California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill last week that would have added repeated alcohol and drug offenses as reasons for denying gun ownership. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / May 29, 2013)
Los Angeles Times
One thing I don't get: If people kill people — guns don't — why is it OK for a perpetually drunken person to own a gun? Gov. Jerry Brown thinks it is.
One thing I don't get: If people kill people — guns don't — why is it OK for a perpetually drunken person to own a gun? Gov. Jerry Brown thinks it is.
A drunk with a gun is double-barreled trouble.
Studies show that a gun owner with one misdemeanor conviction — such as a DUI — is five times more likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than a gunner with no prior arrest record, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.
But Brown vetoed a bill last week that would have added repeated alcohol and drug offenses as reasons for denying gun ownership. Two DUIs or other misdemeanor substance abuse convictions within three years and you couldn't possess a firearm for 10 years.
Not even the gun lobby aggressively opposed that legislation, SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis).
Brown, in his veto message, said: "I am not persuaded that it is necessary to prohibit gun ownership on the basis of crimes that are non-felonies, non-violent and do not involve misuse of a firearm."
I asked the governor's office for some elaboration. The response: "The message speaks for itself."
So the message is that the governor doesn't see why a convicted drunk or druggie shouldn't be armed.
"I was just stunned," Wintemute says. "He was just wrong on the facts. There is persuasive evidence out there. There are dozens of studies associating acute alcohol intoxication and a history of DUIs with the risk of committing future gun violence. That's established beyond doubt."
Wintemute, an emergency room physician who has been researching firearms violence for three decades, adds, "Of all the gun bills proposed this year, SB 755 might have been the one to have the largest effect on crime rates. We missed a chance to do some good here."
Since I'm in favor of legalizing drugs, I don't want mere possession charges to disqualify a person from owning a gun, but if you're driving under the influence, that should, at least for a period of time.
ReplyDeleteGreg, I thought you oppose ALL gun control laws. Now, all of a sudden, you're pretending to be reasonable and agreeing that a drunk driving conviction should result in gun confiscation?
DeletePlease clarify.
I don't favor gun control. I favor criminal control. We deny or restrict many rights of those who commit serious crimes.
DeleteYou are an equivocating bullshit artist. One day you refuse to accept ANY gun control, the next day you call it criminal control.
DeleteAnd you pretend to wonder why I keep calling you a liar.
You call me a liar because you have no honor and no sense of logic. As I said, we impose lots of restrictions on people convicted of serious crimes. That's not gun control any more than putting prisoners on work detail means that we're maintaining the institution of slavery.
DeleteWrong Greg. Denying felons guns is a part of gun control. To deny that is typical lying bullshit from you.
DeleteIs denying them a checking account or a job at a bank part of employment and economic control for everyone? Are requirements that people on parole have to check in with their parole officers movement control?
DeleteMikeb, you love redefining terms at will to support your case, but that's bad form.
I think the Governor is beginning to understand that he might be reaching the limits of the citizens' tolerance for ever restrictive gun laws. At least in his state.
ReplyDelete"Brown, in his veto message, said: "I am not persuaded that it is necessary to prohibit gun ownership on the basis of crimes that are non-felonies, non-violent and do not involve misuse of a firearm."
Mike, haven't you said something like this in the past? The Governor's logic is dare I say it, very common sense.
I have, but now that I've read Wintemute's find concerning drunk drivers, I'm changing it. I'm evolving.
DeleteI’m ok with getting tougher on drunk drivers, but why wouldn’t we focus more on their public driving privileges? At first offense, they are typically put on a probationary period for a few months (they can still drive to and from work/school), but they lose their right to own a gun for life? For a car abuse? That doesn’t make sense. And we never take away the right to own a car no matter how many DUIs someone gets, we just take away their license to drive it on public roads.
ReplyDeleteWhat state do you live in TS? First offense is a nightmare. Second offense, it's all over. My second offense was over twenty years ago when laws were just beginning to get tough. You're just stupid. Nobody can afford a DUI in California today.
DeleteYou drive drunk in California, you're on the bus. Where the hell are you getting your information?
One plus for a guy like me. If you're not someone to be defeated, you learn to get around on a bike.
Goddammit!!! I just read your comment twice!
DeleteWhat the hell is your agenda. No one in my state is more misinformed or totally lying than you!! What the hell? You fucking liar!
TS, Flying Junior is right. Drunk driving is taken pretty seriously these days. The new information thanks to Prof. Wintemute, is the connection between those who drive drunk and those who misuse firearms.
DeleteThat's an important connection which makes perfect sense, don't you think?
DUI Laws vary state to state. TS's description matched Tennessee's law up until 12-14 years ago when the penalty was enhanced. Don't know the state of it in all 50 states.
DeleteI double checked the ca DMV web page. Four month suspension for the first offense, and a year for the second. I have no personal experience with DUIs like you do, but I suppose there is some leeway in sentencing. Did you piss the judge off by flying off the handle and calling him/her a "fucking liar!"?
DeleteWhat doesn't make sense, Mike, is to make the restrictions more severe for gun ownership than for driving when the offense was with a car. How about we line it up with what you want for guns?
DeleteFirst offense: license revoked for life AND banned from ever owning cars again (any cars they currently own are confiscated and auctioned off). Car dealers will be required to check that any sales are not to someone on a list of prohibited people. Of course we can't allow them to buy a car privately off Craigslist, so we'll make it a crime for anyone to sell a car privately (to anyone- even if they have a clean record). All sales must go through a dealer. Sound good? Gotta stop drunk driving.
Well, that doesn't really work. Guns are for killing. When someone does something wrong with a gun they should suffer the severest penalty immediately. Cars are for transportation. When someone does something wrong with a car, they shouldn't suffer the most severe punishment until the second or third offense. Even though a car could be used to kill, that's not their main function.
Delete