Agnotology
NES Member
My position is as stated. Like a lot of people here I feel that if you’re considered too dangerous to possess a firearm upon your release then you probably shouldn’t be getting released in the first place.
I know plenty of decent people that have gotten a DUI or two along the way and have paid the price for it as directed by the state. Good hard working people with substance abuse issues or some other life battle going on at the time.
Some of those same people have been straight and sober for over 30yrs with zero further interaction with LE, but even though they went on the straight and narrow, they’re still deprived of their rights long after their debt is paid. It’s not right and you can’t use any words to make it right.
DUI/OUI, even if it’s with injuries and rises to a felony, is still not a valid reason to deprive someone of a God given right after they’ve paid their debt. Upon release you are declared rehabilitated by the state and it’s no longer the states business what this person does, especially with Constitutionally protected rights. This isn’t a totalitarian state. Yet. I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand unless your common sense is blurred by personal emotion.
A crime having punishment does not make for a totalitarian state. If you take issue with the severity, say that, skip the hyperbole.
Your "straight and narrow" for 30 years people would have gotten all their DUI's well before any kind of strong stance was or would be taken on DUI. Which means they had to rack up more than "one or two" to have to answer yes on 21E. The magic 3rd DUI has been an instant felony since the 50s IIRC. At which point, the pity well is dry. They can regret the actions that led to them losing their rights, but the amount of times you have to drive drunk to get caught, and 3 times at that, is insane. They should be grateful that their regret is so easy to bear.
For someone heavily insinuating my common sense is blurred by personal emotion, you are feeding me a lot of word soup for trying to make someone's misdeeds less then what they are. Your issue is with the wording of 21E or penalties of DUI.
You think it shouldn't be permanent loss, and I can agree to a degree, if it's with the caveat it's 1st time, there were no injuries as a result, and you were barely over .08 as in .09. You had to start out sober (if you weren't that's an entirely different issue that maybe AA can solve) and you personally made decisions. To drink. Then to drive. You risked your rights to have a good time. I don't drink, and I no longer smoke weed, because regardless of whether or not I agree with the laws, I abide them.
If personal responsibility isn't a big thing for you, that's your prerogative. It's a tenet for me.