Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Drinkee drinkee

Sailor Curt noted in my comments when I mentioned a surly guy getting denied a pistol at the purveyor or fine firearm in beeYOOtiful downtown Glen Burni:
"'Oh and I had to wait for this guy to finish monopolizing the salesmen's time arguing that he should be allowed to buy a gun even with his DWI arrest or conviction.'

Gee, I wonder if he has a driver's license and is still allowed to buy alcohol?

Guy is busted for a crime that includes, as it's essential elements, the abuse of Automobiles and Alcohol.

As a result, he is forever prohibited from purchasing...a gun.

Makes perfect sense to about you?"

Of all the listed reasons to be a prohibited person, the "are you a habitual drunkard or smoke too much weed?" one sticks in my craw as untenable. It's too subjective. The others get a person prohibited after objective points are reached in a long line of legal due process, but if you have 2 extra beers a week, you're out, refrain from those 2, and here's your boomstick? Odd. If I were king of the universe I'd try to figure out a way to make that prohibition more concrete, more binary. Maybe even do away with it all together as too silly to properly enforce. Certainly SOMETHING needs to be in place to keep addicts in line. But that would need to be hashed out. To be reasonable. 'Reasonable' is more toward the permissive side than what we have now, MAIG.

I should elaborate, most of you folks just have the ATF to deal with. Curt is in the much friendlier Virginia. I have Maryland State Police. It's THEM that would have denied the guy a pistol because of a DWI arrest. Not just a conviction, an arrest. Maryland Po-po are much more anal about the details for purchase and registration of controlled firearms. (You hear horror stories about ATF jumping on FFL dealers for paperwork issues? Maryland State Police are worse. WORSE! According to the gun stores.) Mr. "Glug-glug-honk-honk" guy at the store could have bought a pump shotgun without a hitch. The ATF would have accepted his DWI because he got the case thrown out, or so he said.

(Curt's comment is kinda funny too. 'Makes you think! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...')


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the shout-out.

Virginia law is better, but makes no more sense.

Basically, a DUI does not prohibit you from buying a firearm, but a DUI conviction within the last three years is grounds for denial of a Concealed Handgun Permit.

So if someone in Virginia is convicted of a crime involving the abuse of automobiles and alcohol, typically their license to operate a motor vehicle in public is suspended for a year (often with exceptions for such things as going to the doctor or work), while your permit to carry concealed, a completely unrelated object, is denied (with no exceptions) for three years.

But carrying openly without a permit is still just fine.

Less egregious than purchase bans and not lifetime, but makes no more sense.

I understand that the premise is a DUI indicates irresponsible behavior...however if they are too irresponsible to carry a concealed firearm (which had nothing to do with the offense they committed) for three years, why are they deemed responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle...statistically speaking, a much more dangerous object, and the object with which they demonstrated themselves to be irresponsible with in the first place...after only one year?

But then again, trying to make sense of laws...the product of the efforts of politicians and a fool's errand.

Anonymous said...


"But then again, trying to make sense of laws...the product of the efforts of politicians and a fool's errand."

ain't it the truth.