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

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
May 13, 2012
20,232
2,363
280
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.
 
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.


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.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
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.

.

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.
 
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.

.

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.

If that was true, I would have a DUI on my record. I don't.

As always, you're totally full of shit.
 
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.

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.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
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.


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.
 
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.


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.

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:
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:
 
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:

Actually, it probably would go over quite big, as lib-ertarians and conservatives tend to violate such laws more often than the average independant, liberal or progressive. The left just doesn't have as much of that "entitled - the law is corrupt and mainly for other people" mindset. They would moan about the inhumanity while they brought families and picnic baskets to the show, and then warn their children of the consequences of violating laws until the next weekend's line-up.
 
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:

Actually, it probably would go over quite big, as lib-ertarians and conservatives tend to violate such laws more often than the average independant, liberal or progressive. The left just doesn't have as much of that "entitled - the law is corrupt and mainly for other people" mindset. They would moan about the inhumanity while they brought families and picnic baskets to the show, and then warn their children of the consequences of violating laws until the next weekend's line-up.
Most crimes are perpetrated by liberal blacks, and hispanics. Fuck all the drunks regardless of their political affiliation. They are the hypocrits that
are so vehemently opposed to pot. Outlaw alcohol, and they will all be instant criminals!
 
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.


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.

Disagree. DUI indicates an immature at best and unaware personality at best. Any drug violation reflects on a person's unwillingness to be a safe member of society.
 
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.

i think someone convicted of DUI probably shouldn't be handed a weapon. so i don't really disagree with you.
 
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.


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.

Disagree. DUI indicates an immature at best and unaware personality at best. Any drug violation reflects on a person's unwillingness to be a safe member of society.

Dui indicates poor judgment not criminal intent.

Christ some people on this board are extreme in every aspect of life
 
DUI does manifest criminal intent. I doubt that drunken drivers are unaware of the laws, Gramps.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top