DOJ - Prohibited Persons

[Condorguns]

Once again, try wrapping your head around this for a minute, a defendant attending AA is not at issue. A defendant being expressly ordered by the court to receive alcohol cessation treatment is at issue regarding the DOJ's presumption of alcohol addiction.

Chuck time to let this one go. DOJ will not place you on prohibited list if you are attending AA/NA..or any other */A meetings voluntary or court ordered. You may not agree with the way the law is implemented but this is the system as of today.

OP will either go through the appeal process and have the miss identification issue cleared up or he has another issue in his past that he has not shared. The fact that he was ordered to AA will not keep him from owning a firearm.

[Condorguns]

Yeah you would certainly have remembered if you were a fugitive from justice.

I am shocked weekly in my shop with people who don't know if they are a felon or not. They will know they were arrested and went to jail/court but have no clue of they were finally charged with a misdemeanor a felony. They honestly have no idea.

I know if it was me I would have taken the time to pay attention enough in court to see what I have to live with for the rest of my life.

It's beyond my ability to understand.

[wireless]

NIDA lists alcohol as a drug, which it is.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/alcohol

I never said alcohol wasn't a drug. 11e on the 4473 is referring to the legal definition of a depressant. They are not referring to the effect of a legal substance that's not part of the controlled substance code. You will see the ATF also use the word "stimulant" when applying for a 03 FFL. The word stimulant is not asking you if you are addicted to coffee, it's referring to the legal definition of what is a stimulant.

Absolute FUD, The NTSI isn't a governmental organization and has ZERO jurisdiction regarding the sentence to DUI offenders. They are as much a part of the judicial branch as Federal Express is part of the federal government. It doesn't matter what a lobbying/educational organization would like to see as rehabilitative or punitive measure. Judges are not bound by the NTSI's wishes. The NTSI is simply a clever name for a for-profit business to make money off the criminal justice system, just like a for-profit private prison.


Spending money on "fancy lawyers" is always a good idea on anything from a traffic ticket to murder. If you have to put on a tie and stand in front of a judge you should have a lawyer. Lest you end up erroneously thinking you are required to take private, for profit traffic schools and drinking cessation courses.

It's actually not FUD. I am showing you what the standard protocol is in MANY parts of California. Here is what you had to say:

You should really stop spreading false information. Mandatory attendance to a drinking cessation program is not typical of first time DUI offenses.

Obviously there is some discretion. I did not say the NTSI is a government agency or has any control over the government. I was simply showing a second, very legitimate source stating that AA is standard "punishment" for many jurisdictions. Nowhere in CA penal code does it say AA is required, three circuits have already held that is unconstitutional. Nowhere did I state that there is a legal requirement for everyone to attend AA meetings in CA penal code.

Not once did I insinuate that it was a good idea to represent yourself on a DUI case. If you want to pay extra money, on top of the ~$8000 for a DUI, to get out of 6 AA meetings, then by all means GO FOR IT.

Once again, try wrapping your head around this for a minute, a defendant attending AA is not at issue. A defendant being expressly ordered by the court to receive alcohol cessation treatment is at issue regarding the DOJ's presumption of alcohol addiction.

If you can't mentally grasp the difference between the two situation you have clearly swam past the depth of your intellect.

Where did I disagree with that statement? I simply stated that AA attendance itself is not going to make you a prohibited person. I said nothing about court ordered alcohol treatment (a licensed facility) not being a prohibiting factor.

AA is not a treatment program. There is NO medical supervision of any kind. You are not required to be an alcoholic to attend these meetings and many of them listed online are "open meetings"- non alcoholics are welcome to attend.

Other than you being completely wrong about first time DUI offenders being sentenced to AA in some jurisdictions, you're attempting to prove me wrong on things I never said.

[wweigle]

OP. Sure hope you get it figured out. Unfortunately, The spirit of the DUI laws are irrelevant in today's world. DUIs have become big business, and consequently have become zero tolerance. This is one of the most condescending threads I have seen on Calguns in a while. I'm surprised one of the offer no constructive input, holier-than-thou posters did not suggest you needed a good spanking. Lots of jerks on this forum.

[bsg]

Chuck time to let this one go. DOJ will not place you on prohibited list if you are attending AA/NA..or any other */A meetings voluntary or court ordered. You may not agree with the way the law is implemented but this is the system as of today.

OP will either go through the appeal process and have the miss identification issue cleared up or he has another issue in his past that he has not shared. The fact that he was ordered to AA will not keep him from owning a firearm.

^^^ this.