, but it helped me realize that
booze was controlling me, not the other way around.

Since that I haven't had but more than
maybe 5 drinks at home on special holidays since 89.
I've also found since I've dropped drinking almost
altogether, when I do have a drink I can feel my
face getting really red and BP rising..Forget that.

It's just too dangerous for me and others around me.
So it's all about 7-up or Squirt now days & not much
of that. Sorry to go off topic.

[Gunsmoker]

Just bumping this....

I was able to purchase a handgun and shotgun with a misdemeaner DUI.

[bwiese]

The next major battle in DUI cases will be the software design of the DUI meters. This code is nonpublic, trade secret, and yet you can be convicted of DUI if some unknown 'magic' happens between the alcohol sensor and the display unit. Buggy code, bad calibration, interference from other devices' radiation cand all play a part in bad readings.

[Richie Rich]

I am waiting for the day that a 1st time DUI conviction becomes a felony.
(not because I want it to be).

The day will come where there is no such thing as a misdemeanor or infraction, only felonies.

They will try everything in their power to get our guns......

[MikeK]

Isn't the real question *should* someone who has a DUI be able to own a gun? I mean, there is definately something lacking in judgement there.

And yes, this is coming from someone who's mother-in-law was killed by a drunk driver, and who personally had his suburban totalled by a drunk driver when hit head on.

Yeah yeah. I know. The constitution allows people convicted of misdemeanors to keep their firearms rights. So make it a felony. I have no problem with making something a felony when it kills more people than gun violence every year.

And guns get a bad rap.

[ohsmily]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Isn't the real question *should* someone who has a DUI be able to own a gun? I mean, there is definately something lacking in judgement there.

And yes, this is coming from someone who's mother-in-law was killed by a drunk driver, and who personally had his suburban totalled by a drunk driver when hit head on.

Yeah yeah. I know. The constitution allows people convicted of misdemeanors to keep their firearms rights. So make it a felony. I have no problem with making something a felony when it kills more people than gun violence every year.

And guns get a bad rap.

You are blinded by your bias. If everyone who was wronged by a criminal of a particular crime had their way, then everything would be a felony.

If someone had a relative who was killed by a driver who was speeding at 80 miles per hour when they lost control, would they be justified in seeking a felony for speeding? The more important question is would it be just to make speeding a felony because so many people die in speed related car crashes? What about parking in front of a fire hydrant? Should that be a felony because someone may die in a fire where the firefighters were delayed because of the blocked hydrant? Afterall, why should someone who speeds or parks in front of a fire hydrant, who clearly have a lack of judgment, be allowed to own guns? Make it a felony...right?

I am sorry to hear about your loss and the circumstances surrounding it, but perhaps you should take a more critical look at your thought/logic process and not allow your emotions to get in the way of reason.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by ohsmily

You are blinded by your bias. If everyone who was wronged by a criminal of a particular crime had their way, then everything would be a felony.

If someone had a relative who was killed by a reckless driver who was speeding at 85 miles per hour when they lost control, would I be justified in believing that it should be a felony to speed? The more important question is would it be just to make speeding a felony because so many people die in speed related car crashes? What about DUIs? Afterall, why should someone who speeds, who clearly has a lack of judgment, be allowed to own guns?

I am sorry to hear about your loss and the circumstances surrounding it, but perhaps you should take a more critical look at your thought/logic process and not allow your emotions to get in the way of reason.

Thanks. And I agree wholeheartedly. I *am* biased.

But look at the cold hard numbers.

How many people are killed by people driving while intoxicated vs. killed by guns accidentally or on purpose?

How many times do people get hit with dui's before they actually quit driving while intoxicated.

I get and appreciate your point. So at what point should it be a felony?

The second, third or fourth time they put people at risk by committing DUI?

[ohsmily]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Thanks. And I agree wholeheartedly. I *am* biased.

But look at the cold hard numbers.

How many people are killed by people driving while intoxicated vs. killed by guns accidentally or on purpose?

How many times do people get hit with dui's before they actually quit driving while intoxicated.

I get and appreciate your point. So at what point should it be a felony?

The second, third or fourth time they put people at risk by committing DUI?

Again, the analogy of speeding is illustrative here. Should a third, fourth, or fifth citation for speeding garner a felony (or even a misdemeanor?)

Certainly, if you kill, injure, or damage property as a result of drinking or speeding, a heightened penalty should apply (and DOES). But, generally, our justice system does not punish those for crimes they have not yet committed; though, I agree, penalties are designed to deter risky behavior in many circumstances.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by ohsmily

Again, the analogy of speeding is illustrative here. Should a third, fourth, or fifth citation for speeding garner a felony (or even a misdemeanor?)

Certainly, if you kill, injure, or damage property as a result of drinking or speeding, a heightened penalty should apply (and DOES). But, generally, our justice system does not punish those for crimes they have not yet committed; though, I agree, penalties are designed to deter risky behavior in many circumstances.

Let's say the person is traveling 15 mph over the posted speed limit. That makes it reckless driving. So yes, speeding is speeding to a point, then it becomes something more. 85 in a 70 is reckless, or 40 in a 25. It's relative.

I just think that people who DUI should have harsher penalties, and I question their overall judgement, felonious or not.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Thanks. And I agree wholeheartedly. I *am* biased.

But look at the cold hard numbers.

How many people are killed by people driving while intoxicated vs. killed by guns accidentally or on purpose?

How many times do people get hit with dui's before they actually quit driving while intoxicated.

I get and appreciate your point. So at what point should it be a felony?

The second, third or fourth time they put people at risk by committing DUI?

My mother in law has four DUI's in her life. Once when she was in her early 20's, TWO of them were on the SAME week four years ago. The fourth was within the same year as the previous two (if I made any sense). Now, I wouldn't want her owning a gun. She's simply not responsible. But someone who has one DUI banned from owning a gun? I know a gunshop owner that had a DUI years ago He's not a bad guy. I don't think instant felony DUI is the right answer.