Nor do I consider MADD "extremists"; there is no such thing as a "little" DUI. DUI is a crime that indicates either wanton disregard for the lives of others or the inability to judge when one is doing so.
Your premise is patently false, and your willingness to advance that premise is unquestionably disturbing to me. DUI laws have nothing to do with wanton disregard of others, the inability to judge, or any other means of attempting to quantify intent. DUI laws are an attempt to prevent future harm, based on a physical blood alcohol content. And that BAC limit, as set by law, is entirely arbitrary.
As support for the BAC being arbitrary, it is my contention that there is no practical difference between the actions of a person with a .0794 BAC, and one with a .0801 BAC. But, one is entirely legal in a .08 jurisdiction, while the other is not.
Consider the following: A person stops by a friends house for a BBQ on a Sunday afternoon, and while there, he has a few beers. As the festivities die down, he decides to drive the short 20mph country road home. Only a few people live on this road, and there is little to no traffic, especially on a Sunday. But, a sheriff happens to be parked along the side of the road, investigating a reported vandalism at an abandoned barn, when he sees the aforementioned driver, and notices he has a tail light out. The sheriff stops the driver to let him know about the tail light, and notices a faint smell of alcohol on Mr. BBQ's breath. So, according to the law, he administers a sobriety test and discovers that the man has a BAC
just over the legal limit. The man is then arrested and charged/convicted of DUI.
But, was any harm actually done by the driver? Would there have been?
The answer to the first question is: NO. No harm was done. The man did not swerve into another car, or leave the road and run over the farmer's prized rose bushes. So, with no actual harm done, why should he have to spend time in jail and carry all the baggage that comes with a DUI conviction for the rest of his life?
As to the second question... if a jury is actually willing to convict their peers based on what might, or might not happen in the future, our legal system is broken in spectacular fashion. And it is exactly this situation that has me concerned about the future of the right to keep and bear arms. Because, there are plenty of people, many of which are in positions of power, that believe that the only reason to own a firearm is to kill other people, and as such, all firearms - and all firearm owners - are a threat to society.
So, using the DUI model of defining unacceptable risk to justify drawing random lines regarding what firearms are acceptable, or who may own them (as has been done with SBR's, machine guns, and silencers, etc.) is a real concern. Because once the risk of future harm is found to be an appropriate reason to convict, all gun owners are headed toward having to make a choice between voluntary disarmament or conviction of a crime, just for owning something designed to kill, regardless of whether or not they would ever
actually cause harm with that item.
And, if you don't think my analogy isn't valid, I would suggest you look at the constant attempts at passing magazine limits, scary rifle bans, and background checks. These are all attempts to draw arbitrary lines of unacceptable risk, instead of punishing actions that actually cause harm - just like DUI laws.
Food for thought...
