Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    kujhawk48's Avatar
    kujhawk48 Posts: 21, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    Oct 18, 2007, 09:32 PM
    3rd DUI consequences
    I was just wondering... I got my 3rd DUI in February of this year, and am actually on house arrest for it right now. Anyway, I got a letter back in April stating that my DL was suspended until April of '08. Well, in September when I was in jail (being released to go to KU) I got a different letter stating that because I am a habitual offender, that my DL would be suspended until September of 2010.

    I don't know if anyone else has gone through this, but I was just wondering if that is something I could fight? I have been clean of drugs and alcohol since Feb. 4th, and was actually planning to start the School of Social Welfare this next semester, but if I don't have a car of my own, that poses a huge problem. I already had to change my major from Nursing.

    I know I got myself into this mess, and I am being accountable for all I did, but I was just hoping to get some feedback on the situation. Thanks a lot!
    donf's Avatar
    donf Posts: 5,679, Reputation: 582
    Printers & Electronics Expert
     
    #2

    Oct 18, 2007, 10:27 PM
    To begin with, I want to thank you for not killing anyone while you were driving drunk!

    Under Virginia law your license is suspended immediately if you refuse to take a sobriety test or blood test. Also, in Kansas, there may be fixed penalties as you progress through the different DUI events. Here in Virginia, a third DUI is a felony.

    There is an immediate suspension of the license when you are arrested and brought before a magistrate. There is a mandatory jail sentence plus additional time if he judge warrants it. Once you are convicted, the standard penalties are imposed. There is nothing you can do to avoid anything. After a fixed amount of time you can apply for a hardship license which will require your purchasing a alcohol testing device that is installed into your car. You have to blow into the device before starting the car. If there is alcohol on your breath, the car does not start.

    In so me instances, apartment complexes will not rent apartments to 2nd and 3rd. Time convicted offenders.

    Get a very good attorney and see what he/she can work out for you. Do not expect any lieniency from the judge. Nowadays Drunk drivers are being handed out max fines, jail time and probation and parole sentences. No sitting judge wants a reputation that singles him/her out for letting a drunk go free to get drunk again and then kill people the next time they drink and drive.

    Once again, I thank you for not killing anyone and urge you to get into AA and work their program. Not to meet the requirements to get past your sentence but to keep you from getting in this situation again.
    kujhawk48's Avatar
    kujhawk48 Posts: 21, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #3

    Oct 19, 2007, 06:47 PM
    Thanks for your input, I guess.

    I have been in the AA program since February, and went to an IOT program and am currently in an aftercare program. Not all my DUI's were for alcohol, though.

    I also know all about the Ignition Interlock Device, and actually, you have to have a BAC level under a certain amount for it to start, not necessarily a 0.0 BAC. As for stiff penalties, I am serving out the last of my sentence on house arrest. I was lucky to get a very minimal jail sentence and school release while I was there because of all the hard work I did. The judge recognized that.

    What I was wanting was a response from someone who has been in my shoes or has had someone close to them in my shoes, and how their situation turned out. I do have an amazing lawyer who is working on the case at hand. Before I am able to meet with her I was just hoping for some information that would help me out here.

    Thanks.
    donf's Avatar
    donf Posts: 5,679, Reputation: 582
    Printers & Electronics Expert
     
    #4

    Oct 19, 2007, 08:23 PM
    KU,

    Please your last paragraph. I gave you exactly what you wanted. My son was the offender, that's about as close as it gets.

    Like you he was forced to go to a supervised counseling program, but not by the judge. He was forced to do this by Probation and Parole. The judge told him he had ti satisfy P&P.

    He was also mandated to participate in AA groups, buy one of the machines, which he cannot do because he does not own a vehicle.

    From the court he received a 30 jail sentence, a fine and his license was pulled.
    shinyallard's Avatar
    shinyallard Posts: 1, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #5

    Oct 7, 2008, 12:13 PM
    Whay are all these laws meant for? DUI specifies what?
    ==========================================
    shinyallard
    DUI
    donf's Avatar
    donf Posts: 5,679, Reputation: 582
    Printers & Electronics Expert
     
    #6

    Oct 7, 2008, 02:08 PM

    DUI (Driving under the influenced) was originally Drunk Driving.

    But as the number of things that you could use to diminish your driving skills grew, the name was modified to the DUI.

    This means that you can be charged and arrested for more than just alcohol.
    vegas3257's Avatar
    vegas3257 Posts: 1, Reputation: 2
    New Member
     
    #7

    Jan 19, 2009, 04:49 AM
    I live in ca. I got my 2nd dui in feb and my 3rd in June... I served 80 days in jail for my 3rd. My license is gone I believe until I complete the 18 month DUI program which costs $1600. Which ill get a restricted license for work only... and I would have to have the interlock for 2 years.

    Also a habitual offender and for that it's a year suspended license. Also sr22 filing... and the 4th is prison time. No questions asked... if on the 3rd you committed bodily injury it would have been prison time.
    bowhuntingmike1's Avatar
    bowhuntingmike1 Posts: 5, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #8

    Nov 5, 2009, 04:38 PM

    DUI CONVICTIONS vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:


    Is the second amendment inalienable "Right” really a “Right” when the government Eternally Debars the “Right to keep and bear arms” based on one's drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions? (Felony) A Victimless Crime & Void of any injured party.

    QUESTION: What prevents the federal government from debarring the “second amendment right” or any other right based on acquiring 10 or more points on a driving record as they have for acquiring 3 drinking while driving convictions? (Michigan Endorsed)
    How can lawmakers remove an inalienable protected “Right” such as the Second Amendment right rather than another protected right, such as free speech, choice of religion, speedy trial or even the right to counsel? (What does inalienable protected right really mean?)
    Driving under the influence of alcohol has absolutely NO relationship with the second amendment protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms or to be secure in their homes, or ones choice of religion, regardless the number of DUI convictions.

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

    The government contends that a person's driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a serious risk factor to society and should therefore have their “Right” to keep and bear arms Eternally Debarred void of any chance of future restoration.

    Shouldn't the government first eternally debar (Remove) the drivers “Privilege” (A Non Protected Right) of operating a motor vehicle first before they even think of debarring (Removing) the drivers guaranteed & protected inalienable second amendment “Right” to posses a firearm void of reinstatement? (Think about this) Which removal would tend to actually save lives?

    The government currently reinstates the drivers “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle void of question, yet eternally & forever debars the drivers “Right” to ever own or possess a firearm for the Same drinking & driving offense of 3 dui convictions. (HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE AND WHERE IS THE SOUND REASONING?)

    Drunk drivers kill thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers protected “Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life, ever! Yet the laws allow for reinstatement of the driving “Privilege” (which is not even a “Right”) and do not have the protections of a “Right” (Is the governments concern with saving lives or removing gun rights?)

    In Fact, Debarring the “Privilege” to ever operate a motor vehicle WOULD SAVE countless lives and WOULD NOT infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected God given inalienable “Right” of any free man! Eternally debarring the right to possess a firearm has not saved a single life and utterly tramples upon our inalienable God given & Constitutionally protected rights of all free men!

    THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT: (RIGHT vs. PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION)

    The “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle is a mere “Privilege,” “and is NOT A RIGHT”: For 3 drinking & driving convictions the” Privilege” of driving has a time frame provision for absolute & full reinstatement & restoration of the driving privilege.

    The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A Right” and “is NOT simply a mere Privilege”:
    For 3 drinking & driving convictions, this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is eternally and forever debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement. (SHOULDN'T THIS BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE?)

    Regardless of one's personal & moral stand on drinking and driving, there should be a positive reinstatement provision for the guaranteed inalienable protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms as there is positive provision for reinstatement of a mere “Privilege of operating a motor vehicle for the same drinking & driving offense of 3 drinking & driving convictions. (Do you agree?)

    This usurpation of the people's second amendment right should unequivocally be re-evaluated with this clear & sound reasoning of facts. If this were not so, why wouldn't the government eternally debar the privilege to the driver from ever operating a motor vehicle which would save countless lives instead of going after the removal of the second amendment right which has never saved even a single life?

    Shouldn't Constitutionally Protected Rights take front seat to a privilege?
    PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE & LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #9

    Nov 5, 2009, 06:31 PM

    Hello bow:

    It's not really about DUI's. It's about the FELONY that multiple DUI's are.

    Plus, drinking and driving IS a violent crime. Some guy got drunk and used his CAR as a WEAPON against whomever he happened to come across... Should that guy own a gun?? I don't think so...

    So, NO. I ain't going to be writing to anybody.

    excon
    bowhuntingmike1's Avatar
    bowhuntingmike1 Posts: 5, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #10

    Nov 5, 2009, 08:50 PM

    Excon says drinking & driving is a violent crime, if that is so, then so are thoughts within a persons mind. However, we cannot create a felony on something that could have happened. We can only create felonies on what did happen. If there was no injured party then there was no crime. This was always known as common law. Void of an injured party there can be no crime. The state is an entity and cannot be put on the witness stand and confronted. If some guy used his vehicle as a weapon while drinking or not is a violent crime because he injured someone, period. Drinking & Driving has absolutely nothing to do with owning a firearm. Unless of course excon is a foreigner and anti-american in disguise. No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms - Thomas Jefferson (The American Constitutional Father)
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #11

    Nov 5, 2009, 08:58 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by bowhuntingmike1 View Post
    Excon says drinking & driving is a violent crime, if that is so, then so are thoughts within a persons mind. We can only create felonies on what did happen. If there was no injured party then there was no crime. However, we cannot create a felony on something that could have happened.
    Hello again, bow:

    No, dude! You're flat out WRONG.. Something DID happen. You had a WEAPON. You AIMED it. The fact that you didn't HIT anybody doesn't lessen your crime one iota.

    Get a life.

    excon
    bowhuntingmike1's Avatar
    bowhuntingmike1 Posts: 5, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #12

    Jan 21, 2010, 02:20 PM

    DUI THIRD vs. 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHT:

    VICTIMLESS CRIME & VOID OF INJURED PARTY
    Current law Eternally Removes the “Right to keep and bear arms” based on a drinking and driving record of 3 DUI convictions when the Crime is victimless & Void of any injured party. (Cannot be restored)

    INDIVIDUAL STATE LAWS
    The states impose the felony laws for DUI 3rd, 4th, or even 5th offenses (Depending on state) however, it is the Federal Law of Title 18 922 that eternally cements and debars the individuals right to possess a firearm regardless if the firearm is for hunting, self-defense or for personal protection. (The federal government has enslaved the people for non-violent offenses)

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

    THE TRUTH
    Regardless the number of DUI convictions, driving under the influence of alcohol has absolutely NO relationship with the second amendment protected “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms if there is no injured party.

    The states “Including Michigan” contend that a person’s driving record of 3 DUI convictions poses a serious risk to society and should establish a “Felony” on there record that by federal nexus of Title 18 922 inherently & eternally removes the citizens “Right” to keep and bear arms for as long as that person shall live upon the face of this earth.

    Shouldn’t the states and the federal government first eternally remove the drivers “Privilege” (A Non Protected Right) of operating a motor vehicle before eternally removing a “Protected Right” of the people to posses a firearm?
    (Which removal would tend to actually save lives?)

    Currently the states reinstate the citizens “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle yet federal Title 18 922 (Felony Laws) eternally & forever block the citizens “RIGHT” from ever possessing a firearm for THE Same DRINKING & DRIVING OFFENSE of DUI 3rd CONVICTIONS: DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?


    Drunk drivers “KILL” thousands of motorists each year: Debarring the drunk drivers second amendment” Right” to keep and bear arms has not saved even one motorist or life, ever!

    In Fact, Debarring the persons “Privilege” to ever operate a motor vehicle WOULD SAVE countless lives and WOULD NOT infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected God given inalienable “Right” of the people to bear arms!

    THE ROOT AND PROBLEM vs. PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT:

    The state “Privilege” of operating a motor vehicle is a mere “Privilege,” “and is NOT A RIGHT”: For DUI 3rd convictions the” Privilege” of driving has a time frame provision by the state for “Absolute & Full Reinstatement” to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

    The “Right” to Keep and Bear Arms, “IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” and “is NOT just simply a mere Privilege”:
    For DUI 3rd convictions this “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms is eternally and forever debarred void of time frame provision for reinstatement based on the federal law of Title 18 922. (THE STATES NEED TO ALLOW TIME FRAME REINSTATEMENT FOR DUI 3RD OFFENSES BY REMOVING THE FELONY)

    Regardless of one’s personal & moral stand on drinking and driving, there should be a positive reinstatement provision for constitutional “Rights” of the people to keep and bear arms THE SAME as there is a TIME FRAME provision for reinstatement of a mere “Privilege for the Same drinking & driving offense of DUI 3rd convictions especially when there is no injured party.

    THE OPERATORS STATE “PRIVILEGE” TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICHLE IS TIME FRAME REISTATED: THE DRIVERS RIGHT TO Possess A FIREARM SHOULD ALSO HAVE THIS Same TIME FRAME FOR REINSTATMENT OF THEIR RIGHT, BASED ON THE Same OFFENSE.

    PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FOR TIME FRAME REINSTATEMENT
    bowhuntingmike1's Avatar
    bowhuntingmike1 Posts: 5, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #13

    Jan 25, 2010, 11:50 AM
    We are aware that federal law (Title 18 922) prevents state DUI 3rd time offenders from owning any firearm even for safety purpose within there homes.

    However, the states need to enact a “Time Frame Law Provision” for reinstatement that would remove the state felony of DUI 3rd, thereby reinstating their state "2nd amendment right" the same as the state currently reinstates the “privilege” to operate a motor vehicle after DUI 3rd for the VERY Same OFFENSE!

    The states adopted the DUI 3rd as a felony and the state can also remove the felony by adding a time frame provision for reinstatement.

    It makes no logical sense to reinstate the drivers “privilege” to operate a vehicle on public roads yet deny their 2nd amendment right for the Same offense void of a time frame provision for reinstatement.

    DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU? (THIS IS WHY WE NEED YOU)
    Unrepentant Guy's Avatar
    Unrepentant Guy Posts: 5, Reputation: -2
    New Member
     
    #14

    Jan 27, 2010, 10:05 PM

    Let me just say that if you drive drunk and hit someone, that's a bad thing. However, if you drive home from a bar and get pulled over in your driveway with a .08 or under (as has happened to me... twice) and get a dui, that's just overcriminalized horsecrap. And just because you fall under the legal statute which is more or less arbitrarily imposed by a M.A.D. driven hissy fit, it doesn't mean you are a criminal, or that you have any criminal intent. These days, walking to your mailbox incorrectly is a felony.
    JudyKayTee's Avatar
    JudyKayTee Posts: 46,503, Reputation: 4600
    Uber Member
     
    #15

    Jan 29, 2010, 02:16 PM

    This is a blog, not a question. Time to close - ? Or move?

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

3rd dui? [ 34 Answers ]

so I just got out of jail on a BAIL for my 3rd DUI in less then 1 1/2 year! I'm only 20 years old and I haven't even gone to court and got my charges for my 2nd DUI yet? And I just got my 3rd DUI. I have court in 2 weeks from today and I'm scard! People are saying that I could end up spending time...

What are the consequences of this? [ 4 Answers ]

I have written credit card cheques that were in my husband's name to myself, forging his signature, and have deposited them into my personal account for spending purposes. I have used three different cheques in three different occasions. The cheques have cleared and the money well spent. What...

What is the consequences of foreclosure [ 10 Answers ]

Hi, I have a property that is appraised for $540,000. I have a bank loan of $350,000. Since I took a interest only loan, it's going to expire in Sept 07. I need to pay off the loan. I have an unofficial partner who has screwed me over and the loan is only in my name. What happens to me if I...

License after 3rd dui [ 1 Answers ]

Can I get my license back after a 3rd dui. It's been 10 years.If not can I get a restricted lic For work.

Does anyone know the consequences if... [ 19 Answers ]

My husband left me a few months ago and we are now in the midst of a divorce. It was his choice because he has a girlfriend. I have a way of proving in court that my husband smoked marijuana when we were married. Does anyone know what could happen to him if I can prove this in court? Thanks!


View more questions Search