Shooting While Intoxicated (SWI) - A Proposal

[MineralMan]

There are lots of news stories about disastrous things that happen when alcohol and firearms mix. Someone posts one of these daily, it seems. So, is there something we can learn about this? I think so. It is very obviously irresponsible to drink alcohol and use firearms while intoxicated. Only an irresponsible moron would do such a thing. I think we can all agree on that.

So, keeping firearms out of the hands of intoxicated morons seems like a logical step in preventing this particular class of incident. But how to do that? I think I have an answer. If you think about it, there's one other irresponsible thing morons who are intoxicated do: drive motor vehicles. They get caught doing that because their impaired driving is noticeable. So, how about this:

You get a DUI and are convicted, you lose your right to possess firearms. You've proven that you are irresponsible by driving a vehicle while intoxicated, thus proving that you have very poor judgment and are unable to keep yourself from endangering others when intoxicated. So, you shouldn't have firearms, since you have proven yourself to be an irresponsible moron. No firearms for you.

A radical idea? I don't think so. It makes perfect sense.

[LiberalEsto]

1. Not a bad idea

There might also be a breathe-in device on every gun, that would render it inoperable if alcohol is detected.

[MineralMan]

3. That's too dangerous.

With enough booze, the gun owner might mistake the barrel for the blow-in tube. That would lead to tragedy.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Tragedy for the family, a Win for the species, evolution-wise.

It had to be said.

[Glassunion]

24. +1 LOL

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. This ought to bring them running

:popcorn:

[MineralMan]

6. It's a serious proposal.

Everyone agrees that alcohol and firearms don't mix. Keeping firearms out of the hands of people who do dangerous things when they drink is a no-brainer, it seems to me.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. I know it is, and it's not a bad one

Just watch and see when the gungeon wakes up this morning.

:popcorn:

[Upton]

4. I think we have enough laws already..

but I'm interested, would you apply the same standard to car ownership and 1 DUI?..

[MineralMan]

8. I'd pull driver's licences for a single DUI.

They do just that in many countries. If you're convicted of a DUI, it's clear that you have poor judgment about doing dangerous things while intoxicated. Why would anyone expect any different behavior.

I wouldn't deny ownership, because others often drive vehicles, but I'd deny the ability to operate the motor vehicle.

I own firearms. I own a car, and have a driver's license. I drink alcohol on occasion. I don't operate either of them when I've been drinking. Ever.

[X_Digger]

17. Which countries would those be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country

For an example..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drink_driving_%28United_Kingdom%29

For lower alcohol readings, the driver will normally receive a fine broadly determined by one or two weeks' net relevant income, and a minimum mandatory disqualification of 12 months. For a reading twice the legal limit, a ban of 18 months is usual, with a larger fine. If over 2½ times the legal limit, 87.5 micrograms in breath, magistrates will actively consider a community order which could involve unpaid work, supervision, curfew, or treatment if the offender suffers from an alcohol problem; in addition a special medical report (for which the offender must pay) will be needed on applying for a new licence at the end of the disqualification period, often 24 months. If the reading is over 115 micrograms, or if the offender has a history of drink driving, then the Court will actively consider prison as an option.

[MineralMan]

28. See this list:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/dwiothercountries/dwiothercountries.html#_Toc449518805

In several countries, license revocation is available, even for the first offense. You can look country by country. There's a lot less tolerance in many countries for low blood levels, besides.

[X_Digger]

31. Saw that list.. find one that makes it permanent..

Several sections re several countries mention revocation, but if you scroll down, it lists the steps required to regain a license.

The only place that appears to do permanent revocation based on this list is one territory in Australia.

Got any other lists?

Oh, and one territory in one country falls rather short of:

I'd pull driver's licences for a single DUI.

They do just that in many countries.

So far, no country I've been able to find permanently revokes the license on a first offense. Not even the territory of Western Australia.

[X_Digger]

36. Still waiting.. *taps foot* ... *whistling*.. n/t

[ileus]

5. Let's include illegal drugs, and how about if you're on anti-deprssants? Christians?

We could add to the list until only I am allowed to own firearms.

[MineralMan]

11. Intoxicated.

Alcohol is not the only thing that is an intoxicant that can result in irresponsible behavior. Many illegal drugs can do the same thing. Anti-depressants? Not so much. Christianity has nothing to do with this, to be quite frank.

[ileus]

16. Tell that to Norway...

[one-eyed fat man]

10. Already law in some states, e.g. Kentucky

http://kentuckystatepolice.org/conceal.htm

The applicant for a carry concealed deadly weapon (CCDW) license must:

* Be a resident of Kentucky for at least six months prior to filing the application or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is on active duty, who is at the time of application assigned to a military posting in Kentucky, and who has been assigned to a posting in Kentucky for six months or longer immediately preceding the filing of the application; and
* Be twenty-one (21) years of age or older; and
* Not be under indictment for, or have been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; and
* Not be a fugitive from justice; and
* Not be an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; and
* Not have been adjudicated as a mental defective or have committed to a mental institution; and
* Not have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; and
* Not be subject to a domestic violence order or emergency protective order; and
* Not have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (see section below for discussion of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence); and
* Not be prohibited from the purchase, receipt or possession of firearms, ammunition or both pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 18 U.S.C. 922(n), or applicable state law; and
* Not have been committed to a state or federal facility for abuse of a controlled substance or convicted of a misdemeanor relating to a controlled substance within the three-year period immediately preceding the date the application was submitted; and
* Not have two or more convictions for violating KRS 189A.010 (Operating motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or other substance which impairs driving ability) within the three (3) years immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted; and
* Not have been committed as an alcoholic pursuant to KRS Chapter 222 or similar laws of another state within the three (3) year period immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted; and
* Not owe a child support arrearage which equals or exceeds the cumulative amount which would be owed after one (1) year of nonpayment; and
* Have complied with any subpoena or warrant relating to child support or paternity proceedings; and
* Have not been convicted of a violation of KRS 508.030 (Assault in the fourth degree) or 508.080 (Terroristic Threatening in the third degree) within the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted; and
* Demonstrate competence with a firearm by successful completion of a firearms safety or training course offered or approved by the Department of Criminal Justice Training.

NOTE - ONLY SOME OF THE OFFENSES LISTED ABOVE HAVE A THREE-YEAR LIMITATION. OTHER OFFENSES, SUCH AS FELONIES AND MISDEMEANOR CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DO NOT HAVE A TIME LIMIT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, YOU ARE INELIGIBLE FOR A CCDW LICENSE AND ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL LAW, NO MATTER HOW LONG AGO YOU WERE CONVICTED.

[MineralMan]

12. Very sensible of Kentucky, but only apples to CCW, not

possession. Not enough, IMO. Most firearms owners do not hold a CCW permit. In fact, the ones who don't are of more concern to me than the ones who do.

[one-eyed fat man]

20. There are owners and there are owners.

A certain segment here lumps all gun-owners, whatever their motivation, into the same vile and villainous heap. To them the murderous bastard who kills a convenience store clerk is the same as the bi-athlete training for the Olympics except for the skiing part.

Criminals, lunatics, addicts and wife-beaters are all prohibited from owning firearms. Very few of them are unaware of their disability, except perhaps the lunatics. Illegal gun-owners all willingly broke all the laws intended to prevent such ownership.

Just like those who drive drunk, laws do not prevent a damn thing, they only allow malefactors to be punished AFTER the have been caught and convicted.

[Blown330]

27. You need to work on those reading skills...

...lets make this easy for you.

YOU ARE INELIGIBLE FOR A CCDW LICENSE AND ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL LAW...


I would suggest strongly that you actually take some time and READ some of the Federal laws regarding this subject. You'd find that your proposal is not only unoriginal, but like many such laws, is largely unenforceable in terms. Seems like another "feel good" measure where the author not only failed to consider existing statutes but also failed to take the next step in considering how they could be effectively enforced while considering all consequences.

[MineralMan]

13. An informal shooting range in my home town....

When I was growing up, the rural town in California where I lived, had an informal shooting range at the end of a rural road. It was very save, because it was at the base of a large hill, with other hills on two sides, and no buildings of any kind in the line of fire. We all used it. I remember riding my bicycle out there with my .22 rifle to do target practice.

Another thing I remember what what made up the bulk of the targets used by people at that impromptu shooting range. Beer bottles. Now, I suppose that some people brought their empties from home to use as targets, but the six-pack holders that littered the range indicated that wasn't always the case. I remember my father telling me that if we got there and there were people already there, we should just leave and go back another time. He knew.

[ileus]

19. We have a free range on NF land not far from the house...

If we arrive and there's anyone else there besides maybe some old turds we leave now days. I've been there plenty with the yahoos that just go to shoot a bunch without reason other than just making noise with their AR's/AK's ect...

I haven't seen any drinking but the types that are there bother me. Recently we just shoot at my BIL or brothers farm. I don't have to wait for 4 or 5 other people that may or may not know range etiquette.

[hack89]

14. Forever? People never change or mature?

so a 21 year old man loses a civil right forever because of youthful stupidity? Even though no one was hurt?

I can understand losing a CCW for a year and having to go through alcohol abuse and gun safety classes before getting it back but not forever.

Yours is not a progressive view of mankind - the idea that people can't change or redeem themselves but instead must be punished for their sins for the rest of their lives does fit in a society that is attuned to the good in people.

I know you are just looking for away to chip away at a civil right you don't like but surely you can do better than this.

[X_Digger]

15. One principle of western justice is that the sentence is appropriate to the crime

Not necessarily in a 'lex talionis' sort of way, but in a 'this sentence addresses the harm to society represented by the crime' manner. Heck, we don't permanently remove a driver's license on the first offense of DUI.

I can't imagine restricting a right not related to the offense fitting in with our legal system. Even felon disenfranchisement is being addressed in a lot of states (restoring the right to vote for ex-felons.)

Should people who've been convicted of DUI also lose the right to vote? ('proving that you have very poor judgement')

It may make 'perfect sense' to you, but it's not compatible with our current philosophy of law.

[jeepnstein]

18. My only issue...

is with the suspension of a Constitutional Right for a mere misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are handled in court in a very different way, and for good reason. It's already on the books in Ohio. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.15

Here's the part that deals with persons under disability from possessing a firearm. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.13 I think it pretty much nails it as far as who is responsible for most of the chaos around us. By the time you hit this list you are far from a "normal" citizen.

Expanding this section of the code to include any person found guilty of discharging a firearm while intoxicated would probably do very little to stop gun violence. If it is charged as a F5 then most likely it would get dealt down to a lesser misdemeanor anyway. Most of the people engaging in the shooting and killing in this country shouldn't have a gun anyway according to current law but they have a problem obeying the law as it is.

[beevul]

21. No.

I could see losing ones permit to carry concealed.

But right to own?


No.

I prefer to see the bar set at felony, not misdemeanor.

Even those convicted of DUI can still own cars.

And that isn't even a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right.

[SteveM]

32. Good summation of problems with this proposal. nt

[flamin lib]

22. Not a bad idea, MineralMan, but . . .

. . . Laws can't prevent irresponsible behavior

. . . Only law abiding citizens will comply

. . . It's just another feel good law

. . . My 2nd amendment right over-rides all others

. . . And all that other asinine bull shit

[beevul]

23. Why not just ban alcohol?

Its responsible for more death/injury than guns are.

[ileus]

26. Now that's an idea I could get behind. alcohol victimizes gun rights...

Every one of these stupid stories tarnishes guns, and I for one am tired of guns being judged on how PEOPLE misuse them.

[petronius]

25. It makes a superficial sort of sense, and if the loss of firearms was limited to

the length of the loss of driving privileges I wouldn't kick if this idea became law. But there's really no nexus between driving and shooting that would suggest firearm possession should be linked to DUI, other than they're both activities that are a lot more dangerous when you're wasted. Why not extend the ban to every other activity that falls in that category?

Actually, I'd prefer a completely standalone SWI law, just like a DUI but not linked. If you're operating a firearm in the public sphere with a BAC over 0.08 (for example, and with some exceptions), you're in violation...

[Union Scribe]

29. I'm for intoxication adding to the severity of a gun charge.

As for DUIs, I don't know if they're ever felonies or not, but that by itself would exclude gun ownership.

[rrneck]

30. What would you do about

someone who drinks and drives but never takes a gun out of the house? And lives in a bad neighborhood? How would you enforce the law and what remedy would you offer for those injured by a miscarriage of justice?

[MineralMan]

33. Well, a drunk guy shot a 4 year old boy from his porch, as

was reported today. Kid was sitting on a dock, and the moron was shooting at the dock light. Kid's dead. The shooter's being charged, but that's small comfort for the kid's father, I'm thinking. I'm all about prevention, you see.

Drinking and driving demonstrates serious lack of judgment. Similar lack of judgment get's people killed, and for the same reason. See the connection?

I remember hunting camp when I was a kid. One of the guys had a few, then got his rifle out to clean it. My father took the guy's rifle from him and locked it up. The next morning all the other men in camp put the guy in his car and sent him home. When the caps come off, the firearms get put away. That was the rule. If you broke it, you went home the next morning, instead of hunting with the group.

Prevention? It's a great idea. Morons with firearms? That's a really, really bad idea.

So, I'm into prevention. You can be for whatever you wish.

[Euromutt]

34. There's a lot to be said for prevention, however, you *can* overdo it...

...at which juncture, it can start to look suspiciously like what you call "prevention" is merely an excuse to do an end run around due process. We could probably prevent a fair amount of crime by imposing curfews, prohibiting anyone from venturing out in public during the hours of darkness without written authorization from the authorities, which they would have to present to any law enforcement officer who stopped them (with their mere presence on the street constituting probable cause) and demanded to see their papers. But do we really want to live in a police state like that?

Let me emphasize that I'm not trying to equate your proposal to the curfew idea; I'm just saying that citing prevention is not a trump card in every situation. To mix a couple of figures of speech, if a cure can be worse than the disease, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, it follows that it wouldn't take a very large amount of misplaced prevention to be worse than the disease.

I think the policy your father and his hunting buddies wielded was a good one, but let me ask you this: if they'd sent a guy home in this manner, did they then refuse to hunt with him ever again? Or, come the next season, was it possible for the offender to redeem himself?

[MineralMan]

35. He was never allowed to part of the hunting party again.

Zero tolerance. It was an absolute rule, and everyone knew the rule. This guy showed poor judgment by breaking that rule. The poor judgment was the reason he was not allowed in the party again, not the drinking. Firearms have the potential to cause serious problems unless handled by people who use good judgment. That was one of the rules of firearms my father taught me, and I've made it one of my rules as well. I have brother-in-law who shows poor judgment most of the time. I do not visit his home, because he has a number of firearms in it, loaded and easy of access. I do not trust him.

I have firearms in my home as well. They are loaded and are ready to use, if necessary, simply by working the action to chamber a round. The difference is that I'm a person who uses good judgment in all of my behavior. I got that from my father, too.

My problem is with people whose judgment I cannot determine. I treat everyone as though they may exercise bad judgment, because I have seen so many instances of such behavior. It's just how I am.