Should DUI be part of criminal background check for gun purchase?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ShootSpeeders, Jan 17, 2013.

  1. ShootSpeeders
    Offline

    ShootSpeeders Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,395
    Thanks Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,141
    Of course. Hell - People are routinely denied gun rights for NON-violent drug crimes like a 20 year old pot possession conviction. DUI is an extremely violent drug crime and evidence the criminal is a psychopath with no concern for the lives of others.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,121
    Thanks Received:
    10,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,670
    yep and spousal abuse, child abuse, pet abuse and liberal abuse too.
     
  3. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,765
    Thanks Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,286

    Of course not. DUI is still a misdemeanor. It has nothing to do with if you are a person that would be dangerous with a gun.

    However, I don't think pot should be illegal, so your argument is doubly wrong.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ShootSpeeders
    Offline

    ShootSpeeders Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,395
    Thanks Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,141
    Misdemeanor domestic abuse means loss of all gun rights. What say thee to that?

    And DUI proves you don't care about endangering other people and that certainly does indicate you would be dangerous with a gun.

    You don't like the idea because you are a drunk driver.
     
  5. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,765
    Thanks Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,286
    If that was true, I would have a DUI on my record. I don't.

    As always, you're totally full of shit.
     
  6. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    Neither simple DUI, nor any simple drug possession charges should be enough to keep anyone from passing a firearm background check. Restrictive criminal holds are pretty much limited to violent crime convictions and active court restraining orders, IIRC.
     
  7. ShootSpeeders
    Offline

    ShootSpeeders Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,395
    Thanks Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,141

    No - you don't remember correctly. Maybe it should apply only to violent crimes but it most definitely does not. Any crime for which you COULD ( not did but could) have gotten a year or more in prison and your gun rights are gone. That's the federal law and most state laws are similar. Millions of non-violent "criminal" have had their constitutional right to a gun denied permanently. Thousand of them never did a day in prison!!

    Next time do some research.
     
  8. ShootSpeeders
    Offline

    ShootSpeeders Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,395
    Thanks Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,141
    oh yeah - like every criminal is caught. THINK
     
  9. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    You are correct about the terms of the background check, but it still should not apply to first time DUI or simple possession.

    DUI is up to 6 months in federal prison and/or up to $5000 fine


    "Simple possession"

    Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act

    ...Simple possession of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of $1,000 on the first offense...
    ____________

    Thus a first time offense for simple possession should not trigger prohibition, at least under federal law. Of course, federal enforcement officials seldom arrest or charge anyone with simple possession, even relatively small amounts tend to receive trafficking charges.
    -------------
    Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act

    "...These prohibitions apply to any person who:

    Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year..."
    _________________

    Note the difference between "up to one year" (punishment) and "for a term exceeding one year."(prohibited)

    as you say, "most state laws are similar"

    Most of the time, with possession and small amounts, the primary difference between "simple possession" and more serious offenses is the difference between a public defender and $10-20k for a decent attorney.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  10. Duped
    Offline

    Duped Senior Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,256
    Thanks Received:
    671
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +672
    If you are of sound mind, and have never victimized anyone - I think you should be allowed to own a gun.

    If a person gets caught with a little weed when they are 18, I don't think they should not be allowed to protect their family for the rest of their life. I say you should get your gun rights back after you have proven yourself to be a productive member of society for five years on all vitimless crimes.

    Drunk drivers are a direct threat to the innocent, and should face serious punishment on the second offence!
    Their gun rights should be revoked until they stay straight for five years also. I don't think prison is effective
    for many crimes. I think a severe ass whipping is under rated - they did me good! We should start kaning in the USA - I bet that would go over big with the libs. :whip::mm:
     

Share This Page